![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"C Kingsbury" wrote
Fair enough. Borrow one from somebody else's plane and give them the new one when it shows up. You can always figure something out if you really want to. Right, but the point is that if you do that for ALL the risk factors, you're out of a job. There were lots of issues on this flight. There always are. This is a flight that was really beyond the normal capability of the aircraft. As I said before, if the flight presents what an experienced pilot would consider a reasonable risk, there is no need to hire a professional. If you're willing to fix the plane - meaning make it IFR capable, put in extended range tanks if necessary or wait for favorable winds/weather, and do all the things that would make it a reasonable flight, a local experienced pilot will do it for expenses and pocket change. It's a hell of an adventure. You call in the specialist when you're not willing to deal with the constraints placed by that local pilot. You're not willing to fix the plane properly, get ferry tanks or wait on winds/weather, etc. You want to do the minimum. Did you notice how pilots from a local flying club were flying the plane locally, day-VFR? It was in the writeup. So why was an expensive specialist brought in? Because the plane was really only suitable for local day_VFR flying the way it was, and those pilots knew it. 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. Michael |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Good plans-built Light Sport Aircraft | Rob Schneider | Home Built | 15 | August 19th 04 05:50 PM |
DCPilots for Washington, DC area pilots | Bill | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | June 5th 04 12:32 AM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
bulding a kitplane maybe Van's RV9A --- a good idea ????? | Flightdeck | Home Built | 10 | September 9th 03 07:20 PM |