When I read something like this:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2003/A03A0022/A03A0022.asp

....I worry a lot.

We have a pilot with 110 successfully Atlantic crossings and 5000 hours,
taking a plane...IFR... 2000 miles across the North Atlantic into the
Canadian sub-Arctic in the dead of winter...

The plane has no Cabin heat.
The plane has no working turn coordinator.
The plane's ELT battery is out of date.
That doesn't really matter because the ELT switch was turned to "OFF",
anyway.
The plane does not have enough fuel to reach alternate + 45... barely enough
to reach alternate.
That doesn't really matter, because the alternate was actual and forecast
below limits anyway.
That doesn't matter either, because the plane was not equipped with the
necessary equipment to accomplish any of the published approaches at the
alternate, anyway.

In spite of all that, if she could have lasted just 6 more miles, it would
have been another ho-hum crossing.

.... but the AI gyro gave up with 6 NM to go, and with no Turn
coordinator...in IMC..., she became a statistic on the ice of Hamilton
Inlet.

Which brings up the question.... is this kind of decision-making truly an
anomaly.... or is it the norm more often than we would like to think?

Do a whole ton of flights stay out of the Safety Board's reports more by
good luck than good management?

Some people just like a challenge.

> Which brings up the question.... is this kind of decision-making truly an
> anomaly.... or is it the norm more often than we would like to think?
> Do a whole ton of flights stay out of the Safety Board's reports more by
> good luck than good management?

How about the part where she brings her daughter along. I don't
know how old the daughter was, or if she was a pilot, but you
would think someone would put your family's safety over completing
a ferry flight. You wonder how many other trips she made just like
this one and made it......


"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
> When I read something like this:
>
> http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2003/A03A0022/A03A0022.asp
>
> ...I worry a lot.
>
> We have a pilot with 110 successfully Atlantic crossings and 5000 hours,
> taking a plane...IFR... 2000 miles across the North Atlantic into the
> Canadian sub-Arctic in the dead of winter...
>
> The plane has no Cabin heat.
> The plane has no working turn coordinator.
> The plane's ELT battery is out of date.
> That doesn't really matter because the ELT switch was turned to "OFF",
> anyway.
> The plane does not have enough fuel to reach alternate + 45... barely
> enough to reach alternate.
> That doesn't really matter, because the alternate was actual and forecast
> below limits anyway.
> That doesn't matter either, because the plane was not equipped with the
> necessary equipment to accomplish any of the published approaches at the
> alternate, anyway.
>
> In spite of all that, if she could have lasted just 6 more miles, it would
> have been another ho-hum crossing.
>
> ... but the AI gyro gave up with 6 NM to go, and with no Turn
> coordinator...in IMC..., she became a statistic on the ice of Hamilton
> Inlet.
>
> Which brings up the question.... is this kind of decision-making truly an
> anomaly.... or is it the norm more often than we would like to think?
>
> Do a whole ton of flights stay out of the Safety Board's reports more by
> good luck than good management?
>

"Icebound" > wrote
> We have a pilot with 110 successfully Atlantic crossings and 5000 hours,
> taking a plane...IFR... 2000 miles across the North Atlantic into the
> Canadian sub-Arctic in the dead of winter...

If you make your living ferrying aircraft internationally (not make
the odd flight, but make your living that way - there is a huge
difference) then you can't really afford to turn down a plane just
because it's not really airworthy for IFR flight (most of them are
not) and you can't afford to scrub the flight just because you can't
legally make it. It's a dangerous way to make a living. So is flying
airshow aerobatics, cropdusting, fire bombing...

The only real question in my mind is why she brought her daughter
along.

> Which brings up the question.... is this kind of decision-making truly an
> anomaly.... or is it the norm more often than we would like to think?

I've known some people who routinely made ferry flights. Some of the
stories they told make me believe this isn't so far out.

You see, when a plane is in good shape and the ferry flight is
reasonably within the airplane's capability, you don't hire a pro.
They're expensive. You get an experienced local pilot to do it. It's
way cheaper, because they'll do it for expenses and pocket change.
It's when the experienced local pilots won't touch it, and the only
volunteers are kids with hours in three digits, that you hire the pro
- usually because the insurance company demands it or you don't trust
the kid with an uninsured airplane.

> Do a whole ton of flights stay out of the Safety Board's reports more by
> good luck than good management?

Yes, of course. Today's aircraft are pretty reliable. In 1900+
hours, I've seen an AI failure twice. That's not a lot. When you're
looking at only spending a few hours in IMC for the whole trip, there
is the tendency to ask "Well, what are the odds?" And they're not
high. But if you keep doing it time after time after time, the odds
catch up with you. That's all that happened here - the odds finally
caught up with a pilot after 5000 hours.

But what 5000 hours they must have been. Could any number of hours
getting hundred dollar hamburgers, going around the pattern, or
reading the newspaper while the autopilot flies the plane and the
stews serve drinks ever compare?

To quote Lindbergh (whose transatlantic crossing was made with far
more preparation, but whose equipment was less capable, more finicky,
and less redundant than what this pilot had):

"If I could fly for 10 years before being killed in a crash, that
would be a good trade for an ordinary lifetime."

Of course Lindbergh only did it once.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
>
> But what 5000 hours they must have been. Could any number of hours
> getting hundred dollar hamburgers, going around the pattern, or
> reading the newspaper while the autopilot flies the plane and the
> stews serve drinks ever compare?
>

There's a lot of truth in that. Ferrying little planes over big oceans does
not attract the risk-averse, that's for sure. This kind of flying is right
up there in my book with fishing in the Bering Sea or climbing the
Himalayas. A good part of the US was settled by people who piled wives and
little children into covered wagons to cross a continent full of deadly
weather and hostile natives. There isn't a lot of room left in the world for
people like that.

The only thing I find myself really choking on in this case is the turn
coordinator. That strikes me as a sort of russian roulette. Plan A is you
have the AI. Plan B is you have the TC. Plan C is compass and altimeter.
There's a realistic chance you'll need Plan B eventually and it is
survivable. Plan C means you're most likely f---ed, but it's pretty unlikely
you'll lose both the AI or vacuum and the electrical system at the same
time, so I don't think about it. Taking off without a working TC meant her
Plan B was really Plan C. So yeah, I'm going to conclude there was a serious
element of recklessness here.

-cwk.

> There's a lot of truth in that. Ferrying little planes over big oceans does
> not attract the risk-averse, that's for sure. This kind of flying is right
> up there in my book with fishing in the Bering Sea or climbing the
> Himalayas. A good part of the US was settled by people who piled wives and
> little children into covered wagons to cross a continent full of deadly
> weather and hostile natives. There isn't a lot of room left in the world for
> people like that.
>

When the pioneers settled the area west of the Missippii via covered wagon, and
such, there were not many alternatives other than staying put.

To compare this reckless woman with those pioneering individuals denigrates
their memory.

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> The only thing I find myself really choking on in this case is the turn
> coordinator. That strikes me as a sort of russian roulette. Plan A is you
> have the AI. Plan B is you have the TC. Plan C is compass and altimeter.

Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296,
with TC and AI displays?

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message..
> Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296,
> with TC and AI displays?
>

The 296 has a Attitude Indicator???

A portable GPS would have been a decent backup, but the report mentions no
GPS. I would have to imagine in this day in age, a GPS (or a bunch of them)
would be a necessity.

> wrote in message ...
>
> When the pioneers settled the area west of the Missippii via covered
wagon, and
> such, there were not many alternatives other than staying put.
>
> To compare this reckless woman with those pioneering individuals
denigrates
> their memory.
>

Nonsense. The people who packed their families up for the difficult and
dangerous journey, let alone the uncertain times that followed, were taking
a chance to make their lives materially better. To own a piece of land, and
the fruits of their own labor, this was the dream that took so many people
West. There were measly and comparatively safe lives available for all of
them in the immigrant ghettoes of the East. This was not the exodus of the
Jews from Egypt- they were free people taking action to live a better life.

Recklessness to many people is defined as taking risks that are unnecessary.
For 99% of us, flying a small plane is unnecessary. Any trip we make by
Cessna we could make more safely by car or airline, and as for fun, most
people are content with fishing. You can either make your peace with this or
deny it, but facts is facts. As a society today we run from risks and deny
their consequences to the point that we have people suing McDonald's for
making them fat. In the midst of that I'll keep a light on for those who
choose something more adventurous. I'm sure the men and women who walked the
Oregon Trail wouldn't mind.

-cwk.

That would be interesting to know. However, I stand by my judgment that this
was pretty egregious. Fixing this wouldn't have been *that* difficult. They
knew about it at least a week beforehand--more than enough time to call
Chief and have them FedEx a new one and have any old mechanic slap it in.

-cwk.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > The only thing I find myself really choking on in this case is the turn
> > coordinator. That strikes me as a sort of russian roulette. Plan A is
you
> > have the AI. Plan B is you have the TC. Plan C is compass and altimeter.
>
> Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296,
> with TC and AI displays?
>
>

Peter MacPherson wrote:
> How about the part where she brings her daughter along. I don't
> know how old the daughter was, or if she was a pilot, but you
> would think someone would put your family's safety over completing
> a ferry flight.

When I first got my PPL almost a year ago, my first passengers were
beyond nervous with my being so green. The first few passengers raved
and now people are going out of their way to come visit and go for a
ride. :)

I'm now working on my IFR rating right. In this newsgroup
we had a thread running about taking friends and family into IMC and
their reactions and the added risks compared to VMC flights. For
me, going into IMC gets the adrenaline running for a week if not
more. :) I love the challenge but someday I just can't imagine
my friends and family feeling comfortable when they can't see anything
but the inside of the flask they are drinking from and the ceiling
as they pray.

Comments like this woman taking their daughter across
the ocean is and into IMC really get me thinking. Flying hard IMC in
a bug smasher whether it is a C152 or a SR22 or a certified Known Ice
C210 with friends and family seems almost as bad as ferry crossing. You
might have some more airports to land at in case of an emergency but if
is hard IMC with 300 AGL ceilings, you really have the odds stacked
against you in both cases.

In this case, she made the ferry crossing 'fine.' She got across the
pond after all but the bad part was she was a few miles short of
perfect. The bad part is her decision making about the
airworthiness of the plane combined with weather and fuel planning were
quite poor.

So with my reasoning which certainly could be far off base, I guess my
question is, do you consider taking friends and family into
hard IMC that risky. I wouldn't take friends and family without another
pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in anything
but turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid in a way.

Gerald Sylvester
PPL-ASEL 12/17/03

I don't follow your logic. You say "nonsense" then go on to pretty much agree
with me.

Flying a Cessna under *ordinary* circumstances is quite different than a
wintertime ferry flight over treacherous areas with inoperative equipment.

The pioneers tried to time their journies West to avoid winter weather
conditions and were *usually* successful.

C Kingsbury wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > When the pioneers settled the area west of the Missippii via covered
> wagon, and
> > such, there were not many alternatives other than staying put.
> >
> > To compare this reckless woman with those pioneering individuals
> denigrates
> > their memory.
> >
>
> Nonsense. The people who packed their families up for the difficult and
> dangerous journey, let alone the uncertain times that followed, were taking
> a chance to make their lives materially better. To own a piece of land, and
> the fruits of their own labor, this was the dream that took so many people
> West. There were measly and comparatively safe lives available for all of
> them in the immigrant ghettoes of the East. This was not the exodus of the
> Jews from Egypt- they were free people taking action to live a better life.
>
> Recklessness to many people is defined as taking risks that are unnecessary.
> For 99% of us, flying a small plane is unnecessary. Any trip we make by
> Cessna we could make more safely by car or airline, and as for fun, most
> people are content with fishing. You can either make your peace with this or
> deny it, but facts is facts. As a society today we run from risks and deny
> their consequences to the point that we have people suing McDonald's for
> making them fat. In the midst of that I'll keep a light on for those who
> choose something more adventurous. I'm sure the men and women who walked the
> Oregon Trail wouldn't mind.
>
> -cwk.

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote:
[snip]
> So with my reasoning which certainly could be far off base, I guess my
> question is, do you consider taking friends and family into
> hard IMC that risky. I wouldn't take friends and family without
> another
> pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in
> anything
> but turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid in a way.

It's too risky, IMO, to take my family into large areas of very low IMC
in my SE airplane. There just aren't enough "outs" available in case of
trouble. Neither will I depart with non-pilot pax aboard if the airport
is at or below minimums.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

<snip>

> do you consider taking friends and family into
> hard IMC that risky. I wouldn't take friends and family without another
> pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in anything
> but turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid in a way.

These kinds of decisions are why you're a pilot.

My risk assessment equations change to become more conservative when I have
passengers. I'm willing to allow the risk level to go higher for myself than for
unsuspecting passengers who don't have the knowledge or experience to assess
the risk for themselves. For passengers who are also pilots, I expect them to be
able to assess for themselves whether they wish to go along for the ride or not.

In answer to your specific question, no, I don't think IFR in anything but
turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid.

"C Kingsbury" > wrote
> The only thing I find myself really choking on in this case is the turn
> coordinator. That strikes me as a sort of russian roulette.

No more so than night/IFR/overwater flying in a single, except that
engines are typically more reliable than AI's so you don't have quite
the same number of chambers.

It's just a question of how much of a chance you're willing to take.

Michael

"C Kingsbury" > wrote
> That would be interesting to know. However, I stand by my judgment that this
> was pretty egregious. Fixing this wouldn't have been *that* difficult. They
> knew about it at least a week beforehand--more than enough time to call
> Chief and have them FedEx a new one and have any old mechanic slap it in.

Have you ever shipped electronic/mechanical equipment internationally?
I have. You can't make it happen in a week.

Michael

"C J Campbell" > wrote
> Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296,
> with TC and AI displays?

That works well with relatively draggy and stable airplanes. There is
no gyro in the 296. It infers bank information from rate of turn
information, and that information is of course delayed. In something
nice and stable like a Cherokee (or, for that matter, any single
engine Cessna with struts and fixed gear) this works adequately well -
certainly well enough to shoot a no-gyro PAR in 1000 and 2 - because
the delay time between banking the wings and turn indication on the
GPS is not sufficient for anything really ugly to happen. But the 210
is a different beast - with retractable gear and no struts, it's more
like the Bonanzas and Mooneys than it is like most Cessnas. By the
time you get turn indication on the GPS, you might already be in a
spiral. It might work OK with a very sharp pilot familiar with the
plane, a well-trimmed airplane, and smooth air but it's not much of a
plan.

Michael

Anybody had any experience with the AI information on the Anywheremap
system?

It would be interesting to know what PDA is used, if there is anybody.


On 23 Nov 2004 07:09:49 -0800,
(Michael) wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote
>> Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296,
>> with TC and AI displays?
>
>That works well with relatively draggy and stable airplanes. There is
>no gyro in the 296. It infers bank information from rate of turn
>information, and that information is of course delayed. In something
>nice and stable like a Cherokee (or, for that matter, any single
>engine Cessna with struts and fixed gear) this works adequately well -
>certainly well enough to shoot a no-gyro PAR in 1000 and 2 - because
>the delay time between banking the wings and turn indication on the
>GPS is not sufficient for anything really ugly to happen. But the 210
>is a different beast - with retractable gear and no struts, it's more
>like the Bonanzas and Mooneys than it is like most Cessnas. By the
>time you get turn indication on the GPS, you might already be in a
>spiral. It might work OK with a very sharp pilot familiar with the
>plane, a well-trimmed airplane, and smooth air but it's not much of a
>plan.
>
>Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote
> > The only thing I find myself really choking on in this case is the turn
> > coordinator. That strikes me as a sort of russian roulette.
>
> No more so than night/IFR/overwater flying in a single, except that
> engines are typically more reliable than AI's so you don't have quite
> the same number of chambers.
>
> It's just a question of how much of a chance you're willing to take.

Yes, except that in risk management terms the likelihood of AI/vac failure
and engine failure are independent variables. So it still represents a
sizable net increase in total likelihood of a critical failure.

-cwk.

Fair enough. Borrow one from somebody else's plane and give them the new one
when it shows up. You can always figure something out if you really want to.

-cwk.

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote
> > That would be interesting to know. However, I stand by my judgment that
this
> > was pretty egregious. Fixing this wouldn't have been *that* difficult.
They
> > knew about it at least a week beforehand--more than enough time to call
> > Chief and have them FedEx a new one and have any old mechanic slap it
in.
>
> Have you ever shipped electronic/mechanical equipment internationally?
> I have. You can't make it happen in a week.
>
> Michael

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
om...
> Peter MacPherson wrote:
>
> Comments like this woman taking their daughter across
> the ocean is and into IMC really get me thinking. Flying hard IMC in
> a bug smasher whether it is a C152 or a SR22 or a certified Known Ice
> C210 with friends and family seems almost as bad as ferry crossing. You
> might have some more airports to land at in case of an emergency but if
> is hard IMC with 300 AGL ceilings, you really have the odds stacked
> against you in both cases.
>

IMHO the thing to think about in this case is pilot failure more than
airplane failure. Seems to me most IMC accidents are either CFIT or spatial
disorientation. Though some appear to start when a mechanical or other
problem consumes the pilot's attention, many if not most seem to lack
aggravating factors.

> So with my reasoning which certainly could be far off base, I guess my
> question is, do you consider taking friends and family into
> hard IMC that risky. I wouldn't take friends and family without another
> pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in anything
> but turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid in a way.
>

Personally I would not launch unless ceilings were 1000' and it looked like
I could cruise on top. But, the weather can always get worse, so you might
find a ceiling of 500' and be in the soup all the way. I don't have
different minimums for myself than for passengers, I don't want either of us
getting killed.

IMHO proficiency is the first thing to consider. If you never fly passengers
in IMC then it's not unlikely you don't fly much IMC period. In that case
you might want to stay out of the clouds too.

-cwk.

"C Kingsbury" > wrote
> Fair enough. Borrow one from somebody else's plane and give them the new one
> when it shows up. You can always figure something out if you really want to.

Right, but the point is that if you do that for ALL the risk factors,
you're out of a job. There were lots of issues on this flight. There
always are. This is a flight that was really beyond the normal
capability of the aircraft.

As I said before, if the flight presents what an experienced pilot
would consider a reasonable risk, there is no need to hire a
professional. If you're willing to fix the plane - meaning make it
IFR capable, put in extended range tanks if necessary or wait for
favorable winds/weather, and do all the things that would make it a
reasonable flight, a local experienced pilot will do it for expenses
and pocket change. It's a hell of an adventure.

You call in the specialist when you're not willing to deal with the
constraints placed by that local pilot. You're not willing to fix the
plane properly, get ferry tanks or wait on winds/weather, etc. You
want to do the minimum. Did you notice how pilots from a local flying
club were flying the plane locally, day-VFR? It was in the writeup.
So why was an expensive specialist brought in? Because the plane was
really only suitable for local day_VFR flying the way it was, and
those pilots knew it.

I would not have taken that plane on that trip either. It wasn't just
the TC, either. There was no cabin heat - and that meant no
windshield deice. It would have taken only trace icing to stop all
forward visibility and make the plane unlandable. There wasn't an
adequate IFR panel. There was insufficient reserve for the
conditions. There was an engine of questionable history and an
overwater crossing. Too many risks, not enough reason. That's why
I'm not a ferry pilot - I don't have the guts. That's no reason to
put down those who do.

Michael

> It's too risky, IMO, to take my family into large areas of very low IMC
> in my SE airplane. There just aren't enough "outs" available in case of
> trouble. Neither will I depart with non-pilot pax aboard if the airport
> is at or below minimums.



thanks everyone for your honest replies. I guess my beliefs are inline
with everyone else. Too bad my wallet has enough time keeping up with
my IFR training much less buying that CJ1 / eclipse / Adams / etc.

Gerald

Gerald Sylvester > wrote
> When I first got my PPL almost a year ago, my first passengers were
> beyond nervous with my being so green. The first few passengers raved
> and now people are going out of their way to come visit and go for a
> ride. :)

And in reality, that means nothing. Non-pilot pax are not equipped to
evaluate the safety or proficiency of a pilot in any meaningful way.
For that reason, we as pilots are responsible for managing risk for
them.

> I'm now working on my IFR rating right. In this newsgroup
> we had a thread running about taking friends and family into IMC and
> their reactions and the added risks compared to VMC flights. For
> me, going into IMC gets the adrenaline running for a week if not
> more. :) I love the challenge but someday I just can't imagine
> my friends and family feeling comfortable when they can't see anything
> but the inside of the flask they are drinking from and the ceiling
> as they pray.

I fairly routinely carry non-pilot passengers in IMC. None of them
have been uncomfortable, primarily because they have noted no changes
in how the airplane is flown, and they can see that I'm comfortable.
You see, as you develop more experience, it takes more to get the
adrenaline going. I find that simply going into IMC is no longer
enough to even break the ho-hum factor. Now if we're talking about an
overwater crossing, out of radio and RADAR contact, steering around
the storms using spherics, that's something. I would not take a
non-pilot passenger on a trip like that.

In fact, it's a good rule of thumb that if a flight is going to get
your adrenaline going, you shouldn't be carrying a passenger who can't
himself evaluate the risk.

> Flying hard IMC in
> a bug smasher whether it is a C152 or a SR22 or a certified Known Ice
> C210 with friends and family seems almost as bad as ferry crossing.

I think that's nonsense of the first order. There is a HUGE
difference between doing it in a C-152 equipped for minimum IFR (how
else? There isn't the panel space nor the useful load for anything
more) and a well-equipped T-210 with known ice. There is NO TRUTH
WHATSOEVER to the idea that if you're not burning kerosene you might
as well be in a C-152. All airplanes have their operating envelopes
and risk factors, and there is not some huge step that is suddenly
crossed when you start buring kerosene.

> You
> might have some more airports to land at in case of an emergency but if
> is hard IMC with 300 AGL ceilings, you really have the odds stacked
> against you in both cases.

Do you know how rare it is to have widespread areas of 300 AGL
ceilings? I agree with you - widespread ceilings of 300 AGL or less
give you few options in a single. Few does not mean none. We have a
regular contributor here who flies a 210 and regularly practices a
deadstick instrument approach. Of course you have a lot more options
for that if you cruise at 15,000 ft than if you cruise at 5,000. Lots
of T-210's cruising at those altitudes, but no C-152's. And of course
in a light twin flying over relatively flat terrain, widespread 300 ft
ceilings are no big deal if your systems are properly redundant. Some
are, some are not.

> In this case, she made the ferry crossing 'fine.' She got across the
> pond after all but the bad part was she was a few miles short of
> perfect. The bad part is her decision making about the
> airworthiness of the plane combined with weather and fuel planning were
> quite poor.

But the reality is that what took her out was a point failure for
which she did not have a backup. That's something to think about.

The average pilot does not get taken out by a point failure, but then
the average pilot does not fly or train often enough to be proficient
for IFR - and that includes the instrument rated pilots. If you're
going to fly IFR enough to be good at it, you're looking at a lot of
exposure to point failures, and need to think about having backups for
stuff. If you're going to be only an occasional IFR pilot, as is the
case for most active instrument rated private pilots, then don't worry
too much about redundancy. Worry about your proficiency, because
that's what causes most of the accidents. In that case, you're
probably safer in a C-152 than you would be in a T-210 - or a King
Air.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...

> I would not have taken that plane on that trip either. It wasn't just
> the TC, either. There was no cabin heat - and that meant no
> windshield deice. It would have taken only trace icing to stop all
> forward visibility and make the plane unlandable. There wasn't an
> adequate IFR panel. There was insufficient reserve for the
> conditions. There was an engine of questionable history and an
> overwater crossing. Too many risks, not enough reason. That's why
> I'm not a ferry pilot - I don't have the guts. That's no reason to
> put down those who do.
>

I guess my focus on the TC is that out of all these issues it's the one that
simply screams at me because it's high-risk and easy to fix. There's no
low-cost easy fix for the engine, and I can see taking the chance with the
window ice. I suppose you could fly the ILS with a stabilized power-on
approach setting and figure you'll hit the ground in the best attitude
possible. Crack the plane up but reasonable chance of survival. Fuel-wise
I'll defer since she'd done 100+ flights and thus conceivably knew how to
play that game better than most. But lose the vacuum or AI in IMC, well,
bang, you're at the top of s--t creek, please hand over the paddle. And
that's true whether you're over the North Atlantic or the Great Plains. I
have very few qualms about flying with just the DG and TC; I did half of my
instrument raining in just that configuration. TC alone makes it a bit
tougher but I'm confident I could handle it, though you can bet I'd be on
the line asking for no-gyro vectors to the closest ILS without hesitation.
But compass and altimeter alone, that's a scary thought. Will have to try
that next time I go up for a ride with my CFII.

In any case, I can respect someone's guts and at the same time find their
disregard for safety a bit... um... pathological? And I'm hardly an
anti-risk person.

-cwk.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:31:08 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Gerald Sylvester" wrote:
>[snip]
>> So with my reasoning which certainly could be far off base, I guess my
>> question is, do you consider taking friends and family into
>> hard IMC that risky.

Solid IMC? sure and without hesitation.
Solid IMC and turbulence, the occasional embedded TS, or ice. Not a
chance.

> I wouldn't take friends and family without
>> another
>> pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in

It depends on two things. How much you fly and your comfort factor.
I find flying down to minimums little different than breaking out a
100 or 200 feet above minimums.

>> anything
>> but turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid in a way.
>
>It's too risky, IMO, to take my family into large areas of very low IMC
>in my SE airplane. There just aren't enough "outs" available in case of
>trouble. Neither will I depart with non-pilot pax aboard if the airport
>is at or below minimums.

To me, IFR isn't all that different than VFR any more. If find that to
be true even in solid IMC. Where I draw the line with passengers is
turbulence.

I was lucky I had instructors who put me through a lot of IMC right
down to minimums so by the time I received my rating I felt competent
(and comfortable) to fly down to minimums and did. Actually my first
solo IFR flight was near minimums on both ends. Coming home it was
forecast to be below minimums for 3BS, but above for MBS which is just
11.3 miles and they have and ILS. Had to file FNT as the alternate,
but you can go any where.

