Takeoff with a problem?

[Rocky]

This is a loaded question and I suspect most will adamently say they
would not! However, it isn't too hard to come up with a number of
scenarios in which a pilot would take off with known "legal" problems
that are not affecting safety of flight, and some which are mechanical
problems that do affect safe flight in a very personal manner.
Now I am going to sit back and watch the weekend pilots take their
best shots, and hope to see some pros who have been out in the bush
and had to make the hard decision as to take off or sit and wait for
help.
In years past, I have had to do some flying that I probably would have
fired pilots over if they were flying off concrete and wearing ties
and white shirts.
Like I said, this is a trick question and meant to stir the pot to
create some very real day to day scenarios.
Ol Shy & Bashful

[Big John]

Flyingrock

Just a little gas on the fire.

During my career in the Air Force, I rarely flew a bird without some
deferred write up in the Form One.

Rule was if the write up did not effect the safety or mission
accomplishment of flight then you signed off the acceptance and few
the mission.

On my personal GA bird I many times flew it with write ups until I
either had the money or time to get fixed if it did not effect the
safety of flight.

So, all said and done, what's the big deal unless your talking about
the tort system?

Big John
Pilot ROCAF

On 19 Jan 2004 08:36:16 -0800, (Rocky) wrote:

>This is a loaded question and I suspect most will adamently say they
>would not! However, it isn't too hard to come up with a number of
>scenarios in which a pilot would take off with known "legal" problems
>that are not affecting safety of flight, and some which are mechanical
>problems that do affect safe flight in a very personal manner.
>Now I am going to sit back and watch the weekend pilots take their
>best shots, and hope to see some pros who have been out in the bush
>and had to make the hard decision as to take off or sit and wait for
>help.
>In years past, I have had to do some flying that I probably would have
>fired pilots over if they were flying off concrete and wearing ties
>and white shirts.
>Like I said, this is a trick question and meant to stir the pot to
>create some very real day to day scenarios.
>Ol Shy & Bashful

[David Brooks]

"Rocky" > wrote in message
om...
> This is a loaded question and I suspect most will adamently say they
> would not! However, it isn't too hard to come up with a number of
> scenarios in which a pilot would take off with known "legal" problems
> that are not affecting safety of flight, and some which are mechanical
> problems that do affect safe flight in a very personal manner.

Friday evening I got in a rented 172, solo, and the red "high voltage" idiot
light went on. However, I did taxi out, tried a runup, and ran the
appropriate checklist without luck. It was a humid evening, with a slight
possibility of the weather suddenly going IMC, so I went back and squawked
it. Afterwards I wondered if I had maybe split the switch (most unlikely; I
never do that on a routine basis and I had cycled the switch twice). I also
asked myself whether I would have departed if I had "jiggled" the alternator
side and that had turned the red light off - I think not. The mission was
just for fun and currency, easy to cancel, and I definitely wouldn't have
taken passengers at night with a questionable electrical system. BTDT.

Next day they couldn't reproduce the fault, flew the plane without problem,
but decided not to bill me for night taxi practice, and that evening I tried
again, same plane. It was a dry night and quiet in the air, so very little
danger even if it fritzed, which it didn't of course.

I didn't log it as 0.3 pilot time, although I could be persuaded that the
experience does fall into the Commercial areas of operation requirement.

Comments: excess of caution on day 1, foolhardy on day 2?

-- David Brooks

[David]

> This is a loaded question and I suspect most will adamently say they
> would not! However, it isn't too hard to come up with a number of
> scenarios in which a pilot would take off with known "legal" problems
> that are not affecting safety of flight, and some which are mechanical
> problems that do affect safe flight in a very personal manner.
> Now I am going to sit back and watch the weekend pilots take their
> best shots, and hope to see some pros who have been out in the bush
> and had to make the hard decision as to take off or sit and wait for
> help.
> In years past, I have had to do some flying that I probably would have
> fired pilots over if they were flying off concrete and wearing ties
> and white shirts.
> Like I said, this is a trick question and meant to stir the pot to
> create some very real day to day scenarios.
> Ol Shy & Bashful

This happens every day all over the country in all types of aircraft. It's
part of the pilot's decision process. I've ferried planes where one of us
flew and the other guy was under the panel making repairs while the pilot
held the flashlight for him.

[Larry Fransson]

On 2004-01-19 08:36:16 -0800, (Rocky) said:

> This is a loaded question and I suspect most will adamently say they
> would not! However, it isn't too hard to come up with a number of
> scenarios in which a pilot would take off with known "legal" problems
> that are not affecting safety of flight, and some which are mechanical
> problems that do affect safe flight in a very personal manner.

It's a known fact that most squawks are found on the homebound leg of the
flight.

