Are pilots really good or just lucky???

"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

"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.