Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I use ?

[Roy N5804F]

I have started another thread to get a consensus of opinion about what
navigation equipment I will be allowed to use on my instrument check ride.

Recently I installed in the Archer a complete new Garmin left stack
including the GNS530.
I kept one of the old KX170B's [repositioned] and its glideslope indicator
so that I have dual ILS & VOR systems.
I also kept the Flybuddy Loran which I intend to replace with a slide in GPS
replacement to act as another backup.
The ADF went to a new home via eBay.
The aircraft has a Century IIB AP which is now interfaced with a new GDC31
roll steering unit to the 530.
So just like magic, the bird now flies any programmed route that is active
in the 530 including handling horizontal guidance for the missed approach.

Now after flying the aircraft for quite a few IFR training flight plans I am
reasonably sharp in using the new equipment in IMC and flying with it "in
the system".
I am pretty ok using the Century IIB to fly coupled approaches with the
KX170B and coupled VOR radial intercepts.
So with or without the roll steering equipment I am reasonably comfortable
using any or all of the equipment available.

Now comes my question, what will I be allowed to use on my instrument
checkride ?
I am assuming that the examiner will want the 530 switched off at some stage
for at least one ILS approach, while using the KX170B + GS Indicator ?

Thanks
Roy

[Thomas Borchert]

Roy,

> Now comes my question, what will I be allowed to use on my instrument
> checkride ?

The FAA has recently changed its attitude on this. The key point is that you
will have to be able to use everything that's there. So you need to be
proficient in autopilot and Garmin use. OTOH, the examiner can declare broken
whichever equipment he wants to. That depends a lot on the mindset of the
examiner, and your CFII should be familiar with the quirks of the examiners in
the area.

> I am assuming that the examiner will want the 530 switched off at some stage
> for at least one ILS approach, while using the KX170B + GS Indicator ?

I guess so, too. OTOH, mine (in Germany) wouldn't let me program the 430 for
the approach, but he would still allow me to have the simple map display with
ground speed and track (yeah!).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roy Smith]

"Roy N5804F" > wrote:
> Recently I installed in the Archer a complete new Garmin left stack
> including the GNS530.
> I kept one of the old KX170B's [repositioned] and its glideslope indicator
> so that I have dual ILS & VOR systems.

Sounds like a good plan.

> Now comes my question, what will I be allowed to use on my instrument
> checkride?

The rules allow the examiner to ask you to demonstrate that you can use
anything that's in the airplane. You should be prepared to fly everything
in the PTS both with and without the A/P. You should be prepared to fly
everything that's possible to fly with the GPS turned off.

> I am assuming that the examiner will want the 530 switched off at some stage
> for at least one ILS approach, while using the KX170B + GS Indicator ?

You didn't mention a marker beacon receiver, but I assume you've got one of
those (they're often built into audio panels). The KX-170 and a marker
beacon receiver should be enough to enable you to fly an ILS (certainly if
you're vectored to final).

Be prepared to answer questions about when your GPS can legally substitute
for other navaids (such as DME or ADF). Many ILSs have notes like "ADF
required". Your 530 can substitute for the ADF on an ILS, but if the 530
is failed, you can't fly legally fly an "ADF Required" ILS with just the
KX-170.

Understand what PIC emergency authority allows you to do. A reasonable
answer to "can we legally fly this [AFD-required ILS] approach with just
the KX-170?" might be something like, "No, except in an emergency. As a
practical matter, the ADF is only needed for the missed. In an emergency,
I would just ask the controller for alternate missed instructions before I
began the approach".

If he asks you to fly an ILS with both radios working, he will expect you
to dial the localizer freq into the KX-170 as a backup and monitor both
CDIs during the approach.

If I was giving you a checkride with the set of equipment you described, I
would ask you to fly:

1) An ILS with everything working, vectors to final, hand-flown.

2) A GPS approach with everything working, autopilot, full approach.

3) A partial-panel (i.e. DG and AI failed) VOR approach with just the two
VOR receivers (i.e. the NAV portion of the 530 and the KX-170), hand flown,
full approach.

Somewhere over the course of the checkride, I would want you to demonstrate
to me a couple of different A/P modes (i.e. roll steering engaged or
disengaged, heading only mode, nav mode, etc) to make sure you understand
how they all work. Once I was convinced you understood how the box worked,
I would probably have you disengage it for most of the rest of the
checkride. I would expect you to demonstrate to me that you understand its
various failure modes and can recover from some of them. I would expect to
see you running the pre-flight A/P checks per the checklist.

[Ron Natalie]

Roy N5804F wrote:
quipment available.
>
> Now comes my question, what will I be allowed to use on my instrument
> checkride ?
> I am assuming that the examiner will want the 530 switched off at some stage
> for at least one ILS approach, while using the KX170B + GS Indicator ?
>
While things can mysterious fail at any time, you should be prepared
to use everything in the plane.

I got to use my moving map (the only thing that failed was the AI
and the HSI) throughout the checkride. I used the autopilot for
the holding pattern up to the procedure turn on the first approach
and then he requested I hand fly from then on.

After the stickies came on during unusual attitudes, he had me
go fly the GPS approach partial panel. Of course the GPS feeds
my HSI, but it's as easy following the purple line on the map
just zoom it up. He even suggested that I could use the autopilot
if I knew how to make it work in that regime (which I did for a
while, but it was so gusty that the thing was hunting all over
the course, so we decided I could do a better job handflying it).

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Do they still require single VOR holds be demonstrated? I'd expect the
autopilot to be declared INOP as soon as the prop turns; it isn't
required equipment for IFR operations on a Dakota. If the instructor
spent more than an hour on showing how the autopilot coupling system
works, then something is wrong. Students aren't encouraged to use
coupled autopilots during training are they?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Borchert ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:29 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
> ?
> Subject: Re: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?
>
> Roy,
>
> > Now comes my question, what will I be allowed to use on my
instrument
> > checkride ?
>
> The FAA has recently changed its attitude on this. The key point is
that
> you
> will have to be able to use everything that's there. So you need to be
> proficient in autopilot and Garmin use. OTOH, the examiner can declare
> broken
> whichever equipment he wants to. That depends a lot on the mindset of
the
> examiner, and your CFII should be familiar with the quirks of the
> examiners in
> the area.
>
> > I am assuming that the examiner will want the 530 switched off at
some
> stage
> > for at least one ILS approach, while using the KX170B + GS Indicator
?
>
> I guess so, too. OTOH, mine (in Germany) wouldn't let me program the
430
> for
> the approach, but he would still allow me to have the simple map
display
> with
> ground speed and track (yeah!).
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Roy,

> . I would expect to
> see you running the pre-flight A/P checks per the checklist.
>

Ah, here's a question I have: Would you do/expect the full check
including engaging the A/P on the ground and watching the servos do
their thing when you turn the DG or the OBS? Or would the A/P internal
test routine (I'm thinking of the S-TEC 50 here) suffice?

Thansk!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Roy,
>
> > . I would expect to
> > see you running the pre-flight A/P checks per the checklist.
> >
>
> Ah, here's a question I have: Would you do/expect the full check
> including engaging the A/P on the ground and watching the servos do
> their thing when you turn the DG or the OBS? Or would the A/P internal
> test routine (I'm thinking of the S-TEC 50 here) suffice?
>
> Thansk!

The FAA is very into checklists. Do whatever the checklist that came with
the A/P says.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> If the instructor
> spent more than an hour on showing how the autopilot coupling system
> works, then something is wrong.

I think you got that wrong. What could be better than to learn about
autopilot use from an instructor. Would you prefer to have the student
figure it out on his own? Why?

> Students aren't encouraged to use
> coupled autopilots during training are they?

As I said: The FAA's attitude on that has changed, and rightly so,
IMHO. They adapt to the fact that more and more GA planes have
autopilots, and that many accidents could be prevented if only the
pilots knew how to use them beyond "hold the plane straight and level"
mode. The Kennedy accident comes to mind as a perfect example.

So, to answer your question: Yes, in a current training environment,
students are encouraged to ALSO use coupled autopilots during training,
if the aircraft is so equipped. I said "also", as in: in addition to
hand flying. The FAA requires you to be able to use all eqipment in the
aircraft and the PTS calls for a focus on autopilot usage if the plane
is so equipped.

IFR flying is not a macho contest about who can fly in the soup with
the fewest instruments...

FWIW, here in Germany, single pilot IFR requires an operational
two-axis autopilot. One of the few country-specific regulations here
that make sense to me.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Roy,

> The FAA is very into checklists. Do whatever the checklist that came with
> the A/P says.
>

I can do that ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Hamish Reid]

In article <000401c713bf$cfcd0670$8202a8c0@omnibook6100>,
"Jim Carter" > wrote:

> Do they still require single VOR holds be demonstrated? I'd expect the
> autopilot to be declared INOP as soon as the prop turns; it isn't
> required equipment for IFR operations on a Dakota.

It may not be required equipment, but if you turn up for the checkride
with one installed and not INOP, I'll bet the DE will ask to see you use
it. My own checkride (a few years ago) was done in a spiffy new 172SP
with IFR GPS and coupled autopilot, and you can be damn sure the DE made
me do a coupled approach with it (GPS approach, actually) and show that
I knew all the failure modes and how to cope with them as well as how to
use the various AP modes. Since my instructor had spent some time
showing me this and encouraging me to fly with it coupled (as well as
uncoupled, of course), I was well-prepared.

> If the instructor
> spent more than an hour on showing how the autopilot coupling system
> works, then something is wrong. Students aren't encouraged to use
> coupled autopilots during training are they?

I'd hope so... Nowadays I fly mostly AP-installed aircraft and am damn
thankful my instructor stressed its use.

