Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I use ?

Most of them are not equipped to make that choice.

So? We can't babysit everyone.

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.

Bob Moore wrote:
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.

I got a nice letter from the EAA thanking me for not killing any
Young Eagles.

Mxsmanic wrote:
"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 ..."?

Close...it typically says something like

This is an experimental aircraft and doesn't conform to federal
safety rules for standard aircraft.

You're also required to have EXPERIMENTAL in 2" or bigger
letters.

Jose wrote:
Most of them are not equipped to make that choice.


So? We can't babysit everyone.

Jose

Some of us have more concern about our fellow human beings. My
categorical advice to those who ask me (I don't volunteer this advice)
is "limit your ventures as a passenger in light aircraft to nice daytime
clear weather and then only with a pilot you know to be experienced."

I was involved in some measure with the following accident many years ago:

NTSB Identification: LAX75AL019
14 CFR Part 91 General Aviation
Event occurred Friday, October 18, 1974 in LONG BEACH, CA
Aircraft: PIPER PA-23, registration: N501EE

The joker took three innocent passengers with him. It was nighttime at
KLGB and their was thick ground fog. The joker was some 500 pound
overweight and elected to make an IFR departure to on-top using Runway
16L In those days there was a giant natural gas tank off the end of
16R, which required a mandatory ceiling and vis for commercial operations.

The ground controller (same hat as local controller at the time of
night) almost pleaded with the guy to use Runway 30 (the usual IFR
runway, and clear of obstacles).

The pilot refused and crashed into the tank, killing himself and three
folks who were led to believe this joker actually knew what he was doing.

The aircraft would have still hit the tank had it not been overloaded.
Had it taken off on Runway 30 it would have made it with the overweight
condition.

This stuff goes on on the time in G/A. Not by everyone for sure. But,
by enough folks that the hapless passengers is just rolling the dice.

Sam Spade writes:

The ground controller (same hat as local controller at the time of
night) almost pleaded with the guy to use Runway 30 (the usual IFR
runway, and clear of obstacles).

I wonder if his passengers heard the conversation.

This stuff goes on on the time in G/A. Not by everyone for sure. But,
by enough folks that the hapless passengers is just rolling the dice.

That's why the statistics are so bad. There are plenty of safe pilots
and planes in the world of GA, but there are a few who are idiots
and/or fly poorly maintained aircraft. These generate enough
accidents to skew all the statistics, making GA a hundred times more
dangerous than airline travel.

Unfortunately, many trusting souls have heard that airline travel is
extremely safe (which it is), and have assumed that this applies to
any type of air travel (which it does not).

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

A quick look at the NTSB reveals that there were no less than ten GA
accidents on October 18, 1974 alone, and that two of them had
fatalities (both involving Pipers). The deadliest was the one you
described, which killed four people.

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

Mxsmanic writes:

A quick look at the NTSB reveals that there were no less than ten GA
accidents on October 18, 1974 alone, and that two of them had
fatalities (both involving Pipers). The deadliest was the one you
described, which killed four people.

Actually, I missed the second page! There were _seventeen_ GA
accidents on October 18, 1974.

Out of curiosity, I picked some other dates at random:


July 21, 1970 12 accidents, 6 deaths
September 21, 1996 13 accidents, 4 deaths (1 in a Piper)
June 6, 2003 9 accidents, 14 deaths
August 1, 2005 10 accidents, 1 death (in a Piper)

On August 1, 2005, there was also an incident aboard a commercial
airliner: a pitch-up event occurred briefly. The flight landed
uneventfully and no one was injured.

Most GA accidents have no fatalities. What is unsettling, though, is
that the probable cause for the accidents with fatalities seems to be
almost exclusively pilot error (true for most of the non-fatals, too).
In other words, non-fatal accidents occur sometimes when there are
mechanical failures, but a good pilot can compensate enough to avoid
dying in most cases. But when the pilot makes a stupid mistake,
everyone dies, even in a perfectly functioning aircraft.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

A quick look at the NTSB reveals that there were no less than ten GA
accidents on October 18, 1974 alone, and that two of them had
fatalities (both involving Pipers). The deadliest was the one you
described, which killed four people.


