Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I use ?

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?

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.

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.

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

: 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 *
************************************************** ***********************

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.

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". :-)

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.

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.

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.