The new Fork Tailed Doctor Killer

On 2008-03-20, Dan wrote:
Night VFR -- especially moonless nights in remote areas -- should be
considered IFR flying, if not legally, than practically.

Moonless nights in remote areas, I can believe. I'm not quite so sure about
nice clear nights over large cities, or even reasonably populated areas
where there are plenty of lights on the ground.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

In article ,
Frank Stutzman wrote:
Edward A. Falk wrote:


Well, if its a six seater it would have to be a S model or later with at
least a IO-520-B. The referance at my fingertips sez that the book 75%
power cruise at 6500 feet for a S model is 205 mph. No mention what the
fuel flow is at that speed, but it'll be way more than 11 gph.

That's what I was thinking.

I usually figure my crusty A model with the weenie E-225 will do about 135
knots on a bit more than 9 GPH.

OK, got it. My Mooney C (with speed mods) will do 142 kts at 9.5 gph. I'll
probably stick with it.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

On Mar 20, 8:55 pm, (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
In article ,
Frank Stutzman wrote:

Edward A. Falk wrote:

Well, if its a six seater it would have to be a S model or later with at
least a IO-520-B. The referance at my fingertips sez that the book 75%
power cruise at 6500 feet for a S model is 205 mph. No mention what the
fuel flow is at that speed, but it'll be way more than 11 gph.

That's what I was thinking.

I usually figure my crusty A model with the weenie E-225 will do about 135
knots on a bit more than 9 GPH.

OK, got it. My Mooney C (with speed mods) will do 142 kts at 9.5 gph. I'll
probably stick with it.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

The Mooney must be more efficient, given it's narrow surface, but you
can't wear a hat and you have to really like your co-pilot!

:-)

Dan Mc

On Mar 20, 5:40*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
* * An instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the
* * personal flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations
* * Part 91.

But it's unclear if the flight was conducted under IFR. *If it were,
wouldn't it be operating under Part 97?

No, Part 91 sets forth the general operating rules for VFR and IFR
alike. Part 97 just has some details about IAPs, ODPs, and takeoff
minimums. It's possible to fly IFR from takeoff to landing and not be
governed by anything in Part 97.

"Flight conducted under Part 91" just means as opposed to Part 121,
Part 135, etc.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:45:31 +0000 (UTC), (Edward
A. Falk) wrote:

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:

I've had the privilege to fly a Bonanza, I have about 100 hours in the
S-35 model, most of that cross country. It's a fabulous aircraft, and I
found it very easy to fly IFR.

I've been thinking about Bonanzas lately. I recently met someone
with an old 6-seat V-tail, and he claimed to go 170 kts at 11 gph.
Could he be telling the truth? That sounds pretty impressive and
a little incredible.

Depending on ower they are rated to 175K IAS cruise, but not at 11
GPH.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Posted on another chat group.... I think it is the same accident..

I am NOT the author..FWIW only.....

Dave
____________________________________

There is more learning (and/or relearning) in the following 250 words
than a whole stack of NTSB reports
The author happened to be on site when the FAA and the NTSB was
reviewing the tapes.

?Such a sad and tragic event. This pilot made several bad choices. I
just viewed the security camera footage of the entire event from
getting out of the taxi to actually hitting and exploding on the
mountain. I noted several major mistakes taken by this pilot. One it
was only 6min from getting out of the cab to point of impact. The
pilot made no preflight inspection of the aircraft, just opened the
doors climbed in and started. Then next to no run up, great systems
check and brief on what you are going to do after takeoff into a pitch
black mountainous area. The IFR departures page states that no IFR
takeoffs on rwy 27. The video showed a normal takeoff and initial
climb until about what looked like 500 agl, then a level off and
acceleration. He entered a small scud layer then poped out,(I am sure
he did not receive a IFR clearance from Potomac). Not knowing exactly
how fast a Cirrus is, but I hear about 180kts. If he did level off and
accelerate, the mountain is 2.5nm off the end of rwy 27. He did fly
for about 90sec which means thats probably what he did. I see this as
a classic example of hurry up and go, and should be a lesson for us
all to slow down and think. Feel horrible for the family left behind
after this tragic and most likely preventable event.?

