The new Fork Tailed Doctor Killer

This is a complex sociological subject and will require a book, not a
usenet email to analyze...

The issue here is the professional, 40 something usually,
intelligent, aggressive results oriented, no excuses, person who has
spent most of the first half of his life getting 20 or more years of
formal education, another 10-15 years of building a prefessional
reputation and growing his business, who can now afford the payments
on a $600K machine... There are issues of deferred gratification, a
sense of having to look invulnerable, and lots of other stuff I will
only allude to but otherwise ignore...
He is goal oriented (going to be here, there, and over there, and so
on, today), time driven (can't be late), and has relatively low pilot
experience, both in logbook time, and calendar time...

Now the profession doesn't matter... I like the old "fork tailed
doctor killer" attribution because it wraps up the whole package in
one pithy statement... But it is also the guy with three franchise
restaurants, doctors, lawyers, and maybe even indian chiefs... It is
the personality set that matters, not the business that makes it
financially possible...
The airplane is also variable... Used to be the venerable fork tail,
now it is the SR 22 currently the favorite yuppie status symbol with
that "parachute"

Now, I don't know what I would have done had that been my son I was
picking up at that airport that night... My view of the world is
colored by years of flying... I fly in the Great Lakes ice machine out
over those fresh water seas and often at night... So I fly a clapped
out old twin, for the second motor and other reasons that don't matter
here not much of a status symbol, eh... Given this airport down in
a hole, a pitch black night, no horizon, rapidly rising ground, and
low clouds; given that I been up since 5AM and worked a full day and
that it was now some 16 hours later; given my family was on board, I
might have refused the takeoff and waited for light...

denny

On 2008-03-21, Dan wrote:
The Mooney must be more efficient, given it's narrow surface, but you
can't wear a hat and you have to really like your co-pilot!

The M20F, at least, has at least as much shoulder room as an S-35
Bonanza.

The thing I don't like about Mooneys though, is the tank slit like
visibility and the top of the panel being so high. You sit up much
higher in a Bonanza, and it's a bit taller, and has a MUCH larger glass
area to look out of.

Still, I wouldn't turn a Mooney down.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On Mar 21, 5:18*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
I believe Part 97 may have prohibited
the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:

No, it's not a prohibition for Part 91 flights.
"91.175f: Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to
persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter.
(1) Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, no pilot may takeoff from
a civil airport under IFR unless the weather conditions at time of
takeoff are at or above the weather minimums for IFR takeoff
prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter."

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:26:43 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 5:18*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
I believe Part 97 may have prohibited
the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:

No, it's not a prohibition for Part 91 flights.
"91.175f: Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to
persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter.
(1) Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, no pilot may takeoff from
a civil airport under IFR unless the weather conditions at time of
takeoff are at or above the weather minimums for IFR takeoff
prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter."

Would a weather minimum exemption (ceiling and visibility) also exempt
the requirement to use a DP/ODP if assigned to that runway?

On Mar 21, 8:04*am, Denny wrote:
Now, I don't know what I would have done had that been my son I was
picking up at that airport that night...
Given this airport down in a hole, a pitch black night, no horizon,
rapidly rising ground, and low clouds;

The dark and clouds shouldn't have been prohibitive, given the IFR
flight plan. The airport wasn't in a hole--terrain was flat for two
miles west and forever to the north and northeast (the direction of
the destination).

What puzzles me is not the decision to take off, but rather the low
climb rate and the decision to use runway 27. If the weather resembled
what was reported nearby at OKV, runway 9 would have had a negligible
tailwind component.

On Mar 21, 8:57*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:26:43 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 5:18*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
I believe Part 97 may have prohibited
the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:

No, it's not a prohibition for Part 91 flights.
"91.175f: Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to
persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter.

Would a weather minimum exemption (ceiling and visibility) also exempt
the requirement to use a DP/ODP if assigned to that runway?

It wouldn't. But the qualification at the beginning of 91.175f isn't
just a weather-minimum exemption. It scopes over all of 91.175f,
including 91.175f1 (weather minimums) and 91.175f3 (ODPs).

Of course, what's permitted may not be wise.

On Mar 20, 2:07*am, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:49:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques





wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:17:19 -0400, Roger
wrote:

In these planes you have to have "It *all* together". *Piloting
skills, attitude, judgmental skills, and weather knowledge must all be
present and polished.

I've spent many hours just mucking around in marginal conditions in a
Cherokee 180 and in the Deb. *In the Cherokee I could almost always
say, "well it looks like it's getting a bit thicker and worse ahead so
we'd better turn around" While in the Deb at near 200 MPH it basically
goes from marginal to "where'd everything go?" in the blink of an eye.
Even being able to file you still have to have every thing ready and
the mind set to fly IFR. When I say being ready to file I mean
*competent* and polished not just current.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Well said. *

To accomplish such polished competency requires regular use and
maintenance. *I'd say a minimum of a cross country flight or more
weekly.

