Are pilots really good or just lucky???

"Hilton" wrote:
It's too risky, IMO, to take my family into large areas of very low IMC
in my SE airplane. There just aren't enough "outs" available in case of
trouble. Neither will I depart with non-pilot pax aboard if the airport
is at or below minimums.

If always amazes me when pilots value others' lives more than their own.

You mean you don't? You wouldn't give your life to save your child's if
necessary?

Anyway, that's beside the point. My responsibility in this case is to try
and be the stand-in risk assessor for ignorant passengers. Since this is a
grey area at best, I err on the side of caution for them. They don't get
the same joy I do from flying, so I must assume the level of risk they would
accept if they knew all the facts is lower.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Hilton wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:

Gerald Sylvester wrote:
[snip]

So with my reasoning which certainly could be far off base, I guess my
question is, do you consider taking friends and family into
hard IMC that risky. I wouldn't take friends and family without
another
pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in
anything
but turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid in a way.

It's too risky, IMO, to take my family into large areas of very low IMC
in my SE airplane. There just aren't enough "outs" available in case of
trouble. Neither will I depart with non-pilot pax aboard if the airport
is at or below minimums.


If always amazes me when pilots value others' lives more than their own.

Why? I'd be sad if my wife or one of my kids died, however, if I get
killed, I won't be sad at all! :-)

Matt

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

snip

do you consider taking friends and family into
hard IMC that risky. I wouldn't take friends and family without another
pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in anything
but turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid in a way.

These kinds of decisions are why you're a pilot.

My risk assessment equations change to become more conservative when I have
passengers. I'm willing to allow the risk level to go higher for myself than for
unsuspecting passengers who don't have the knowledge or experience to assess
the risk for themselves. For passengers who are also pilots, I expect them to be
able to assess for themselves whether they wish to go along for the ride or not.

In answer to your specific question, no, I don't think IFR in anything but
turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid.

Dave,

I'm willing to allow the risk level to go higher for myself than for
unsuspecting passengers who don't have the knowledge or experience to assess
the risk for themselves.


I think that's a recipe for desaster. What makes you less vulnerable to risk?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Dave,


I'm willing to allow the risk level to go higher for myself than for
unsuspecting passengers who don't have the knowledge or experience to assess
the risk for themselves.



I think that's a recipe for desaster. What makes you less vulnerable to risk?

I'm not less vulnerable. I just think others deserve a more conservative
standard of caution when I am assessing the risk on their behalf, and they don't
have the training or knowledge to assess it for themselves. I don't know what
their risk tolerance is, so I assume they are more risk averse than I am.

Others on the NG have expressed it more eloquently, sorry I wasn't clear.

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
om...
Peter MacPherson wrote:

Comments like this woman taking their daughter across
the ocean is and into IMC really get me thinking. Flying hard IMC in
a bug smasher whether it is a C152 or a SR22 or a certified Known Ice
C210 with friends and family seems almost as bad as ferry crossing. You
might have some more airports to land at in case of an emergency but if
is hard IMC with 300 AGL ceilings, you really have the odds stacked
against you in both cases.


IMHO the thing to think about in this case is pilot failure more than
airplane failure. Seems to me most IMC accidents are either CFIT or spatial
disorientation. Though some appear to start when a mechanical or other
problem consumes the pilot's attention, many if not most seem to lack
aggravating factors.

So with my reasoning which certainly could be far off base, I guess my
question is, do you consider taking friends and family into
hard IMC that risky. I wouldn't take friends and family without another
pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in anything
but turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid in a way.


Personally I would not launch unless ceilings were 1000' and it looked like
I could cruise on top. But, the weather can always get worse, so you might
find a ceiling of 500' and be in the soup all the way. I don't have
different minimums for myself than for passengers, I don't want either of us
getting killed.

IMHO proficiency is the first thing to consider. If you never fly passengers
in IMC then it's not unlikely you don't fly much IMC period. In that case
you might want to stay out of the clouds too.

-cwk.

Gerald Sylvester wrote
When I first got my PPL almost a year ago, my first passengers were
beyond nervous with my being so green. The first few passengers raved
and now people are going out of their way to come visit and go for a
ride.

And in reality, that means nothing. Non-pilot pax are not equipped to
evaluate the safety or proficiency of a pilot in any meaningful way.
For that reason, we as pilots are responsible for managing risk for
them.

I'm now working on my IFR rating right. In this newsgroup
we had a thread running about taking friends and family into IMC and
their reactions and the added risks compared to VMC flights. For
me, going into IMC gets the adrenaline running for a week if not
more. I love the challenge but someday I just can't imagine
my friends and family feeling comfortable when they can't see anything
but the inside of the flask they are drinking from and the ceiling
as they pray.

I fairly routinely carry non-pilot passengers in IMC. None of them
have been uncomfortable, primarily because they have noted no changes
in how the airplane is flown, and they can see that I'm comfortable.
You see, as you develop more experience, it takes more to get the
adrenaline going. I find that simply going into IMC is no longer
enough to even break the ho-hum factor. Now if we're talking about an
overwater crossing, out of radio and RADAR contact, steering around
the storms using spherics, that's something. I would not take a
non-pilot passenger on a trip like that.