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA

[Rocky]

Big John > wrote in message >...
> Flyingrock
>
> Just a little gas on the fire.
>
> During my career in the Air Force, I rarely flew a bird without some
> deferred write up in the Form One.
>
> Rule was if the write up did not effect the safety or mission
> accomplishment of flight then you signed off the acceptance and few
> the mission.
>
> On my personal GA bird I many times flew it with write ups until I
> either had the money or time to get fixed if it did not effect the
> safety of flight.
>
> So, all said and done, what's the big deal unless your talking about
> the tort system?
>
> Big John
> Pilot ROCAF

Big John
Glad to see the healthy responses to the post. I've been accused of
being a stupid sh** or a troll for some of my posts but I always
thought the NG was to share info instead of being accusatory about
anything that smacked of "outside the boundaries".....
As a point of curiosity...what is ROCAF?
Would you consider a rotor RPM gage going inop during operations
sufficient to quit for the day? I suppose you could equate that with
the RPM gage going B.O. in nearly any aircraft?!
Of course there is always the spectre of the tort system, and the FAA
if there is some kind of investigation as a result of an accident or
incident. That is a subject that could take a whole new area of
discussion!
Best Regards and Cheers
FlyinRock
>
> On 19 Jan 2004 08:36:16 -0800, (Rocky) wrote:
>
> >This is a loaded question and I suspect most will adamently say they
> >would not! However, it isn't too hard to come up with a number of
> >scenarios in which a pilot would take off with known "legal" problems
> >that are not affecting safety of flight, and some which are mechanical
> >problems that do affect safe flight in a very personal manner.
> >Now I am going to sit back and watch the weekend pilots take their
> >best shots, and hope to see some pros who have been out in the bush
> >and had to make the hard decision as to take off or sit and wait for
> >help.
> >In years past, I have had to do some flying that I probably would have
> >fired pilots over if they were flying off concrete and wearing ties
> >and white shirts.
> >Like I said, this is a trick question and meant to stir the pot to
> >create some very real day to day scenarios.
> >Ol Shy & Bashful

[Rocky]

"David" > wrote in message >...
> > This is a loaded question and I suspect most will adamently say they
> > would not! However, it isn't too hard to come up with a number of
> > scenarios in which a pilot would take off with known "legal" problems
> > that are not affecting safety of flight, and some which are mechanical
> > problems that do affect safe flight in a very personal manner.
> > Now I am going to sit back and watch the weekend pilots take their
> > best shots, and hope to see some pros who have been out in the bush
> > and had to make the hard decision as to take off or sit and wait for
> > help.
> > In years past, I have had to do some flying that I probably would have
> > fired pilots over if they were flying off concrete and wearing ties
> > and white shirts.
> > Like I said, this is a trick question and meant to stir the pot to
> > create some very real day to day scenarios.
> > Ol Shy & Bashful
>
> This happens every day all over the country in all types of aircraft. It's
> part of the pilot's decision process. I've ferried planes where one of us
> flew and the other guy was under the panel making repairs while the pilot
> held the flashlight for him.

Hi
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Have you been
accused of full of sh** for such statements? As I've said before, my
feelings have always beeen that the NG is partly to share info that
could be of interest to pilots who have never seen or been presented
with unusual circumstances that required a judgement call. I'm hoping
to smoke out some of the pros who lurk and get their input. My
logbooks are full of interesting incidents around the world in
equipment that would make many shudder with either disgust or
disbelief. Thanks
FlyinRock aka Ol Shy & Bashful

[Rocky]

Larry Fransson > wrote in message news:<2004011916485016807%lfransson@comcastnet>...
> On 2004-01-19 08:36:16 -0800, (Rocky) said:
>
> > This is a loaded question and I suspect most will adamently say they
> > would not! However, it isn't too hard to come up with a number of
> > scenarios in which a pilot would take off with known "legal" problems
> > that are not affecting safety of flight, and some which are mechanical
> > problems that do affect safe flight in a very personal manner.
>
> It's a known fact that most squawks are found on the homebound leg of the
> flight.

Hi Larry
Is that because when the squawk is found they head back to base? <gg>
I'm talking about actually taking off with a known problem whether its
headed for home or someplace else. Sometimes it could be driven by
emergencies such as the threat of getting killed if you stick around,
or someone who needs desperate medical attention, or ........?
Having seen your posts over time I hope to see your positive input
from known incidents in the NW. I flew helicopters based out of
Napavine WA and did spray operations in WA, OR, ID from there as well
as fixed wing spay ops out of Moses Lake.
Cheers
Flyinrock aka Ol Shy & Bashful

[C J Campbell]

It depends a lot on the purpose of the flight and what the squawk is. The
pilot is the final authority of whether it is safe to fly. He has to suffer
the consequences of a bad decision, both legal and otherwise.

