Downright Scary...

[Jay Honeck]

Whilst supping a cold one with friends at our hangar not long ago, a
short-lived yet intense summer storm blew through. High winds, heavy rain,
and impressive lightning caused us to lower the door a tad, but didn't deter
us from our appointed beers.

Right as the storm passed, we watched in amazement as a Skyhawk entered
downwind for Rwy 12. We all commented how we were glad not to have been in
that poor shmuck's shoes, and then returned to our conversation.

A few minutes later our hotel courtesy van went zipping past, obviously on
the way to pick up our wayward pilot. We toasted my night manager as he
went roaring by, and did it again as he drove back with our new guests, en
route back to the hotel...

The next morning I sought out our brave and stalwart guests, and was
surprised to meet a newly minted Private Pilot, off on his first long cross
country trip in a rented 172 with his wife. He nonchalantly mentioned the
"rough ride" into Iowa City, but soon the conversation drifted to local
attractions and our theme suites.

I then turned my attention to his wife, and asked her how she had enjoyed
the flight. She confessed that it had been pretty scary, so we started
giving her the usual pep-talk about how the bumps really aren't anything to
worry about, and how turbulence can be bothersome but not really dangerous.
We were pretty well along into our speechifying about how safe flying is,
when she stopped all conversation by saying "Things got pretty spooky when
we couldn't see anything....I just covered my eyes and couldn't look out!"

We kind of looked at each other, stunned, and asked her what she meant.

She went on to say that about 15 miles out, just past the nearby town (and
airport) of Tipton, IA, their windshield had gone completely white -- and
then almost immediately totally black. It was at this point where she
covered her eyes in fright, and couldn't look.

She then mentioned how her husband had called Cedar Rapids approach, and how
they had "given them directions to Iowa City."

Uncomfortable silence followed this revelation, as we realized how close to
dying this poor woman had come. Not wanting to scare her any more than
necessary, I asked what Cedar Rapids had done. She replied that the
controller had asked what their intentions were, since conditions were
rock-solid IFR with thunderstorms from their present position all the way
into Iowa City. She said her husband had announced his intention to land in
Iowa City, and that the controller then gave them a vector towards the
airport.

At this point our hapless pilot piped up about how he had "flown
instruments" down the heading until they popped into the clear, pretty much
right over the airport. This must have been when we spotted him on
downwind.

I told them both how lucky they were, and left it at that. After all, they
were here for a good time, and it wasn't my position as innkeeper to be
lecturing my guests. In fact, I didn't even mention the "Tipton Towers" --
twin TV transmission towers that reach some 1700 feet into the sky right
near Tipton.

However, this man's complacence in the face of stormy IFR conditions is
exactly what we all read about in the NTSB reports each month. The guy
over-flew a perfectly good airport (Tipton) in order to fly head-long into
the clouds, a thunderstorm, potential death, and (almost coincidentally)
Iowa City. He had risked his life (and his wife's life) in order to
penetrate a fast-moving, short-lived storm, just so he could get here in
time for...dinner?

God was on his side that day. Downright scary, I tell you.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I told them both how lucky they were, and left it at that. After all, they
> were here for a good time, and it wasn't my position as innkeeper to be
> lecturing my guests.

It's tough to be caught between your need to behave as an inkeeper and your need to
talk some sense to someone who really needs a good talking to. As an inkeeper, I
suppose you have his home address? Perhaps you could write the man and suggest that
he discuss his experience with his old CFI.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck wrote:

<snip>
> God was on his side that day. Downright scary, I tell you.

Wow. My thoughts and prayers go out to the wife. She doesn't deserve
to die from her husband's foolish and blatant recklessness.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Richard Kaplan]

Do you know a local volunteer Aviation Safety Counselor in your area? It
would be appropriate for you to give him a call and suggest he contact the
pilot and tell the pilot someone at the airport saw him land in a
thunderstorm. Remember this is NOT equivalent to reporting him to the
FSDO; an ASC is NOT an FAA employee and will not initiate enforcement
proceedings but instead will offer advice in a non-confrontative way.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JSmGc.14184$JR4.8572@attbi_s54...
> I told them both how lucky they were, and left it at that. After all,
they
> were here for a good time, and it wasn't my position as innkeeper to be
> lecturing my guests.

True, but it wouldn't have been lecturing to inform the non-pilot of the
reckless and illegal risk her husband was subjecting her to. She surely has
a right to know, so she can make an informed decision whether to fly with
him again.

--Gary

[Jay Honeck]

> True, but it wouldn't have been lecturing to inform the non-pilot of the
> reckless and illegal risk her husband was subjecting her to. She surely
has
> a right to know, so she can make an informed decision whether to fly with
> him again.

That would not have been a tenable position for us, as I'm sure you suspect.

Later in the conversation, however, I did go into my usual spiel about
spatial disorientation, how my old primary instructor demonstrated it to me
(at night, over Lake Michigan, with my panel covered), and how dangerous it
is. Hopefully he/she got the message that they were in grave danger.

Our attitude and obtuse comments, in combination with his wife's instinctive
fear, may have done the job of quietly kicking him in the pants for
subjecting his wife to such an ordeal.

Or maybe not. It's hard to tell.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Teacherjh]

>>
True, but it wouldn't have been lecturing to inform the non-pilot of the
reckless and illegal risk her husband was subjecting her to. She surely has
a right to know, so she can make an informed decision whether to fly with
him again.
<<

There are two possiblilties.

1: The pilot can learn from his mistake. In this case, taking the above
action would probably ensure that the wife will never fly with him again, and
will forever be scared of airplanes and distrustful of her husband's abilities.
It may even end his flying career right there, and thus his ability to make
use of what he learned (or will learn). Remember that just because the pilot
learns something doesn't mean that the passenger will learn that the pilot
learned something.

2: The pilot canNOT learn from his mistake. In this case, Darwin will have
his due, and taking the above action may save a life. But maybe not (his wife
may figure this out soon enough, or may not be on the fatal trip).

You don't know which of these two possibilities it is. Have you never made a
stupid mistake you learned from, even if the learning took place some time
later, especially as a newly minted pilot? Would you like your passengers to
be let in on it so they can see what a dangerous jerk you were in the air?

I'd say that a word to the pilot (not a lecture, but a two-way side
conversation about flight conditions and consequences and luck) might be
appropriate. Calling an Aviation Safety Counselor might also be a good idea.
But I would under no (conceivable) circumstances berate the pilot to his wife,
the passenger. That will likely backfire.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[G. Burkhart]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JSmGc.14184$JR4.8572@attbi_s54...
> I told them both how lucky they were, and left it at that. After all,
they
> were here for a good time, and it wasn't my position as innkeeper to be
> lecturing my guests. In fact, I didn't even mention the "Tipton
Towers" --
> twin TV transmission towers that reach some 1700 feet into the sky right
> near Tipton.

Arghhh... Made me shudder!

I surely hope that the newly minted PP learned something on that flight and
hope that he's makes better decisions in the future.

[Gary Drescher]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> True, but it wouldn't have been lecturing to inform the non-pilot of the
> reckless and illegal risk her husband was subjecting her to. She surely
has
> a right to know, so she can make an informed decision whether to fly with
> him again.
> <<
>
> There are two possiblilties.
>
> 1: The pilot can learn from his mistake. In this case, taking the above
> action would probably ensure that the wife will never fly with him again,
and
> will forever be scared of airplanes and distrustful of her husband's
abilities.
> It may even end his flying career right there, and thus his ability to
make
> use of what he learned (or will learn). Remember that just because the
pilot
> learns something doesn't mean that the passenger will learn that the pilot
> learned something.
>
> 2: The pilot canNOT learn from his mistake. In this case, Darwin will
have
> his due, and taking the above action may save a life. But maybe not (his
wife
> may figure this out soon enough, or may not be on the fatal trip).
>
> You don't know which of these two possibilities it is.

So it's best to err on the side of the possibility that might well kill an
unsuspecting person?

> Have you never made a
> stupid mistake you learned from, even if the learning took place some time
> later, especially as a newly minted pilot?

I wouldn't characterize it as a mere "mistake" to deliberately continue VFR
in IMC, and to deliberately continue into thunderstorms (and to do so with
an unsuspecting, non-pilot passenger, no less).

> Would you like your passengers to
> be let in on it so they can see what a dangerous jerk you were in the air?

If my passengers had been in serious danger, I would certainly want them to
know about it. I might hope they'd have confidence in my potential to
improve, but it would never occur to me to deny them the right to make their
own informed choice. I would never try to trick them into continuing to fly
with me by witholding such critical information from them; I'd consider that
a profound violation of their trust.

> I'd say that a word to the pilot (not a lecture, but a two-way side
> conversation about flight conditions and consequences and luck) might be
> appropriate. Calling an Aviation Safety Counselor might also be a good
idea.
> But I would under no (conceivable) circumstances berate the pilot to his
wife,
> the passenger. That will likely backfire.

Whatever choice she would make if she knew what had almost happened to her,
it's her right to decide--not her husband's, and not yours or mine.

--Gary

[Blanche]

On the other hand, he could be brought up on charges of attempted
involuntary manslaughter.

[Blanche]

I'd also wonder about the CFI that apparently did not impress upon
this newbie PPL about the dangers of Tstorms.

[John Gaquin]

"Blanche" > wrote in message

> .....charges of attempted
> involuntary manslaughter.

"Attempted......... involuntary........ manslaughter"

Think about this.

[Teacherjh]

>>
So it's best to err on the side of the possibility that might well kill an
unsuspecting person?
<<

Yes.

The freedom to fly is the freedom to put people in danger, the freedom to make
mistakes that can kill, and the freedom to make bad decisions. With this
freedom comes responsibility - the responsibility to minimize the danger so
much as is reasonable under the circumstances, This responsibility belongs to
the Pilot In Command. It is what being the Pilot In Command means. It is not
to be minimized, lest it get minimized on all of us.

I am not arguing to do =nothing= and walk away as if this were an acceptable
decision with an expected outcome. This was (after the fact) clearly an
unacceptable decision with a fortunate outcome. I emphasize "after the fact"
because every one of us has a different level of skill, judgement, experience,
equipment, and risk tolerance, and it is not up to somebody else to make risk
decisions for us. There are too many people who are waiting in the wings to do
just that. Of all people, passengers are not the ones to be trusted with these
kinds of decisions (despite the fact that every now and then the passenger is
right and the pilot is wrong).

What I am advocating is to ensure that any conversations or actions take place
with the pilot, either directly or through channels designed for that (such as
the Aviation Safety Counselor). Putting the passenger in the equation will
only mess things up, as he or she is (generally) not in a position to
understand the nuances of the decisions being made.

>>
I wouldn't characterize it as a mere "mistake" to deliberately continue VFR
in IMC, and to deliberately continue into thunderstorms (and to do so with
an unsuspecting, non-pilot passenger, no less).
<<

It is a mistake. IT is a mistake in judgement. A big one to be sure, but so
are some of the icing issues being discussed in another thread right now.
Flying an airplane that is not icing certified into known or forecast icing
conditions is a huge mistake in judgement, and can cause death to the pilot,
passengers, and people below. At least some will argue that. Some will argue
differently. Should the passengers be told how reckless =that= is?

>>
If my passengers had been in serious danger, I would certainly want them to
know about it.
<<

.... and you would tell them, wouldn't you? (not do do so would be to, as you
say, "trick them into continuing to fly
with me by witholding such critical information from them;")You wouldn't want
other people to tell them what an ass you were in the sky - you'd want your own
opportunity to do so.