Six minutes from taxi cab to crash!

Slow down, think and fly safe,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:01:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:40?pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
? ? An instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the
? ? personal flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations
? ? Part 91.

But it's unclear if the flight was conducted under IFR. ?If it were,
wouldn't it be operating under Part 97?

No, Part 91 sets forth the general operating rules for VFR and IFR
alike. Part 97 just has some details about IAPs, ODPs, and takeoff
minimums. It's possible to fly IFR from takeoff to landing and not be
governed by anything in Part 97.

"Flight conducted under Part 91" just means as opposed to Part 121,
Part 135, etc.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:41:05 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Roger wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:49:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:


And multitasking. Why is it that approach always manages to squeeze a
5 minute transmission into 20 seconds telling you what to do for the
next 15 minutes right at the outer marker when you are busier than a
cat covering crap on a marble floor and hauling dirt two miles. This
can be particularly interesting if there is only one ILS, it has a
tail wind of 20 knots and you have to circle to land WHILE departing
traffic is going the other direction.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
This is all true, and leans heavily into the IFR experience for all
airplanes, especially the high performance aircraft.
What I had in mind was much more basic; the getting out there and
practicing with the airplane in the area where a lot of the accidents
actually happen.....basic flying.

Agreed. If the pilot is proficient enough to do the approaches,
holds, and other *stuff* dished out by ATC around the airports (IE
maneuvers under a heavy work load) the cross country part should be
easy.

I would think the majority of accidents occur while maneuvering near
the airports regardless of whether the pilot is flying a Cessna 172 or
a Cirrus SR-22. Things just happen faster and the workload is higher
in the high performance stuff.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:01:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:40*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
* * An instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the
* * personal flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations
* * Part 91.

But it's unclear if the flight was conducted under IFR. *If it were,
wouldn't it be operating under Part 97?

No, Part 91 sets forth the general operating rules for VFR and IFR
alike.

That's what I thought too.

Part 97 just has some details about IAPs, ODPs, and takeoff
minimums. It's possible to fly IFR from takeoff to landing and not be
governed by anything in Part 97.

Ignoring ODPs may be possible in other than IFR departures on runway
27, but in the instance in question I believe Part 97 may have
prohibited the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:


http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://...0802/NE3TO.PDF
IFR TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
Civil Airports and Selected Military Airports
ALL USERS: Airports that have Departure Procedures (DPs) designed
specifically to assist pilots in avoiding obstacles during the
climb to the minimum enroute altitude , and/or airports that have
civil IFR take-off minimums other than standard, are listed below.
Take-off Minimums and Departure Procedures apply to all runways
unless otherwise specified.

FRONT ROYAL, VA
FRONTROYAL-WARREN COUNTY
TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 9, std. w/ min. climb of
409' per NM to 1100, or 2300-3 for climb in visual
conditions. Rwy 27, NA-obstacles....

Would this indicate that, although the preliminary NTSB report
indicates an IFR flight plan was filed, the flight was not operating
on it?

"Flight conducted under Part 91" just means as opposed to Part 121,
Part 135, etc.

I guess what I found missing in the preliminary NTSB report was any
mention that the flight was operating under IFR/ATC control.

On Mar 20, 12:50*pm, Roger wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:16:09 -0400, Bill Watson

wrote:
Denny wrote:
Time moves along... The old V-tails are no longer the status symbol...
It appears to me that the Cirrus line of aircraft has become the new
"fork tailed doctor killer", along with stock broker, dentist, lawyer,
etc...

As time moves along, I've begun to realize that the casual trashing of
Doctor/Dentist/Lawyer pilots is as distasteful and probably as
wrong-headed as other kinds of stereotyping.

