Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I use ?

In article , Sam Spade
wrote:

Jose wrote:
... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff minimums if
part 91. It's not necessarily a good idea, but shouldn't be
regulatorily mandated.



I have never figured that one out, especially when uninformed,
innocent passengers are involved.


All things carry risk. It is up to the pilot in command to decide
whether the risk is worth the benefit.

Jose

That is the cool aid that AOPA keeps selling. Unknowing passengers
deserve better.

There is a certain amount of truth to that.

When I take a pax in my car, they are in a familiar environment, with some
frame of reference to rationally evaluate my performance. They know
whether doing 90 MPH down a city street is a reasonable thing to. Likewise
they have some reasonable idea of how closely I should be trailing the guy
in front of me, or when I should be putting my headlights or windshield
wipers on, or whether skidding the tires when I stop at a red light is
normal.

When I take somebody in an airplane, they usually have no frame of
reference. If I'm punching through clouds without a clearance, they have
no way of knowing if that's a good thing or not. They wouldn't even know
if we're about to run out of gas because they probably can't even recognize
what the fuel gauge looks like. Let's say we've just taken off a buzzer
starts going of. I tell them "Oh, don't worry about that, it's nothing".
They have no way of knowing if I'm telling them the truth (we just crossed
over the middle marker for the other end of the runway) or I'm bull****ting
them (I over-rotated and we just narrowly avoided a accidental stall).

Paying passengers are carried under Part 135 and the
minimums are higher.

The AOPA doesn't peddle Kool-Aid.



"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
| Jose wrote:
| ... same reason it's legal to depart below takeoff
minimums if
| part 91. It's not necessarily a good idea, but
shouldn't be
| regulatorily mandated.
|
|
|
| I have never figured that one out, especially when
uninformed,
| innocent passengers are involved.
|
|
| All things carry risk. It is up to the pilot in command
to decide
| whether the risk is worth the benefit.
|
| Jose
|
| That is the cool aid that AOPA keeps selling. Unknowing
passengers
| deserve better.

That is the cool aid that AOPA keeps selling. Unknowing passengers deserve better.

No they don't. They choose who to trust as a pilot, and who not to.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

BTW, home-built and experimental airplanes must have a
placard at the entrance.



"Jose" wrote in message
t...
| That is the cool aid that AOPA keeps selling. Unknowing
passengers deserve better.
|
| No they don't. They choose who to trust as a pilot, and
who not to.
|
| Jose
| --
| "There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing.
Unfortunately, nobody knows
| what they are." - (mike).
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote
No they don't. They choose who to trust as a pilot, and who not to.

What choice do parents have when they send their children off on
"Young Eagles" flights? I have flown the YE flights and some of
the other YE pilots really concerned me, not to mention the condition
of some of the airplanes.

Bob Moore

"Jim Macklin" writes:

BTW, home-built and experimental airplanes must have a
placard at the entrance.

What does it say? Does it start with "Lasciate ogni speranza ..."?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

No they don't. They choose who to trust as a pilot, and who not to.

What choice do parents have when they send their children off on
"Young Eagles" flights? I have flown the YE flights and some of
the other YE pilots really concerned me, not to mention the condition
of some of the airplanes.

Not to.

They are trusting the YE organization to some degree. Who are we
trusting when we create more rules? The FAA? They can screw up too.

Being a pilot is a responsibility. It is up to the pilot to excercise
that responsibility. The pilot cannot do that if the lawmakers second
guess him on every matter.

It is a natural consequence of "part 135 should have higher standards"
that "part 91 should have lower standards".

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jose ]
Posted At: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:41 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
?
Subject: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?

....

Being a pilot is a responsibility. It is up to the pilot to excercise
that responsibility. The pilot cannot do that if the lawmakers second
guess him on every matter.

It is a natural consequence of "part 135 should have higher standards"
that "part 91 should have lower standards".

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody
knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I don't remember where I read it, but "Never fly in the same cockpit as
someone braver than you".

Jim Macklin wrote:
Paying passengers are carried under Part 135 and the
minimums are higher.

The AOPA doesn't peddle Kool-Aid.

That is my view, which is based on my experience seeing them fight like
NRA over a lot of issues. Yes, I am a member.


Most paying passengers are carried under Part 121 where standard Part 91
takeoff minima are the exception rather than the norm. Ops Specs
authorize lower-than-standard takeoff minima for almost all runway used
under 121, and with enough lights and RVRs, much lower than standard.
So, your statement the minimums are higher is not quite right.

Jose wrote:

That is the cool aid that AOPA keeps selling. Unknowing passengers
deserve better.


No they don't. They choose who to trust as a pilot, and who not to.

Most of them are not equipped to make that choice.