Wide-ranging Safety Discussion...?

On 6/26/2012 2:31 PM, Bill D wrote:

Major snip...

One of Feith's presentations uses a picture of burning wreckage with,
he says in his chilling way, 4 dead people inside. The light airplane
had stalled and crashed on takeoff while Greg happened to be at the
same airport so he was at the wreck site within a minute or so.The
flight was on an instrument flight plan in IMC with a ceiling of 600
feet but stalled and crashed before reaching the clouds. He points to
the cover with it's "remove before flight" flag still on the pitot
tube indicating the pilot had no airspeed data.

He then asked the audience if the pilot should have been able to fly
without a reliable ASI. They demur and Greg points out that every
instrument student learns to fly without one - that's why Sporty's
sells black suction disks to cover instruments.

Greg then asked when the pilot should have noticed the malfunctioning
instrument and gets various answers. Greg points out the pilot should
have noticed it before rotation and aborted the takeoff - even going
off the end of the runway would have been survivable. (I used to
carry a small cardboard slide rule which gave me the exact time to Vr
with consideration for density altitude and airplane weight.)

Without saying it is so many words, the dam[n]ing evidence pilot error
caused 4 deaths is plain to see. Three errors in fact. (1) Failure
to remove pitot cover in the pre-flight. (2) Failure to notice a
malfunctioning instrument on the takeoff roll. (3) Inability to fly
the airplane without an ASI. What more would the NTSB need to say?

One might argue the pilot might have been fatigued or distracted as
possible "outside causes" but that won't do. A pilot is responsible
for a personal pre-flight as well as for the aircraft.


"I'm with Feith and Bill D. on this one...all the way!" I might even add a 4th
error: Failure to hit the ground horizontally. But maybe that's just harsh ol'
me...

Though I'm more willing to cut some dead pilots "Fate slack" than is Bill,
tortuous reasoning IS required to deflect causal influences/conclusions away
from Joe PIC.

My first flight with an inop airspeed (it was drizzling heavily when I took
off in a 1-26) happened under my instructor's tutelage. Not until he told me
the ASI probably wouldn't work did the thought enter my skull. (Like all
ab-initio beginners, I was hugely ignorant and essentially completely
dependent on my instructor's judgment at the time.) Though my first
inclination was to exit the cockpit and not fly, I deferred to his laughing
assessment to the effect: "You know what it stalls like and what it sounds
like and what it feels like. Don't fly that slow!"

The ASI quit on the T/O roll, the plane flew as he'd reinforced to me, I
learned a bunch for future reference and never felt I'd been exposed to hasty
or incomplete instruction on the matter. (In hindsight, I suspect instructor
Tom actively connived to expose me to a teachable moment.) Tom had told me
what to expect, noted why I could expect it if I ignored my
senses/experience-to-date, and given me unforgettable, useful, instruction.
(Thanks, Tom!)

Since then I've had other ASI's in various gliders quit aloft (always from
rain), and landed at least one that way that I can recall, and all were
non-events - mentally and in fact.

Aviate. (Fly the stinking airplane!)
Navigate. (Don't hit nuthin'!)
Communicate. (Anything from pointless to potentially useful in multiple ways,
depending...)

Simple, prioritized, and - if implemented - generally effective.

Bob W.