Hamish

[Ray]

Roy N5804F wrote:
> Now after flying the aircraft for quite a few IFR training flight plans I am
> reasonably sharp in using the new equipment in IMC and flying with it "in
> the system".
> I am pretty ok using the Century IIB to fly coupled approaches with the
> KX170B and coupled VOR radial intercepts.
> So with or without the roll steering equipment I am reasonably comfortable
> using any or all of the equipment available.
>
> Now comes my question, what will I be allowed to use on my instrument
> checkride ?
> I am assuming that the examiner will want the 530 switched off at some stage
> for at least one ILS approach, while using the KX170B + GS Indicator ?
>
> Thanks
> Roy

Note that the new Instrument PTS *requires* the use of the autopilot (if
installed an operable) during one of the non-precision approaches. The
PTS also says that 'the applicant must demonstrate GPS approach
proficiency when asked' - which pretty much all but requires you to do a
GPS approach. Apparently a common failure point these days on
instrument checkrides is improper use of the GPS during a GPS approach
(GPS not in approach mode, etc.).

This is copied directly from the instrument PTS:

"The applicant is expected to utilize an autopilot and/or flight
management system (FMS), if properly installed, during the instrument
practical test to assist in the management of the aircraft. The examiner
is expected to test the applicant’s knowledge of the systems that are
installed and operative during the oral and flight portions of the
practical test. The applicant will be required to demonstrate the use of
the autopilot and/or FMS during one of the nonprecision approaches.
If the practical test is conducted in the aircraft, and the aircraft has
an operable and properly installed GPS, the applicant must demonstrate
GPS approach proficiency when asked. If the applicant has contracted for
training in an approved course that includes GPS training in the system
that is installed in the airplane/simulator/FTD and the
airplane/simulator/FTD used for the checking/testing has the same system
properly installed and operable, the applicant must demonstrate GPS
approach proficiency. When a practical test is conducted for a 14 CFR
part 135 operator, the operator’s approved training program is the
controlling authority."


- Ray

[Nathan Young]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:57:17 GMT, "Roy N5804F"
> wrote:

>
>I have started another thread to get a consensus of opinion about what
>navigation equipment I will be allowed to use on my instrument check ride.
>
>Recently I installed in the Archer a complete new Garmin left stack
>including the GNS530.
>I kept one of the old KX170B's [repositioned] and its glideslope indicator
>so that I have dual ILS & VOR systems.
>I also kept the Flybuddy Loran which I intend to replace with a slide in GPS
>replacement to act as another backup.
>The ADF went to a new home via eBay.
>The aircraft has a Century IIB AP which is now interfaced with a new GDC31
>roll steering unit to the 530.
>So just like magic, the bird now flies any programmed route that is active
>in the 530 including handling horizontal guidance for the missed approach.
>
>Now after flying the aircraft for quite a few IFR training flight plans I am
>reasonably sharp in using the new equipment in IMC and flying with it "in
>the system".
>I am pretty ok using the Century IIB to fly coupled approaches with the
>KX170B and coupled VOR radial intercepts.
>So with or without the roll steering equipment I am reasonably comfortable
>using any or all of the equipment available.
>
>Now comes my question, what will I be allowed to use on my instrument
>checkride ?
>I am assuming that the examiner will want the 530 switched off at some stage
>for at least one ILS approach, while using the KX170B + GS Indicator ?

I think this is pretty much up to the examiner.

On my checkride, I was allowed the full use of the radio panel the
entire flight. In my case, Garmin 295, KX155 + GS, KX170 + LOC, ADF,
LORAN, DME.

I have a wing-leveler type AP, and was never requested to use it, nor
did I ask to use it.

-Nathan

[Robert Chambers]

Any nav gear in the plane you can be expected to be ASKED to use it,
conversely any NAV gear you have in the plane can be unexpectedly failed
by the DE and you will need to resort to other options.

Nathan Young wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:57:17 GMT, "Roy N5804F"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I have started another thread to get a consensus of opinion about what
>>navigation equipment I will be allowed to use on my instrument check ride.
>>
>>Recently I installed in the Archer a complete new Garmin left stack
>>including the GNS530.
>>I kept one of the old KX170B's [repositioned] and its glideslope indicator
>>so that I have dual ILS & VOR systems.
>>I also kept the Flybuddy Loran which I intend to replace with a slide in GPS
>>replacement to act as another backup.
>>The ADF went to a new home via eBay.
>>The aircraft has a Century IIB AP which is now interfaced with a new GDC31
>>roll steering unit to the 530.
>>So just like magic, the bird now flies any programmed route that is active
>>in the 530 including handling horizontal guidance for the missed approach.
>>
>>Now after flying the aircraft for quite a few IFR training flight plans I am
>>reasonably sharp in using the new equipment in IMC and flying with it "in
>>the system".
>>I am pretty ok using the Century IIB to fly coupled approaches with the
>>KX170B and coupled VOR radial intercepts.
>>So with or without the roll steering equipment I am reasonably comfortable
>>using any or all of the equipment available.
>>
>>Now comes my question, what will I be allowed to use on my instrument
>>checkride ?
>>I am assuming that the examiner will want the 530 switched off at some stage
>>for at least one ILS approach, while using the KX170B + GS Indicator ?
>
>
> I think this is pretty much up to the examiner.
>
> On my checkride, I was allowed the full use of the radio panel the
> entire flight. In my case, Garmin 295, KX155 + GS, KX170 + LOC, ADF,
> LORAN, DME.
>
> I have a wing-leveler type AP, and was never requested to use it, nor
> did I ask to use it.
>
> -Nathan
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Tom, et al,
I'm not advocating against autopilots at all, but I am
suggesting that the student should not learn to rely on an autopilot. A
check ride should test the student's ability to handle emergency
situations. If the student can handle the emergency by demonstrating
proper understanding, technique, and execution of the procedures you can
rest assured he or she can handle the tasks when everything is spinning
properly.

I would be surprised if it took more than an hour in the
aircraft to demonstrate the proper procedures for using an autopilot,
hence my statement about it taking more than an hour. An autopilot is
one of those things where a lot of classroom work and mockup work can be
done to really reduce the time spent in the aircraft.

I have never been in favor of a student making extensive use of
autopilots during training because it relieves them of a lot of the
multitasking work. Practicing workload management when things aren't all
there to help the student is one of the benefits of having an instructor
in the other seat. Learning instrument flying by spending more than just
a little time coupled to the box is not the best use of the student's
time or the instructor's skills.

I don't agree with Germany's regulations on single-pilot IFR
operations, but those decisions are often made for political
expediencies. Single-pilot IFR is not an unmanageable task if the pilot
understands his or her limitations, the limitations of the equipment
being used, and has a reasonable set of personal minimums. Taking these
decisions away from the pilot by mandating use of a 2-axis autopilot may
be popular, but should not be necessary.

Demonstrating that a student can fly a typically one-hour check
ride by hand is not a macho task. There will typically not be more than
one or two holds, three or four approaches, and some partial panel
unusual attitudes. Although a typical instrument flight won't involve
all of these elements in a one-hour period, this scenario is still very
real world.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Borchert ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:26 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
> ?
> Subject: Re: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?
>
> Jim,
>
> > If the instructor
> > spent more than an hour on showing how the autopilot coupling system
> > works, then something is wrong.
>
> I think you got that wrong. What could be better than to learn about
> autopilot use from an instructor. Would you prefer to have the student
> figure it out on his own? Why?
>
> > Students aren't encouraged to use
> > coupled autopilots during training are they?
>
> As I said: The FAA's attitude on that has changed, and rightly so,
> IMHO. They adapt to the fact that more and more GA planes have
> autopilots, and that many accidents could be prevented if only the
> pilots knew how to use them beyond "hold the plane straight and level"
> mode. The Kennedy accident comes to mind as a perfect example.
>
> So, to answer your question: Yes, in a current training environment,
> students are encouraged to ALSO use coupled autopilots during
training,
> if the aircraft is so equipped. I said "also", as in: in addition to
> hand flying. The FAA requires you to be able to use all eqipment in
the
> aircraft and the PTS calls for a focus on autopilot usage if the plane
> is so equipped.
>
> IFR flying is not a macho contest about who can fly in the soup with
> the fewest instruments...
>
> FWIW, here in Germany, single pilot IFR requires an operational
> two-axis autopilot. One of the few country-specific regulations here
> that make sense to me.
>
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Autopilots do not take a degree in astrophysics to operate. That being
said, I also made the point that an hour or so of instruction "in the
aircraft" should be sufficient.

I believe the DE will expect the candidate to demonstrate knowledge of
all of the systems on board. I also think the student should not spend a
great deal of time during training "in the aircraft" coupled to an
autopilot. The purpose of autopilots is to reduce cockpit workload.
Students should experience their highest level of cockpit workload
during training, and should not be using the autopilot for much at all
once they have demonstrated they understand its operation.