>>
Whatever choice she would make if she knew what had almost happened to her,
it's her right to decide--not her husband's, and not yours or mine.
<<

Neither of us is making that choice for her.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>>
On the other hand, he could be brought up on charges of attempted
involuntary manslaughter.
<<

So could all of us that makes a poor judgement when flying. While we're out
flinging charges, we should charge the CFI with neglegence in teaching the
pilot, the FAA for allowing him to be certificated before he was ready, the
controller for giving him a vector to the airport rather than a stern lecture
and a command to do a 180...

We speak as if we value the freedom to fly - and to do all the things that we
do in the air. Well, the freedom to say "no" is meaningless without the
freedom to say "yes".

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Cub Driver]

Thanks for the story, Jay.

(Part of me is dumb with admiration for the pilot!)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[bryan chaisone]

Scared the you know what out of me reading that. I too am still a low
hr pilot, even after ten years. I too have made my share of mistakes.
Thank God I'm still alive.

I had an engine out once in a R22 on my way back from Hagerstown to
Frederick, MD in a round about kind of a way. I full autoed it onto
10+ inches of snow on someones farm near Camp David. My first real
emergency, and I somehow executed a smooth flare that my CFI would
have been really proud of. I never did get it that good w/ the CFI
onboard, and there was never a full down auto. I didn't perceive it
as an emergency at the time, neither did my passenger. He thought
that the first couple of seconds of the auto was a little startling,
but did reallize it was an auto. He thought that it supposed to be
quiet when you land and only wondered why we landed in the field. I
explained to him that the engine went out on its own. He too didn't
reallize the danger at the time. I checked out the engine, started it
up again and it ran smoothly. I concluded that it was carburator
icing. Instead of hiking a couple of miles to the farm house in deep
snow to call the FBO, We took the easy way out. We flew the chopper
back to Frederick, MD. I told Bill at Advanced Helicopters about the
engine out and that I may have oversped the rotors doing the auto. He
said he would have it looked at.

In retrospect, I should have walked to the farm house and had someone
at Advanced Heli with more experience come get the chopper. I was
real stupid to have flown it again that day. Anything could have been
wrong with it. The bearings could have been shot from the overspeed.
I could have been back in the air when it failed.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[Mark T. Mueller]

Isn't this the same kind of bozo that would be the first to sue if he
survived the crash?



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JSmGc.14184$JR4.8572@attbi_s54...
> Whilst supping a cold one with friends at our hangar not long ago, a
> short-lived yet intense summer storm blew through. High winds, heavy
rain,
> and impressive lightning caused us to lower the door a tad, but didn't
deter
> us from our appointed beers.
>
> Right as the storm passed, we watched in amazement as a Skyhawk entered
> downwind for Rwy 12. We all commented how we were glad not to have been in
> that poor shmuck's shoes, and then returned to our conversation.
>
> A few minutes later our hotel courtesy van went zipping past, obviously on
> the way to pick up our wayward pilot. We toasted my night manager as he
> went roaring by, and did it again as he drove back with our new guests, en
> route back to the hotel...
>
> The next morning I sought out our brave and stalwart guests, and was
> surprised to meet a newly minted Private Pilot, off on his first long
cross
> country trip in a rented 172 with his wife. He nonchalantly mentioned the
> "rough ride" into Iowa City, but soon the conversation drifted to local
> attractions and our theme suites.
>
> I then turned my attention to his wife, and asked her how she had enjoyed
> the flight. She confessed that it had been pretty scary, so we started
> giving her the usual pep-talk about how the bumps really aren't anything
to
> worry about, and how turbulence can be bothersome but not really
dangerous.
> We were pretty well along into our speechifying about how safe flying is,
> when she stopped all conversation by saying "Things got pretty spooky when
> we couldn't see anything....I just covered my eyes and couldn't look out!"
>
> We kind of looked at each other, stunned, and asked her what she meant.
>
> She went on to say that about 15 miles out, just past the nearby town (and
> airport) of Tipton, IA, their windshield had gone completely white -- and
> then almost immediately totally black. It was at this point where she
> covered her eyes in fright, and couldn't look.
>
> She then mentioned how her husband had called Cedar Rapids approach, and
how
> they had "given them directions to Iowa City."
>
> Uncomfortable silence followed this revelation, as we realized how close
to
> dying this poor woman had come. Not wanting to scare her any more than
> necessary, I asked what Cedar Rapids had done. She replied that the
> controller had asked what their intentions were, since conditions were
> rock-solid IFR with thunderstorms from their present position all the way
> into Iowa City. She said her husband had announced his intention to land
in
> Iowa City, and that the controller then gave them a vector towards the
> airport.
>
> At this point our hapless pilot piped up about how he had "flown
> instruments" down the heading until they popped into the clear, pretty
much
> right over the airport. This must have been when we spotted him on
> downwind.
>
> I told them both how lucky they were, and left it at that. After all,
they
> were here for a good time, and it wasn't my position as innkeeper to be
> lecturing my guests. In fact, I didn't even mention the "Tipton
Towers" --
> twin TV transmission towers that reach some 1700 feet into the sky right
> near Tipton.
>
> However, this man's complacence in the face of stormy IFR conditions is
> exactly what we all read about in the NTSB reports each month. The guy
> over-flew a perfectly good airport (Tipton) in order to fly head-long into
> the clouds, a thunderstorm, potential death, and (almost coincidentally)
> Iowa City. He had risked his life (and his wife's life) in order to
> penetrate a fast-moving, short-lived storm, just so he could get here in
> time for...dinner?
>
> God was on his side that day. Downright scary, I tell you.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> The freedom to fly is the freedom to put people in danger, the freedom to
make
> mistakes that can kill, and the freedom to make bad decisions.

Yes, but the >passenger's< freedom to fly--or to stay on the
ground--includes the freedom to make an informed choice about the risks
involved, and to know what risks they've actually been exposed to.

> If my passengers had been in serious danger, I would certainly want them
to
> know about it.
> <<
> ... and you would tell them, wouldn't you? (not do do so would be to, as
you
> say, "trick them into continuing to fly
> with me by witholding such critical information from them;")

Yes, of course. Honesty with passengers about their safety takes precedence
over ego and over any desire to have them fly with me again. If the
positions were reversed and I were the unsuspecting non-pilot passenger (or
if someone I care about were some pilot's unsuspecting passenger), I would
certainly hope to be treated with honesty and with respect for my informed
consent. So that's how I would treat others. What could be more basic?

--Gary

[Roger Long]

More likely it would be the wife's family or passenger. If the pilot had
lost control and gone down, I'm sure Cessna (us actually through our cost of
insurance and buying aircraft) would have ended up paying out about
$12,000,000.
--
Roger Long

"Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
...
> Isn't this the same kind of bozo that would be the first to sue if he
> survived the crash?

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JTnGc.31291$7t3.22798@attbi_s51...
> Later in the conversation, however, I did go into my usual spiel about
> spatial disorientation, how my old primary instructor demonstrated it to
me
> (at night, over Lake Michigan, with my panel covered), and how dangerous
it
> is. Hopefully he/she got the message that they were in grave danger.

If his instrument-flying skills are good (and it sounds like they are),
spatial disorientation may have been the least of his worries. CFIT and
extreme turbulence may have been the more serious risks.

> Our attitude and obtuse comments, in combination with his wife's
instinctive
> fear, may have done the job of quietly kicking him in the pants for
> subjecting his wife to such an ordeal.
>
> Or maybe not. It's hard to tell.

Yup. Since the passenger's reaction was to keep her eyes closed, it sounds
more like she judged her fear to be irrational, and was just protecting
herself from the fearful stimulus (much the way some passengers close their
eyes if the plane banks thirty degrees). If she'd really understood the
danger, she'd probably have taken a more purposeful action instead, like
asking for a course reversal or a divorce. :)

--Gary

[Richard Kaplan]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:UixGc.32855$XM6.30813@attbi_s53...

> He's got the "right stuff" -- if he can adjust his attitude.

No.. just dumb luck.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes, of course. Honesty with passengers about their safety takes
precedence
> over ego and over any desire to have them fly with me again. If the
> positions were reversed and I were the unsuspecting non-pilot passenger
(or
> if someone I care about were some pilot's unsuspecting passenger), I would
> certainly hope to be treated with honesty and with respect for my informed
> consent. So that's how I would treat others. What could be more basic?

Let me see if I've got this straight:

You would simply go up to this pilot's passenger -- his wife, mind you --
and *tell her* that she was in grave danger flying with her dunderhead of a
husband?

It's a miracle you've survived as long as you have.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> (Part of me is dumb with admiration for the pilot!)

It's funny -- I didn't want to bring that up, but I feel the same way.

The guy showed extraordinarily bad judgment, followed immediately by a
display of extraordinary skill and courage.

He's got the "right stuff" -- if he can adjust his attitude.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> In retrospect, I should have walked to the farm house and had someone
> at Advanced Heli with more experience come get the chopper. I was
> real stupid to have flown it again that day. Anything could have been
> wrong with it. The bearings could have been shot from the overspeed.
> I could have been back in the air when it failed.

Wow -- great story, Bryan.

Scary stuff, too.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QgxGc.33739$7t3.24958@attbi_s51...
> You would simply go up to this pilot's passenger -- his wife, mind you --
> and *tell her* that she was in grave danger flying with her dunderhead of
a
> husband?

No, of course not. I would just describe, in the abstract, the illegality
and grave danger (even to highly experienced pilots) of flying VFR into IMC,
and of flying in or near thunderstorms. She can then draw her own
conclusions about her spouse.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:bpxGc.33763$7t3.6242@attbi_s51...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:QgxGc.33739$7t3.24958@attbi_s51...
> > You would simply go up to this pilot's passenger -- his wife, mind
you --
> > and *tell her* that she was in grave danger flying with her dunderhead
of
> a
> > husband?
>
> No, of course not. I would just describe, in the abstract, the illegality
> and grave danger (even to highly experienced pilots) of flying VFR into
IMC,
> and of flying in or near thunderstorms. She can then draw her own
> conclusions about her spouse.
>
> --Gary

And by the way, abstractly describing the danger sounds pretty much like
what you did, according to your follow-up post. So I don't think we're in
disagreement here.

--Gary

[Gene Seibel]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<JSmGc.14184$JR4.8572@attbi_s54>...
>
> The next morning I sought out our brave and stalwart guests, and was
> surprised to meet a newly minted Private Pilot, off on his first long cross
> country trip in a rented 172 with his wife. He nonchalantly mentioned the
> "rough ride" into Iowa City, but soon the conversation drifted to local
> attractions and our theme suites.

Just because he didn't confess to you doesn't mean he didn't have the
stuffing scared out of him. I have done a few things in my life that
made a life changing impression on me, but I didn't necessarily admit
them to the whole world immediately, even though I was kicking myself
over and over. Very few of us are totally transparent, especially when
we've just been a big fool. Hopefully that is true in his case.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:UixGc.32855$XM6.30813@attbi_s53...
>
> > He's got the "right stuff" -- if he can adjust his attitude.
>
> No.. just dumb luck.
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com

And you are perfectly correct.