[Larry Fransson]

On 2004-01-20 07:14:45 -0800, (Rocky) said:

> > It's a known fact that most squawks are found on the homebound leg of
the
> > flight.

> Is that because when the squawk is found they head back to base? <gg>
> I'm talking about actually taking off with a known problem whether its
> headed for home or someplace else.

I don't have a problem flying with inoperative equipment that is deferred
in accordance with the minimum equipment list, as long as it isn't
something I actually need for the flight. I also generally live by the
rule that I don't have to fly anywhere at any time just because someone
said, "Go." If it doesn't work and I need it, I'm not leaving home. If
I'm away from home, I might note it acting up a bit on the outbound leg,
and I'll confirm it on the return leg and write it up when I get home.

Sometimes, a real, live deficiency pops up on the outbound leg. Then it
doesn't matter what the situation is. I call home and they find another
way to finish the trip. I once spent a night at the Stikine Inn (paper
thin walls, and lots of hot heat that you can't turn down - woo hoo!) in
Wrangell, Alaska when we noted on arrival that the standby attitude
indicator was dead. We had just descended through a couple thousand feet
of icy clouds, causing our nurses to ask, "How much ice is too much?" My
answer: "More than that." (The airplane was a Citation II, which has
pneumatic deice boots on the wings, so they were able to watch the ice
collecting.) It was a major inconvenience and the patient had to wait
another two hours or so, but there was no way I was flying home that way.
I could just see us climbing out and having another attitude indicator
fail. In the clouds, in the dark, is not where I want to be when I'm
trying to figure out which of two remaining attitude indicators (one
electric, one air-driven) is wrong. There's really no such thing as
partial panel flying for me anymore. That standby AI is the tie-breaker
(and it's required). They sent another airplane to complete the trip. The
next day, we got a ferry permit to fly home in VFR conditions.
Fortunately, it was relatively clear, which can be somewhat uncommon in
that part of the country.

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA

[Big John]

Rocky

ROCAF = Republic of China Air Force. Long story how I was awarded
their wings. US rules required I had to store them with the State
Department in Washington, DC until I retired.

The items you cite would ground a Aircraft/Chopper in almost any/all
circumstances.

You've got to remember that there are certain MEL rules that would
prevent you from legally flying with items inop.

Big John
Pilot ROCAF


On 20 Jan 2004 07:00:47 -0800, (Rocky) wrote:

>Big John > wrote in message >...
>> Flyingrock
>>
>> Just a little gas on the fire.
>>
>> During my career in the Air Force, I rarely flew a bird without some
>> deferred write up in the Form One.
>>
>> Rule was if the write up did not effect the safety or mission
>> accomplishment of flight then you signed off the acceptance and few
>> the mission.
>>
>> On my personal GA bird I many times flew it with write ups until I
>> either had the money or time to get fixed if it did not effect the
>> safety of flight.
>>
>> So, all said and done, what's the big deal unless your talking about
>> the tort system?
>>
>> Big John
>> Pilot ROCAF
>
>Big John
>Glad to see the healthy responses to the post. I've been accused of
>being a stupid sh** or a troll for some of my posts but I always
>thought the NG was to share info instead of being accusatory about
>anything that smacked of "outside the boundaries".....
>As a point of curiosity...what is ROCAF?
>Would you consider a rotor RPM gage going inop during operations
>sufficient to quit for the day? I suppose you could equate that with
>the RPM gage going B.O. in nearly any aircraft?!
>Of course there is always the spectre of the tort system, and the FAA
>if there is some kind of investigation as a result of an accident or
>incident. That is a subject that could take a whole new area of
>discussion!
>Best Regards and Cheers
>FlyinRock
>>
>> On 19 Jan 2004 08:36:16 -0800, (Rocky) wrote:
>>
>> >This is a loaded question and I suspect most will adamently say they
>> >would not! However, it isn't too hard to come up with a number of
>> >scenarios in which a pilot would take off with known "legal" problems
>> >that are not affecting safety of flight, and some which are mechanical
>> >problems that do affect safe flight in a very personal manner.
>> >Now I am going to sit back and watch the weekend pilots take their
>> >best shots, and hope to see some pros who have been out in the bush
>> >and had to make the hard decision as to take off or sit and wait for
>> >help.
>> >In years past, I have had to do some flying that I probably would have
>> >fired pilots over if they were flying off concrete and wearing ties
>> >and white shirts.
>> >Like I said, this is a trick question and meant to stir the pot to
>> >create some very real day to day scenarios.
>> >Ol Shy & Bashful

[Gene Seibel]

Anybody can fly an airplane that's perfect. ;)
--
Gene Seibel - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


(Rocky) wrote in message >...
>
> This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Have you been
> accused of full of sh** for such statements? As I've said before, my
> feelings have always beeen that the NG is partly to share info that
> could be of interest to pilots who have never seen or been presented
> with unusual circumstances that required a judgement call. I'm hoping
> to smoke out some of the pros who lurk and get their input. My
> logbooks are full of interesting incidents around the world in
> equipment that would make many shudder with either disgust or
> disbelief. Thanks
> FlyinRock aka Ol Shy & Bashful

[Jon Woellhaf]

"Big John" wrote, "ROCAF = Republic of China Air Force. Long story how I was
awarded their wings. ..."

