Are pilots really good or just lucky???

When I read something like this:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...2/A03A0022.asp

....I worry a lot.

We have a pilot with 110 successfully Atlantic crossings and 5000 hours,
taking a plane...IFR... 2000 miles across the North Atlantic into the
Canadian sub-Arctic in the dead of winter...

The plane has no Cabin heat.
The plane has no working turn coordinator.
The plane's ELT battery is out of date.
That doesn't really matter because the ELT switch was turned to "OFF",
anyway.
The plane does not have enough fuel to reach alternate + 45... barely enough
to reach alternate.
That doesn't really matter, because the alternate was actual and forecast
below limits anyway.
That doesn't matter either, because the plane was not equipped with the
necessary equipment to accomplish any of the published approaches at the
alternate, anyway.

In spite of all that, if she could have lasted just 6 more miles, it would
have been another ho-hum crossing.

.... but the AI gyro gave up with 6 NM to go, and with no Turn
coordinator...in IMC..., she became a statistic on the ice of Hamilton
Inlet.

Which brings up the question.... is this kind of decision-making truly an
anomaly.... or is it the norm more often than we would like to think?

Do a whole ton of flights stay out of the Safety Board's reports more by
good luck than good management?

Some people just like a challenge.

Which brings up the question.... is this kind of decision-making truly an
anomaly.... or is it the norm more often than we would like to think?
Do a whole ton of flights stay out of the Safety Board's reports more by
good luck than good management?

How about the part where she brings her daughter along. I don't
know how old the daughter was, or if she was a pilot, but you
would think someone would put your family's safety over completing
a ferry flight. You wonder how many other trips she made just like
this one and made it......


"Icebound" wrote in message
...
When I read something like this:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...2/A03A0022.asp

...I worry a lot.

We have a pilot with 110 successfully Atlantic crossings and 5000 hours,
taking a plane...IFR... 2000 miles across the North Atlantic into the
Canadian sub-Arctic in the dead of winter...

The plane has no Cabin heat.
The plane has no working turn coordinator.
The plane's ELT battery is out of date.
That doesn't really matter because the ELT switch was turned to "OFF",
anyway.
The plane does not have enough fuel to reach alternate + 45... barely
enough to reach alternate.
That doesn't really matter, because the alternate was actual and forecast
below limits anyway.
That doesn't matter either, because the plane was not equipped with the
necessary equipment to accomplish any of the published approaches at the
alternate, anyway.

In spite of all that, if she could have lasted just 6 more miles, it would
have been another ho-hum crossing.

... but the AI gyro gave up with 6 NM to go, and with no Turn
coordinator...in IMC..., she became a statistic on the ice of Hamilton
Inlet.

Which brings up the question.... is this kind of decision-making truly an
anomaly.... or is it the norm more often than we would like to think?

Do a whole ton of flights stay out of the Safety Board's reports more by
good luck than good management?

"Icebound" wrote
We have a pilot with 110 successfully Atlantic crossings and 5000 hours,
taking a plane...IFR... 2000 miles across the North Atlantic into the
Canadian sub-Arctic in the dead of winter...

If you make your living ferrying aircraft internationally (not make
the odd flight, but make your living that way - there is a huge
difference) then you can't really afford to turn down a plane just
because it's not really airworthy for IFR flight (most of them are
not) and you can't afford to scrub the flight just because you can't
legally make it. It's a dangerous way to make a living. So is flying
airshow aerobatics, cropdusting, fire bombing...

The only real question in my mind is why she brought her daughter
along.

Which brings up the question.... is this kind of decision-making truly an
anomaly.... or is it the norm more often than we would like to think?

I've known some people who routinely made ferry flights. Some of the
stories they told make me believe this isn't so far out.

You see, when a plane is in good shape and the ferry flight is
reasonably within the airplane's capability, you don't hire a pro.
They're expensive. You get an experienced local pilot to do it. It's
way cheaper, because they'll do it for expenses and pocket change.
It's when the experienced local pilots won't touch it, and the only
volunteers are kids with hours in three digits, that you hire the pro
- usually because the insurance company demands it or you don't trust
the kid with an uninsured airplane.

Do a whole ton of flights stay out of the Safety Board's reports more by
good luck than good management?

Yes, of course. Today's aircraft are pretty reliable. In 1900+
hours, I've seen an AI failure twice. That's not a lot. When you're
looking at only spending a few hours in IMC for the whole trip, there
is the tendency to ask "Well, what are the odds?" And they're not
high. But if you keep doing it time after time after time, the odds
catch up with you. That's all that happened here - the odds finally
caught up with a pilot after 5000 hours.