Flying isn't something one can perform realistically over time that
allows you the luxury of "making a mistake" like this one; then be
allowed the luxury of getting your "attitude changed".
It doesn't work that way...at least not in the world I know.
Flying requires a specific discipline that absolutely must be learned
and adhered to without exception in order to survive the experience for
any protracted period of time. Anything less than acquiring this
discipline should be considered a sure path to disaster.
There are many endeavors in this world where you are afforded the luxury
of making bad decisions without terminal consequences; flying should
NEVER be considered one of these endeavors.
You learn the rules; you play by the rules; you can exist safely in
aviation and live a long and happy life. You bend the rules; you make
these bad decisions; and sooner or later; you will be dead!
I'm not saying here that you can't make a bad decision and live to fly
another day. I'm not even saying that you can't do what this pilot did
and fly your way out of it with superior skill. Obviously you can. But
you can also fly your way out with dumb luck!!!
What I AM saying is that although a bad attitude can indeed be changed,
and by all means, we as pilots should seek to do all we can to insure a
bad attitude actually GETS changed; to accept the premise that one can
"change" an attitude that should have been present to begin with, is to
accept a standard that's less than is realistically required to survive
in aviation.
In other words, it's the pilot's bad decision that should be the lesson
here; NOT his skill. The decision was obvious; and provable as being
extremely dangerous to both himself, his passengers, and the people
below him on the ground. His "skill" in extricating himself from the
problem can't realistically be separated from his "luck", and as such
should be totally discounted.
The object lesson here is obvious. Flying absolutely DEMANDS that
REGARDLESS of a pilot's "skill", this type of decision must NEVER be
made.......PERIOD!!!!!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Jay Honeck]

> And by the way, abstractly describing the danger sounds pretty much like
> what you did, according to your follow-up post. So I don't think we're in
> disagreement here.

Agreed, now that you've clarified your recommendations.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Just because he didn't confess to you doesn't mean he didn't have the
> stuffing scared out of him. I have done a few things in my life that
> made a life changing impression on me, but I didn't necessarily admit
> them to the whole world immediately, even though I was kicking myself
> over and over. Very few of us are totally transparent, especially when
> we've just been a big fool. Hopefully that is true in his case.

Good point, Gene. I've been there and done that, too.

I hope this is the case with this guy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gary Drescher]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> What I am advocating is to ensure that any conversations or actions take
place
> with the pilot, either directly or through channels designed for that
(such as
> the Aviation Safety Counselor). Putting the passenger in the equation
will
> only mess things up, as he or she is (generally) not in a position to
> understand the nuances of the decisions being made.

With all due respect, Jose, you seem to be advocating a paternalistic
relationship between pilot and passenger, not unlike the paternalistic
doctor/patient relationship that was typical back in the days before the
importance of informed consent was widely recognized. Particularly in the
situation Jay described, the relevant factors are not particularly nuanced;
with ten minutes of study, the passenger would be able to understand the
situation better than the pilot did. No one has a right to keep the
passenger "out of the equation" in deciding whether flying is worth the risk
to the passenger.

--Gary

[Joe Johnson]

Hi Dudley,

I'm also a newly minted (2+ months) PP-ASEL (about 130 hrs). I've enjoyed
your posts, containing as they do the wisdom of experience and technical
competence, as well as a large dose of common sense. What boggles my mind
is the contrast between my attitude and that of Jay's guest. I won't
venture up in the air when there is any mention of thunderstorms, whether
it's "VCTS" on a TAF or "isolated thunderstorms" on weather.com. I've come
to flying at the relatively late, at 53 years. It's far more enjoyable than
I imagined, and I knew I would love it from years of playing with various
flight simulator programs. I want to be an old pilot, and I agree with you
that the best route to that end is always striving to make the right
decision. I agree with you that flying into a thunderstorm, with safer
alternatives (and almost any alternative is safer) cannot be the right
decision, even if the pilot and aircraft survive. I recently came across a
quote of Chuck Yeager's that "the secret to my success was that I always
managed to live to fly another day." It's something everyone in aviation
could emulate.

--Joe

[Teacherjh]

>>
With all due respect, Jose, you seem to be advocating a paternalistic
relationship between pilot and passenger, not unlike the paternalistic
doctor/patient relationship that was typical back in the days before the
importance of informed consent was widely recognized. Particularly in the
situation Jay described, the relevant factors are not particularly nuanced;
with ten minutes of study, the passenger would be able to understand the
situation better than the pilot did. No one has a right to keep the
passenger "out of the equation" in deciding whether flying is worth the risk
to the passenger.
<<

With all due respect, you seem to be advocating a paternalistic relationship
between the passenger and the rest of the world, where "the people" end up
making decisions on behalf of you and I. By involving the passenger in your
attempt to save this pilot (and others) from himself, you undermine the
opportunity for the pilot to do the same thing himself. It is a bad situation
when the passenger is second-guessing the pilot on all his decisions, and that
is a likely future outcome of such an approach.

It is just as important that when a pilot makes decisions and takes action, he
does so with confidence and authority. (note - I am not advocating macho
foolishness). I have flown with pilots who make perfectly safe decisions, but
fly with so little confidence that they are unsafe. They may know what to do,
but they don't know that they know what to do, and thus they don't do it.

It is far better IMHO to allow the pilot to come to the realization himself,
and to learn the lesson himself, and to inform the passenger himself, rather
than have the pasenger do it for him. In the long run, that would be dangerous
and destructive too.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jim Fisher]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Blanche" > wrote in message
>
> > .....charges of attempted
> > involuntary manslaughter.
>
> "Attempted......... involuntary........ manslaughter"
>
> Think about this.


Perhaps "Reckless Endangerment"?

[Dudley Henriques]

"Joe Johnson" > wrote in message
m...
> Hi Dudley,
>
> I'm also a newly minted (2+ months) PP-ASEL (about 130 hrs). I've
enjoyed
> your posts, containing as they do the wisdom of experience and
technical
> competence, as well as a large dose of common sense. What boggles my
mind
> is the contrast between my attitude and that of Jay's guest. I won't
> venture up in the air when there is any mention of thunderstorms,
whether
> it's "VCTS" on a TAF or "isolated thunderstorms" on weather.com. I've
come
> to flying at the relatively late, at 53 years. It's far more
enjoyable than
> I imagined, and I knew I would love it from years of playing with
various
> flight simulator programs. I want to be an old pilot, and I agree
with you
> that the best route to that end is always striving to make the right
> decision. I agree with you that flying into a thunderstorm, with
safer
> alternatives (and almost any alternative is safer) cannot be the right
> decision, even if the pilot and aircraft survive. I recently came
across a
> quote of Chuck Yeager's that "the secret to my success was that I
always
> managed to live to fly another day." It's something everyone in
aviation
> could emulate.
>
> --Joe

Hi Joe;

Congratulations on doing it, and doing it well. You'll never go wrong
with your attitude.
It's funny you should mention Yeager. I know how he feels about these
things. He has always had that wonderful ability to cut through the bull
crap and get to the meat. He has a great talent to state the obvious
common sense answer to the most perplexing of problems; sort of like the
guy who goes to the doctor, raises his right arm all the way up and
says, "It hurts when I do this".
"Don't do that", says the doctor. THAT'S Yeager to a tee!! :-)
Pilots who fly high performance airplanes for a living, especially those
who have flown them in situations where mistakes can kill, usually tend
to look at these issues the way I've stated them here.
From my point of view as both a professional pilot and as a flight
instructor, it's the ONLY way to look at these issues. In flying, as in
all endeavors where bad decisions can kill you, personal responsibility
is job one!!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Gary Drescher]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> With all due respect, you seem to be advocating a paternalistic
relationship
> between the passenger and the rest of the world, where "the people" end up
> making decisions on behalf of you and I.

Giving someone pertinent information about their own safety constitutes
paternalism, or constitutes an effort to usurp their decision? How in the
world so?

In your initial post, you advocate witholding vital information from the
passenger because you disagree with the decision you fear she might
otherwise make (about her own safety); you don't think she could decide
competently (due to all the nuances) if she were given the information in
question. >That's< paternalism. >That's< usurping another's decision.

> By involving the passenger in your
> attempt to save this pilot (and others) from himself, you undermine the
> opportunity for the pilot to do the same thing himself.

The point I keep making is that the passenger has a right to be "involved"
in saving >herself<. Her right to know what risks she's taking can't be
sacrificed due to a belief (whether accurate or not) that her husband would
respond better to a strategy that leaves her in the dark until and unless he
eventually decides to enlighten her. She should know the danger >before her
next flight<.

I'd >also< be concerned with trying to educate the pilot (or more
accurately, to re-educate him--he can't possibly have gone through the
private-pilot curriculum and the AIM without encountering strong warnings
about flying VFR into clouds, toward nearby thunderstorms). But that's an
entirely separate matter. The passenger is not an appendage to the pilot;
she's a distinct person with a right to make her own informed choices about
her own safety.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JSmGc.14184$JR4.8572@attbi_s54...
> She replied that the
> controller had asked what their intentions were, since conditions were
> rock-solid IFR with thunderstorms from their present position all the way
> into Iowa City. She said her husband had announced his intention to land
in
> Iowa City, and that the controller then gave them a vector towards the
> airport.

I wonder why the controller agreed to vector a VFR plane 15 miles deeper
into the soup and toward thunderstorms, rather than in the opposite
direction. Does ATC just automatically defer to the pilot in such a
situation?

--Gary

[Teacherjh]

>Giving someone pertinent information about their own safety constitutes
>paternalism [...]?

Sometime yes, sometimes no. Turn it around. You just came back from taking
passengers up for a ride, and some jackass goes up to your passengers telling
them how dangerous you are because you [fill in the blank]. To use one example
that spawned a long thread here, you landed at an uncontrolled airport without
saying boo on the radio, and you made a straight in approach. We can even add
to the mix the fact that your airplane is dangerous because it doesn't have a
transponder and this is a busy area, near class Bravo airspace (you in fact did
not enter airspace which requires a transponder).

Makes no difference in this example whether the dangers I'm citing are
equivalent to flying into a thunderstorm. The jackass can make it sound just
as reckless and can certainly alter your passenger's perception of you as a
pilot.

The jackass might even be right. You can get just as dead that way as flying
IMC VFR.

Are you grateful to that jerk for "not withholding vital information from the
passenger" so that they can "make an informed decision" before their next
flight with you?

>I'd >also< be concerned with trying to educate the pilot (or more
>accurately, to re-educate him-he can't possibly have gone through the
>private-pilot curriculum and the AIM without encountering strong warnings
>about flying VFR into clouds, toward nearby thunderstorms

I had an instructor - a CFII - ready to give me a lesson in an airplane whose
wings were not only covered with an inch of ice, but covered with the gnarly
results of an unsuccessful attempt at removing the ice by scraping it off. He
was from Florida, where they don't have much ice, and was newly transplanted to
the Northeast. Sure, all that stuff is in the AIM. Did he really get to be
CFII without ever coming across it? Was this one uneducable?

Go to the source - the pilot - not the passenger. Or have somebody to whom the
pilot will listen (like an aviation safety counsellor) approach the pilot.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Blanche wrote:
>
> I'd also wonder about the CFI that apparently did not impress upon
> this newbie PPL about the dangers of Tstorms.

or about the minimum visibility and cloud clearance requirements for VFR flight.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Gary Drescher]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >Giving someone pertinent information about their own safety constitutes
> >paternalism [...]?
>
> Sometime yes, sometimes no. Turn it around. You just came back from
taking
> passengers up for a ride, and some jackass goes up to your passengers
telling
> them how dangerous you are because you [fill in the blank].

If someone sincerely believes I'm flying dangerously, I don't mind their
telling me and my passengers so. If they're right, then I'm indebted to
them. If they're mistaken, I can explain why to them and to my passengers.
If I'm right but my passengers don't believe me, then they might join the
50% or so of my friends who won't fly in small planes to begin
with--disappointing, but hardly tragic. Only if the objection were
completely frivolous would I have reason to be annoyed at the person who
raised it.(but their transgression still wouldn't be serious, or
paternalistic).

> I had an instructor - a CFII - ready to give me a lesson in an airplane
whose
> wings were not only covered with an inch of ice, but covered with the
gnarly
> results of an unsuccessful attempt at removing the ice by scraping it off.
He
> was from Florida, where they don't have much ice, and was newly
transplanted to
> the Northeast. Sure, all that stuff is in the AIM. Did he really get to
be
> CFII without ever coming across it? Was this one uneducable?

Probably not. It's one thing to have a record of years of safe flying, but
to forget something important that you learned years ago that hasn't been
relevant since then. The CFII just needs to review that particular material,
and also to develop the habit of periodically re-reading the whole AIM.
That's quite different from deliberately flying into clouds and
thunderstorms right after getting a PPL.

But I have no strong opinion as to the educability of Jay's pilot either. As
I said, my point is just that the passenger's right to be informed is a
separate matter.

--Gary

[Jay Honeck]

> I wonder why the controller agreed to vector a VFR plane 15 miles deeper
> into the soup and toward thunderstorms, rather than in the opposite
> direction. Does ATC just automatically defer to the pilot in such a
> situation?

I wondered that, too.

Perhaps in the situation where a VFR pilot has already blundered into
clouds, they just vector him toward an airport as requested?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Teacherjh]

>>
If someone sincerely believes I'm flying dangerously, I don't mind their
telling me and my passengers so.
<<

"me and my passengers" is different from taking your passengers aside to point
out how dangerous you were. Even so, it does put the passenger in the position
of telling the pilot what to do, and this is not a good place to be.

I'm not at all opposed to an educated passenger. I am somewhat against the
attitude that it is up to us to educate other people's passengers "for their
own good". Too much in this world is decided for us "for our own good"
already.

There is a consequence to this. It is the natural consequence of any kind of
freedom.

As to the controller - I didn't hear the entire exchange over the air, but the
controller is there to help the pilot, not to tell the pilot what to do. When
the pilot makes a decision, dumb or not, the controller is there to assist as
best they can. But it's the pilot's job to fly the airplane, not the
controller's.

You see, there's a presumption here that underlies this whole discussion, that
is that WE (you, the controller, the passenger, the guy next door) know better,
and HE (the pilot) needs US to make his decisions for him. But, WE can make
mistakes too, and WE should not be empowered (through the passenger or any
other way) to make mistakes on behalf of the pilot.

In this case, I believe it would not be a mistake to not fly the way he did.
But that's just this case, based on what I read third hand over the internet
newsgroups. But "this case" isn't every case, and this kind of thing comes up
all the time, ranging from outright foolish recklessness to matters of courtesy
for which there is disagreement as to what is appropriate.

I prefer to err on the side of "him who makes the decisions bears the
consequences, and him who bears the consequences gets to make the decisions".
The passenger made the decision to trust the pilot. The consequences are that
the passenger took a risk.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Andrew Gideon]

Teacherjh wrote:

> Too much in this world is decided for us "for our own good"
> already.

I agree with the sentiment you're expressing. However, I see a very clear
distinction between "decide" and "inform".

In fact, I'd opine that informing (or being informed) is a necessary step
in avoiding having others decide.

- Andrew

[Teacherjh]

>> Too much in this world is decided for us "for our own good"
>> already.
>
>I agree with the sentiment you're expressing. However, I see a very clear
>distinction between "decide" and "inform".
>
>In fact, I'd opine that informing (or being informed) is a necessary step
>in avoiding having others decide.

Others are always deciding. You get on an airliner, somebody else is deciding
the routing and altitude. Most passengers have no clue as to why the chosen
routing is good (or not). Some do. You are one of them. So, you see bad
stuff ahead, and go up to the cockpit, knock on the door, and say "excuse me,
don't you see that weather pattern ahead? Lets turn right about ten degrees
and descend to FL320, shall we?" Airline pilots have made errors too, with
tragic consequences. If only the right passenger had told the pilot what to
do, many lives could have been saved.

Others are always deciding. The question is which others should decide, and
why.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> [...] where "the people" end up
> making decisions on behalf of you and I

I hope "Teacherjh" doesn't refer to being an English teacher. :)

> [...]
> It is far better IMHO to allow the pilot to come to the realization
himself,
> and to learn the lesson himself, and to inform the passenger himself,
rather
> than have the pasenger do it for him. In the long run, that would be
dangerous
> and destructive too.

I understand what you're getting at. But I have to disagree with the
application in this case. I'll call it the "spanking principle", after our
friends who explained their philosophy on spanking: if a child is doing
something that would hurt them worse than a spanking would, they get a
spanking.

In other words, yes...it's a good idea to try to allow people to come to
their own conclusions, but when it appears that someone is likely to get
killed (either that person, or someone in their care), it's time to take
more overt action.

Pete

[Teacherjh]

>I understand what you're getting at. But I have to disagree with the
>application in this case. I'll call it the "spanking principle", after our
>friends who explained their philosophy on spanking: if a child is doing
>something that would hurt them worse than a spanking would, they get a
>spanking.

You let the public spank your child if one of them thinks he's doing wrong?

>In other words, yes...it's a good idea to try to allow people to come to
>their own conclusions, but when it appears that someone is likely to get
>killed (either that person, or someone in their care), it's time to take
>more overt action.

My issue is just what "overt action" should be taken, and by whom, and when.
There are enough differing strong opinions even on this piloting newsgroup as
to what constitutes foolish life-threatening risk that I'd be loath to abdicate
my responsibility to my passengers to members of this newsgroup.

You don't like the way I fly, you tell ME. You tell an avaition safety
counsellor to tell me. You put a CFI in touch with me. Focus your energies on
the problem at hand - MY flying. But don't go to my passengers and tell them
what an ass I am in the sky in the name of "protecting the innocent
passengers". This kind of thinking is the same as "save the children" - used
to promulgate so many inappropriate restrictions.

Also, going to the passenger just about presupposes that the pilot is a lost
cause. I disagree with that too... especailly as this is a newly minted pilot
who still has a full bag of luck and an empty bag of experience.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> I wonder why the controller agreed to vector a VFR plane 15 miles deeper
>> into the soup and toward thunderstorms, rather than in the opposite
>> direction. Does ATC just automatically defer to the pilot in such a
>> situation?
> I wondered that, too.
> Perhaps in the situation where a VFR pilot has already blundered into
> clouds, they just vector him toward an airport as requested?

Did the pilot specifically mention to the controller that he wasn't
instrument rated? Just because he was initially flying VFR doesn't mean
the controller is going to assume that he isn't capable of instrument
flight. In addition, I don't think every radar facility has the ability
to display traffic and weather. Probably most do, now a days. I know
that I use to fly IFR with Patuxent approach (Patuxent Naval Air station)
back and forth to Ocean City, and they use to say that they had no enroute
weather information (which is when I bought my stormscope).

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[bryan chaisone]

Yah Jay, I lived and learned. Hope to be able to keep that up.
Someone once said, "I'll take luck over skill any day.".

Bryan "Me too" Chaisone

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<rkxGc.33361$Oq2.17669@attbi_s52>...
> > In retrospect, I should have walked to the farm house and had someone
> > at Advanced Heli with more experience come get the chopper. I was
> > real stupid to have flown it again that day. Anything could have been
> > wrong with it. The bearings could have been shot from the overspeed.
> > I could have been back in the air when it failed.
>
> Wow -- great story, Bryan.
>
> Scary stuff, too.

[Dan Luke]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
> > I'd also wonder about the CFI that apparently did not impress
> > upon this newbie PPL about the dangers of Tstorms.

> or about the minimum visibility and cloud clearance requirements
> for VFR flight.


Neither of my primary instructors ever said anything to me about
t'storms. The first one reviewed VFR weather requirements with me to be
sure I was ready for the knowledge test, but that was it.

This is my pet peeve about flight instruction as I see it being
practiced: at least around here, it's all about the checkride. The
practical day-to-day business of safe flying, i.e. what pilots really
should and should not do to get where they're going alive, gets left
out.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jack Allison]

> quote of Chuck Yeager's that "the secret to my success was that I always
> managed to live to fly another day." It's something everyone in aviation
> could emulate.

Sort of like a saying I've heard my Dad use (and probably several other
military pilots). Not sure of the origins. "There are old pilots and bold
pilots but no old bold pilots". Personally, I want to be an old pilot.

Congrats on the recent PP-ASEL Joe.

Dudley - as usual, great words of wisdom. Thanks for sharing.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[gabriele]

Joe Johnson wrote:

I recently came across a
> quote of Chuck Yeager's that "the secret to my success was that I always
> managed to live to fly another day." It's something everyone in aviation
> could emulate.
>
> --Joe
>
>

Didn't he fly his record flight with broken ribs?
Is that a correct decision?
I believe that was a mistake, but, well, he survived it, probably some
luck in it.

In the case of this thread I would talk to the pilot.
But not to the passenger, He/She might not have the knowledge to
understand and make a decision.

Gabriele

[Maule Driver]

Despite the description below, controllers can't generally detect IMC
conditions at any give point in time or space. If they give the pilot the
relavent info, and the pilot decides to proceed in a given direction, then
they must assume that looks better to the pilot. The exact wording of the
transmissions aren't included.

"Gary Drescher" >
> > She replied that the
> > controller had asked what their intentions were, since conditions were
> > rock-solid IFR with thunderstorms from their present position all the
way
> > into Iowa City. She said her husband had announced his intention to
land
> in
> > Iowa City, and that the controller then gave them a vector towards the
> > airport.
>
> I wonder why the controller agreed to vector a VFR plane 15 miles deeper
> into the soup and toward thunderstorms, rather than in the opposite
> direction. Does ATC just automatically defer to the pilot in such a
> situation?
>

[Rosspilot]

>
>In the case of this thread I would talk to the pilot.
>But not to the passenger,



I agree. The thing is, if this newbie PP DOESN'T get a stern chastisement from
someone he respects (more experienced pilot) he may think what he did is
perfectly OK . . . maybe even standard and normal.