Let's hear it!

Jon

[Big John]

Joh

If I told you I'd have to kill you :o(

Big John
Pilot ROCAF


On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:15:15 GMT, "Jon Woellhaf"
> wrote:

>"Big John" wrote, "ROCAF = Republic of China Air Force. Long story how I was
>awarded their wings. ..."
>
>Let's hear it!
>
>Jon
>

[Rocky]

Larry Fransson > wrote in message news:<2004012015065216807%lfransson@comcastnet>...
> On 2004-01-20 07:14:45 -0800, (Rocky) said:
>
> > > It's a known fact that most squawks are found on the homebound leg of
> the
> > > flight.
>
> > Is that because when the squawk is found they head back to base? <gg>
> > I'm talking about actually taking off with a known problem whether its
> > headed for home or someplace else.
>
> I don't have a problem flying with inoperative equipment that is deferred
> in accordance with the minimum equipment list, as long as it isn't
> something I actually need for the flight. I also generally live by the
> rule that I don't have to fly anywhere at any time just because someone
> said, "Go." If it doesn't work and I need it, I'm not leaving home. If
> I'm away from home, I might note it acting up a bit on the outbound leg,
> and I'll confirm it on the return leg and write it up when I get home.
>
> Sometimes, a real, live deficiency pops up on the outbound leg. Then it
> doesn't matter what the situation is. I call home and they find another
> way to finish the trip. I once spent a night at the Stikine Inn (paper
> thin walls, and lots of hot heat that you can't turn down - woo hoo!) in
> Wrangell, Alaska when we noted on arrival that the standby attitude
> indicator was dead. We had just descended through a couple thousand feet
> of icy clouds, causing our nurses to ask, "How much ice is too much?" My
> answer: "More than that." (The airplane was a Citation II, which has
> pneumatic deice boots on the wings, so they were able to watch the ice
> collecting.) It was a major inconvenience and the patient had to wait
> another two hours or so, but there was no way I was flying home that way.
> I could just see us climbing out and having another attitude indicator
> fail. In the clouds, in the dark, is not where I want to be when I'm
> trying to figure out which of two remaining attitude indicators (one
> electric, one air-driven) is wrong. There's really no such thing as
> partial panel flying for me anymore. That standby AI is the tie-breaker
> (and it's required). They sent another airplane to complete the trip. The
> next day, we got a ferry permit to fly home in VFR conditions.
> Fortunately, it was relatively clear, which can be somewhat uncommon in
> that part of the country.

Larry
For many years I have flown with the idea that I'll risk MY life, but
not YOURS. And further, the most expensive ass in the world is the one
I am sitting on! (I know some will say I am also the biggest one!!)
I know you have a lot of experience so please don't misunderstand me
on this. How many times has an MEL grounded an aircraft for something
simple that has little or no bearing on being able to complete a
flight safely? It seems more and more regulations are being
promulgated for our safety and less and less emphasis on individual
judgement and experience. One of these days we won't be able to go out
of the house without getting permission from someplace and dressed in
a fashion comensurate with the ambient conditions with of course the
extra kit just in case weather turns inclement. THEN we will be faced
with the mode of transport and more
conditions/regulations/restrictions....etc, etc.
In commercial aviation is it presumed that there are more than one
aircraft available to fly out to continue a trip that is interrupted
for some small item that legally grounds or terminates a flight? What
about the flights that originate in a remote area and have no
reasonable back-up? Should they be avoided or prohibited?
Being in dangers way, either by virtue of weather, terrain, political
problems, or mechanical problems, the PIC is the one that makes the
final decision. Maybe I am just a dummy who flies willy-nilly around
the world with little regard for anyone or anything. Seems odd though
that I run into a number of pilots who are out there flying under
difficult conditions with questionable equipment in foreign or remote
areas. Were it not for them and their ability to cope with the
conditions, there would be no aviation in that area. And, if I may
add, aviation would be the loser for not benefiting from their
experience.
Sorry....didn't mean to editorialize or get on a soap box.
If there is any pilot who has not done something that seemed to be a
challenge to either their ability or training, I don't think they are
capable of learning anything new.
Best professional regards
Ol Shy & Bashful