But what 5000 hours they must have been. Could any number of hours
getting hundred dollar hamburgers, going around the pattern, or
reading the newspaper while the autopilot flies the plane and the
stews serve drinks ever compare?

To quote Lindbergh (whose transatlantic crossing was made with far
more preparation, but whose equipment was less capable, more finicky,
and less redundant than what this pilot had):

"If I could fly for 10 years before being killed in a crash, that
would be a good trade for an ordinary lifetime."

Of course Lindbergh only did it once.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

But what 5000 hours they must have been. Could any number of hours
getting hundred dollar hamburgers, going around the pattern, or
reading the newspaper while the autopilot flies the plane and the
stews serve drinks ever compare?


There's a lot of truth in that. Ferrying little planes over big oceans does
not attract the risk-averse, that's for sure. This kind of flying is right
up there in my book with fishing in the Bering Sea or climbing the
Himalayas. A good part of the US was settled by people who piled wives and
little children into covered wagons to cross a continent full of deadly
weather and hostile natives. There isn't a lot of room left in the world for
people like that.

The only thing I find myself really choking on in this case is the turn
coordinator. That strikes me as a sort of russian roulette. Plan A is you
have the AI. Plan B is you have the TC. Plan C is compass and altimeter.
There's a realistic chance you'll need Plan B eventually and it is
survivable. Plan C means you're most likely f---ed, but it's pretty unlikely
you'll lose both the AI or vacuum and the electrical system at the same
time, so I don't think about it. Taking off without a working TC meant her
Plan B was really Plan C. So yeah, I'm going to conclude there was a serious
element of recklessness here.

-cwk.

There's a lot of truth in that. Ferrying little planes over big oceans does
not attract the risk-averse, that's for sure. This kind of flying is right
up there in my book with fishing in the Bering Sea or climbing the
Himalayas. A good part of the US was settled by people who piled wives and
little children into covered wagons to cross a continent full of deadly
weather and hostile natives. There isn't a lot of room left in the world for
people like that.


When the pioneers settled the area west of the Missippii via covered wagon, and
such, there were not many alternatives other than staying put.

To compare this reckless woman with those pioneering individuals denigrates
their memory.

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...

The only thing I find myself really choking on in this case is the turn
coordinator. That strikes me as a sort of russian roulette. Plan A is you
have the AI. Plan B is you have the TC. Plan C is compass and altimeter.

Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296,
with TC and AI displays?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message..
Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296,
with TC and AI displays?


The 296 has a Attitude Indicator???

A portable GPS would have been a decent backup, but the report mentions no
GPS. I would have to imagine in this day in age, a GPS (or a bunch of them)
would be a necessity.

wrote in message ...

When the pioneers settled the area west of the Missippii via covered
wagon, and
such, there were not many alternatives other than staying put.

To compare this reckless woman with those pioneering individuals
denigrates
their memory.


Nonsense. The people who packed their families up for the difficult and
dangerous journey, let alone the uncertain times that followed, were taking
a chance to make their lives materially better. To own a piece of land, and
the fruits of their own labor, this was the dream that took so many people
West. There were measly and comparatively safe lives available for all of
them in the immigrant ghettoes of the East. This was not the exodus of the
Jews from Egypt- they were free people taking action to live a better life.

Recklessness to many people is defined as taking risks that are unnecessary.
For 99% of us, flying a small plane is unnecessary. Any trip we make by
Cessna we could make more safely by car or airline, and as for fun, most
people are content with fishing. You can either make your peace with this or
deny it, but facts is facts. As a society today we run from risks and deny
their consequences to the point that we have people suing McDonald's for
making them fat. In the midst of that I'll keep a light on for those who
choose something more adventurous. I'm sure the men and women who walked the
Oregon Trail wouldn't mind.

-cwk.

That would be interesting to know. However, I stand by my judgment that this
was pretty egregious. Fixing this wouldn't have been *that* difficult. They
knew about it at least a week beforehand--more than enough time to call
Chief and have them FedEx a new one and have any old mechanic slap it in.

-cwk.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...

The only thing I find myself really choking on in this case is the turn
coordinator. That strikes me as a sort of russian roulette. Plan A is
you
have the AI. Plan B is you have the TC. Plan C is compass and altimeter.

Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296,
with TC and AI displays?