It is a whole lot easier to learn how to use an autopilot than to learn
how to manage the cockpit workload after it breaks in the soup. That's
my only point.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hamish Reid ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:33 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
> ?
> Subject: Re: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?
>
> In article <000401c713bf$cfcd0670$8202a8c0@omnibook6100>,
> "Jim Carter" > wrote:
>
> > Do they still require single VOR holds be demonstrated? I'd expect
the
> > autopilot to be declared INOP as soon as the prop turns; it isn't
> > required equipment for IFR operations on a Dakota.
>
> It may not be required equipment, but if you turn up for the checkride
> with one installed and not INOP, I'll bet the DE will ask to see you
use
> it. My own checkride (a few years ago) was done in a spiffy new 172SP
> with IFR GPS and coupled autopilot, and you can be damn sure the DE
made
> me do a coupled approach with it (GPS approach, actually) and show
that
> I knew all the failure modes and how to cope with them as well as how
to
> use the various AP modes. Since my instructor had spent some time
> showing me this and encouraging me to fly with it coupled (as well as
> uncoupled, of course), I was well-prepared.
>
> > If the instructor
> > spent more than an hour on showing how the autopilot coupling system
> > works, then something is wrong. Students aren't encouraged to use
> > coupled autopilots during training are they?
>
> I'd hope so... Nowadays I fly mostly AP-installed aircraft and am damn
> thankful my instructor stressed its use.
>
> Hamish

[A Lieberma]

Nathan Young > wrote in
:

> I think this is pretty much up to the examiner.
>
> On my checkride, I was allowed the full use of the radio panel the
> entire flight. In my case, Garmin 295, KX155 + GS, KX170 + LOC, ADF,
> LORAN, DME.

Pleasantly surprised you were allowed to use the Garmin 295 since it's not
certified for IFR flight. To me, it's a great supplement for situational
awareness, which I'd suspect your examiner felt the same way for he / she
to allow you to use it?

I didn't have an ADF in my plane, just ILS and DME, so all I could do at
the time was ILS, LOC and VOR approaches.

In my check ride, I was asked to do a VOR, ILS and a back course localizer
approach. My partial panel was a VOR approach in which my DE allowed
(encouraged) the use of my VFR Garmin for assistance in the ground track.

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Carter writes:

> Demonstrating that a student can fly a typically one-hour check
> ride by hand is not a macho task. There will typically not be more than
> one or two holds, three or four approaches, and some partial panel
> unusual attitudes. Although a typical instrument flight won't involve
> all of these elements in a one-hour period, this scenario is still very
> real world.

One could argue that any IFR flight without an operational autopilot
is an emergency, in which case the only type of IFR flight that one
would need to verify without autopilot would be landing at the nearest
airport. Although it apparently is not done this way in most
jurisdictions now, I can see the logic in doing so. Essentially it
would amount to little more than increasing the number of functional
instruments required for IFR flight.

I don't personally agree with legislating this, but basing testing on
this assumption isn't necessarily unreasonable.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mxsmanic ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 6:23 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
> ?
> Subject: Re: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?
>
> Jim Carter writes:
>
> > Demonstrating that a student can fly a typically one-hour check
> > ride by hand is not a macho task. There will typically not be more
than
> > one or two holds, three or four approaches, and some partial panel
> > unusual attitudes. Although a typical instrument flight won't
involve
> > all of these elements in a one-hour period, this scenario is still
very
> > real world.
>
> One could argue that any IFR flight without an operational autopilot
> is an emergency, in which case the only type of IFR flight that one
> would need to verify without autopilot would be landing at the nearest
> airport. Although it apparently is not done this way in most
> jurisdictions now, I can see the logic in doing so.
>

One could argue that posting opinions of IFR requirements should require
significant real, IFR experience too.

It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single nav
radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map or
GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about the
lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
experience with them.

Of course everyone must know their personal and equipment limitations. I
just have a problem with setting the limits based on the least competent
-- sort of like my problem with our public schools teaching to the
lowest common denominator rather than expecting excellence as the
standard.

I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that landing
at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any situation.
Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often get
you someplace better than the closest airport. It always makes more
sense to plan and execute a solution rather than just jumping to
conclusions based on what the least skilled have decided we should do.

An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment for
IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.


>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Carter writes:

> It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
> accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single nav
> radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map or
> GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about the
> lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
> experience with them.

It's not so much that they are unsafe as that they are unnecessary.

Maybe you could fly a 747 across the country with just a compass and a
map. I don't see any technical obstacle to it offhand. But would you
really want to, when there are so many technical aids to safe
navigation? If all the fancy gadgets fail, is it better to cancel the
flight until the gadgets are fixed, or press on with just the compass?

People lived with simpler instrumentation. But more of them died,
too. Why take the risk?

Indeed, you don't really _need_ IFR. People used to fly without it.
They used to fly without ATC. A lot of the time they survived.
Sometimes they didn't. The current opinion, though, is that the
losses were unacceptably high in those days, and so the risks that
were accepted then cannot be accepted now.

> I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that landing
> at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any situation.
> Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often get
> you someplace better than the closest airport.

Better in what sense? With a failing engine, how could a distant
airport be better than a nearby airport? A lot of pilots die because
they want someplace "better" than the nearest airport, and then their
luck runs out before they find that ideal spot.

> It always makes more sense to plan and execute a solution rather
> than just jumping to conclusions based on what the least skilled
> have decided we should do.

I try to follow the path of least risk. Or more specifically, I try
to manage the risk/benefit ratio. It's hard to see the benefit of
staying in the air with a bad engine. What's wrong with landing and
fixing the problem?

> An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment for
> IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.

I don't think anyone should be compelled to use an autopilot if he's
flyingon his own. However, I would want an autopilot for IFR flight,
otherwise--at least in my estimation--the aircraft really isn't
suitable for IFR flight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Whiting]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Carter writes:
>
>
>>Demonstrating that a student can fly a typically one-hour check
>>ride by hand is not a macho task. There will typically not be more than
>>one or two holds, three or four approaches, and some partial panel
>>unusual attitudes. Although a typical instrument flight won't involve
>>all of these elements in a one-hour period, this scenario is still very
>>real world.
>
>
> One could argue that any IFR flight without an operational autopilot
> is an emergency, in which case the only type of IFR flight that one
> would need to verify without autopilot would be landing at the nearest
> airport. Although it apparently is not done this way in most
> jurisdictions now, I can see the logic in doing so. Essentially it
> would amount to little more than increasing the number of functional
> instruments required for IFR flight.

Sure, ignorant people make all sorts of stupid arguments.

Matt

[A Lieberma]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in news:000901c7141a$5c8da380
$8202a8c0@omnibook6100:

> It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
> accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single
nav
> radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map or
> GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about
the
> lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
> experience with them.

It's not the equipment that's the weak link in the safety factor MOST of
the time.....

It's the human factor addressing the extra workload and undivided
attention that's the weak link in the safety of single engine, night IFR,
or hard IFR operations.

I have done both hard IFR with and without an IFR certified GPS.
Obviously a successful outcome for both situations, but given my
druthers, GPS direct sure is easier then flying VOR to VOR.

> Of course everyone must know their personal and equipment limitations.

And this is where lies the safety of IFR or any type of flying we do.

Equipment failures happen, but more often then not, it's the human error
that bites us in the rear end.

> I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that
landing
> at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any situation.
> Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often get
> you someplace better than the closest airport.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with the above having been through a
partial engine failure.

First, the suddeness of onset catches you off guard.

AVIATING, going through the emergency procedures AND THEN getting the
plane set up for best glide NAVIGATING evaluating whether I can make the
field, getting in touch with ATC COMMUNICATING (I called into 121.50 as I
was not using ATC services),

You do not know what is the problem causing the severe vibration, nor do
you know if the fan will stop in front of you. For me, the engine ate an
exhaust valve, and my oil loss was minimal. After all my trouble
shooting, I had no clue what was happening to my plane.

When things go to crap like it did for me, my first look / see was for a
farm field. Once I evaluated I had enough altitude and power to make it
to my destination (which by the way was the nearest airport) I stuck to
my decision to press on to the airport (16 LONG miles).

This decision was made based on a 200 fpm loss of altitude with what
little power I had, and ALWAYS keeping an off aiport site front and
center of my attention should I lose everything. I was at 3,500 when
things went south with the cylinder.

By the time I had descend down to 3000, I had figured I had 15 minutes
flying time and my GPS had 12 minutes ETE with the field elevation of a
whopping 40 feet.

> It always makes more
> sense to plan and execute a solution rather than just jumping to
> conclusions based on what the least skilled have decided we should do.

Absolutely agree with the above, but when something goes as dramatically
wrong as losing one piston operating under the cowling, nearest is best.

The severe vibration brought on by losing a cylinder can easily snowball
into something else to catastrophically fail, and pressing on past a
perfectly useable landing site is a reckless decision in my opinion.

> An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment for
> IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.

Agree, since I do not have autopilot and have flown 2 1/2 hours in IMC
with the last hour at night.

Like you said above, it's highly dependent on personal limitations AND
equipment. I have my own plane, so I know what is behind the
maintenance. Even with that knowledge doesn't mean the next flight will
be the demise of my vacuum pump, but with the training I have had, it
shouldn't be that big a deal. Been through one of those during a night
flight and it was a non event. Of course, that was easy compared to IMC,
but it happens.

Allen

[Robert Chambers]

Haha, same here Allen, I chose that plane to train in for just that
reason. It had a loran in it and a gps (both VFR) which promptly failed
as soon as the avionics master was turned on. Funny how those things
happen on a checkride. We got rid of the Loran when it died and
replaced it with a DME which was a requirement for the one precision
approach into our airport. The VFR GPS keeps plugging away nicely and
is great for situational awareness. It's also handy to keep your next
fix tuned in so that while you are tuning the real nav devices you have
a decent idea of which way you ought to be flying when the needle centers.

Robert

A Lieberma wrote:
> Nathan Young > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>I think this is pretty much up to the examiner.
>>
>>On my checkride, I was allowed the full use of the radio panel the
>>entire flight. In my case, Garmin 295, KX155 + GS, KX170 + LOC, ADF,
>>LORAN, DME.
>
>
> Pleasantly surprised you were allowed to use the Garmin 295 since it's not
> certified for IFR flight. To me, it's a great supplement for situational
> awareness, which I'd suspect your examiner felt the same way for he / she
> to allow you to use it?
>
> I didn't have an ADF in my plane, just ILS and DME, so all I could do at
> the time was ILS, LOC and VOR approaches.
>
> In my check ride, I was asked to do a VOR, ILS and a back course localizer
> approach. My partial panel was a VOR approach in which my DE allowed
> (encouraged) the use of my VFR Garmin for assistance in the ground track.
>
> Allen

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mxsmanic ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:06 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
> ?
> Subject: Re: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?
....
> > I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that
landing
> > at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any
situation.
> > Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often
get
> > you someplace better than the closest airport.
>
> Better in what sense? With a failing engine, how could a distant
> airport be better than a nearby airport? A lot of pilots die because
> they want someplace "better" than the nearest airport, and then their
> luck runs out before they find that ideal spot.
>

Better facilities, paved surface, closer to civilization, lots of
reasons.

> > It always makes more sense to plan and execute a solution rather
> > than just jumping to conclusions based on what the least skilled
> > have decided we should do.
>
> I try to follow the path of least risk. Or more specifically, I try
> to manage the risk/benefit ratio. It's hard to see the benefit of
> staying in the air with a bad engine. What's wrong with landing and
> fixing the problem?
>

There's nothing wrong with landing and fixing the problem. Your premise
however was that without an autopilot, every IFR flight was an emergency
and if the autopilot failed the flight should land immediately at the
nearest airport. That's just not the case.

> > An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment
for
> > IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.
>
> I don't think anyone should be compelled to use an autopilot if he's
> flyingon his own. However, I would want an autopilot for IFR flight,
> otherwise--at least in my estimation--the aircraft really isn't
> suitable for IFR flight.
>

That's the point: in your estimation. If we've bred a generation of
pilots that can't or won't fly IFR without an autopilot then why not
just fly commercial and have a drink?

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: A Lieberma ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:35 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
> ?
> Subject: Re: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in
news:000901c7141a$5c8da380
> $8202a8c0@omnibook6100:
>
> > It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
> > accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single
> nav
> > radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map
or
> > GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about
> the
> > lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
> > experience with them.
>
> It's not the equipment that's the weak link in the safety factor MOST
of
> the time.....
>
> It's the human factor addressing the extra workload and undivided
> attention that's the weak link in the safety of single engine, night
IFR,
> or hard IFR operations.
>
> I have done both hard IFR with and without an IFR certified GPS.
> Obviously a successful outcome for both situations, but given my
> druthers, GPS direct sure is easier then flying VOR to VOR.
>

I can't argue with you because I agree completely. My point to MXS...
was that autopilots are not and should not be required on single engine
piston aircraft for IFR work. There's a world of difference between
mandating their use and advocating their use. His statement that without
an autopilot every IFR flight was an emergency was ridiculous.

>
> > I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that
> landing
> > at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any
situation.
> > Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often
get
> > you someplace better than the closest airport.
>
> I'd have to respectfully disagree with the above having been through a
> partial engine failure.
>
> First, the suddeness of onset catches you off guard.
>
> AVIATING, going through the emergency procedures AND THEN getting the
> plane set up for best glide NAVIGATING evaluating whether I can make
the
> field, getting in touch with ATC COMMUNICATING (I called into 121.50
as I
> was not using ATC services),
>
> You do not know what is the problem causing the severe vibration, nor
do
> you know if the fan will stop in front of you. For me, the engine ate
an
> exhaust valve, and my oil loss was minimal. After all my trouble
> shooting, I had no clue what was happening to my plane.
>

Had the exact same situation (ate the exhaust valve on #4 cylinder on a
CAP T41). Oil loss was zero, not enough mechanical noise to be a rod or
crankshaft, and vibration reduced significantly at around 1600 RPM. Dead
giveaway: swallowed a value.

> When things go to crap like it did for me, my first look / see was for
a
> farm field. Once I evaluated I had enough altitude and power to make
it
> to my destination (which by the way was the nearest airport) I stuck
to
> my decision to press on to the airport (16 LONG miles).
>
> This decision was made based on a 200 fpm loss of altitude with what
> little power I had, and ALWAYS keeping an off aiport site front and
> center of my attention should I lose everything. I was at 3,500 when
> things went south with the cylinder.
>
> By the time I had descend down to 3000, I had figured I had 15 minutes
> flying time and my GPS had 12 minutes ETE with the field elevation of
a
> whopping 40 feet.
>

I was luckier: IFR on top at 8000', 38 miles East of Meridian Naval Air
Station, and about 1200' ceiling below the deck. Memphis gave me the
option of a small grass strip less than 2 miles North of my route, or
the NAS. I opted for the Navy base (they have the best O'clubs). Broke
out at about 1500' right over the threshold so had to do a 360. Field
made so shut it on down.

> > It always makes more
> > sense to plan and execute a solution rather than just jumping to
> > conclusions based on what the least skilled have decided we should
do.
>
> Absolutely agree with the above, but when something goes as
dramatically
> wrong as losing one piston operating under the cowling, nearest is
best.
>
> The severe vibration brought on by losing a cylinder can easily
snowball
> into something else to catastrophically fail, and pressing on past a
> perfectly useable landing site is a reckless decision in my opinion.
>

Ah, there's part of the point I was making: "perfectly useable landing
site". I don't consider the nearest airport to always be a perfectly
useable landing site based on current conditions. Again, MXS...
advocated essentially declaring an emergency and landing at the nearest
airport if the autopilot failed in IFR. I still disagree with that
suggestion and was using the engine failure to make (stretch?) a point.

> > An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment
for
> > IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.
>
> Agree, since I do not have autopilot and have flown 2 1/2 hours in IMC
> with the last hour at night.
>
> Like you said above, it's highly dependent on personal limitations AND
> equipment. I have my own plane, so I know what is behind the
> maintenance. Even with that knowledge doesn't mean the next flight
will
> be the demise of my vacuum pump, but with the training I have had, it
> shouldn't be that big a deal. Been through one of those during a
night
> flight and it was a non event. Of course, that was easy compared to
IMC,
> but it happens.
>
> Allen

I think we're vehemently agreeing with each other Allen.

[A Lieberma]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in news:004701c71437$21ca6ea0
$0100007f@omnibook6100:

> I can't argue with you because I agree completely. My point to MXS...
> was that autopilots are not and should not be required on single engine
> piston aircraft for IFR work. There's a world of difference between
> mandating their use and advocating their use. His statement that without
> an autopilot every IFR flight was an emergency was ridiculous.

Unfortunately you are dealing with a troll who won't take your replies for
what they are worth.... Not sure if you have seen rec.aviation.piloting or
students, but he has been disrespecting pilots treating MSFS as if it was
the real deal.

> I think we're vehemently agreeing with each other Allen.

I see that now :-) however the troll you are dealing with won't see it in
the real world way.

Allen

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
> Nathan Young > wrote in
> :
>
>> I think this is pretty much up to the examiner.
>>
>> On my checkride, I was allowed the full use of the radio panel the
>> entire flight. In my case, Garmin 295, KX155 + GS, KX170 + LOC, ADF,
>> LORAN, DME.
>
> Pleasantly surprised you were allowed to use the Garmin 295 since it's not
> certified for IFR flight. To me, it's a great supplement for situational
> awareness, which I'd suspect your examiner felt the same way for he / she
> to allow you to use it?

Many examiners in my area will allow portable GPS as a supplement, even
during partial panel. One DE has been known to unplug it during a
simulated electrical failure, if the applicant didn't install fresh
batteries? Oh well! If the batteries are good, it's fair game. In
fact, many allow them during all but the cross country phase of a PP
checkride.

At a safety seminar, one DE explained it to me as "all available
information."

[Ron Natalie]

Jim Carter wrote:
> Autopilots do not take a degree in astrophysics to operate. That being
> said, I also made the point that an hour or so of instruction "in the
> aircraft" should be sufficient.

Time flies in the air. I don't think I would claim proficiency
in my autopilot (and it's interface to the NAV radios) until I'd
flown a couple of climbs, descents approaches and holds with the thing.
Time flies in the air. I think it was more than an hour. It is
however a tiny fraction of the IFR training time. And this was
despite the fact that I had the thing for a year before trying to
do IFR procedures with it and I still got stumped the first time
I tried to do an approach with it after my checkride (this I think
was the GPS not the autopilot but the result was the same... push
the big red button and hand fly it).

I still don't trust the thing. In VFR conditions I'll let it
motor me around the purple line, but in IFR I'm still hovering
over the big red button and scanning just as carefully as I would
if I was hand flying it.

[Ron Natalie]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Roy,
>
>> . I would expect to
>> see you running the pre-flight A/P checks per the checklist.
>>
>
> Ah, here's a question I have: Would you do/expect the full check
> including engaging the A/P on the ground and watching the servos do
> their thing when you turn the DG or the OBS? Or would the A/P internal
> test routine (I'm thinking of the S-TEC 50 here) suffice?
>
>
I do the full Autopilot checkilst when I expect to use the autopilot
or when there's a chance I'll be in IMC.

The stec-55x test (as originally shipped to me) is involved. It
involves...watching it follow the bug, watching it follow the NAV
(with REV pressed too), watching it try to trim to hold alt when
you push and pull on the wheel, making sure it disconnects in
a variety modes (switch, big red button, using the electric trim,
using CWS) etc... about the only thing not tested during preflight
is the APR mode.

The thing has failed on me. For a while any attempt to engage
HDG/NAV mode caused it to go into a hard left turn.

[Sam Spade]

Jim Carter wrote:
>
>
> It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
> accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single nav
> radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map or
> GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about the
> lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
> experience with them.
>
I started flying IFR in 1958. I started instructing IFR the next year.