Shot the VOR-A into 3BS and it was good, but 10 minutes earlier, or
later and it would have been doing the missed to the ILS at MBS and
having my wife pick me up. A couple miles either side of the approach
was well below minimums. When I called the airport in site, there was
a pause and APP asked what conditions looked like.

As far as passengers I really don't see it as any more risky than VFR,
but I won't take inexperienced passengers into solid IMC. I don't
like cleaning airplanes.

True, I fly over the mid west which is mostly flat land and if it's
minimums or above you can make a visual landing ... somewhere. OTOH
there are a *lot* of densely wooded areas.

I look at it this way. *If* I'm comfortable with the conditions I'll
take friends and family. If I find the "pucker factor" to be
uncomfortable, I not only won't take friends and family, I won't go
either.

My life is every bit as important to me as any one else's. My basic
rule, which is very easy to keep; I won't take some one else where I
wouldn't go. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Michael wrote:

> Gerald Sylvester > wrote
>
>>When I first got my PPL almost a year ago, my first passengers were
>>beyond nervous with my being so green. The first few passengers raved
>>and now people are going out of their way to come visit and go for a
>>ride. :)
>
>
> And in reality, that means nothing. Non-pilot pax are not equipped to
> evaluate the safety or proficiency of a pilot in any meaningful way.
> For that reason, we as pilots are responsible for managing risk for
> them.
>
>
>>I'm now working on my IFR rating right. In this newsgroup
>>we had a thread running about taking friends and family into IMC and
>>their reactions and the added risks compared to VMC flights. For
>>me, going into IMC gets the adrenaline running for a week if not
>>more. :) I love the challenge but someday I just can't imagine
>>my friends and family feeling comfortable when they can't see anything
>>but the inside of the flask they are drinking from and the ceiling
>>as they pray.
>
>
> I fairly routinely carry non-pilot passengers in IMC. None of them
> have been uncomfortable, primarily because they have noted no changes
> in how the airplane is flown, and they can see that I'm comfortable.
> You see, as you develop more experience, it takes more to get the
> adrenaline going. I find that simply going into IMC is no longer
> enough to even break the ho-hum factor. Now if we're talking about an
> overwater crossing, out of radio and RADAR contact, steering around
> the storms using spherics, that's something. I would not take a
> non-pilot passenger on a trip like that.

When I was flying IFR in IMC frequently in an airplane I was familiar
with (I owned a 182 for several years), I actually found it very
relaxing and peaceful. Even more so than in VMC. There is much less
traffic, no need to spend time scanning for traffic, etc.

Now, after a four year layoff, I'm not yet nearly that comfortable in
IMC, but it is coming back quickly. Also, I switched to a Piper Arrow
and learning a new plane takes away some of the comfort level, but I
agree that IMC should not be an adrenaline generating experience.


Matt

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:14:35 -0500, Roger wrote:

> I was lucky I had instructors who put me through a lot of IMC right
> down to minimums so by the time I received my rating I felt competent
> (and comfortable) to fly down to minimums and did.

I really have to agree with Roger here!

I had two instructors in my IFR training. My first instructor took me on
days that were down to ILS minimums at HKS. My second instructor will not
fly in solid IMC for any period of time.

The second instructors opinion was that the purpose of an IFR ticket in a
single engine was to climb through the deck, get on top, and then decend
through the deck and land.

My first instructor on the other hand had me fly 2.4 in solid IMC doing
approaches and gave me the confidence to remain in IMC.

Talk about bringing up the confidence level, as when I did my first IFR
approaches after getting my ticket, it was 900 ceiling at HKS, and I felt
like I had a ton of time after breaking out to make the runway.

I had my first hold in solid IMC just three weeks ago, so again, because my
first instructor gave me the confidence, it really was no big deal. Just
rather boring going circles for 15 minutes.

So, depending on your instructor, probably will dictate your own confidence
level. After all, you practice down to minimums under the hood, it's no
different then in IMC.

As far as passengers, I took my wife up for her first trip. Granted, she
has been great throughout my flying experiences, but she was not
comfortable in solid IMC. It was smooth as silk, and we were in IMC for 40
minutes until I got on top at 8000 feet further down the road. She didn't
like the fact that she felt like a "speck" with no visual references. So,
each passenger will have their own tolerences.

To be honest, I wouldn't hesitate to take a passenger up in IMC, as if you
treat it as "normal", the passenger will not know any difference anyway.
It's when the pilot shows some concern, that the passenger will pick up on
that concern.

As far as comfort, turbulence has the most impact on passengers from my
experiences. Smooth air, and IMC really doesn't bother a passenger who
thinks it's perfectly normal.

Allen

In article >, A Lieberman
> writes:

>As far as passengers, I took my wife up for her first trip. Granted, she
>has been great throughout my flying experiences, but she was not
>comfortable in solid IMC. It was smooth as silk, and we were in IMC for 40
>minutes until I got on top at 8000 feet further down the road. She didn't
>like the fact that she felt like a "speck" with no visual references. So,
>each passenger will have their own tolerences.
>

Boy, you can say that again about "their own tolerences". The first time my
instructor took me into IMC I got a bit on edge and he said, "Just remember how
you felt today and understand how your wife is going to feel the first time."
Well in our first IMC flight I tried to brief the wife and when we entered the
clouds I kept asking how she felt and she kept saying "No problem, why are you
asking?" Now hit a few bumps and she is "Let's get this thing down - NOW" So
go figure.

Chuck

(Michael) wrote in
om:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote
>> Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin
>> 296, with TC and AI displays?
>
> That works well with relatively draggy and stable airplanes. There is
> no gyro in the 296. It infers bank information from rate of turn
> information, and that information is of course delayed. In something
> nice and stable like a Cherokee (or, for that matter, any single
> engine Cessna with struts and fixed gear) this works adequately well -
> certainly well enough to shoot a no-gyro PAR in 1000 and 2 - because
> the delay time between banking the wings and turn indication on the
> GPS is not sufficient for anything really ugly to happen. But the 210
> is a different beast - with retractable gear and no struts, it's more
> like the Bonanzas and Mooneys than it is like most Cessnas. By the
> time you get turn indication on the GPS, you might already be in a
> spiral. It might work OK with a very sharp pilot familiar with the
> plane, a well-trimmed airplane, and smooth air but it's not much of a
> plan.
>
> Michael


If she was already on approach, wouldn't the plane already be dirty and
slowed down a bit?

If it wasn't, wouldn't that be the first thing to do? Slow the plane WAY
down and fly the rudder?

I seem to recall a thread a while back that discussed getting down safely
if you lose everything, and it involved trimming all the way up and
reducing the throttle and flying with the rudder only... Admittedly, I
never tried it, but it is an excercise worth trying because I'd be
curious to see if it really works...

Judah > wrote
> If she was already on approach, wouldn't the plane already be dirty and
> slowed down a bit?

Yesm but my experience is that planes of that class get harder to
handle in the approach configuration, not easier. They become less
stable and require more attention.

> I seem to recall a thread a while back that discussed getting down safely
> if you lose everything, and it involved trimming all the way up and
> reducing the throttle and flying with the rudder only... Admittedly, I
> never tried it, but it is an excercise worth trying because I'd be
> curious to see if it really works...

When I owned a 100 kt fixed-gear, fixed-pitch airplane (TriPacer), I
could do it. If I had to, I could keep the wings level with just the
compass. Move up to a 160 kt retract, and it simply doesn't work that
well.

Michael

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> Gerald Sylvester wrote:
> [snip]
> > So with my reasoning which certainly could be far off base, I guess my
> > question is, do you consider taking friends and family into
> > hard IMC that risky. I wouldn't take friends and family without
> > another
> > pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in
> > anything
> > but turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid in a way.
>
> It's too risky, IMO, to take my family into large areas of very low IMC
> in my SE airplane. There just aren't enough "outs" available in case of
> trouble. Neither will I depart with non-pilot pax aboard if the airport
> is at or below minimums.

If always amazes me when pilots value others' lives more than their own.

Hilton

"Hilton" wrote:
> > It's too risky, IMO, to take my family into large areas of very low IMC
> > in my SE airplane. There just aren't enough "outs" available in case of
> > trouble. Neither will I depart with non-pilot pax aboard if the airport
> > is at or below minimums.
>
> If always amazes me when pilots value others' lives more than their own.

You mean you don't? You wouldn't give your life to save your child's if
necessary?