This was his FIRST long cross country, and he needs to know that he did a
foolish and probably illegal thing. If someone doesn't speak to him, how will
he know?





www.Rosspilot.com

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jack Allison" > wrote in
message ...
> > quote of Chuck Yeager's that "the secret to my success was that I
always
> > managed to live to fly another day." It's something everyone in
aviation
> > could emulate.
>
> Sort of like a saying I've heard my Dad use (and probably several
other
> military pilots). Not sure of the origins. "There are old pilots and
bold
> pilots but no old bold pilots". Personally, I want to be an old
pilot.
>
> Congrats on the recent PP-ASEL Joe.
>
> Dudley - as usual, great words of wisdom. Thanks for sharing.
>
> --
> Jack Allison
> PP-ASEL, IA Student

I've always "altered" this saying a bit to read, "There are old pilots,
and there are bold pilots. It's ok to be bold, but not without being
smart. In flying , there are moments when you HAVE to be bold. The trick
is in being smart enough to know the exact instant in time when being
bold is called for!" :-))

Consider the following from my deep dark past :-)

I remember one time; I was out playing some formation acro with a buddy
of mine out over the boonies. Both of us were flying Mustangs. I usually
flew the wing position when we did this.[ I never told John, but I had
this aversion to having that big Hamilton of his that close up my
butt...especially if we had been out the night before!! :-) ] Anyway,
I'm tucked in on his left wing back and down about twenty feet when he
calls for a 4 g loop. I slide back and inside just enough to get a 45
degree paint between my windshield bow mirror and his left wheel well
cover [the position for a vertical maneuver that keeps me from slicing
off his tail section and bending my prop!! ]
Well, I noticed the altimeter was a bit low at the maneuver onset, but
still within parameters for the loop. John calls the maneuver and walks
us up to 4g's. I'm glued on the paint ; holding position. You get a
peripheral view of the horizon holding a position paint in formation
acro. Without taking my eyes off John, I knew he was long and fast over
the top. That wasn't good!! On the way down I felt we were long as well.
The g didn't feel right...it wasn't enough! Anyway, I'm beginning now to
feel the g building at a faster rate than I should be feeling......and
this isn't good either!! We're past vertical and I can see the ground
under his wing. You know that awful feeling you get when you know you
are in too deep? Well I had it right there!!! You mentally do the math
and geometry instantly in these situations. I could see we were going to
make it, but it was going to be close....damn close! I could "feel" that
we had enough g available to make the recovery arc, but being low and
outside, I was committed lower than John in the recovery. He eased us
out with enough room under my airplane to maybe stuff a cow between me
and the ground. Then I notice we're "in" a field with trees at the end
ahead of us. I shouted "Break...Break up!!...Give me some room, quick!!!
" John pulls up just in time for me to go knife edge between two trees
at the end of the field. I swear, I flew between them left wing down,
standing on the right rudder! End of stupid Dudley story! Needless to
say, we had a few beers that night while we went over entry altitudes
and g profiles for pilots who wish to live longer lives! :-))) Ah yes,
the learning curve!!!!! Ain't it wonderful? Sometimes I don't know how I
ever made it this far in life. Somehow, if we're lucky, we sometimes get
another chance in this business, but you can't depend on it. I
reiterate, it's far better to stay out of trouble in the first place!
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> I swear, I flew between them left wing down,
> standing on the right rudder!

That would require a trip to the laundry to wash my drawers. :-)

--
Mike Flyin'8

[Jay Honeck]

> " John pulls up just in time for me to go knife edge between two trees
> at the end of the field. I swear, I flew between them left wing down,
> standing on the right rudder!

All I can say is "wow!"...

Kinda makes flying into the clouds seem pretty tame...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rosspilot]

> remember one time; I was out playing some formation acro with a buddy
>of mine out over the boonies. Both of us were flying Mustangs.



Dudley . . . what a great story! Very glad it turned out as it did, and to
have you tell the story on this group.

www.Rosspilot.com

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
...
> > I swear, I flew between them left wing down,
> > standing on the right rudder!
>
> That would require a trip to the laundry to wash my drawers. :-)
>
> --
> Mike Flyin'8

Funny you should say that!!!!! :-))))))))))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> Neither of my primary instructors ever said anything to me about
> t'storms.

I've always felt that I was lucky enough to find a great primary instructor. She told
me to always stay at least 5 miles away from one and that 20 miles away would be
better.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:PrFGc.1742$WX.1382@attbi_s51...
> > " John pulls up just in time for me to go knife edge between two
trees
> > at the end of the field. I swear, I flew between them left wing
down,
> > standing on the right rudder!
>
> All I can say is "wow!"...
>
> Kinda makes flying into the clouds seem pretty tame...
>
> ;-)

Brings up an interesting comparison; it proves the safety equation.
On one side you have a highly experienced demonstration pilot
extricating himself from a bad situation he should have known better
than to get into, and on the other side we have a new pilot with little
experience doing the same thing. Sort of brings home the point I was
making about decision vs skill or luck.
The lesson here is to take making the right decision EVERY TIME your
mantra!

Hope you guys enjoy Oshkosh. Wish I could go with you. I used to be
there every year when Steve was alive. It was a regular reunion for us
out there. Stay the hell away from that damn gravel pit if it's still
there. I'm still laughing about the day they tried to hold me over that
thing in the Mustang. The guy in the tower told me quite calmly that I
was number 12 to land and that I was to follow the guy in the
"Breezy"!!! I swear I can still close my eyes today and still see that
poor guy ahead of me turning around every few seconds to make sure that
11 foot Hamilton of mine wasn't getting ready to eat his flying easy
chair!! :-))) I was so slow I couldn't see him up there under the nose.
I put down 20 degrees of flaps down and was fishtailing my airplane just
so I could see him tooling along at about 60kts. I couldn't ask for a
360 for spacing either. The sky was black with airplanes all over the
place. I think they were working new people in the portable tower every
fifteen minutes or so as the old ones had strokes and had to be carried
out to the ambulance!!
:-)
I'll tell you true. If you can take a high performance airplane into
Oshkosh and out again without bending anything in the process, the fuzz
should be handing out ATP certificates on the spot.
Have fun out there, and have a coke on me!
Dudley

[Dudley Henriques]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> > remember one time; I was out playing some formation acro with a
buddy
> >of mine out over the boonies. Both of us were flying Mustangs.
>
>
>
> Dudley . . . what a great story! Very glad it turned out as it did,
and to
> have you tell the story on this group.
>
> www.Rosspilot.com

Old French proverb; "Some days you eat the bear, some days he eats you"
On that particular afternoon, the bear was just a bit slow.
I learned a lot about bears that day!!! :-)))
D

[gatt]

Wonder if he was one of those ten-day-wonder pilots.

-c

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JSmGc.14184$JR4.8572@attbi_s54...
> Whilst supping a cold one with friends at our hangar not long ago, a
> short-lived yet intense summer storm blew through. High winds, heavy
rain,
> and impressive lightning caused us to lower the door a tad, but didn't
deter
> us from our appointed beers.
>
> Right as the storm passed, we watched in amazement as a Skyhawk entered
> downwind for Rwy 12. We all commented how we were glad not to have been in
> that poor shmuck's shoes, and then returned to our conversation.
>
> A few minutes later our hotel courtesy van went zipping past, obviously on
> the way to pick up our wayward pilot. We toasted my night manager as he
> went roaring by, and did it again as he drove back with our new guests, en
> route back to the hotel...
>
> The next morning I sought out our brave and stalwart guests, and was
> surprised to meet a newly minted Private Pilot, off on his first long
cross
> country trip in a rented 172 with his wife. He nonchalantly mentioned the
> "rough ride" into Iowa City, but soon the conversation drifted to local
> attractions and our theme suites.
>
> I then turned my attention to his wife, and asked her how she had enjoyed
> the flight. She confessed that it had been pretty scary, so we started
> giving her the usual pep-talk about how the bumps really aren't anything
to
> worry about, and how turbulence can be bothersome but not really
dangerous.
> We were pretty well along into our speechifying about how safe flying is,
> when she stopped all conversation by saying "Things got pretty spooky when
> we couldn't see anything....I just covered my eyes and couldn't look out!"
>
> We kind of looked at each other, stunned, and asked her what she meant.
>
> She went on to say that about 15 miles out, just past the nearby town (and
> airport) of Tipton, IA, their windshield had gone completely white -- and
> then almost immediately totally black. It was at this point where she
> covered her eyes in fright, and couldn't look.
>
> She then mentioned how her husband had called Cedar Rapids approach, and
how
> they had "given them directions to Iowa City."
>
> Uncomfortable silence followed this revelation, as we realized how close
to
> dying this poor woman had come. Not wanting to scare her any more than
> necessary, I asked what Cedar Rapids had done. She replied that the
> controller had asked what their intentions were, since conditions were
> rock-solid IFR with thunderstorms from their present position all the way
> into Iowa City. She said her husband had announced his intention to land
in
> Iowa City, and that the controller then gave them a vector towards the
> airport.
>
> At this point our hapless pilot piped up about how he had "flown
> instruments" down the heading until they popped into the clear, pretty
much
> right over the airport. This must have been when we spotted him on
> downwind.
>
> I told them both how lucky they were, and left it at that. After all,
they
> were here for a good time, and it wasn't my position as innkeeper to be
> lecturing my guests. In fact, I didn't even mention the "Tipton
Towers" --
> twin TV transmission towers that reach some 1700 feet into the sky right
> near Tipton.
>
> However, this man's complacence in the face of stormy IFR conditions is
> exactly what we all read about in the NTSB reports each month. The guy
> over-flew a perfectly good airport (Tipton) in order to fly head-long into
> the clouds, a thunderstorm, potential death, and (almost coincidentally)
> Iowa City. He had risked his life (and his wife's life) in order to
> penetrate a fast-moving, short-lived storm, just so he could get here in
> time for...dinner?
>
> God was on his side that day. Downright scary, I tell you.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Michael 182]

I have new respect for your thunderstorms in Iowa - I was driving back from
Michigan to Colorado yesterday (jammed a throttle cable in Michigan :( , on
the ground during run-up :) ), and mid way through Iowa I hit a storm that
made me stop and pull over while I was driving. Visibility was 0 in an
absolute blackout downpour, punctuated by phenomenal lightning bursts.
Brought a whole new meaning to the "I'd rather be on the ground wishing I
was in the air..." comment.

By the way, stayed at your Inn during the trip East - once again excellent
service, great room. Thanks.

Michael

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JSmGc.14184$JR4.8572@attbi_s54...
> Whilst supping a cold one with friends at our hangar not long ago, a
> short-lived yet intense summer storm blew through. High winds, heavy
rain,
> and impressive lightning caused us to lower the door a tad, but didn't
deter
> us from our appointed beers.
>
> Right as the storm passed, we watched in amazement as a Skyhawk entered
> downwind for Rwy 12. We all commented how we were glad not to have been in
> that poor shmuck's shoes, and then returned to our conversation.
>
> A few minutes later our hotel courtesy van went zipping past, obviously on
> the way to pick up our wayward pilot. We toasted my night manager as he
> went roaring by, and did it again as he drove back with our new guests, en
> route back to the hotel...
>
> The next morning I sought out our brave and stalwart guests, and was
> surprised to meet a newly minted Private Pilot, off on his first long
cross
> country trip in a rented 172 with his wife. He nonchalantly mentioned the
> "rough ride" into Iowa City, but soon the conversation drifted to local
> attractions and our theme suites.
>
> I then turned my attention to his wife, and asked her how she had enjoyed
> the flight. She confessed that it had been pretty scary, so we started
> giving her the usual pep-talk about how the bumps really aren't anything
to
> worry about, and how turbulence can be bothersome but not really
dangerous.
> We were pretty well along into our speechifying about how safe flying is,
> when she stopped all conversation by saying "Things got pretty spooky when
> we couldn't see anything....I just covered my eyes and couldn't look out!"
>
> We kind of looked at each other, stunned, and asked her what she meant.
>
> She went on to say that about 15 miles out, just past the nearby town (and
> airport) of Tipton, IA, their windshield had gone completely white -- and
> then almost immediately totally black. It was at this point where she
> covered her eyes in fright, and couldn't look.
>
> She then mentioned how her husband had called Cedar Rapids approach, and
how
> they had "given them directions to Iowa City."
>
> Uncomfortable silence followed this revelation, as we realized how close
to
> dying this poor woman had come. Not wanting to scare her any more than
> necessary, I asked what Cedar Rapids had done. She replied that the
> controller had asked what their intentions were, since conditions were
> rock-solid IFR with thunderstorms from their present position all the way
> into Iowa City. She said her husband had announced his intention to land
in
> Iowa City, and that the controller then gave them a vector towards the
> airport.
>
> At this point our hapless pilot piped up about how he had "flown
> instruments" down the heading until they popped into the clear, pretty
much
> right over the airport. This must have been when we spotted him on
> downwind.
>
> I told them both how lucky they were, and left it at that. After all,
they
> were here for a good time, and it wasn't my position as innkeeper to be
> lecturing my guests. In fact, I didn't even mention the "Tipton
Towers" --
> twin TV transmission towers that reach some 1700 feet into the sky right
> near Tipton.
>
> However, this man's complacence in the face of stormy IFR conditions is
> exactly what we all read about in the NTSB reports each month. The guy
> over-flew a perfectly good airport (Tipton) in order to fly head-long into
> the clouds, a thunderstorm, potential death, and (almost coincidentally)
> Iowa City. He had risked his life (and his wife's life) in order to
> penetrate a fast-moving, short-lived storm, just so he could get here in
> time for...dinner?
>
> God was on his side that day. Downright scary, I tell you.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Jack Allison]

Nah....I'd be buying a new pair. Easier that way.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jack Allison]

Ah, I like your improved version better Dudley. Thanks for sharing a great
story for illustrative purposes. Do I get brownie points for bringing up
stuff like this from your deep dark past? :-)

I hope you make it back to OSH some year and have a chance to hang out with
folks from the group.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jay Beckman]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
> >
> > Neither of my primary instructors ever said anything to me about
> > t'storms.
>
> I've always felt that I was lucky enough to find a great primary
instructor. She told
> me to always stay at least 5 miles away from one and that 20 miles away
would be
> better.
>
> George Patterson

FWIW...

The Cessna Pilot Course (CPC) which John and Martha King produce reccomends
20+ miles as an "away from/get around" figure and 40+ miles between cells if
you plan to go between (but the suggetion is pretty obvious that they do not
think this would be a good idea.)

IMO, they make it quite clear that if you mess with thunderstorms, very,
very bad things will happen. At least that's the interpretation I'm going
to take to heart.

Having now seen seven years of Arizona "Monsoons" from the ground, I don't
EVER want to see one up close and personal.

Regards,

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot - KCHD
30.7 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

[Jay Beckman]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> I've always "altered" this saying a bit to read, "There are old pilots,
> and there are bold pilots. It's ok to be bold, but not without being
> smart. In flying , there are moments when you HAVE to be bold. The trick
> is in being smart enough to know the exact instant in time when being
> bold is called for!" :-))
>
> Consider the following from my deep dark past :-)
>

Dudley,

I think you win the T-Shirt in the "Been There - Done That" catagory!

WOW!!

And to think, I'm sitting here on an adreniline buzz from a simple local
dual night hop (my first...btw.)

Please Lord, don't ever let me meet "The Bear."

Kindest Regards,

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot - KCHD
30.7 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

[Jay Honeck]

> Hope you guys enjoy Oshkosh. Wish I could go with you.

Well, Dudley, I'd be willing to bet that someone here has an empty seat?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I have new respect for your thunderstorms in Iowa - I was driving back
from
> Michigan to Colorado yesterday (jammed a throttle cable in Michigan :( ,
on
> the ground during run-up :) ), and mid way through Iowa I hit a storm
that
> made me stop and pull over while I was driving. Visibility was 0 in an
> absolute blackout downpour, punctuated by phenomenal lightning bursts.

And this has been a surprisingly quiet spring and summer, weather-wise.
We've had lots of rain, but little convective activity.

We haven't had a tornado warning yet -- which is very unusual.

> By the way, stayed at your Inn during the trip East - once again excellent
> service, great room. Thanks.

Cool -- great to hear!

Hopefully it wasn't while the pool was closed? (Some dolt let their kid
swim wearing a full diaper! Needless to say, we had to shut the pool
immediately, the chemistry went crazy, the water turned a beautiful emerald
green, and there wasn't enough chlorine and clarifier in the world to fix
it. It took us three days -- right in the middle of the holiday weekend --
to get it right again...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ubTGc.40844$Oq2.29771@attbi_s52...
> > Hope you guys enjoy Oshkosh. Wish I could go with you.
>
> Well, Dudley, I'd be willing to bet that someone here has an empty
seat?

I deeply appreciate that, but I'm afraid I'm stuck on the ground this
summer. It seems my "retirement" activities are becoming another full
time job! :-))

Have a great time, and try not to bump your head on a high wing as you
wander through the "isles" out there!! :-))
Dudley

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:04:56 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>Neither of my primary instructors ever said anything to me about
>t'storms. The first one reviewed VFR weather requirements with me to be
>sure I was ready for the knowledge test, but that was it.

I used the Cessna training manual "Cleared for takeoff". It described
thunderstorms in great detail and also mentioned staying away well
away from them. The instructor really did not have to cover the
subject, and didn't, because it's in the manual which I was supposed
to be reading, as well as the CD-ROM's that went with it. When we met
for lessons, the instructor took the floppy on which my progress was
logged from the CD-ROM and downloaded the information to my progress
chart. So he knew I was plowing through the material, I had to in
order to proceed.

Distances are pretty tough for newbies to judge, or at least they are
for me. I could probably tell approximately how close I was to a
thunderstorm by judging what landmark it covers and noting that
distance from me on the sectional or GPS. But just being in the air
and flying around near clouds, it's very hard for me to judge exactly
how close I am to them.

When flying out to Oshkosh in '95, I was in the front seat of a Waco
UPF-7. We were just south of Chicago heading west and waiting to
clear their class B space so we could make our right turn and head
north up Wisconsin.

There was an enormous single cell thunderstorm dumping directly on top
of downtown Chicogo. The enormous white column of rain totally
obliterated the entire downtown area. It looked like Niagra Falls was
pouring down. The anvil top spread out over our line of flight
blocking out the sun. As we looked north at the storm, the sky around
the enormous white column of rain was a dark angry green color and
bolts of lighting were striking the ground all around the center
column of rain every couple of seconds. We just trundled along to the
south watching the show, thinking we were far enough away that we were
safe. Where we were, it wasn't raining, and we were experiencing no
turbulence, for a while. Suddenly the airplane was swatted by a 2.5 G
negative blast that dropped the right wing. The pilot let out a yell
and immediately turned south putting more room between us and the
storm.

These days I would give it more room than that, but I am still not
certain exactly how close we were. I'll just remember what the storm
looked like and how close it seemed and will put the airplane far
enough away to make that picture seem smaller.

We were well under the anvil so perhaps that could be another method
to use: avoid flying under the anvil.

I want to stress that this was an isolated cell, all around the storm
the sky was clear, it wasn't like we were threading our way through a
line of thunderstorms. When we did have a line of storms to
penetrate, we landed and sat them out with the airplane in a
conveniantly empty hangar.

Corky Scott

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> [...]
> We were well under the anvil so perhaps that could be another method
> to use: avoid flying under the anvil.

That's definitely a good rule to include in one's thunderstorm avoidance
protocols.

Even ignoring wind shear, the other problem with flying under or near the
anvil is that that's downwind from the thunderstorm, and frequently that's
where the hail is found, having been blown out the top of the thunderstorm.

Basically, one needs to avoid *all* components of the thunderstorm, not just
the rain.

Pete

[Paul Sengupta]

> wrote in message
...
> We were well under the anvil so perhaps that could be another method
> to use: avoid flying under the anvil.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?I286220C8

Paul

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Dan Luke wrote:
> This is my pet peeve about flight instruction as I see it being
> practiced: at least around here, it's all about the checkride. The
> practical day-to-day business of safe flying, i.e. what pilots really
> should and should not do to get where they're going alive, gets left
> out.

Of course it does -- especially if the instructors concerned are the
time-building type because *this is all they know*. Think how much real
experience an instructor who is on a mission for the airlines -
collecting ratings in the minimum times.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <uXMGc.14340$z81.10547@fed1read01>, Jay Beckman wrote:
> The Cessna Pilot Course (CPC) which John and Martha King produce reccomends
> 20+ miles as an "away from/get around" figure and 40+ miles between cells if
> you plan to go between (but the suggetion is pretty obvious that they do not
> think this would be a good idea.)

Whilst that's very good general advice, you'd probably never fly on a
summer afternoon in Houston applying that standard (or Florida). Some
danger also lies that way too - those who are used to the Gulf Coast
airmass storms might be lulled into not treating the mid-West monsters
with the extreme caution they deserve.

Here, though, we get about 1 thunderstorm every 18 months.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Paul Sengupta]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Here, though, we get about 1 thunderstorm every 18 months.
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man

Ick. We've had three in two weeks here. Was driving up the M3 last week
with lightning flashing all around me. Day before yesterday was fairly bad,
yesterday was also bad. Quite a lot of torrential rain with yesterday's,
virtually all day! Evening was nice but I didn't go flying as the plane
might
have sunk into the runway...

Paul

[Dan Luke]

"Paul Sengupta" wrote:
> > Here, though, we get about 1 thunderstorm every 18 months.

> Ick. We've had three in two weeks here.

Tee-hee! We had three between lunch and dinner yesterday here, as
usual.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Snowbird]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<JSmGc.14184$JR4.8572@attbi_s54>...
> She went on to say that about 15 miles out, just past the nearby town (and
> airport) of Tipton, IA, their windshield had gone completely white -- and
> then almost immediately totally black. It was at this point where she
> covered her eyes in fright, and couldn't look.
<...>
> Uncomfortable silence followed this revelation, as we realized how close to
> dying this poor woman had come. Not wanting to scare her any more than
> necessary, I asked what Cedar Rapids had done. She replied that the
> controller had asked what their intentions were, since conditions were
> rock-solid IFR with thunderstorms from their present position all the way
> into Iowa City. She said her husband had announced his intention to land in
> Iowa City, and that the controller then gave them a vector towards the
> airport.
<...>
> I told them both how lucky they were, and left it at that. After all, they
> were here for a good time, and it wasn't my position as innkeeper to be
> lecturing my guests. In fact, I didn't even mention the "Tipton Towers" --
> twin TV transmission towers that reach some 1700 feet into the sky right
> near Tipton.

Jay,

I understand your reluctance to 'lecture', but I think a comment or two
about a similar situation you were in and what you did, can sometimes
provide large amounts of "positive reinforcement" to do the right thing
next time.

ie, something like "yes, a couple months back there were some fast
moving summer thunderstorms over Iowa City at the end of a trip. It
was frustrating to all of us to land at Tipton and wait it out, but
these kind of storms normally move through pretty fast and we were
able to get back in the plane and press on in about half-an-hour. I
have about 2000 hrs in the air, and a half-an-hour wait is worth it
to me to stay safe for the next 2000"

I think sometimes new pilots run into a few pilots who land under
a tstorm (or for all we know, have a CFI who did something like that
as a 'lesson', but who took the wrong message from it) or do other
risky things, and they think they need to get into a macho cult where
"real pilots" don't worry about pesky things like tstorms (low weather,
icing, you name it).

I think there's a big difference between lecturing and just recounting
your own experiences. I know I've learned a lot sometimes from a
clearly more experienced pilot's calm "well, something like that happened
to me, and this is what I did..."

Best,
Sydney
(who spent 2 hrs sitting in the airport lobby in company with about
10,000 hrs of experience Monday am, while Mother Nature ran the
deluge system)

[Teacherjh]

>>
I understand your reluctance to 'lecture', but I think a comment or two
about a similar situation you were in and what you did, can sometimes
provide large amounts of "positive reinforcement" to do the right thing
next time.
[...]
I know I've learned a lot sometimes from a
clearly more experienced pilot's calm "well, something like that happened
to me, and this is what I did..."
<<

I fully agree. Else what is hangar flying for?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jay Honeck]

> I fully agree. Else what is hangar flying for?