I went with a major airline in early 1964 and continued a lot of light
aircraft flying for the next 12 years.

Prior to 1965, or so, I never flew a light aircraft with an autopilot.
The first really good light aircraft autopilot I used extensively was a
Bendix (or Motorola) M4C in an Aerostar 600.

I mention my air carrier experience because it was an autopilot world at
crusie in my earlier years. The autopilots were not good enough for
climb out or descent (it was easier to hand fly in those phases of
flight). The later generation autoflight systems were excellent for all
phases of flight.

So, my point? When it was a VOR/DME/ILS world it was quite manageable
for a competent pilot to fly a stable light aircraft without an
autopilot. In fact, like the early airline jets the early light
aircraft autopilots were basically wing levelers with some heading
control (sometimes).

But, now we are evolving into a space-based navigation system with the
complexities of nav databases and, in the case of panel mount light
aircraft in particular, difficult (from a total human-factors systems
management standpoint) to input and manage nav data.

During the past 10 years, or so, light aircraft autopilots have improved
greatly. The use of such a current generation autopilot makes the
management of the complex space-based navigation system, especially as
it is implemented in light aircraft, much more manageable and, thus,
much more safe.

In VMC, without the autopilot, the single pilot on an IFR flight plan
using RNAV cannot maintain an adequate traffic watch. In IMC trying to
juggle all the balls is asking for loss of situational awareness.

> An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment for
> IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.

It should be mandated for single-pilot normal IFR operations in today's
environment. That doesn't mean the pilot should let his hand-flying and
partial panal skills deteriorate. Speaking of partial panel, that did
not apply in jet transport operations and it does not apply to a G-1000
equipped light aircraft.

So, we are in transition in a very fundamental sense.
>

[[email protected]]

: It should be mandated for single-pilot normal IFR operations in today's
: environment. That doesn't mean the pilot should let his hand-flying and
: partial panal skills deteriorate. Speaking of partial panel, that did
: not apply in jet transport operations and it does not apply to a G-1000
: equipped light aircraft.

: So, we are in transition in a very fundamental sense.

"Bzzzt!!!" As anyone who flies Part 91 realizes WRT the FAR's, what's safe is
not necessary legal, and what's legal is not necessarily safe. Regulations do not a
safe pilot make.

Is it a good idea to have an autopilot for single-pilot, night IMC in a
single?

Yes.

Should it be *required* for non-commercial operations?

Not just no, but hell no.


... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff minimums if part 91. It's
not necessarily a good idea, but shouldn't be regulatorily mandated.


-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Jim M]

Jim Carter wrote:
> > Mxsmanic stuff snipped < <

> That's the point: in your estimation. If we've bred a generation of
> pilots that can't or won't fly IFR without an autopilot then why not
> just fly commercial and have a drink?

Don't worry, he's not part of any generation of pilots. He doesn't
fly, with or without an A/P, and has no intention of ever doing so.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> A
> check ride should test the student's ability to handle emergency
> situations.
>

Using an autopilot might be a good way to handle an emergency.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> It is a whole lot easier to learn how to use an autopilot than to learn
> how to manage the cockpit workload after it breaks in the soup. That's
> my only point.
>

A good one, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Sam Spade]

wrote:

> : It should be mandated for single-pilot normal IFR operations in today's
> : environment. That doesn't mean the pilot should let his hand-flying and
> : partial panal skills deteriorate. Speaking of partial panel, that did
> : not apply in jet transport operations and it does not apply to a G-1000
> : equipped light aircraft.
>
> : So, we are in transition in a very fundamental sense.
>
> "Bzzzt!!!" As anyone who flies Part 91 realizes WRT the FAR's, what's safe is
> not necessary legal, and what's legal is not necessarily safe. Regulations do not a
> safe pilot make.
>
> Is it a good idea to have an autopilot for single-pilot, night IMC in a
> single?
>
> Yes.
>
> Should it be *required* for non-commercial operations?
>
> Not just no, but hell no.

If the airplane comes with the autopilot, it should be required to be in
working order with some reasonable MEL provision to get home without it
if it is broken.
>
>
> ... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff minimums if part 91. It's
> not necessarily a good idea, but shouldn't be regulatorily mandated.

I have never figured that one out, especially when uninformed, innocent
passengers are involved.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> ... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff minimums if part 91. It's not necessarily a good idea, but shouldn't be regulatorily mandated.
>
>
> I have never figured that one out, especially when uninformed, innocent passengers are involved.

All things carry risk. It is up to the pilot in command to decide
whether the risk is worth the benefit.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim M ]
> Posted At: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:44 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
> ?
> Subject: Re: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?
>
> Jim Carter wrote:
> > > Mxsmanic stuff snipped < <
>
> > That's the point: in your estimation. If we've bred a generation of
> > pilots that can't or won't fly IFR without an autopilot then why not
> > just fly commercial and have a drink?
>
> Don't worry, he's not part of any generation of pilots. He doesn't
> fly, with or without an A/P, and has no intention of ever doing so.

I hope he's got the bug to fly, but maybe not the budget right now.
Maybe as time goes on MSX... will be able to learn to fly, and learn to
learn without arguing. Wouldn't that be nice?

[Ron Natalie]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jim,
>
>> A
>> check ride should test the student's ability to handle emergency
>> situations.
>>
>
> Using an autopilot might be a good way to handle an emergency.
>
The examiner even suggested I could use the autopilot to
fly my partial panel approach.

[[email protected]]

: >> ... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff minimums if part 91. It's not necessarily a good idea, but shouldn't be regulatorily mandated.
: >
: >
: > I have never figured that one out, especially when uninformed, innocent passengers are involved.

: All things carry risk. It is up to the pilot in command to decide
: whether the risk is worth the benefit.

Exactly. There are situations where taking off below minimums is a
much more minimal risk than other normal operations (Airport fogged in and clear VFR 2
miles away vs. night flight).

Commercial ops have higher standards and more restrictions because there are
more passengers involved, they generally do not personally *know* the pilot and
whether they're responsible, and quite simply that the profit motive skews the
"risk/benefit" ratio.

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but I stand by my
statement that you cannot legislate safety.... what's safe isn't always legal and
what's legal isn't always safe.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Jose[_1_]]

> I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this one

I think we agree rather than disagree. We might have to agree to
together disagree with somebody else though. :)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>>> ... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff minimums if
>>> part 91. It's not necessarily a good idea, but shouldn't be
>>> regulatorily mandated.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have never figured that one out, especially when uninformed,
>> innocent passengers are involved.
>
>
> All things carry risk. It is up to the pilot in command to decide
> whether the risk is worth the benefit.
>
> Jose

That is the cool aid that AOPA keeps selling. Unknowing passengers
deserve better.

[Roy Smith]

In article >, Sam Spade >
wrote:

> Jose wrote:
> >>> ... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff minimums if
> >>> part 91. It's not necessarily a good idea, but shouldn't be
> >>> regulatorily mandated.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I have never figured that one out, especially when uninformed,
> >> innocent passengers are involved.
> >
> >
> > All things carry risk. It is up to the pilot in command to decide
> > whether the risk is worth the benefit.
> >
> > Jose
>
> That is the cool aid that AOPA keeps selling. Unknowing passengers
> deserve better.

There is a certain amount of truth to that.

When I take a pax in my car, they are in a familiar environment, with some
frame of reference to rationally evaluate my performance. They know
whether doing 90 MPH down a city street is a reasonable thing to. Likewise
they have some reasonable idea of how closely I should be trailing the guy
in front of me, or when I should be putting my headlights or windshield
wipers on, or whether skidding the tires when I stop at a red light is
normal.

When I take somebody in an airplane, they usually have no frame of
reference. If I'm punching through clouds without a clearance, they have
no way of knowing if that's a good thing or not. They wouldn't even know
if we're about to run out of gas because they probably can't even recognize
what the fuel gauge looks like. Let's say we've just taken off a buzzer
starts going of. I tell them "Oh, don't worry about that, it's nothing".
They have no way of knowing if I'm telling them the truth (we just crossed
over the middle marker for the other end of the runway) or I'm bull****ting
them (I over-rotated and we just narrowly avoided a accidental stall).

[Jim Macklin]

Paying passengers are carried under Part 135 and the
minimums are higher.

The AOPA doesn't peddle Kool-Aid.



"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jose wrote:
| >>> ... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff
minimums if
| >>> part 91. It's not necessarily a good idea, but
shouldn't be
| >>> regulatorily mandated.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> I have never figured that one out, especially when
uninformed,
| >> innocent passengers are involved.
| >
| >
| > All things carry risk. It is up to the pilot in command
to decide
| > whether the risk is worth the benefit.
| >
| > Jose
|
| That is the cool aid that AOPA keeps selling. Unknowing
passengers
| deserve better.

[Jose[_1_]]

> That is the cool aid that AOPA keeps selling. Unknowing passengers deserve better.

No they don't. They choose who to trust as a pilot, and who not to.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

BTW, home-built and experimental airplanes must have a
placard at the entrance.



"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
|> That is the cool aid that AOPA keeps selling. Unknowing
passengers deserve better.
|
| No they don't. They choose who to trust as a pilot, and
who not to.
|
| Jose
| --
| "There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing.
Unfortunately, nobody knows
| what they are." - (mike).
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Moore]

Jose wrote
> No they don't. They choose who to trust as a pilot, and who not to.

What choice do parents have when they send their children off on
"Young Eagles" flights? I have flown the YE flights and some of
the other YE pilots really concerned me, not to mention the condition
of some of the airplanes.

Bob Moore

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> BTW, home-built and experimental airplanes must have a
> placard at the entrance.