No way can I find fault with the OP for making this observation. *

The Bo earned the title due to the group of pilots who were flying it.
That same group is now moving into the Cirrus. As the majority of the
pilots in these two planes come from the same groups *the title is
appropriate even if said planes were docile and forgiving which they
definitely are not.

Here's a couple of figures.
When I went to proficiency training there were 63 of us. Only 3 had
ever done full stalls in the Bo. Most of those pilots didn't even like
doing steep turns.

Over the years I have twice had to take evasive action from someone
being where they weren't supposed to be. * One was in the dark. *These
involved putting the plane in attitudes that certainly could be
considered unusual and maneuvering at the very limits for the airplane
close to the ground and in the pattern.

Just an observation *but at our airport (not the same one Denny flies
out of, but just a hop skip and a jump away) of the pilots who have
had an incident over the last 20 years over half have been Lawyers,
Doctors, judges and other professionals. *Right now I can only think
of two who were "normal people"



Me? I'm a professional, or rather a retired one, just not one of the
above.


Just an observation, but more aircraft accidents involve commercial
pilots than any other single profession.
But so what, why does one need to categorise aircraft accidents by the
profession of the pilot? why not the color of his skin or their sex?
So more than half of incidents involved professionals, but you can
only think of 2 that were "normal people" So from your own
admission , as a professional, you are a. not normal. and b. since
you only know 2 people who were normal who had incidents and yet you
know that more than half who had incidents were professionals you are
implying that there have only been been about 5 incidents, since if
you knew there were 6 or more and only 2 were normal you would have
said at least 2/3 or more were professionals. So 5 incidents in 20
years is hardly enough to make any statistically meaningful
observations on the link between ones profession and the likliehood of
having an accident. And of those 5 incidents , 3 of which involved the
professions of doctor, lawyer , judge and other profession ( hang on
thats 4 ?), are you able to further advise us on whether doctors or
lawyers are worse? And I am confused as to how you can be a
professional but not one of the above which included "other
professionals"? What use is it to state that more than half of
incidents involved professionals unless it is stated in comparison to
the % of pilots that are what you would define as professionals?
What I detect here is typical professional envy, which as usual gets
directed at those professions that are generally considered as being
above the other professions by virtue of the intelligence and
remuneration associated with them.

Me? Im a professional ( one of the above ) and a normal person.
Terry

On Mar 20, 11:30*pm, Dave wrote:
Posted on another chat group.... I think it is the same accident..

The NTSB report does not mention any video tape of this accident, nor
the flight details contained in this post. Nor is this post's
chronology consistent with the NTSB report, which says the pilot
arrived at the airport in the airplane 15 minutes before the crash,
not in a taxi cab 6 minutes before the crash.


I am NOT the author..FWIW only.....

Dave
____________________________________

There is more learning (and/or relearning) in the following 250 words
than a whole stack of NTSB reports
The author happened to be on site when the FAA and the NTSB was
reviewing the tapes.

?Such a sad and tragic event. This pilot made several bad choices. I
just viewed the security camera footage of the entire event from
getting out of the taxi to actually hitting and exploding on the
mountain. I noted several major mistakes taken by this pilot. One it
was only 6min from getting out of the cab to point of impact. The
pilot made no preflight inspection of the aircraft, just opened the
doors climbed in and started. Then next to no run up, great systems
check and brief on what you are going to do after takeoff into a pitch
black mountainous area. The IFR departures page states that no IFR
takeoffs on rwy 27. The video showed a normal takeoff and initial
climb until about what looked like 500 agl, then a level off and
acceleration. He entered a small scud layer then poped out,(I am sure
he did not receive a IFR clearance from Potomac). Not knowing exactly
how fast a Cirrus is, but I hear about 180kts. If he did level off and
accelerate, the mountain is 2.5nm off the end of rwy 27. He did fly
for about 90sec which means thats probably what he did. I see this as
a classic example of hurry up and go, and should be a lesson for us
all to slow down and think. Feel horrible for the family left behind
after this tragic and most likely preventable event.?

Six minutes from taxi cab to crash!

Slow down, think and fly safe, *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-------------