Yep -- hangar flying is where we learn from our gray-headed elders.

Both good and bad things, sometimes, though...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:NgJHc.59969$Oq2.53111@attbi_s52...
> > I fully agree. Else what is hangar flying for?
>
> Yep -- hangar flying is where we learn from our gray-headed elders.
>
> Both good and bad things, sometimes, though...

Sometimes the most important thing you learn from listening to someone
is that they don't know what they are talking about.
There are lessons to be learned on BOTH sides of the "listening coin"
:-))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Snowbird]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<UixGc.32855$XM6.30813@attbi_s53>...
> > (Part of me is dumb with admiration for the pilot!)
>
> It's funny -- I didn't want to bring that up, but I feel the same way.
>
> The guy showed extraordinarily bad judgment, followed immediately by a
> display of extraordinary skill and courage.
>
> He's got the "right stuff" -- if he can adjust his attitude.

I don't know, Jay.

When I was a student pilot, I passed a plane from our flight
school one day. It was parked in a parking lot just off the
interstate highway, in the midst of a highly built-up populated
part of the city.

The guy had safely dead-sticked it into one of the few safe
landing areas along that corridor, avoiding lightpoles and
other obstructions and landing neatly in a very small space.

Do I admire his skill? Yes. On the other hand, luck had a
lot to do with it. Along that VFR corridor under the Class
B, a few minutes earlier or a few minutes later and he would
have been trying to land on a street, or the interstate.

And the reason for the dead-stick landing was fuel exhaustion,
plain and simple, and he'd just overflown several airports where
fuel was available at that hour.

Is that the 'right stuff', I don't know. I guess I feel
judgement is just as much a part of the "right stuff" as
plane control skills, and is harder to teach.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"Joe Johnson" > wrote in message >...
> I'm also a newly minted (2+ months) PP-ASEL (about 130 hrs). I've enjoyed
> your posts, containing as they do the wisdom of experience and technical
> competence, as well as a large dose of common sense. What boggles my mind
> is the contrast between my attitude and that of Jay's guest. I won't
> venture up in the air when there is any mention of thunderstorms, whether
> it's "VCTS" on a TAF or "isolated thunderstorms" on weather.com.

Joe,

Just a comment here. I would never say you're making a "wrong" no-go
decision to stay on the ground (though others have disagreed with me
in the past).

But I will say that it's perfectly possible to fly, and to fly
safely, when there is "any mention of thunderstorms" in the forecast.

It's simply not possible to fly everywhere at any time.

Isolated TS which form as the result of afternoon heating or a
weak front are a case of "See and Avoid". If they form over
your destination, you must accept that your destination is
"destined" to change for the next hour or so. But as long as
you can "see" (ie you are VMC, not IMC), you can avoid.

The weather system to be very careful of is a fast-moving cold
front in unstable air. There, not only can you encounter lines
of thunderstorms, but in the right conditions additional lines
of TS can boil up very very quickly in the outflow ahead of the
front. Including all around you, if you're in the wrong spot.
I've never been "that wrong", but I've ducked and run like a
scared rabbit for the nearest airport away from the front.
Even there, it's a matter of chill out, get some lunch if you
can, and in a couple hours the weather will usually be flyable
after the fireworks have passed through.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your attitude, but
as you continue to fly and start to use your PPL to go places
and do things, hopefully you'll learn that you can stretch your
skills safely in a way which is comfortable for you.

Sometimes I think that pilots hear too strict proscription
"don't fly with any mention of thunderstorms in the forecast".
Then inevitably, sometime they do, and nothing scary happens.
Some of them draw the correct conclusion at this point, and
begin to make more specific restrictions.

Others "toss the baby with the bathwater" and draw the wrong
conclusion that this whole TS danger is highly overrated.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message >...
> Neither of my primary instructors ever said anything to me about
> t'storms. The first one reviewed VFR weather requirements with me to be
> sure I was ready for the knowledge test, but that was it.

Dan, this is really scary. I believe you, but it boggles my mind
that weather never came up as a practical topic of discussion during
prep. for any of your cross countries.

> This is my pet peeve about flight instruction as I see it being
> practiced: at least around here, it's all about the checkride. The
> practical day-to-day business of safe flying, i.e. what pilots really
> should and should not do to get where they're going alive, gets left
> out.

I guess I was lucky, too, in that I had primary CFIs who were 'young
time builders' but who were experienced enough from flying charter,
to do a reasonable job covering practical day-to-day safe flying,
and also to give me leeway to make minor weather mistakes (such as
flying with a cold front approaching) and learn from them.

But there were other CFIs at the same school who were (I thought
even then) fixated on the "letter of the law" over and above common
sense.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Jay Honeck]

> And the reason for the dead-stick landing was fuel exhaustion,
> plain and simple, and he'd just overflown several airports where
> fuel was available at that hour.
>
> Is that the 'right stuff', I don't know. I guess I feel
> judgement is just as much a part of the "right stuff" as
> plane control skills, and is harder to teach.

Running out of fuel is simply never excusable.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:TE%Hc.30325$WX.23000@attbi_s51...
> Running out of fuel is simply never excusable.

Never say never.

Not all fuel exhaustion events are pilot error.

[David Johnson]

In my opinion there are very few of those who instruct - be they
schoolteachers, college professors, or flight instructors - who
are very good at what they do. Those who are are worth their weight
in gold. And when you find one, they are hard as hell to keep
around. That's life.

Also in my opinion, every fledgling pilot needs a mentor - a seasoned
veteran to show him or her the ropes - above and beyond the mechanics
of operating the airplane and preparing for the checkride. Good judge-
ment comes with experience, but it sure helps to have someone who
has seen it all to help you make the right choices.

David Johnson

[Teacherjh]

>>
But as long as you can "see" (ie you are VMC, not IMC), you can avoid.
<<

Well, not quite. VMC is three miles. You want to clear the boomers by at
least ten, more like twenty. IF the vis is a haze layer, you might see the
tops of the CBs from further than the reported vis. But maybe not enough
further.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> But as long as you can "see" (ie you are VMC, not IMC), you can avoid.
> <<
>
> Well, not quite. VMC is three miles. You want to clear the boomers by at
> least ten, more like twenty.

You are highly unlikely to be suffering 3 miles visibility in haze if there
are thunderstorms around. Thunderstorms imply unstable air, while haze
implies stable air. The two are usually mutually exclusive.

If visibility is reduced to 3 miles or lower with thunderstorms around, a
much more likely explanation is rain. And if you're in the rain from a
thunderstorm, you're too close. :)

Pete

[Teacherjh]

>>
You are highly unlikely to be suffering 3 miles visibility in haze if there
are thunderstorms around. Thunderstorms imply unstable air, while haze
implies stable air. The two are usually mutually exclusive.
<<

See it all the time here. OK, not three miles, more like five or six, but
still summer haze with thunderstorms popping up. You can see the tops. Or
more accurately, there are tops that you can see. There may be tops you can't
see - depending on how thick the layer is.

Haze doesn't always imply stable air, it could just imply dirty air.

Jost

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> See it all the time here. OK, not three miles, more like five or six,
but
> still summer haze with thunderstorms popping up.

I don't know where "here" is. However, the few weeks worth of flying I've
done in Florida (over three or four different visits), I frequently saw very
low visibility (3-5 miles) or thunderstorms, but the air movement around the
thunderstorms consistently cleared up the haze near the thunderstorms. As
far as hazy conditions as well as navigable thunderstorms go, I'd expect
Florida to be pretty much the standard by which other regions would be
measured.

I've flown near (but not too near, of course) thunderstorms in a variety of
locales across the US and have never had any trouble seeing the
thunderstorms when I was supposed to be able to.

Who knows? Maybe my experiences are outrageous anomalies, never to be seen
by other pilots. But I've never seen haze that obscured thunderstorms
enough to hide them.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> Who knows? Maybe my experiences are outrageous anomalies, never to be
> seen
> by other pilots. But I've never seen haze that obscured thunderstorms
> enough to hide them.

I don't fly IMC much, but a few times there was 3-5 miles in haze
with isolated thunderstorms. Fortunately the haze "tops" were
about 7000' and my 140 was able to get up there on that summer
afternoon. If I had been going west instead of east I would have
been in the haze and unable to see squat. This particular flight
was KBUF to KBED.

--
Bob Noel

[Snowbird]

(Teacherjh) wrote in message >...
> >>
> But as long as you can "see" (ie you are VMC, not IMC), you can avoid.
> <<

> Well, not quite. VMC is three miles. You want to clear the boomers by at
> least ten, more like twenty. IF the vis is a haze layer, you might see the
> tops of the CBs from further than the reported vis. But maybe not enough
> further.

Good points, Jose'. It was ill-chosen of me to put "VMC" in there,
implying that more than 1 mile visibility (Class G dontcha know)
would do.

In practice, though, around here, I find that even in reported 3-4
mile visibility I can make out the sheer bulk of a building tstorm or
tstorms
further away. They stick up, way up, above the haze layer and usually
the vis in an *upward* direction is pretty good, just like the vis in
a
*downward* direction (usually it's just forward vis which sucks, at
least in our midwestern haze variant). The lightening also is visible
from a long way away, even through haze.

But of course, you're perfectly right that VMC itself is not
sufficient.
If there's an overcast or broken layer above, or if the haze layer is
so
thick that one *can't* see blue sky and clouds at a distance looking
up,
one can't "see and avoid" tstorms and must either stay on the ground
or
have some other means of avoidance.

And yes, we too have seen building tstorms in hazy conditions and
then there's the IMC version, flying along in stratus clouds with
no tstorms in the forecast then Big Iron starts asking to deviate
and all the hair on the back of my neck stands straight up.....

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<TE%Hc.30325$WX.23000@attbi_s51>...
> > And the reason for the dead-stick landing was fuel exhaustion,
> > plain and simple, and he'd just overflown several airports where
> > fuel was available at that hour.

> > Is that the 'right stuff', I don't know. I guess I feel
> > judgement is just as much a part of the "right stuff" as
> > plane control skills, and is harder to teach.

> Running out of fuel is simply never excusable.

I have to disagree with you here. In this particular instance,
it was not excusable. The pilot had flown in a C150 from St Louis
to Indianapolis on 1 tank of gas with a kick-ass tailwind. Then
he turned around and tried to fly the reverse trip, got to the same
point of "time in the tank" and kept going. Right over the top of
three airports which sold fuel and were open at that hour, and under
the 3,000 ft shelf of the Class B in a heavily populated area.

But, as has been discussed here before, there are times when there
are considerable uncertainties in the amount of time the pilot
actually
has in the tanks enroute. There are causes of fuel leak in-flight
(bad
fuel cap gasket, bad sump tank seal), causes of unsuspected fuel leak
on the ground (bad carburetor/mixture screw -- only a few hundred hrs
since OH, too), and causes of fuel burn higher than expected
(inaccurate
tach, colder than usual temps, etc). Then there's the plain ol'
uneven
ground=less fuel than full. Many of these factors can be reduced by
taking pains to maintain the fuel system, by having a calibrated
dipstick to
measure the tanks if they're less than full, by calibrating the
tachometer, by extrapolating the fuel-burn and power charts to colder
temps if necessary, and (drool) by installing a fuel flow monitor.
And
of course by allowing more reserve fuel than the regulations mandate.

But that just reduces -- it doesn't eliminate. And of course, some of
these things are beyond the reach of the typical renter pilot.