What does it say? Does it start with "Lasciate ogni speranza ..."?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>No they don't. They choose who to trust as a pilot, and who not to.
>
> What choice do parents have when they send their children off on
> "Young Eagles" flights? I have flown the YE flights and some of
> the other YE pilots really concerned me, not to mention the condition
> of some of the airplanes.

Not to.

They are trusting the YE organization to some degree. Who are we
trusting when we create more rules? The FAA? They can screw up too.

Being a pilot is a responsibility. It is up to the pilot to excercise
that responsibility. The pilot cannot do that if the lawmakers second
guess him on every matter.

It is a natural consequence of "part 135 should have higher standards"
that "part 91 should have lower standards".

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jose ]
> Posted At: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:41 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
> ?
> Subject: Re: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?
>
....
>
> Being a pilot is a responsibility. It is up to the pilot to excercise
> that responsibility. The pilot cannot do that if the lawmakers second
> guess him on every matter.
>
> It is a natural consequence of "part 135 should have higher standards"
> that "part 91 should have lower standards".
>
> Jose
> --
> "There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody
knows
> what they are." - (mike).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I don't remember where I read it, but "Never fly in the same cockpit as
someone braver than you".

[Sam Spade]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Paying passengers are carried under Part 135 and the
> minimums are higher.
>
> The AOPA doesn't peddle Kool-Aid.

That is my view, which is based on my experience seeing them fight like
NRA over a lot of issues. Yes, I am a member.
>

Most paying passengers are carried under Part 121 where standard Part 91
takeoff minima are the exception rather than the norm. Ops Specs
authorize lower-than-standard takeoff minima for almost all runway used
under 121, and with enough lights and RVRs, much lower than standard.
So, your statement the minimums are higher is not quite right.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:

>> That is the cool aid that AOPA keeps selling. Unknowing passengers
>> deserve better.
>
>
> No they don't. They choose who to trust as a pilot, and who not to.
>
Most of them are not equipped to make that choice.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Most of them are not equipped to make that choice.

So? We can't babysit everyone.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Natalie]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Jose wrote
>> No they don't. They choose who to trust as a pilot, and who not to.
>
> What choice do parents have when they send their children off on
> "Young Eagles" flights? I have flown the YE flights and some of
> the other YE pilots really concerned me, not to mention the condition
> of some of the airplanes.
>
I got a nice letter from the EAA thanking me for not killing any
Young Eagles.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > writes:
>
>> BTW, home-built and experimental airplanes must have a
>> placard at the entrance.
>
> What does it say? Does it start with "Lasciate ogni speranza ..."?
>
Close...it typically says something like

This is an experimental aircraft and doesn't conform to federal
safety rules for standard aircraft.

You're also required to have EXPERIMENTAL in 2" or bigger
letters.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>> Most of them are not equipped to make that choice.
>
>
> So? We can't babysit everyone.
>
> Jose

Some of us have more concern about our fellow human beings. My
categorical advice to those who ask me (I don't volunteer this advice)
is "limit your ventures as a passenger in light aircraft to nice daytime
clear weather and then only with a pilot you know to be experienced."

I was involved in some measure with the following accident many years ago:

NTSB Identification: LAX75AL019
14 CFR Part 91 General Aviation
Event occurred Friday, October 18, 1974 in LONG BEACH, CA
Aircraft: PIPER PA-23, registration: N501EE

The joker took three innocent passengers with him. It was nighttime at
KLGB and their was thick ground fog. The joker was some 500 pound
overweight and elected to make an IFR departure to on-top using Runway
16L In those days there was a giant natural gas tank off the end of
16R, which required a mandatory ceiling and vis for commercial operations.

The ground controller (same hat as local controller at the time of
night) almost pleaded with the guy to use Runway 30 (the usual IFR
runway, and clear of obstacles).

The pilot refused and crashed into the tank, killing himself and three
folks who were led to believe this joker actually knew what he was doing.

The aircraft would have still hit the tank had it not been overloaded.
Had it taken off on Runway 30 it would have made it with the overweight
condition.

This stuff goes on on the time in G/A. Not by everyone for sure. But,
by enough folks that the hapless passengers is just rolling the dice.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> The ground controller (same hat as local controller at the time of
> night) almost pleaded with the guy to use Runway 30 (the usual IFR
> runway, and clear of obstacles).

I wonder if his passengers heard the conversation.

> This stuff goes on on the time in G/A. Not by everyone for sure. But,
> by enough folks that the hapless passengers is just rolling the dice.

That's why the statistics are so bad. There are plenty of safe pilots
and planes in the world of GA, but there are a few who are idiots
and/or fly poorly maintained aircraft. These generate enough
accidents to skew all the statistics, making GA a hundred times more
dangerous than airline travel.

Unfortunately, many trusting souls have heard that airline travel is
extremely safe (which it is), and have assumed that this applies to
any type of air travel (which it does not).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

A quick look at the NTSB reveals that there were no less than ten GA
accidents on October 18, 1974 alone, and that two of them had
fatalities (both involving Pipers). The deadliest was the one you
described, which killed four people.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Mxsmanic writes:

> A quick look at the NTSB reveals that there were no less than ten GA
> accidents on October 18, 1974 alone, and that two of them had
> fatalities (both involving Pipers). The deadliest was the one you
> described, which killed four people.

Actually, I missed the second page! There were _seventeen_ GA
accidents on October 18, 1974.

Out of curiosity, I picked some other dates at random:


July 21, 1970 12 accidents, 6 deaths
September 21, 1996 13 accidents, 4 deaths (1 in a Piper)
June 6, 2003 9 accidents, 14 deaths
August 1, 2005 10 accidents, 1 death (in a Piper)

On August 1, 2005, there was also an incident aboard a commercial
airliner: a pitch-up event occurred briefly. The flight landed
uneventfully and no one was injured.

Most GA accidents have no fatalities. What is unsettling, though, is
that the probable cause for the accidents with fatalities seems to be
almost exclusively pilot error (true for most of the non-fatals, too).
In other words, non-fatal accidents occur sometimes when there are
mechanical failures, but a good pilot can compensate enough to avoid
dying in most cases. But when the pilot makes a stupid mistake,
everyone dies, even in a perfectly functioning aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> A quick look at the NTSB reveals that there were no less than ten GA
> accidents on October 18, 1974 alone, and that two of them had
> fatalities (both involving Pipers). The deadliest was the one you
> described, which killed four people.
>

I recently had a discussion with a accident risk guru about the finality
of most aircraft crashes (G/A, military non-combat, and airline). He
reminded me of the terrible PSA crash near Paso Robles, California
(BAE-146) where the deranged recently fired ticket agent shot the crew.
Chevron Oil Company lost a bunch of senior executives on that flight.

Chevron, and several other companies, changed their policy to prohibit
that type of group travel by senior executives. They learned the hard
way about "all your eggs in one basket."

The guru commented that, even though automobile travel is far less safe
than airline travel on a statisitical basis, the statistics do not and
cannot factor in the random dynamics of automobile crashes, which
usually do not result in all occupants being killed in a fatal crash.

And, he added, landing accidents of aircraft often spare some occupants,
airline or G/A.

[Jim Macklin]

Of course a professional crew would not make such a mistake,
such mistakes as taking off on a runway 1/2 the required
length, or taking off with ice all over the airplane and
without turning the engine anti-ice on, or landing on a
short runway at Chicago, in a blizzard, or ...
Pilots are human beings, human beings make mistakes and
sometimes people die. Sometimes people die on nice clear
days.

As a pilot, my concern is for myself, if the airplane
doesn't kill or injure me, my passengers are probably going
to be just fine. My concern for human beings is more a
matter of shock in the pretty young girl on the back of a
crotchrocket being driven by a jerk. She of course is
wearing short shorts, a halter top, and sandals. If she
doesn't die, she will be damaged and her friends will say
she has a nice personality.

I am concerned about the parents who send their kids out to
do the lawn, bare foot with a 30" lawn mower. I am
concerned about the toddler in diapers being watched on the
street by the 4 year old sister.

I am concerned about whether the world will be in an open
shooting war in the next few months. I am concerned about
people who don't read history and keep doing the same things
over an over.



"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jose wrote:
| >> Most of them are not equipped to make that choice.
| >
| >
| > So? We can't babysit everyone.
| >
| > Jose
|
| Some of us have more concern about our fellow human
beings. My
| categorical advice to those who ask me (I don't volunteer
this advice)
| is "limit your ventures as a passenger in light aircraft
to nice daytime
| clear weather and then only with a pilot you know to be
experienced."
|
| I was involved in some measure with the following accident
many years ago:
|
| NTSB Identification: LAX75AL019
| 14 CFR Part 91 General Aviation
| Event occurred Friday, October 18, 1974 in LONG BEACH, CA
| Aircraft: PIPER PA-23, registration: N501EE
|
| The joker took three innocent passengers with him. It was
nighttime at
| KLGB and their was thick ground fog. The joker was some
500 pound
| overweight and elected to make an IFR departure to on-top
using Runway
| 16L In those days there was a giant natural gas tank off
the end of
| 16R, which required a mandatory ceiling and vis for
commercial operations.
|
| The ground controller (same hat as local controller at the
time of
| night) almost pleaded with the guy to use Runway 30 (the
usual IFR
| runway, and clear of obstacles).
|
| The pilot refused and crashed into the tank, killing
himself and three
| folks who were led to believe this joker actually knew
what he was doing.
|
| The aircraft would have still hit the tank had it not been
overloaded.
| Had it taken off on Runway 30 it would have made it with
the overweight
| condition.
|
| This stuff goes on on the time in G/A. Not by everyone
for sure. But,
| by enough folks that the hapless passengers is just
rolling the dice.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Some of us have more concern about our fellow human beings.

I also have "more concern about our fellow human beings", and would not
imitate the joker you cite. However, I do not believe that absolute
safey can be legislated. Therefore, we are left with permitting "a
certain level of danger" to be visited upon "innocent passengers".

No matter where the line is drawn, it could be drawn elsewhere.
Anything can be made safer at the cost of reducing utility. I just
don't think it's a good idea.

> This stuff goes on on the time in G/A. Not by everyone for sure. But, by enough folks that the hapless passengers is just rolling the dice.

GA is not unique in this, and "hapless passengers" (or the equivalent in
=any= activity) are =always= "just rolling the dice" to some degree. I
just believe that the amount of dice-rolling permitted in part 91 is
approprite.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Of course a professional crew would not make such a mistake,
> such mistakes as taking off on a runway 1/2 the required
> length, or taking off with ice all over the airplane and
> without turning the engine anti-ice on, or landing on a
> short runway at Chicago, in a blizzard, or ...
> Pilots are human beings, human beings make mistakes and
> sometimes people die. Sometimes people die on nice clear
> days.
>

Add ValueJet while you're at it.

Sarcasm aside, the stupid things done by airline pilots per takeoff and
landing, or whatever phase of flight, is a whole lot less than light
airplane driving. And, "G/A" is a B.S. category because that throws the
professional biz jet crew in with the ball player in New York.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:


>
>
> GA is not unique in this, and "hapless passengers" (or the equivalent in
> =any= activity) are =always= "just rolling the dice" to some degree. I
> just believe that the amount of dice-rolling permitted in part 91 is
> approprite.
>
A few share your view that it is just right. There are a lot more who
think not-for-hire is overregulated and others who say it is underregulated.

Since you think it is just right you are quite unique in your apparent
great admiration for the FAA. ;-)

[Jose[_1_]]

> And, "G/A" is a B.S. category because that throws the professional biz jet crew in with the ball player in New York.

What category would you use? The regs distinguish between part 91 and
part 135, for example, and PP vs CP vs ATP...

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> A few share your view that it is just right.

In this particular example (allowing part 91 more leniency than part 135
operators for IFR takeoff options) I agree it's just about right.
However I have more (other) beef with the FAA than Texas. :)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>> And, "G/A" is a B.S. category because that throws the professional biz
>> jet crew in with the ball player in New York.
>
>
> What category would you use? The regs distinguish between part 91 and
> part 135, for example, and PP vs CP vs ATP...
>
> Jose

Sport aviation, personal aviation, air taxi aviation, business aviation,
military aviation (non-combat), and air carrier aviation.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:57:17 GMT, "Roy N5804F"
> wrote:

I've seen a lot of answers on here, but the standard approach (no pun
intended) is to *expect* and be prepared to use any and all
instruments installed on the airplane. That includes autopilot. GPS,
LORAN, what ever and be able to demonstrate how to program it in
flight. You probably won't have to, but if you don't know how that
will probably be what you get quizzed on and have to use. They are
very good at finding out how well you know your equipment.

Yes, I had to demonstrate the use of the autopilot which couples to
the DG, RNAV, and VOR receivers.

With a fully ticked out bird you probably won't have to use all of
that equipment, but you may or may not be questioned on it. However
you probably won't know ahead of time which. Certainly those that are
used for your primary navigation are likely to be covered in depth so
I'd want to be very familiar with that new stack. You have an NDB.
Most likely you will get to use it. Loran? It's just a back up. That
way *maybe* you only get to explain how you use it.

On my flight the examiner asked me how the RNAV "worked" so I started
out with the technical explanation as to how it "worked". After about
a minute he stopped me and said, "I meant, how do you use it". Big
difference<:-)).
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jose[_1_]]

>> What category would you use?
> Sport aviation, personal aviation, air taxi aviation, business aviation, military aviation (non-combat), and air carrier aviation.

Ok, how would you write a rule saying that (say) business aviation
flights can use one set of minimums, and personal aviation must use another?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>>> What category would you use?
>>
>> Sport aviation, personal aviation, air taxi aviation, business
>> aviation, military aviation (non-combat), and air carrier aviation.
>
>
> Ok, how would you write a rule saying that (say) business aviation
> flights can use one set of minimums, and personal aviation must use
> another?
>
> Jose

If I were writing the rules, the non-commercial operator (personal or
business) would have the same requirements:

1. If an ODP is prescribed for an IFR airport if must be used unless a
SID is provided for that airport and assigned by ATC. The operator can
negate this requirement by electing to climb VFR with an appropriate
restrction to the IFR departure clearance.

2. Published takeoff minimums would apply but the pilot could elect to
determine ground visibility rather then using reported weather (if
weather is reported). Where RVR is reported it would be controlling.

3. Business operators that have an flight operations management control
program in place, can apply for a LOA (letter of authorization) to use
lower than standard takeoff minimums, but will then be bound by reported
weather (if weather is reported).

The legal suits would have to polish the language.

[Roy N5804F]

Thanks Roger for bringing this thread back on track to the original
question.
I appreciate all the input, however diverse :-)

I consider myself to be reasonably sharp with the full use and limitations
of avionics now fitted.

In conclusion, I have to ensure that I am truly ready and competent to use
"all" or "any" or "any part of" or "almost none" of the installed equipment
during my instrument checkride.
The thread has also caused a timely reminder to change my pre-flight check
list to include all the various coupled modes of the Century IIB AP
operation and the new roll steering unit. Up to now I only check wing
leveling and DG bug following on the ground.

Thanks to all.

--
Roy
Piper Archer N5804F


"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:57:17 GMT, "Roy N5804F"
> > wrote:
>
> I've seen a lot of answers on here, but the standard approach (no pun
> intended) is to *expect* and be prepared to use any and all
> instruments installed on the airplane. That includes autopilot. GPS,
> LORAN, what ever and be able to demonstrate how to program it in
> flight. You probably won't have to, but if you don't know how that
> will probably be what you get quizzed on and have to use. They are
> very good at finding out how well you know your equipment.
>
> Yes, I had to demonstrate the use of the autopilot which couples to
> the DG, RNAV, and VOR receivers.
>
> With a fully ticked out bird you probably won't have to use all of
> that equipment, but you may or may not be questioned on it. However
> you probably won't know ahead of time which. Certainly those that are
> used for your primary navigation are likely to be covered in depth so
> I'd want to be very familiar with that new stack. You have an NDB.
> Most likely you will get to use it. Loran? It's just a back up. That
> way *maybe* you only get to explain how you use it.
>
> On my flight the examiner asked me how the RNAV "worked" so I started
> out with the technical explanation as to how it "worked". After about
> a minute he stopped me and said, "I meant, how do you use it". Big
> difference<:-)).
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[Roy N5804F]

Roger,

I forgot to mention, that like yourself I am licensed radio amateur
[W8/G4DYR] and have the in-depth technical understanding of the avionics
fitted in the Archer.
If asked a similar question by the DE, I too would probably head off down
the full electronic technical path to describe how it worked :-)

Roy

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:57:17 GMT, "Roy N5804F"
> > wrote:
>
> I've seen a lot of answers on here, but the standard approach (no pun
> intended) is to *expect* and be prepared to use any and all
> instruments installed on the airplane. That includes autopilot. GPS,
> LORAN, what ever and be able to demonstrate how to program it in
> flight. You probably won't have to, but if you don't know how that
> will probably be what you get quizzed on and have to use. They are
> very good at finding out how well you know your equipment.
>
> Yes, I had to demonstrate the use of the autopilot which couples to
> the DG, RNAV, and VOR receivers.
>
> With a fully ticked out bird you probably won't have to use all of
> that equipment, but you may or may not be questioned on it. However
> you probably won't know ahead of time which. Certainly those that are
> used for your primary navigation are likely to be covered in depth so
> I'd want to be very familiar with that new stack. You have an NDB.
> Most likely you will get to use it. Loran? It's just a back up. That
> way *maybe* you only get to explain how you use it.
>
> On my flight the examiner asked me how the RNAV "worked" so I started
> out with the technical explanation as to how it "worked". After about
> a minute he stopped me and said, "I meant, how do you use it". Big
> difference<:-)).
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[Sam Spade]

Roy N5804F wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
> I forgot to mention, that like yourself I am licensed radio amateur
> [W8/G4DYR] and have the in-depth technical understanding of the avionics
> fitted in the Archer.
> If asked a similar question by the DE, I too would probably head off down
> the full electronic technical path to describe how it worked :-)

Is that called "trick the man who holds your family jewels in his hands"
before the flight portion of the check ride?

[Jose[_1_]]

1: Why should we not protect commercial passengers, who are =paying=
for and =expecting= a higher level of safety than people who are flying
with a private pilot? You don't think that such commercial operations
should be held to a higher standard? The person who gets on a
commercial (say, air taxi) should have =only= the same degree of safety
as the bloke who takes off in a private plane with his friend?

2: What is a "business operator"?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
> 1: Why should we not protect commercial passengers, who are =paying=
> for and =expecting= a higher level of safety than people who are flying
> with a private pilot? You don't think that such commercial operations
> should be held to a higher standard? The person who gets on a
> commercial (say, air taxi) should have =only= the same degree of safety
> as the bloke who takes off in a private plane with his friend?
>
The commercial operator is bound by reported weather. It still wouldn't
be the same level of safety; i.e. tin cans vs. Part 25 jet transports,
professional crews and training vs. who knows what.

> 2: What is a "business operator"?

NBAA type operator with turbine equipment professional flown.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:12:38 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

>Roy N5804F wrote:
>>
>> Roger,
>>
>> I forgot to mention, that like yourself I am licensed radio amateur
>> [W8/G4DYR] and have the in-depth technical understanding of the avionics
>> fitted in the Archer.
>> If asked a similar question by the DE, I too would probably head off down
>> the full electronic technical path to describe how it worked :-)
>
>Is that called "trick the man who holds your family jewels in his hands"
>before the flight portion of the check ride?

Not at all. If you ask an engineer or some one familiar with how
something works you are indeed likely for them to answer in the same
manner as they always do when asked that question. They give the
technical answer, after all he didn't ask me how I used the thing, he
asked how it worked. I thought that was a bit deep for the instrument
check ride, but I would not have though of answering the question in
any other manner.

My degree is in computer science, one of my minors is in math, I have
26 years working in instrumentation, and my hobbies are almost all
technical. In the normal course of events it would never occur to me
to tell some one how I use a piece of equipment when they ask how it
works.<:-))



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

[[email protected]]

: > GA is not unique in this, and "hapless passengers" (or the equivalent in
: > =any= activity) are =always= "just rolling the dice" to some degree. I
: > just believe that the amount of dice-rolling permitted in part 91 is
: > approprite.
: >
: A few share your view that it is just right. There are a lot more who
: think not-for-hire is overregulated and others who say it is underregulated.

Not necessarily that everything is "just right," just that safety cannot be generated by excessive laws. If you
take your example in the twin hitting the tank.... take away the fog and he could just as well have done the same thing
in clear-and-a-million VFR. The Part-91 IFR minimum departure ops rule you desire wouldn't have stopped this joker from
killing his "innocent passengers" in that case. So do we need a law that says, "Don't take off overloaded?" I'm pretty
sure there already is one... A.R.(R.)O.W.

People (pilots included) do stupid **** sometimes. Sometimes it's illegal, sometimes it's not. Sometimes they
crash, sometimes they don't.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> : > GA is not unique in this, and "hapless passengers" (or the equivalent in
> : > =any= activity) are =always= "just rolling the dice" to some degree. I
> : > just believe that the amount of dice-rolling permitted in part 91 is
> : > approprite.
> : >
> : A few share your view that it is just right. There are a lot more who
> : think not-for-hire is overregulated and others who say it is underregulated.
>
> Not necessarily that everything is "just right," just that safety cannot be generated by excessive laws. If you
> take your example in the twin hitting the tank.... take away the fog and he could just as well have done the same thing
> in clear-and-a-million VFR. The Part-91 IFR minimum departure ops rule you desire wouldn't have stopped this joker from
> killing his "innocent passengers" in that case. So do we need a law that says, "Don't take off overloaded?" I'm pretty
> sure there already is one... A.R.(R.)O.W.

Perhaps you missed it in my previous post but it was determined at the
time that he would have likely hit the tank had he been right at max
gross. He just hit it further down being overgross.

Had it been good weather the tank would have stood out like a sore
thumb. No one, except someone trying to commit suicide, would have
flown into that tank with its lighting when it was visible.

[Roy Smith]

Roger > wrote:
> after all he didn't ask me how I used the thing, he
> asked how it worked.

You should have responded, "Very nicely". :-)

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Not necessarily that everything is "just right," just that safety
> cannot be generated by excessive laws.

Or by any laws, actually. You can pass the laws, but unless you have
an air marshall riding next to every pilot, you cannot force pilots to
obey them.

Safety is actually a matter of attitude, not regulation. Smart pilots
are safe even if the law doesn't require them to be so. Stupid pilots
are unsafe no matter how draconian the law might be.

I think that aviation is often misregulated--that is, underregulated
in some areas and overregulated in others.

I applaud the recent decision to allow commercial pilots over 65.
Indeed, I think that as long as a pilot is in good health and has a
good safety record, he should be able to fly as long as he wants, even
in commercial aviation. There's nothing that happens at 60 or 65 that
suddenly makes a safe pilot unsafe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> Had it been good weather the tank would have stood out like a sore
> thumb. No one, except someone trying to commit suicide, would have
> flown into that tank with its lighting when it was visible.

Oh yes, some people would. If they were stupid enough, they would.
If this pilot knew about the tank and had been warned about it and
actually knew how to fly, he would not fly into the tank, visibility
or not. And if he were too stupid to do that, he'd fly right into it
even in the clearest weather imaginable.

It's not the he flew deliberately into a tank, it's that he was too
dumb to know that he could not avoid hitting the tank. Being able to
see the tank would not have helped in that case.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> It still wouldn't be the same level of safety; i.e. tin cans vs. Part 25 jet transports, professional crews and training vs. who knows what.

You are making regulations based on the aircraft type? The pilot's
certificate? I didn't see any of that in your reccomendation - you were
making regulations based on usage (business usage, personal usage...)

> NBAA type operator

"Basketball operator"? What is NBAA?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/03/06 08:17, Jose wrote:
>> It still wouldn't be the same level of safety; i.e. tin cans vs. Part 25 jet transports, professional crews and training vs. who knows what.
>
> You are making regulations based on the aircraft type? The pilot's
> certificate? I didn't see any of that in your reccomendation - you were
> making regulations based on usage (business usage, personal usage...)
>
>> NBAA type operator
>
> "Basketball operator"? What is NBAA?

Are you kidding?

The National Basketball Association is spelled NBA, not NBAA.

Try this link:

<http://www.google.com/search?q=NBAA>


>
> Jose

[Jose[_1_]]

> Are you kidding?
>
> The National Basketball Association is spelled NBA, not NBAA.

I was never much into sports. :)

>> NBAA type operator

Ok, how do we define, for the purposes of regulation, an
NBAA 'type' operator?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>> Are you kidding?
>>
>> The National Basketball Association is spelled NBA, not NBAA.
>
>
> I was never much into sports. :)
>
>>> NBAA type operator
>
>
> Ok, how do we define, for the purposes of regulation, an
> NBAA 'type' operator?
>
> Jose

I'm sure the feds could figure that one out.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>
> Oh yes, some people would. If they were stupid enough, they would.
> If this pilot knew about the tank and had been warned about it and
> actually knew how to fly, he would not fly into the tank, visibility
> or not. And if he were too stupid to do that, he'd fly right into it
> even in the clearest weather imaginable.

On that fateful night, the tower did not warn him about the tower. He
just tried to convince him to use Runway 30, the primary instrument runway.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 10:46:17 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>Roger > wrote:
>> after all he didn't ask me how I used the thing, he
>> asked how it worked.
>
>You should have responded, "Very nicely". :-)

To tell the truth *that* answer did cross my mind, but I hastily
buried it before I said it. <:-))
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> On that fateful night, the tower did not warn him about the tower. He
> just tried to convince him to use Runway 30, the primary instrument runway.

What did the tower say? And why didn't the tower mention the tank?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Ok, how do we define, for the purposes of regulation, an
>> NBAA 'type' operator?
> I'm sure the feds could figure that one out.

I'm sure they would not do a good job of it, and I don't think either of
us could either. It's one of the reasons I believe your proposed rule
is misguided.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>>> Ok, how do we define, for the purposes of regulation, an
>>> NBAA 'type' operator?
>>
>> I'm sure the feds could figure that one out.
>
>
> I'm sure they would not do a good job of it, and I don't think either of
> us could either. It's one of the reasons I believe your proposed rule
> is misguided.
>
> Jose

Well, it was you who asked me to split them out into more realistic
categories. I gave it my best shot as a first pass. This type of stuff
in reality is done carefully by a group of informed people.

The real point of it all is the wildly permissive apsect of
noncommercial IFR departures not having to pay any heed to the minimums
and procedures developed to protect their butts. We don't let this
happen with IFR approaches.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>On that fateful night, the tower did not warn him about the tower. He
>>just tried to convince him to use Runway 30, the primary instrument runway.
>
>
> What did the tower say? And why didn't the tower mention the tank?
>

It's been a long time. The tower simply urged him to use the primary
runway given the poor weather conditions.

The controller exceeded his authority in even doing that. Had he
mentioned the tower he would have been disregarding directives about not
telling the pilot what to do that would be unrelated to traffic separation.

The controller was not critized, nor should he have been.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
Had he
> mentioned the tower he would have been disregarding directives about not
> telling the pilot what to do that would be unrelated to traffic separation.

Baloney. If I think there is something the pilot should know I will
mention it to him. My services are not and have never been, limited to
traffic separation.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Well, it was you who asked me to split them out into more realistic categories. I gave it my best shot as a first pass. This type of stuff in reality is done carefully by a group of informed people.

.... and those "informed people" came up with what we have, with which
you take issue.

> The real point of it all is the wildly permissive apsect of noncommercial IFR departures not having to pay any heed to the minimums and procedures developed to protect their butts. We don't let this happen with IFR approaches.

.... which was also devised by "well informed people". I am in favor of
higher standards for commercial operations. This means that I am in
favor of =lower= standards for non-commercial operations. (Oh, gosh
golly, how can I ever be in favor of =lower= standards!) I am in favor
of allowing the Pilot In Command a high level of discretion. He's the
one whose ass is on the line. I also am aware that no rule can cover
all situations, which means that sometimes **** will happen, no matter
what rules are in place.

Your proposal seems to stem from ONE (bad) event. Mine stems from a
million (good) events.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Alan Gerber]

Sam Spade > wrote:
> The controller exceeded his authority in even doing that. Had he
> mentioned the tower he would have been disregarding directives about not
> telling the pilot what to do that would be unrelated to traffic separation.

Are you sure that's all the controller is allowed to tell a pilot?

How about weather, terrain alerts, gear-up warnings? Progressive taxi
instructions? Vectors for lost pilots?

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com