I think it depends on the pilot and the pilot's relationship with the
specific plane. *



Here I agree with Dudley. *Unless you are out in "weather" that is
beating the snot out of you the cross county , even *in the clouds can
be relatively relaxed and even hand flown although that begins to
become tiresome after *a couple of hours and that 's the time you are
going to need to be your sharpest. *It's flying those new approaches
with the little unexpected things popping up that really build up the
polish.

The cross country is the easy part. It's working the pattern and the
airplane at and near the left side of the envelope in all configurations
that really completes the currency picture.
These airplanes require their pilots to simply go out and PRACTICE with
them perhaps more than they do.

PERHAPS? *:-)) *

I think "purely personal opinion" based on 1300 hours in the Deb over
the last 12 years, these aren't exactly forgiving airplanes. *They may
be pussycats *(OK Streak excepted) compared to the big military
fighters, but they do not suffer lack of proficiency well.:-)) *The
pilot really needs to know just about everything there is to know
about the specific plane when coming in to land be it an approach or
VFR pattern and they have to be flexible. *Side step, circle to land,
missed and published holds, going missed on ATC's command, traffic
avoidance, doing things without hesitation or having to stop and
think. *And this is assuming every thing works.:-)) *Are we tilting a
little, do I have the leans, or is the AI dying? *Man, what a time to
go partial panel.

Joining the ILS right at the outer marker when you have a tail wind of
20 or 30 knots (90 degrees to the localizer) really messes up your
nice turns.

Follow the guy ahead and expect the visual. Eh? I can't see the guy
ahead or the airport and I'm supposed to FOLLOW HIM? * (Ben there,
done that ) *Ahhhh... Approach, I can't see the twin ahead or the
airport. *It's solid IMC up here. *OK, *maintain heading (what ever),
expect vectors to the visual on 09.

Circle left for the visual to 27. *Say what? *There's a whole string
of airliners departing 09. *Oh! Then circle right for 09. *I think
they do that *just to see if you are paying attention.

And multitasking. *Why is it that approach always manages to squeeze a
5 minute transmission into 20 seconds telling you what to do for the
next 15 minutes right at the outer marker when you are busier than a
cat covering crap on a marble floor and hauling dirt two miles. *This
can be particularly interesting if there is only one ILS, it has a
tail wind of 20 knots and you have to circle to land WHILE departing
traffic is going the other *direction.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Roger,

Sort of off topic, but I was browsing your sites again and saw that
you are/were building a G-III. Yuor last entry was in 2006 if I'm not
mistaken. Are you still at it? If so, how far along are you now?

Wil

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:13:01 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 8:57*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:26:43 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 5:18*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
I believe Part 97 may have prohibited
the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:

No, it's not a prohibition for Part 91 flights.
"91.175f: Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to
persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter.

Would a weather minimum exemption (ceiling and visibility) also exempt
the requirement to use a DP/ODP if assigned to that runway?

It wouldn't. But the qualification at the beginning of 91.175f isn't
just a weather-minimum exemption. It scopes over all of 91.175f,
including 91.175f1 (weather minimums) and 91.175f3 (ODPs).

Of course, what's permitted may not be wise.

Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "Civil airport
takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no
pilot operating an aircraft under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter may take off from a civil airport under IFR unless weather
conditions are at or above the weather minimum for IFR takeoff
prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter. If takeoff
minimums are not prescribed under part 97 of this chapter for a
particular airport, the following minimums apply to takeoffs under IFR
for aircraft operating under those parts: " where do you see that it's
anything other than a weather-minimum? (f)1 (f)2 and (f)3 define
standard visibility requirements for takeoff referenced to how many
engines or helicopter, nothing about DP or ODP.

I don't see offhand anything in part 91 that speaks to DP/ODP directly
at all. You might be right on there being nothing in 91 for it, but
91.175(f) isn't your basis. Still, taking off on a runway that's
listed as "NA - Obsticle" in the AF/D without being able to see it at
night isn't wise.

On Mar 21, 11:08*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "[...]"
where do you see that it's anything other than a weather-minimum? *
(f)1 (f)2 and (f)3 define
standard visibility requirements for takeoff referenced to how many
engines or helicopter, nothing about DP or ODP.

The first sentence of 91.175f (exempting Part 91) occurs prior to f1,
f2, and f3, and scopes over all of those. Please re-read 91.175f3; it
does refer to ODPs.

Part 97 says what the takeoff minimums and ODPs are. But 91.175f says
which flights the Part 97 resrictions do or don't apply to.

On Mar 21, 11:08*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "Civil airport
takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no
pilot operating an aircraft under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter may take off from a civil airport under IFR unless weather
conditions are at or above the weather minimum for IFR takeoff
prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter. [...]"

Oops, I shouldn't have snipped your FAR quote from my previous reply;
the quote is the crux of the matter. What you've quoted does not match
the CFRs as currently given on the government's web site (just google
e-CFR). There, 91.175f begins as I quoted it previously. Perhaps
you're referring to an obsolete version?