Anyway, that's beside the point. My responsibility in this case is to try
and be the stand-in risk assessor for ignorant passengers. Since this is a
grey area at best, I err on the side of caution for them. They don't get
the same joy I do from flying, so I must assume the level of risk they would
accept if they knew all the facts is lower.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Hilton" wrote:
> > > It's too risky, IMO, to take my family into large areas of very low
IMC
> > > in my SE airplane. There just aren't enough "outs" available in case
of
> > > trouble. Neither will I depart with non-pilot pax aboard if the
airport
> > > is at or below minimums.
> >
> > If always amazes me when pilots value others' lives more than their own.
>
> You mean you don't? You wouldn't give your life to save your child's if
> necessary?

You're kinda changing the context there Dan.

Hilton

"Hilton" wrote:
>
> You're kinda changing the context there Dan.

You kinda snipped the substantive reply there, Hilton.

"Dan Luke" > wrote
> Anyway, that's beside the point. My responsibility in this case is to try
> and be the stand-in risk assessor for ignorant passengers. Since this is a
> grey area at best, I err on the side of caution for them. They don't get
> the same joy I do from flying, so I must assume the level of risk they would
> accept if they knew all the facts is lower.

My initial reaction to reading that was that it was absolutely 100%
right, and I couldn't see how anyone could possibly disagree. Then I
realized that you (and I) made an implicit assumption. Let me make it
explicit.

The assumption you make is the assumption of a destination pilot.

When you make a trip that you would make in any case, only by private
airplane rather than an existing alternative (automobile, airline,
etc.) there are two separate classes of reasons for this. First,
there might be practical advantages such as cost (yeah, right),
comfort (my seats are a lot more comfortable than coach), convenience
(with regard to schedule flexibility and time - almost always the
case), and lack of frustration (sitting in traffic, being treated like
a criminal by the Thousands Standing Around, lost luggage). These I
would class as practical reasons, just as valid for your passenger as
they are for you, even if he doesn't care a bit about little airplanes
and will spend the flight sleeping or reading a book.

There is also that joy of flying that we all share - something that is
valid for you but not your passenger.

On the other hand, there is increased risk. It never ceases to amaze
me how many pilots are in denial about this increased risk. The truth
is, unless your alternative method of transportation was manufactured
by Yamaha or Harley Davidson, it is almost certainly safer.
Nevertheless, the other methods are not risk-free.

So we as pilots accept the increased risk for the increased benefits.
We have more increased benefits than our passengers (since we get to
enjoy the flight) so are willing to accept more risk. So far, I am
merely restating what you said, but in more detail (have you noticed I
have a habit of doing this?)

But suppose you are not going anywhere in particular? Just going up
to look at the scenery or get a hundred dollar hamburger? In other
words, making a flight whose purpose is NOT transportation, with no
real destination other than up and no purpose other than to enjoy the
flight. And let's say someone wants to go with you. Why?

Well, some people actually like flying in little airplanes, just
looking at the scenery and enjoying the ride, but have no desire (or
ability) to become pilots themselves. It does happen, you know. In
this case, your assumption that they don't get the same joy you do
from flying is unfounded. It makes no sense to make decisions for
them more conservative than you would for yourself.

I think this is the underlying basis of the disagreement. It is the
fundamental disconnect between someone who uses the airplane primarily
as a tool and someone who uses it primarily as a toy.

If most of your flights have no real destination - meaning they are
either to nowhere at all or to someplace you would not bother going if
it meant driving or taking the airlines or the bus - then you're
likely to have the same risk tolerance for yourself and your
passengers, because your reasons for making the flight are
fundamentally the same. If most of your flights are for the purpose
of travel, and you would probably make the trip by other means if the
airplane was not an option, then you are more likely to realize that
you have more of a reason to make the trip by airplane than someone
who does not enjoy the flight, and thus are willing to accept more
risk.

The special case here is flight instruction. It's flying without any
particular destination (usually) but with a purpose over and above
enojoying the flight - that purpose being training. Thus making the
flight is as important (and enjoyable) to the student as the
instructor, and it makes no sense for the instructor to make decisions
for the student more conservative than the decisions he would make for
himself. For that reason, the outlook of someone who primarily flies
to instruct is likely to resemble the outlook of the pilot who uses
the airplane primarily as a toy rather than a tool.

Michael

Hilton wrote:

> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>>Gerald Sylvester wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>>>So with my reasoning which certainly could be far off base, I guess my
>>>question is, do you consider taking friends and family into
>>>hard IMC that risky. I wouldn't take friends and family without
>>>another
>>>pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in
>>>anything
>>>but turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid in a way.
>>
>>It's too risky, IMO, to take my family into large areas of very low IMC
>>in my SE airplane. There just aren't enough "outs" available in case of
>>trouble. Neither will I depart with non-pilot pax aboard if the airport
>>is at or below minimums.
>
>
> If always amazes me when pilots value others' lives more than their own.

Why? I'd be sad if my wife or one of my kids died, however, if I get
killed, I won't be sad at all! :-)

Matt

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:32:55 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:


>
>Why? I'd be sad if my wife or one of my kids died, however, if I get
>killed, I won't be sad at all! :-)
>
>Matt


In other words, you'd be happy to be with Jesus, but the fact that
your wife and kids would be bereft of a providing husband and
nutturing father, and whose lives would have presumably taken a turn
for the worse, wouldn't bother you at all.

Rather selfish of you, isn't it?

Gerald,

> I guess my
> question is, do you consider taking friends and family into
> hard IMC that risky.
>

Why would your own life somehow be less important than that of other
people, however closely related you may be to them? I don't think that
way. If I consider the risk acceptable to my life, it is acceptable to
other people's, too. And yes, there would be types of IMC I consider
too risky for myself.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt,

> Why? I'd be sad if my wife or one of my kids died, however, if I get
> killed, I won't be sad at all! :-)
>

Well, if you claim you want the best for your beloved ones, what would
trouble them relatives more - to be dead or to lose you to death?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dave,

> I'm willing to allow the risk level to go higher for myself than for
> unsuspecting passengers who don't have the knowledge or experience to assess
> the risk for themselves.
>

I think that's a recipe for desaster. What makes you less vulnerable to risk?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Brad,

> The 296 has a Attitude Indicator???
>

A TC, kind of.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Michael" > wrote in message
m...
> Judah > wrote
>
> > I seem to recall a thread a while back that discussed getting down
safely
> > if you lose everything, and it involved trimming all the way up and
> > reducing the throttle and flying with the rudder only... Admittedly, I
> > never tried it, but it is an excercise worth trying because I'd be
> > curious to see if it really works...
>
> When I owned a 100 kt fixed-gear, fixed-pitch airplane (TriPacer), I
> could do it. If I had to, I could keep the wings level with just the
> compass. Move up to a 160 kt retract, and it simply doesn't work that
> well.

Works pretty well on a 172.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Dave,
>
>
>>I'm willing to allow the risk level to go higher for myself than for
>> unsuspecting passengers who don't have the knowledge or experience to assess
>>the risk for themselves.
>>
>
>
> I think that's a recipe for desaster. What makes you less vulnerable to risk?

I'm not less vulnerable. I just think others deserve a more conservative
standard of caution when I am assessing the risk on their behalf, and they don't
have the training or knowledge to assess it for themselves. I don't know what
their risk tolerance is, so I assume they are more risk averse than I am.

Others on the NG have expressed it more eloquently, sorry I wasn't clear.

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in
nk.net:

>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Judah > wrote
>>
>> > I seem to recall a thread a while back that discussed getting down
>> > safely if you lose everything, and it involved trimming all the way
>> > up and reducing the throttle and flying with the rudder only...
>> > Admittedly, I never tried it, but it is an excercise worth trying
>> > because I'd be curious to see if it really works...
>>
>> When I owned a 100 kt fixed-gear, fixed-pitch airplane (TriPacer), I
>> could do it. If I had to, I could keep the wings level with just the
>> compass. Move up to a 160 kt retract, and it simply doesn't work that
>> well.
>
> Works pretty well on a 172.
>
>

Something I learned once makes me wonder if this is a high-wing vs.
low-wing issue... From what I remember, because high wing planes have the
fuselage suspended from the Wing plane, they are more stable than
low-wing planes which have the fuselage mounted on top of the wing plane.
The person who made the comment to me compared it to hanging a ball from
a stick, vs. trying to balance the ball on top of the stick...

Maybe I'm just being a low-wing scapegoater.

Of course, I fly Low Wings these days, and some of my best friends fly
High Wings. So I couldn't be prejudiced!

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:46:19 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>Something I learned once makes me wonder if this is a high-wing vs.
>low-wing issue... From what I remember, because high wing planes have the
>fuselage suspended from the Wing plane, they are more stable than
>low-wing planes which have the fuselage mounted on top of the wing plane.
>The person who made the comment to me compared it to hanging a ball from
>a stick, vs. trying to balance the ball on top of the stick...
>
>Maybe I'm just being a low-wing scapegoater.
>
>Of course, I fly Low Wings these days, and some of my best friends fly
>High Wings. So I couldn't be prejudiced!