Do you fill your tanks and compare your calculated to actual fuel
consumption after every flight? Have you ever looked at your fuel
bill and had that experience of your tummy sinking through your
pelvis then rising into your throat as you realized that you landed
with 1 hr fuel instead of the 2 hrs you calculated/measured/expected,
and that if you'd had to fall back on the "Plan B" you thought you had
fuel for, you too would have become a fuel exhaustion accident?

I remember the day that happened to me, quite clearly. We were on
our way back from a trip to the Bahamas and had flown into SGF to
do an end-around of the storm system which caused "Runway Sunday"
in Detroit. Ironically, the couple with whom we'd flown to the
Bahamas *did* suffer a fuel exhaustion accident, at root caused by
a faulty carb. overhaul combined with torrential rains which washed
away the fuel stains from the leak.

It was as if God had grabbed me by the nape of the neck and shaken
me and said "Watch out...there but by My Grace go you".

Cheers,
Sydney

[Dan Luke]

"Snowbird" wrote:
> Dan, this is really scary. I believe you, but it boggles
> my mind that weather never came up as a practical topic
> of discussion during prep. for any of your cross countries.

My first instructor was a very young time builder; I suspect she knew
very little about the subject herself. She soloed me at 9 hours and I
nearly bent the airplane. (She sure was cute, though!)

The guy who I finished up with is a local cowboy known for his hairy
stunts. He bragged to me that he had taken off in a twin Cessna with
one engine feathered. Once we flew through a cloud at night and he just
laughed: "that's just heavy mist!" Another time we busted a Class C and
he turned off the transponder. At <50 hours I was still having trouble
with landings when he set me up with a "Santa Claus" d. e. and,
presto! -- I was a pilot!

When I look back, it's incredible to me that I was ignorant enough to
believe that there was not something seriously wrong with this picture.
A few weeks as a certificated pilot convinced me I needed more training,
so I started on the instrument rating. My CFII's first job was to teach
me how to land! But even this highly experienced, conscientious guy
spent very little time on practical weather strategies. After I got the
rating, learning the difference between go and no-go weather was
entirely up to me.

> But there were other CFIs at the same school who were
> (I thought even then) fixated on the "letter of the law" over
> and above common sense.

It's really a crap-shoot for a newbie, isn't it? Perhaps Jay's Mr.
Downright Scary has some history that explains his attitude.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Teacherjh]

"here" is the Northeast. Thunderstorms and haze coexist.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
> Maybe my experiences are outrageous anomalies, never to
> be seen by other pilots. But I've never seen haze that
> obscured thunderstorms enough to hide them.

I wouldn't say it's common, but it does happen occasionally here on the
Gulf Coast. The last time I saw it was a couple of months ago. It was
a big disappointment to dive from 10,000 to 2,500 hoping to get a better
view, only to find myself in 3-5 mile soup all the way home. How this
works meteorologically is a mystery to me.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Snowbird]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
> > See it all the time here. OK, not three miles, more like five or six,
> but still summer haze with thunderstorms popping up.

Same here. (I don't recall where "here" is for Jose', but "here"
for me is midwest -- MO, IL, IN, IA and some NE (OH, NY, PA, MA).

> I don't know where "here" is. However, the few weeks worth of flying I've
> done in Florida (over three or four different visits), I frequently saw very
> low visibility (3-5 miles) or thunderstorms, but the air movement around the
> thunderstorms consistently cleared up the haze near the thunderstorms. As
> far as hazy conditions as well as navigable thunderstorms go, I'd expect
> Florida to be pretty much the standard by which other regions would be
> measured.

Not at all! In fact, I think Florida pilots get in trouble if they
use Florida techniques around tstorms in the midwest. In Florida,
isolated/scattered tstorms are pretty much the norm on summer afternoons,
and they are (relatively, by tstorm standards) benign and predictable.
Not as towering, not as much energy, slower-moving. It's pretty routine
for pilots to just thread around them without much thought. In fact I
was startled by how matter-of-fact both ATC and FSS briefers were about
them. Pretty much the same in the Gulf Coast states from what I've
heard. Of course, FL also gets squall lines of tstorms which have
every bit the OOOMPH of their midwestern cousins.

The haze is different too. In Florida, from what I can tell, haze is
associated with high humidity, and yes, stable air, and yes, tstorms
clear it up. In the midwest/NE, haze is more associated with dirty
air and while a good front moving through might clear things up for a
while, isolated tstorms are quite happy to build while it's murky
10-20 miles away.

Anyway, having flown both FL and the midwest, IMO it's not a good idea
to assume that FL is the standard to understand haze and tstorm behavior
elsewhere.

> But I've never seen haze that obscured thunderstorms enough to hide them.

Haze per se, I haven't seen that (yet) either. But if there is a higher
layer, yeah, I've gotten closer than I wanted. Basically, the same
"phony VFR" conditions which make it difficult to see IMC before
you fly into it -- haze thick enough to obscure forward visibility,
esp. if over a layer of mist or gray lake, and a higher layer graying
out the sky.

FWIW,
Sydney

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> "here" is the Northeast. Thunderstorms and haze coexist.
>

Tell me about it. Remind me again why we live here?

[Shirley]

wrote:

>Do you fill your tanks and compare your calculated
>to actual fuel consumption after every flight?

Yes!

>had that experience of your tummy sinking through
>your pelvis then rising into your throat as you
>realized that you landed with 1 hr fuel instead of the
>2 hrs you calculated/measured/expected, and that
>if you'd had to fall back on the "Plan B" you thought
>you had fuel for, you too would have become a fuel
>exhaustion accident?

I finished my x-c's a couple of weeks ago. On the night dual x-c, my instructor
and I took the C152 I'm flying enroute to 8500' MSL to an airport at 5000'
(we're at 1300'). It is hot here, and just getting to 6000 seemed like "I think
I can!" I asked my instructor if the airplane would make it to 8500, and he
said yes, but that it would take a while. It did, and yes, we continued to lean
the mixture as we climbed.

Of course, I *did* all the calculations based on charts in the POH for fuel
burn ahead of time, and even rounded-up a little. According to those
calculations, the trip would take approximately 7 gallons each way (JUST under
an hour away). Figuering generously, 15 gallons for the whole trip, we started
out with 24 usable, should have around 9 gallons upon our return, well over the
45 required minutes extra. Had I been alone, I *would* have refueled at the
destination airport, but he had me land, taxi to run-up, file the flight plan
back and take off again. Another thing I would have done would have been to
stop for a few minutes to sort of "regroup" before the return trip.

Of course the airplane liked making the descent back home much more than the
climb, as did I! After I tied down, I measured, and to my surprise, there were
*2* gallons in the left wing and *3* in the right ... *maybe* the 45 minutes
remaining that we needed to be legal at night in that airplane. Fuel burn on
other trips where I was highest at 6500' enroute was pretty much on target.
Confirmed the saying I've heard so many times: "NEVER pass up an opportunity to
refuel!"

[Snowbird]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<7lTGc.6680$WX.4072@attbi_s51>...
> Hopefully it wasn't while the pool was closed? (Some dolt let their kid
> swim wearing a full diaper!

Why on earth do people do stuff like that? I bet you even have swim
diapers available at cost at the desk, or would give people the wheels
to run into town and buy some.

Bugs me at our local pool. There are big signs posted everywhere
about wearing clean swim diapers in the pool and swimsuits, not
street clothes. But all the time I see kids in regular diapers,
which soak up a couple pounds of water and sag at the legs and
pull the closures loose.

The lifeguards must see it too, but no one says "go get a swim diaper
or get out".

Anyway, hope the rest of your guests this summer have more sense.

Best,
Sydney

[Peter Duniho]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> Not at all! In fact, I think Florida pilots get in trouble if they
> use Florida techniques around tstorms in the midwest.

As far as I'm concerned, the thunderstorms you appear to be talking about in
the midwest are not what I'd call "navigable".

One quite commonly gets unnavigable thunderstorms in both the midwest and in
Florida (though with differing frequency of course), and different
techniques are used, no doubt.

In any case, I'm willing to believe thunderstorms and haze co-exist. I've
just never seen any problems navigating around thunderstorms because of haze
flying VFR.

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> Remind me again why we live here?

I moved here for the money. Had over 18 years at a job that paid well. How 'bout you?

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> >
> > Remind me again why we live here?
>
> I moved here for the money. Had over 18 years at a job that paid well. How
'bout you?
>


Oh yeah, that was it. On the other hand, now I'm doing different things,
not commuting into the city every day...

[Journeyman]

In article <JSmGc.14184$JR4.8572@attbi_s54>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> Whilst supping a cold one with friends at our hangar not long ago, a
> short-lived yet intense summer storm blew through. High winds, heavy rain,
> and impressive lightning caused us to lower the door a tad, but didn't deter
> us from our appointed beers.
>
> Right as the storm passed, we watched in amazement as a Skyhawk entered
> downwind for Rwy 12. We all commented how we were glad not to have been in
> that poor shmuck's shoes, and then returned to our conversation.
[snip]

By coincidence, Jay, you posted this the day I was on my way to your
hotel. We had stopped in South Bend for lunch, and I was looking at
the weather radar. There was a nice curling line of yellow forming
just around Iowa City. It looked like I could fly South around the
line and still get to the night's destination.

Tina's Weather Advice: whenever you're not sure what the weather's
doing, grab a local who seems to have more experience and ask them. So,
I grabbed a corporate pilot we'd been chatting with earlier. He said it
looked like the line would probably extend along the curving track
(rotating around a low, moving NE). Suggested we try going to Peoria
instead (well short of the line) and then getting a weather update
there. That suggestion immediately felt right.

We hung around a little longer. Sure enough, the storm seemed to be
developing the way he was saying. We launched for Peoria, landed there
and got the update. Then stayed there for the night, after a very
smooth ride and only one deviation around a nasty-looking cloud.

I've always felt you can't teach good judgement, but in this case I've
been fortunate enough to have some people point out the general
direction.

I've valued the good avice I've gotten. I think it's worth the effort
to *tactfully* point out a newbie pilot's flawed reasoning. Maybe he
didn't know better, maybe he did but got in over his head and didn't
want to admit it. It's still worth discussing.


Morris (hoping to stop by on the return trip next week)

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

> >>
> You are highly unlikely to be suffering 3 miles visibility in haze if there
> are thunderstorms around. Thunderstorms imply unstable air, while haze
> implies stable air. The two are usually mutually exclusive.
> <<
>
> See it all the time here. OK, not three miles, more like five or six, but
> still summer haze with thunderstorms popping up. [...]

This disagreement may be explained by unintentional conflation of
haze (HZ) and mist (BR). Only the former is rare in unstable air.


- FChE

[Journeyman]

In article t>, Dudley Henriques wrote:
[snip]

Wise words, Dudley. Have I mentioned how glad I am to have people like
you around here?


Morris

[Journeyman]

In article et>, Dudley Henriques wrote:

[snip story about formation flying]

I've heard about a wing man on a formation flight that went under a
bridge. Lead pilot says to wing pilot, "you were brave to follow me
under the bridge". Wing pilot says, "what bridge?"


> reiterate, it's far better to stay out of trouble in the first place!

It's far to late for that ;-)


Morris

[Journeyman]

In article . net>, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> Sometimes the most important thing you learn from listening to someone
> is that they don't know what they are talking about.
> There are lessons to be learned on BOTH sides of the "listening coin"

Yeah, but sometimes it isn't immediately obvious who's who. I've been
wrong dissmissing people who turned out not to be idiots, and wrong
taking the word of people who turned out to be. In the end, time does
tell, though.


Morris