Angry [More Info]

Hilton wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

And also perhaps another example (together with the stats) that Private
pilots need more (real) instrument time that what's required by Part 61.

Do you really think that would have helped?


Yes Jay, I do believe training improves a pilot's skills.

This was more of a judgment issue than a flying skills issue. Most
pilot training, at least short of the airline's CRM training, rarely
covers much about judgment. Some instructors are much better in this
regard than others, but it simply isn't high on the list typically.


Matt

Hilton wrote:

snip
Secondly, tell me how you would handle an engine failure over the unlit
hills in the clouds (that 'cover' the hills), at night, IMC, etc etc etc.

What about over the hills in low IMC during the day?

To me the risks seem the same, yet many pilots only single out night IMC as
the boogy man in single engine aviation.

In terms of answering your question, I would handle an engine failure at
night the same as day IMC. I should point out that I do fuel plan
meticulously prior to *every* flight I make and I fly my own
high-performance, 150 hours since rebuilt engine aircraft that is
meticulously maintained, so as to further reduce the odds of an engine
failure.

However, I don't mean to drift this thread away from your original topic,
with which we share the same reaction.


--
Peter

"Hilton" wrote in message
nk.net...
Allow me to quote a couple of sentences from the latest Nall Report
(2004):
"Accidents in such conditions, for example, adverse weather or at night,
are more likely to result in fatality."
"...only 14.0 percent of daytime accidents resulted in fatalities. At
night, more than one in three (36.1 percent) was fatal."

That's not a meaningful comparison, though. A higher proportion of
fatalities among nighttime accidents could result from a lower rate (per
hour) of nonfatal accidents rather than a higher rate of fatal accidents.

However, the fatality rate at night is indeed higher (and for night IMC,
it's higher still). But I don't know whether that's due to a greater danger
following an engine failure or electrical failure, or instead due to the
danger of, for example, maneuvering accidents during circling approaches
under a low ceiling. If the latter, the increased danger could be eliminated
by avoiding such approaches at night.

--Gary

Morgans wrote:

As they say, a second engine is there to take
you to the crash site.

Then "they" aren't worth listening to. One guess why the safety record
of twin-engine light planes isn't better...

....the answer is in the left seat. Operate them according to their
abilities and limitations and you'll do just fine. The fact that you
can't do that on a casual basis, and get away with it as easily as you
can with a 172, seems to escape some people. That sort of thinking is
the inspiration for the Darwin awards.

At least the comment had something to do with aviation -- a nice change
from the rest of the thread.


Jack

Gary Drescher wrote:

However, the fatality rate at night is indeed higher (and for night IMC,
it's higher still). But I don't know whether that's due to a greater danger
following an engine failure or electrical failure, or instead due to the
danger of, for example, maneuvering accidents during circling approaches
under a low ceiling. If the latter, the increased danger could be eliminated
by avoiding such approaches at night.

An excellent suggestion. Years ago our airline raised the minimum
altitude for circling approaches to 1000' HAA. A few years later it
eliminated circling approaches altogether. A wise move which more
operators should follow -- in particular those non-professionals who
don't do them on a regular basis.

You may have gotten away with one or a few, but night circling
approaches in unfavorable weather conditions are among the most
difficult things to do safely. Without regular, frequent practice and
familiarity with the equipment, facilities, and procedures you are far
better off without them, in the long run.


Jack

Hilton wrote:

And also
perhaps another example (together with the stats) that Private pilots need
more (real) instrument time that what's required by Part 61.

Additional practice on instruments won't help someone scud-run. The only thing
that would have saved this guy once he decided to launch would have been the
ability to file IFR.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
nk.net...
By and large an accurate assessment except for the kids. The news said
they
were adopting the kids.

Well, absent any other evidence to the contrary, I guess it was just a case
of Darwin considering it acceptable collateral damages... sick-grin

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
It may qualify, but officially night IMC doesn't mean a clear moonless
night - that's still (officially) night VMC. Also, anywhere where there
is significant amount of lighting on the ground, night VMC (on a clear
moonless night, which is likely to also mean smooth flying conditions)
compared to a cloudy night with poor visibility (which may include
turbulence and icing in the clouds).

I was flying from Houston to New Orleans a year or so ago at night...
Technically, it was VMC, but from a practical standpoint, I was flying by
instruments... There was no moon and a high cloud layer that blocked view of
the stars... There were no lights on the ground because I was flying over
swamps... An interesting experience for a VFR pilot, but the air was
smooth, so the stress level wasn't that bad...

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
The equipment you're flying has much to do with it, too. I'd much rather
be in a high-performance aircraft in night IMC in the mountains than in a
C172, though.

Yeah, it would be nice to be able to fly *over* the mountains instead of
*through* them...

NOTE: "through" is different than "around"...

Morgans wrote:
Hilton wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
And also perhaps another example (together with the stats) that Private
pilots need more (real) instrument time that what's required by Part
61.

Do you really think that would have helped?

Yes Jay, I do believe training improves a pilot's skills.

Keeping in mind that better flying skills will not always save your butt,
training does not always teach someone to have better decision making
skills. I've got to think that was the biggest contributor, in this case,
don't you?

I agree 100% with you. Here are my thoughts. This guy just finished
training, went through the practical and passed; i.e. proficient per the
requirements. He couldn't handle the IMC, and the statistics say that many
many others couldn't too; i.e. the ones who crash. So, why then do we teach
instrument skills? Either pilots need to be proficient enough to be able to
do a 180 - that's all this pilot needed to do, or not. If not, scrap the 3
hours from Part 61. If they should be able to fly (to safety) in IMC, then
IMHO pilots need a lot more instrument training for their private. Bottom
line, this scenario is so high on the 'killer' list, clearly something is
wrong with the requirement and/or training.

Having said all that, yes, the decision to go was extremely bad - that's why
I called this thread 'Angry'. But once the pilot was in IMC, why could he
not do a 180 after he had just very recently finished the training and
checkride to do just that?

Hilton