I think that's why low-wings have more dihedral designed into them,
but I could be wrong.

Thomas Borchert > wrote
> > The 296 has a Attitude Indicator???
>
> A TC, kind of.

Actually, to be pedantic, a T&S, kind of.

The T part or the T&S (Turn&Slip) is a constrained gyro that shows
rate of turn (really rate of yaw) only. The first attempts to build
an autopilot that did not need an expensive and finicky free gyro
(Attitude indicator) used these. They were uniformly unsuccessful.
Thus the TC was developed. It's really the same kind of constrined
gyro, only it's canted so that it shows a combined rate of turn and
rate of roll. This way, the indicator shows that the wings are no
longer level before the airplane has turned at all. That made the
autopilots work. It also made it easier to fly partial panel, and
these days the T&S is all but gone from GA.

Now obviously the GPS has no way to detect roll, so while it shows a
TC presentation, it really has T&S functionality - and on top of that,
there is a delay. So don't get the idea that is will be as easy to
fly the 296 panel as it is to fly normal partial panel.

Michael

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:14:45 GMT, wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:32:55 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Why? I'd be sad if my wife or one of my kids died, however, if I get
>>killed, I won't be sad at all! :-)
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>In other words, you'd be happy to be with Jesus, but the fact that

Now you're making assumptions

>your wife and kids would be bereft of a providing husband and

In today's world?
If she's half way decent looking suitors will be showing up before the
body is cold. If she's half way decent looking and they think she
has money (late husband was one of those rich pilots) they'll be there
to help carry the body out with the parting phrase: "If there's any
thing at all I can do to help, *anything*, just let me know". "I'll
stop by tomorrow to see how you are doing".

>nutturing father, and whose lives would have presumably taken a turn
>for the worse, wouldn't bother you at all.

Now you're making assumptions again. She'll probably find a rich,
good looking one to fulfill her wildest dreams, send the kids to the
best private schools... What more could one ask.
>
>Rather selfish of you, isn't it?

To help her get set up with a rich guy to take care of her and the
kids? I'd say that's being thoughtful.

Life is short and we only go around once. Enjoy it while you're here.


Roger

"Michael" wrote:
> My initial reaction to reading that was that it was absolutely 100%
> right, and I couldn't see how anyone could possibly disagree. Then I
> realized that you (and I) made an implicit assumption. Let me make it
> explicit.
>
> The assumption you make is the assumption of a destination pilot.
>
> When you make a trip that you would make in any case, only by private
> airplane rather than an existing alternative (automobile, airline,
> etc.) there are two separate classes of reasons for this. First,
> there might be practical advantages such as cost (yeah, right),
> comfort (my seats are a lot more comfortable than coach), convenience
> (with regard to schedule flexibility and time - almost always the
> case), and lack of frustration (sitting in traffic, being treated like
> a criminal by the Thousands Standing Around, lost luggage). These I
> would class as practical reasons, just as valid for your passenger as
> they are for you, even if he doesn't care a bit about little airplanes
> and will spend the flight sleeping or reading a book.
>
> There is also that joy of flying that we all share - something that is
> valid for you but not your passenger.
>
> On the other hand, there is increased risk. It never ceases to amaze
> me how many pilots are in denial about this increased risk. The truth
> is, unless your alternative method of transportation was manufactured
> by Yamaha or Harley Davidson, it is almost certainly safer.
> Nevertheless, the other methods are not risk-free.
>
> So we as pilots accept the increased risk for the increased benefits.
> We have more increased benefits than our passengers (since we get to
> enjoy the flight) so are willing to accept more risk. So far, I am
> merely restating what you said, but in more detail (have you noticed I
> have a habit of doing this?)

What!?! Never!

[snip]
>
> If most of your flights have no real destination - meaning they are
> either to nowhere at all or to someplace you would not bother going if
> it meant driving or taking the airlines or the bus - then you're
> likely to have the same risk tolerance for yourself and your
> passengers, because your reasons for making the flight are
> fundamentally the same. If most of your flights are for the purpose
> of travel, and you would probably make the trip by other means if the
> airplane was not an option, then you are more likely to realize that
> you have more of a reason to make the trip by airplane than someone
> who does not enjoy the flight, and thus are willing to accept more
> risk.

Nope, I disagree -- I think. Assuming our passenger on the $100
hamburger trip is just as ignorant about flying as the one going 400
miles to a business neeting, isn't he entitled to the same cautious
discretion from his pilot as the serious traveler?

With a flying buddy I've made a $100 hamburger trip with low IMC all the
way just because, well, that's what we like to do, sick-os that we are.
That's a notably elevated risk level over a nice VFR trip, IMO, given
the airplane I fly. I would never invite a non-aviation savvy passenger
on such a trip, even if I knew he would enjoy it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not the purpose of the
flight but the risk level that should make the pilot consider whether
his passengers would decline the trip if they really knew the score.

I must say that, aside from Angel Flight, I get very few passengers
because, as much as I enjoy giving rides, I don't sugar coat the risks
for people. I flat out tell them that flying in a light aircraft is
more dangerous than riding in a car, and that tends to dampen a lot of
folks' enthusiasm.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
>
> Why would your own life somehow be less important than that of other
> people, however closely related you may be to them? I don't think that
> way. If I consider the risk acceptable to my life, it is acceptable to
> other people's, too. And yes, there would be types of IMC I consider
> too risky for myself.

I don't agree, Thomas.

Some people ferry single-engine airplanes across the vast oceans. This
is indisputably a high risk thing to do, but they accept the risk
because of the rewards of money and personal satisfaction. Still, I
very much doubt many of them take their kids along for the ride,
believing--appropriately, I would argue--that what is acceptable risk
for them is not acceptable for an innocent child. Would you say that the
ferry pilots think their lives are worth less than their children's?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Matt,
>
>
>>Why? I'd be sad if my wife or one of my kids died, however, if I get
>>killed, I won't be sad at all! :-)
>>
>
>
> Well, if you claim you want the best for your beloved ones, what would
> trouble them relatives more - to be dead or to lose you to death?
>

What part of the smiley didn't you understand?

Matt

Dave,

> . I just think others deserve a more conservative
> standard of caution
>

I was just trying to say that you might deserve it, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dan,

> Would you say that the
> ferry pilots think their lives are worth less than their children's?
>

Well, coming back to the OP example, there was A LOT more amiss than
taking the kid. But other than that, yes, I would like to think that I
would not put myself to a higher risk than my kids. Thus, if I think
it's ok to do, it would be ok to take my kids, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Dan,
>
>
>>Would you say that the
>>ferry pilots think their lives are worth less than their children's?
>>
>
>
> Well, coming back to the OP example, there was A LOT more amiss than
> taking the kid. But other than that, yes, I would like to think that I
> would not put myself to a higher risk than my kids. Thus, if I think
> it's ok to do, it would be ok to take my kids, too.

Yes, the original example was prettyh extreme, however, I do agree with
others in being more conservative with passengers than when alone. I
tend to take a lot of risks that I find acceptable and others don't, so
I err on the side of caution with others.


Matt

"Dan Luke" > wrote
> Nope, I disagree -- I think. Assuming our passenger on the $100
> hamburger trip is just as ignorant about flying as the one going 400
> miles to a business neeting, isn't he entitled to the same cautious
> discretion from his pilot as the serious traveler?

Sure - but that's not the point I'm making. On that $100 burger
flight, he's going along to enjoy the flight. So are you. You're
willing to accept a risk to do this. Why should he not be willing to
accept the same risk? At that point, it does turn into a question of
why his life is worth more than yours.

> With a flying buddy I've made a $100 hamburger trip with low IMC all the
> way just because, well, that's what we like to do, sick-os that we are.

I'm going to argue that this is something you're really doing for
training and/or experience value. Sure, you enjoy training. So do I.
So does any good pilot, really - because someone who doesn't will
never do it enough to become good. But in this case, you're getting
something from the flight the non-pilot passenger isn't - you're
becoming a better pilot. Sure, that might also be true on a sunny VFR
hamburger hop - but only marginally so.

> That's a notably elevated risk level over a nice VFR trip, IMO, given
> the airplane I fly. I would never invite a non-aviation savvy passenger
> on such a trip, even if I knew he would enjoy it.

I concur - I just think you're not thinking your reasons through to
their logical conclusion.

> I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not the purpose of the
> flight but the risk level that should make the pilot consider whether
> his passengers would decline the trip if they really knew the score.

But the crucial parameter, IMO, is not risk itself but the
risk-benefit ratio. And I think it makes no sense to assume your
passenger should require a higher ratio of benefits to risks than you
do.

