"Michael" wrote in message
om...

I would not have taken that plane on that trip either. It wasn't just
the TC, either. There was no cabin heat - and that meant no
windshield deice. It would have taken only trace icing to stop all
forward visibility and make the plane unlandable. There wasn't an
adequate IFR panel. There was insufficient reserve for the
conditions. There was an engine of questionable history and an
overwater crossing. Too many risks, not enough reason. That's why
I'm not a ferry pilot - I don't have the guts. That's no reason to
put down those who do.


I guess my focus on the TC is that out of all these issues it's the one that
simply screams at me because it's high-risk and easy to fix. There's no
low-cost easy fix for the engine, and I can see taking the chance with the
window ice. I suppose you could fly the ILS with a stabilized power-on
approach setting and figure you'll hit the ground in the best attitude
possible. Crack the plane up but reasonable chance of survival. Fuel-wise
I'll defer since she'd done 100+ flights and thus conceivably knew how to
play that game better than most. But lose the vacuum or AI in IMC, well,
bang, you're at the top of s--t creek, please hand over the paddle. And
that's true whether you're over the North Atlantic or the Great Plains. I
have very few qualms about flying with just the DG and TC; I did half of my
instrument raining in just that configuration. TC alone makes it a bit
tougher but I'm confident I could handle it, though you can bet I'd be on
the line asking for no-gyro vectors to the closest ILS without hesitation.
But compass and altimeter alone, that's a scary thought. Will have to try
that next time I go up for a ride with my CFII.

In any case, I can respect someone's guts and at the same time find their
disregard for safety a bit... um... pathological? And I'm hardly an
anti-risk person.

-cwk.