Ever stuck your neck out too far? And got away with it?

(Teacherjh) wrote in message ...

I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
under trying conditions.


I'd have to assume this is military or life-and-death missions. If not, I'd
question your risk/reward equation.

Jose

Jose
Well, you are polite about it and I appreciate that! If you think
about it, every time a pilot takes off it can very quickly turn into a
life or death situation. I've experienced 18 actual emergencies in
flight that I can relate to and have entered in my logbook. Most were
mechanical failures of some sort and I'm thankful that only one person
aside from myself was ever injured in the process.
No I don't make flying junk a habit. When critical components fail
after being replaced, whose fault is it? The pilot? The mechanic who
did the work? The facility who did the overhaul? The original design?
That is what the legal profession thrives on.
As I near the end of my flying days I think back on places I've flown,
the conditions, the equipment and the problems. Would not hesitate to
go back and try it again.
What pilot doesn't have some trepidation on the first solo? Or on the
first long XC, or the first actual IMC? The only difference in a new
pilot and an old gray hair like me is experience. I've never done a
trans-pac nor a trans-atlantic ferry flight and I am not particularly
interested yet pilots with less than a thousand hours will take it on
just for the experience.
So, who is the daredevil? What is their risk/reward ratio? To this
point I have tried to make a calculated decision for any given flight
and if it was risky I did even more thought to determine if it could
be done safely. I guess the problem is when you try to define what is
too risky or safe?
I see videos of guys hanging off the side of a cliff and even sleeping
there while they do a climb. Sure as hell will never see me doing
that! Yet I have made over a hundred free fall parachute jumps and see
no particular danger in that as long as I pay attention to my
equipment and conditions. I've got over a thousand logged hours
underwater yet feel threatened by diving in some areas of the world
where locals swim all the time.
Who is to say what is safe and what is not or what is stupid or not?
Interesting subject here and a great place to exchange views and
thoughts. If only some of them could not be such blind flamers......
best regards
SelwayKid

I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
under trying conditions.


I'd have to assume this is military or life-and-death missions. If not, I'd
question your risk/reward equation.

Jose

Jose
Well, you are polite about it and I appreciate that! If you think
about it, every time a pilot takes off it can very quickly turn into a
life or death situation. I've experienced 18 actual emergencies in
flight that I can relate to and have entered in my logbook. Most were
mechanical failures of some sort and I'm thankful that only one person
aside from myself was ever injured in the process....


The way you had phrased it (and the context in which you replied) made it seem
as if flying an airplane on fumes was just a routine part of professional
flying. I'll grant that the more one flies, the more one runs into the edge of
the envelope simply due to greater exposure. This is true for mechanical
failures that are not the pilots fault as well as for errors in judgement by
the pilot in question. More flying, more chances to make errors. Fact of
life.

The comment however appears to portray a cavalier attitude, and this raised my
eyebrow. You make a reference to "trying conditions" leaving it to our
imagination what they may be - what conditions would lead you to continue to
fly on fumes. I can think of a few (ocean crossing with unexpected headwinds,
fuel leak over mountains, bombing or rescue run in wartime, stuff like that), h
owever in most cases landing at the nearest airport to fuel up long before the
one becmes reliant on Lady Luck would be indicated. Not doing so under those
circumstances would have been called "stupid" in the accident investigation,
no?


To this point I have tried to make a calculated decision for
any given flight and if it was risky I did even more thought
to determine if it could be done safely.


We all do that. In my case, when the outcome (though lucky) takes me too close
to the edge, I do not treat it as "just a pilot working the best way I can..."
I ask myself "what the #$* was I thinking??" and analyse the answer.


....Yet I have made over a hundred free fall parachute jumps and see
no particular danger in that as long as I pay attention to my
equipment and conditions.


What would your reaction on rec.parachuting be to somebody who said that he
can't even count the times he's landed with a chute that lines missing, holes,
or in (too) high winds? (I've only jumped once, back before Lake Elsinore
flooded the airport, so don't really know the edge of that envelope)

It is that to which I was reacting.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

(Teacherjh) wrote in message ...

I don't even bother thinking of the many times when I landed with
either a helicopter or airplane on fumes and sweating it out the whole
way. Stupid? Nope... just a professional working the best way I can
under trying conditions.


I'd have to assume this is military or life-and-death missions. If not, I'd
question your risk/reward equation.

Jose

Jose
Well, you are polite about it and I appreciate that! If you think
about it, every time a pilot takes off it can very quickly turn into a
life or death situation. I've experienced 18 actual emergencies in
flight that I can relate to and have entered in my logbook. Most were
mechanical failures of some sort and I'm thankful that only one person
aside from myself was ever injured in the process....


The way you had phrased it (and the context in which you replied) made it seem
as if flying an airplane on fumes was just a routine part of professional
flying. I'll grant that the more one flies, the more one runs into the edge of
the envelope simply due to greater exposure. This is true for mechanical
failures that are not the pilots fault as well as for errors in judgement by
the pilot in question. More flying, more chances to make errors. Fact of
life.

The comment however appears to portray a cavalier attitude, and this raised my
eyebrow. You make a reference to "trying conditions" leaving it to our
imagination what they may be - what conditions would lead you to continue to
fly on fumes. I can think of a few (ocean crossing with unexpected headwinds,
fuel leak over mountains, bombing or rescue run in wartime, stuff like that), h
owever in most cases landing at the nearest airport to fuel up long before the
one becmes reliant on Lady Luck would be indicated. Not doing so under those
circumstances would have been called "stupid" in the accident investigation,
no?


To this point I have tried to make a calculated decision for
any given flight and if it was risky I did even more thought
to determine if it could be done safely.


We all do that. In my case, when the outcome (though lucky) takes me too close
to the edge, I do not treat it as "just a pilot working the best way I can..."
I ask myself "what the #$* was I thinking??" and analyse the answer.


...Yet I have made over a hundred free fall parachute jumps and see
no particular danger in that as long as I pay attention to my
equipment and conditions.


What would your reaction on rec.parachuting be to somebody who said that he
can't even count the times he's landed with a chute that lines missing, holes,
or in (too) high winds? (I've only jumped once, back before Lake Elsinore
flooded the airport, so don't really know the edge of that envelope)

It is that to which I was reacting.

Jose

Jose
The lake often flooded the airport even back in the late 50's when I
began jumping there!A lot of my flying was in remote areas, some were
not even mapped yet and many areas the fuel was iffy if it was even
available. there have been times when I was on fumes due to leaks of
one sort or other, or the possibility that the "restless natives" were
going to either use me for target practice, or put me in a cooking pot
if I landed at the wrong place/time.
There are many types of flight operations when an intentional light
fuel load is called for and if it gets cut too close, you end up
making an unscheduled landing. Crop dusting is a good example and I
have over 35 years doing that.
I'm sure if one were to ask, there are those times in nearly every
profession that require working close to the edge and takes judgement
based on experience to be done successfully. The more experience, the
finer the line is and with more chance of making errors.
Happy New Year!!
SelwayKid

The lake often flooded the airport even back in the late 50's when I
began jumping there!


That would explain my experience with the FAA when I dutifully sent in the
sectional marked with the lake covering the airport, and heard nothing back,
and future sectionals showed no change.

A lot of my flying was in remote areas...

Ok, I see where you're coming from.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)