> I must say that, aside from Angel Flight, I get very few passengers
> because, as much as I enjoy giving rides, I don't sugar coat the risks
> for people. I flat out tell them that flying in a light aircraft is
> more dangerous than riding in a car, and that tends to dampen a lot of
> folks' enthusiasm.

My experience is similar, and I find it interesting that you bring up
Angel Flight. For these people, the benefit of the trip is at least
as great as it is for you. They may not get much out of the flight
itself, but they REALLY need to be there and generally don't have
other realistic options. Therefore, they are willing to accept more
risk.

But yes - being honest about the risks DOES dampen a lot of folks'
enthusiasm. I suspect this is why most pilots are not honest about
the risks - their wives would probably never fly with them if they
were.

Michael

Michael > wrote:
: But yes - being honest about the risks DOES dampen a lot of folks'
: enthusiasm. I suspect this is why most pilots are not honest about
: the risks - their wives would probably never fly with them if they
: were.

Being honest with yourself about the risks of flying is one of the hardest
parts, IMO. I tend to explain to people who ask that it's a varying shade of grey
from one level of risk to another and it's difficult to draw the line. If you didn't
take *any* risk for *anything*, you'd never drive anywhere either. It's just that
driving is a more socially normal and thus more socially acceptable risk than flying.

Besides, most of the risks involved in driving are due to the other dumb****s
on the road. Thus, in driving the other guy gets to kill you. In flying it's almost
always your fault so you get to kill yourself (and whomever else is with you). It can
be from a variety of factors (weather most notably), but in the end the decision to
go and the screwups that lead to a problem are almost always pilot error.

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Michael" wrote:
> > That's a notably elevated risk level over a nice VFR trip, IMO, given
> > the airplane I fly. I would never invite a non-aviation savvy passenger
> > on such a trip, even if I knew he would enjoy it.
>
> I concur - I just think you're not thinking your reasons through to
> their logical conclusion.
>
> > I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not the purpose of the
> > flight but the risk level that should make the pilot consider whether
> > his passengers would decline the trip if they really knew the score.
>
> But the crucial parameter, IMO, is not risk itself but the
> risk-benefit ratio.

Well, that's what I'm saying, or attempting to say.

> And I think it makes no sense to assume your
> passenger should require a higher ratio of benefits to risks than you
> do.

No, but he should not have to accept a lower ratio, either.

Are we agreeing to argue about a point we've not agreed to argue about our
disagreement about?

> ...I find it interesting that you bring up
> Angel Flight. For these people, the benefit of the trip is at least
> as great as it is for you. They may not get much out of the flight
> itself, but they REALLY need to be there and generally don't have
> other realistic options. Therefore, they are willing to accept more
> risk.

Yep, AF patients are a special case. I take no special weather precautions on
their behalf other than maybe for comfort reasons: if it's good enough for me
it's good enough for them.

> But yes - being honest about the risks DOES dampen a lot of folks'
> enthusiasm. I suspect this is why most pilots are not honest about
> the risks - their wives would probably never fly with them if they
> were.

I suspect many pilots would not fly *solo* if they were honest about the
risks; witness how often we see the "drive to the airport..." old wives' tale
in these newsgroups.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Michael wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote
>
>>Nope, I disagree -- I think. Assuming our passenger on the $100
>>hamburger trip is just as ignorant about flying as the one going 400
>>miles to a business neeting, isn't he entitled to the same cautious
>>discretion from his pilot as the serious traveler?
>
>
> Sure - but that's not the point I'm making. On that $100 burger
> flight, he's going along to enjoy the flight. So are you. You're
> willing to accept a risk to do this. Why should he not be willing to
> accept the same risk? At that point, it does turn into a question of
> why his life is worth more than yours.

But your enjoyment may be much greater than that of your friend. Any
value equation has two variables, cost and benefit. The value of one's
life is the cost side, you can't look at that alone.

>
>>With a flying buddy I've made a $100 hamburger trip with low IMC all the
>>way just because, well, that's what we like to do, sick-os that we are.
>
>
> I'm going to argue that this is something you're really doing for
> training and/or experience value. Sure, you enjoy training. So do I.
> So does any good pilot, really - because someone who doesn't will
> never do it enough to become good. But in this case, you're getting
> something from the flight the non-pilot passenger isn't - you're
> becoming a better pilot. Sure, that might also be true on a sunny VFR
> hamburger hop - but only marginally so.
>
>
>>That's a notably elevated risk level over a nice VFR trip, IMO, given
>>the airplane I fly. I would never invite a non-aviation savvy passenger
>>on such a trip, even if I knew he would enjoy it.
>
>
> I concur - I just think you're not thinking your reasons through to
> their logical conclusion.

I think he is. He's making a value judgement. You are making
effectively a cost assessment. They aren't the same analysis at all.


>>I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not the purpose of the
>>flight but the risk level that should make the pilot consider whether
>>his passengers would decline the trip if they really knew the score.
>
>
> But the crucial parameter, IMO, is not risk itself but the
> risk-benefit ratio. And I think it makes no sense to assume your
> passenger should require a higher ratio of benefits to risks than you
> do.

Exactly, however, if they derive less benefit from the flight than you
do and you each place the same "worth" to your life, then you benefit to
cost ratio is higher for the same flight and thus you may well be
willing to assume more risk because of that.


>>I must say that, aside from Angel Flight, I get very few passengers
>>because, as much as I enjoy giving rides, I don't sugar coat the risks
>>for people. I flat out tell them that flying in a light aircraft is
>>more dangerous than riding in a car, and that tends to dampen a lot of
>>folks' enthusiasm.
>
>
> My experience is similar, and I find it interesting that you bring up
> Angel Flight. For these people, the benefit of the trip is at least
> as great as it is for you. They may not get much out of the flight
> itself, but they REALLY need to be there and generally don't have
> other realistic options. Therefore, they are willing to accept more
> risk.

I think that is generally true and I found that when I was flying
AirLifeLine flights (I think they've since merged iwth Angle Flight).
In those cases, I used my best judgement on making IFR flights.


> But yes - being honest about the risks DOES dampen a lot of folks'
> enthusiasm. I suspect this is why most pilots are not honest about
> the risks - their wives would probably never fly with them if they
> were.

I've never tried to downplay the risks and so far have never had anyone
balk at flying with me.


Matt

>> And I think it makes no sense to assume your
>> passenger should require a higher ratio of benefits to risks than
you
>> do.

>No, but he should not have to accept a lower ratio, either.

>Are we agreeing to argue about a point we've not agreed to argue about
our
>disagreement about?

OK, I give up. What DOES that mean?

Seriously - I think we've now narrowed our range of disagreement to
what our passengers get out of joyrides (meaning flights going nowhere
in particular made for no particular reason). I think they get as much
out of it as we do, you seem not to agree.

Michael

"Michael" wrote:
> >Are we agreeing to argue about a point we've not agreed to argue about
> >our disagreement about?
>
> OK, I give up. What DOES that mean?

Heh. It means I might have lost track of exactly what point I was making.

> Seriously - I think we've now narrowed our range of disagreement to
> what our passengers get out of joyrides (meaning flights going nowhere
> in particular made for no particular reason). I think they get as much
> out of it as we do, you seem not to agree.

I don't. No way the average person gets as much out of a flight I'm piloting
as I do. If he did, he'd become a flying nut like me.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Roger" > wrote in message >
>
> To help her get set up with a rich guy to take care of her and the
> kids? I'd say that's being thoughtful.
>

I was on a business trip a couple years back, on the bus to Tokyo-Narita
airport to catch a flight to Bangkok. I conveniently and rather
unsurprisingly ended up talking to the only other caucasian American on the
bus, a married father of two guy in his late 40s whose job involved constant
travel and occasional visits to places not renowned for their high standards
of safety. His wife was understandably less than thrilled with this, but, he
said, "I don't worry because if anything happens to me on one of these trips
she'll be collecting on so many policies she won't even have to think about
working ever again."

I think this is how men have to a large degree been programmed to think. We
are the providers for the family and our number one job is to make sure
everyone is fed, clothed, and put through college. Money is money whether
it's coming from our paycheck or an insurance policy. A mother's job on the
other hand is to mother, and that can't be done but in person. This has even
carried over into the present post-modern era of intentionally broken
families. Fail to pay your child support and the whole machinery of justice
might well mobilize against you. Do it often enough and they'll put your mug
in the local paper. But how many times have you heard of a judge putting a
father in jail for failing to show up to take the kids for the weekend?

-cwk.

Wow, I asked a short question a couple of weeks ago and the thread
is still going.