I recently had a discussion with a accident risk guru about the finality
of most aircraft crashes (G/A, military non-combat, and airline). He
reminded me of the terrible PSA crash near Paso Robles, California
(BAE-146) where the deranged recently fired ticket agent shot the crew.
Chevron Oil Company lost a bunch of senior executives on that flight.

Chevron, and several other companies, changed their policy to prohibit
that type of group travel by senior executives. They learned the hard
way about "all your eggs in one basket."

The guru commented that, even though automobile travel is far less safe
than airline travel on a statisitical basis, the statistics do not and
cannot factor in the random dynamics of automobile crashes, which
usually do not result in all occupants being killed in a fatal crash.

And, he added, landing accidents of aircraft often spare some occupants,
airline or G/A.

Of course a professional crew would not make such a mistake,
such mistakes as taking off on a runway 1/2 the required
length, or taking off with ice all over the airplane and
without turning the engine anti-ice on, or landing on a
short runway at Chicago, in a blizzard, or ...
Pilots are human beings, human beings make mistakes and
sometimes people die. Sometimes people die on nice clear
days.

As a pilot, my concern is for myself, if the airplane
doesn't kill or injure me, my passengers are probably going
to be just fine. My concern for human beings is more a
matter of shock in the pretty young girl on the back of a
crotchrocket being driven by a jerk. She of course is
wearing short shorts, a halter top, and sandals. If she
doesn't die, she will be damaged and her friends will say
she has a nice personality.

I am concerned about the parents who send their kids out to
do the lawn, bare foot with a 30" lawn mower. I am
concerned about the toddler in diapers being watched on the
street by the 4 year old sister.

I am concerned about whether the world will be in an open
shooting war in the next few months. I am concerned about
people who don't read history and keep doing the same things
over an over.



"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
| Jose wrote:
| Most of them are not equipped to make that choice.
|
|
| So? We can't babysit everyone.
|
| Jose
|
| Some of us have more concern about our fellow human
beings. My
| categorical advice to those who ask me (I don't volunteer
this advice)
| is "limit your ventures as a passenger in light aircraft
to nice daytime
| clear weather and then only with a pilot you know to be
experienced."
|
| I was involved in some measure with the following accident
many years ago:
|
| NTSB Identification: LAX75AL019
| 14 CFR Part 91 General Aviation
| Event occurred Friday, October 18, 1974 in LONG BEACH, CA
| Aircraft: PIPER PA-23, registration: N501EE
|
| The joker took three innocent passengers with him. It was
nighttime at
| KLGB and their was thick ground fog. The joker was some
500 pound
| overweight and elected to make an IFR departure to on-top
using Runway
| 16L In those days there was a giant natural gas tank off
the end of
| 16R, which required a mandatory ceiling and vis for
commercial operations.
|
| The ground controller (same hat as local controller at the
time of
| night) almost pleaded with the guy to use Runway 30 (the
usual IFR
| runway, and clear of obstacles).
|
| The pilot refused and crashed into the tank, killing
himself and three
| folks who were led to believe this joker actually knew
what he was doing.
|
| The aircraft would have still hit the tank had it not been
overloaded.
| Had it taken off on Runway 30 it would have made it with
the overweight
| condition.
|
| This stuff goes on on the time in G/A. Not by everyone
for sure. But,
| by enough folks that the hapless passengers is just
rolling the dice.

Some of us have more concern about our fellow human beings.

I also have "more concern about our fellow human beings", and would not
imitate the joker you cite. However, I do not believe that absolute
safey can be legislated. Therefore, we are left with permitting "a
certain level of danger" to be visited upon "innocent passengers".

No matter where the line is drawn, it could be drawn elsewhere.
Anything can be made safer at the cost of reducing utility. I just
don't think it's a good idea.

This stuff goes on on the time in G/A. Not by everyone for sure. But, by enough folks that the hapless passengers is just rolling the dice.

GA is not unique in this, and "hapless passengers" (or the equivalent in
=any= activity) are =always= "just rolling the dice" to some degree. I
just believe that the amount of dice-rolling permitted in part 91 is
approprite.

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.