182 crash at GON

I think "IFR Rating" is common enough a term to be well understood.
Effective communication is key and I think that does it quite well.

As for your issue with flying in IMC conditions solo with no prior
experience in actual weather, we have discussed many times in the past that
in the military you were supervised considerably and in fact did not have
dispatch authority. So you had someone watching you who knew your recent
experience level and the weather at hand. That is totally different than
the current world where an "instrument rating" is a license to dispatch
oneself as well as to fly the mission.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
I think "IFR Rating" is common enough a term to be well understood.
Effective communication is key and I think that does it quite well.

And if we all use the terms that the issuing agency does...


As for your issue with flying in IMC conditions solo with no prior
experience in actual weather, we have discussed many times in the past
that in the military you were supervised considerably and in fact did
not have dispatch authority. So you had someone watching you who knew
your recent experience level and the weather at hand. That is totally
different than the current world where an "instrument rating" is a
license to dispatch oneself as well as to fly the mission.

That might have been the theory, but in practice, if your name was
on the schedule, you went flying.

Bob Moore

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/con...l_plane_crash/


When this sort of thing happens to experienced pilots (1400 hours,
CP-AS/MEL-IR, Angel Flight volunteer; co-pilot, 540 hours), I wonder if CO
poisoning, or some other impairment, could be responsible.

Does experience make you immune to spatial disorientation? These were
certainly the conditions to produce it, especially for someone from
Phoenix. I'm a newbie and it's quite possible that I have more actual
instrument hours from 3 years of flying in New England than a 1400-hour
pilot from Arizona does.

Maybe his number just came up. I know the FAA calls this a hazardous
attitude (i.e. "resignation") but Ernie Gann said it best, "fate is the
hunter." This is in my mind the real "risk" of flying, that no matter
how hard you try to do things right, there is still that chance that
some day the universe will decide to punch your ticket for no
particular reason. For more information, contact your local
preacher-man.

-cwk.

wrote:

Does experience make you immune to spatial disorientation?

Experience should make an instrument pilot more adept at quickly diagnosing
and then disregarding the confusion brought on by spatial disorientation.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

The other thing about the OP's note is the pilot asked for circle to
land after flying the ILS to what sounds like MDA before breaking out.
Fate punching one's ticket happens, but those of us who fly SEL in IMC
often (at least if they were trained as I was) fly the approach
expecting to fly the miss and treat finding the runway as a happy
accident. We'd just not consider requesting circle to land under a 200
foot ceiling. Also, for those without a lot of 'actual' time, take that
"expect to fly the miss" seriously. My experience is that about 5
percent of my IMC approaches (I flew a lot in New England, often to
uncontrolled airports) were misses, and expecting to "fly runway
heading to 1100 feet, right turn" etc is a lot less confusing than
expecting to see the runway and then having to consult the approach
plate at a faily busy time.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it(and await the grammer police
with a grin on my face, but Mooney jocks usually have a grin on their
face).

"Tony" wrote in message
oups.com...
That's my story and I'm sticking to it (and await the grammer police
with a grin on my face, but Mooney jocks usually have a grin on their
face).

Don't worry--I, for one, consider it impolite to correct others' grammar,
except when they themselves are lecturing on proper usage. :-)

--Gary

"Tony" wrote in message
oups.com...
The other thing about the OP's note is the pilot asked for circle to
land after flying the ILS to what sounds like MDA before breaking out.
Fate punching one's ticket happens, but those of us who fly SEL in IMC
often (at least if they were trained as I was) fly the approach
expecting to fly the miss and treat finding the runway as a happy
accident. We'd just not consider requesting circle to land under a 200
foot ceiling.

Exactly. A "circle to land" under a 200' ceiling can't possibly be legal or
safe, so the very request already shows serious confusion about elementary
IFR procedure (even though the crash itself didn't occur until the
subsequent approach).

--Gary

"Tony" wrote in message
oups.com...
Fate punching one's ticket happens, but those of us who fly SEL in IMC
often (at least if they were trained as I was) fly the approach
expecting to fly the miss and treat finding the runway as a happy
accident.

Yup. And even if the you forget to brief the missed approach, it still
should be instinctive, once you know an approach has been botched, to climb
using the final-approach heading (or just *any* heading) and then, when the
climb is stable a few seconds later, to consult the chart or the tower to
find out what to do next. That's especially true in this case since GON is
in a flat coastal area, as the pilot would've known from even the most
cursory preflight planning.

--Gary