The funny and good thing about it is I started up my IFR training
again. My last flight was at the end of May. My first flight went
very good. Very little rust amazingly but afterwards my head was still
beyond overloaded. Did the 2nd flight 4 days after that. Did 4
approaches to near ATP standards :) :) :) and afterwards I could
form normal sentences and didn't appear braindead. :) :) :)
In fact, on the ILS, I had time to tell my CFII to stop playing
with the AM radio (ADF) while I was literally drumming my fingertips
on the dashboard. :)

Right now my CFII and I agreed that from now I fly only in IMC. At
worst, we make some trips in low IMC after I get the ticket. Hhe
also thinks I can finish this up my January. I think that is a little
optimistic but February definitely. I also might be going on some
XC IFR trips just to build up the 40 hours. On that behalf, THANKS
EVERYONE SO MUCH FOR ALL THE IFR DISCUSSION.

Gerald

Dan Luke wrote:
> > Seriously - I think we've now narrowed our range of disagreement to
> > what our passengers get out of joyrides (meaning flights going
nowhere
> > in particular made for no particular reason). I think they get as
much
> > out of it as we do, you seem not to agree.
>
> I don't. No way the average person gets as much out of a flight I'm
piloting
> as I do. If he did, he'd become a flying nut like me.

Not necessarily. I know at least one who loves to fly, but realizes he
doesn't have what it takes to be a pilot (IMO correctly). I know
others who feel they simply can't afford it (sometimes correctly). I
use a rule of thumb - if the person is asking me, and offering to pay
for gas (which I never accept, but the offer is usually made) then he
must get as much out of it as I do.

But that may be something on which we will have to agree to disagree -
figuring out what motivates people and how much isn't a science, it's
opinion.

Michael

Dan Luke wrote:
> > Seriously - I think we've now narrowed our range of disagreement to
> > what our passengers get out of joyrides (meaning flights going
nowhere
> > in particular made for no particular reason). I think they get as
much
> > out of it as we do, you seem not to agree.
>
> I don't. No way the average person gets as much out of a flight I'm
piloting
> as I do. If he did, he'd become a flying nut like me.

Not necessarily. I know at least one who loves to fly, but realizes he
doesn't have what it takes to be a pilot (IMO correctly). I know
others who feel they simply can't afford it (sometimes correctly). I
use a rule of thumb - if the person is asking me, and offering to pay
for gas (which I never accept, but the offer is usually made) then he
must get as much out of it as I do.

But that may be something on which we will have to agree to disagree -
figuring out what motivates people and how much isn't a science, it's
opinion.

Michael

On 7 Dec 2004 09:55:51 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

> I know at least one who loves to fly, but realizes he
>doesn't have what it takes to be a pilot (IMO correctly).


What is tihs Top Gun? I've known someone blind in one eye who was a
good pilot, and various people who are scared of their own shadow who
are good pilots. I also know brash people who aren't affraid of
anything and may be an accident waiting to happen, but they know how
to control an airplane. There are even parapalegics who are pilot's!
Given so many different ways to excercise your priviledges, I just
don't understand what it means to "not have what it takes to be a
pilot." He may not fly from California to Maine, but I'm sure given
enough time he could learn to aviate effectively and perform emergency
procedures profficiently as a local pilot. Now more than ever with a
Sport license, maybe this is his ticket to get in the air.

z

I agree.

anyone who possesses the motor skills and the native intelligence to
safely dirve a car, probably has what it takes to fly a general
aviation airplane.

On the other hand, fear can cause strange things to happen, But if he
loves to fly, he probably "has what it takes".


On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:31:31 GMT, zatatime > wrote:

> On 7 Dec 2004 09:55:51 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:
>
>> I know at least one who loves to fly, but realizes he
>>doesn't have what it takes to be a pilot (IMO correctly).
>
>
>What is tihs Top Gun? I've known someone blind in one eye who was a
>good pilot, and various people who are scared of their own shadow who
>are good pilots. I also know brash people who aren't affraid of
>anything and may be an accident waiting to happen, but they know how
>to control an airplane. There are even parapalegics who are pilot's!
>Given so many different ways to excercise your priviledges, I just
>don't understand what it means to "not have what it takes to be a
>pilot." He may not fly from California to Maine, but I'm sure given
>enough time he could learn to aviate effectively and perform emergency
>procedures profficiently as a local pilot. Now more than ever with a
>Sport license, maybe this is his ticket to get in the air.
>
>z

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:31:31 GMT, zatatime > wrote:

> On 7 Dec 2004 09:55:51 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:
>
>> I know at least one who loves to fly, but realizes he
>>doesn't have what it takes to be a pilot (IMO correctly).
>
>
>What is tihs Top Gun? I've known someone blind in one eye who was a
>good pilot, and various people who are scared of their own shadow who
>are good pilots.

After this many years I can truly say I've met a lot of people who
would never, or could never become pilots. I've seen pilots lose
their judgmental capability, but they thought they were doing fine.
One guy ran out of gas three times and had off airport landings in
just a couple of months. Totaled the airplane on the third one.

I've seen students who just could not multitask enough to safely fly
an airplane *except* when every thing went right. Throw in an
emergency and they'd either panic or just give up.

I saw one student get too low on final, give it too much gas, over
corrected for that and turned the 150 into a lawn dart. Put shoulders
in the wings at the struts. Now that's not much of an indicator by
itself. Every one makes mistakes. He went on to get his PPL and did
well. However, one day less than a year later, he did pretty much the
same thing with a 172. He quite flying.


> I also know brash people who aren't affraid of
>anything and may be an accident waiting to happen, but they know how
>to control an airplane.

And people like that should not be let near an airplane.

>There are even parapalegics who are pilot's!
Certainly and the few I do know have great judgmental ability.


Knowing how to control an airplane does not make a pilot.
Being able to handle the airplane and yourself in adverse conditions,
while making decisions under pressure does.

>Given so many different ways to excercise your priviledges, I just
>don't understand what it means to "not have what it takes to be a
>pilot."

If you stick around long enough you will. <:-))

>He may not fly from California to Maine, but I'm sure given
>enough time he could learn to aviate effectively and perform emergency
>procedures profficiently as a local pilot.

Learning the procedures is the easy part. When the *proper* responses
become automatic you are well on the way.

> Now more than ever with a
>Sport license, maybe this is his ticket to get in the air.

I think the Sport Pilot is a good idea, but there is a reason they
limit the seating capacity to two and the airspeed as well as weight.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>z

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 06:34:28 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message >
>>
>> To help her get set up with a rich guy to take care of her and the
>> kids? I'd say that's being thoughtful.
>>
>
>I was on a business trip a couple years back, on the bus to Tokyo-Narita
>airport to catch a flight to Bangkok. I conveniently and rather

My Daughter's hotel was only a bit over a 100 yards from the bomb that
went off in Bali. She said it knocked the plaster off the ceiling
which then fell on them. After taking a look at the hole in the
street the next day, the condition of their hotel, they decided to
stay elsewhere.

<snip>

Roger

Roger

>>What is tihs Top Gun? I've known someone blind in one eye who was a
good pilot, and various people who are scared of their own shadow who
are good pilots.

Someone who is not prepared to be solely responsible for his fate, and
to make quick correct decisions under pressure should not be a pilot.

The particular situation was this. We were on final. It was night and
mist was setting in reducing visibility (hours ahead of the forecast -
horoscopes with numbers) but it was OK beacuse in another minute we
would be on the ground and rolling. Part of the runway was shut down
but 2200 ft was still remaining to use - more than enough for a
Tomahawk. At 500 ft I reached for the flap lever and it would not
move. ****! Now what?

Go around and sort it out, since the fog probably wouldn't roll in
during the 5-10 minutes that might take? Land anyway, because 2200 ft
was probably still plenty for a no-flap landing in a Tommy?

It's not articularly a big deal, though it might seem that way to a
pilot who has just over 100 hours and can count his in-type hours on
his fingers. What's the correct decision?

You can make an argument in favor of either answer. In retrospect
either would have worked. I had a hell of a time finding the airport
in the lit-up suburbia (even to the point of needing a RADAR vector)
and didn't want to risk losing sight of the airport on the go-around,
so I opted to land. 2200 ft was plenty. The other way would likely
have worked too - it took another 30 minutes at least before the vis
dropped below VFR, and I could always have gotten another vector.

It was no big deal.

After the flight, my passenger asked me what the "****!" was about, and
I explained it to him. Right there and then he decided that he wasn't
interested in being pilot in command. Ever. At first I couldn't
understand why, but then I started paying attention to his driving. He
doesn't do well with making decisions and sticking to them.

For example, you're pulling out onto a road. You need to pick a space
in traffic you can merge into. That requires mostly looking upstream.
Once the decision is made and you move out into the road, it's really
too late to change your mind. You move briskly and look downstream,
the direction you're going. He moves slowly and keeps looking upstream
when he can. He has been rear-ended a couple of times. Not his fault
of course.

Downthread, someone mentioned that anyone who can safely drive a car
can learn to safely pilot an airplane. I agree. But this guy can't
safely drive a car either - and if you spend much time on the road, you
quickly realize he isn't unique.

Michael