In fact, it's a good rule of thumb that if a flight is going to get
your adrenaline going, you shouldn't be carrying a passenger who can't
himself evaluate the risk.

Flying hard IMC in
a bug smasher whether it is a C152 or a SR22 or a certified Known Ice
C210 with friends and family seems almost as bad as ferry crossing.

I think that's nonsense of the first order. There is a HUGE
difference between doing it in a C-152 equipped for minimum IFR (how
else? There isn't the panel space nor the useful load for anything
more) and a well-equipped T-210 with known ice. There is NO TRUTH
WHATSOEVER to the idea that if you're not burning kerosene you might
as well be in a C-152. All airplanes have their operating envelopes
and risk factors, and there is not some huge step that is suddenly
crossed when you start buring kerosene.

You
might have some more airports to land at in case of an emergency but if
is hard IMC with 300 AGL ceilings, you really have the odds stacked
against you in both cases.

Do you know how rare it is to have widespread areas of 300 AGL
ceilings? I agree with you - widespread ceilings of 300 AGL or less
give you few options in a single. Few does not mean none. We have a
regular contributor here who flies a 210 and regularly practices a
deadstick instrument approach. Of course you have a lot more options
for that if you cruise at 15,000 ft than if you cruise at 5,000. Lots
of T-210's cruising at those altitudes, but no C-152's. And of course
in a light twin flying over relatively flat terrain, widespread 300 ft
ceilings are no big deal if your systems are properly redundant. Some
are, some are not.

In this case, she made the ferry crossing 'fine.' She got across the
pond after all but the bad part was she was a few miles short of
perfect. The bad part is her decision making about the
airworthiness of the plane combined with weather and fuel planning were
quite poor.

But the reality is that what took her out was a point failure for
which she did not have a backup. That's something to think about.

The average pilot does not get taken out by a point failure, but then
the average pilot does not fly or train often enough to be proficient
for IFR - and that includes the instrument rated pilots. If you're
going to fly IFR enough to be good at it, you're looking at a lot of
exposure to point failures, and need to think about having backups for
stuff. If you're going to be only an occasional IFR pilot, as is the
case for most active instrument rated private pilots, then don't worry
too much about redundancy. Worry about your proficiency, because
that's what causes most of the accidents. In that case, you're
probably safer in a C-152 than you would be in a T-210 - or a King
Air.

Michael

Michael wrote:

Gerald Sylvester wrote

When I first got my PPL almost a year ago, my first passengers were
beyond nervous with my being so green. The first few passengers raved
and now people are going out of their way to come visit and go for a
ride.


And in reality, that means nothing. Non-pilot pax are not equipped to
evaluate the safety or proficiency of a pilot in any meaningful way.
For that reason, we as pilots are responsible for managing risk for
them.


I'm now working on my IFR rating right. In this newsgroup
we had a thread running about taking friends and family into IMC and
their reactions and the added risks compared to VMC flights. For
me, going into IMC gets the adrenaline running for a week if not
more. I love the challenge but someday I just can't imagine
my friends and family feeling comfortable when they can't see anything
but the inside of the flask they are drinking from and the ceiling
as they pray.


I fairly routinely carry non-pilot passengers in IMC. None of them
have been uncomfortable, primarily because they have noted no changes
in how the airplane is flown, and they can see that I'm comfortable.
You see, as you develop more experience, it takes more to get the
adrenaline going. I find that simply going into IMC is no longer
enough to even break the ho-hum factor. Now if we're talking about an
overwater crossing, out of radio and RADAR contact, steering around
the storms using spherics, that's something. I would not take a
non-pilot passenger on a trip like that.

When I was flying IFR in IMC frequently in an airplane I was familiar
with (I owned a 182 for several years), I actually found it very
relaxing and peaceful. Even more so than in VMC. There is much less
traffic, no need to spend time scanning for traffic, etc.

Now, after a four year layoff, I'm not yet nearly that comfortable in
IMC, but it is coming back quickly. Also, I switched to a Piper Arrow
and learning a new plane takes away some of the comfort level, but I
agree that IMC should not be an adrenaline generating experience.


Matt

Gerald,

I guess my
question is, do you consider taking friends and family into
hard IMC that risky.


Why would your own life somehow be less important than that of other
people, however closely related you may be to them? I don't think that
way. If I consider the risk acceptable to my life, it is acceptable to
other people's, too. And yes, there would be types of IMC I consider
too risky for myself.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:

Why would your own life somehow be less important than that of other
people, however closely related you may be to them? I don't think that
way. If I consider the risk acceptable to my life, it is acceptable to
other people's, too. And yes, there would be types of IMC I consider
too risky for myself.

I don't agree, Thomas.

Some people ferry single-engine airplanes across the vast oceans. This
is indisputably a high risk thing to do, but they accept the risk
because of the rewards of money and personal satisfaction. Still, I
very much doubt many of them take their kids along for the ride,
believing--appropriately, I would argue--that what is acceptable risk
for them is not acceptable for an innocent child. Would you say that the
ferry pilots think their lives are worth less than their children's?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM