The new Fork Tailed Doctor Killer

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:58:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 8:04*am, Denny wrote:
Now, I don't know what I would have done had that been my son I was
picking up at that airport that night...
Given this airport down in a hole, a pitch black night, no horizon,
rapidly rising ground, and low clouds;

The dark and clouds shouldn't have been prohibitive, given the IFR
flight plan. The airport wasn't in a hole--terrain was flat for two
miles west and forever to the north and northeast (the direction of
the destination).

What puzzles me is not the decision to take off, but rather the low
climb rate and the decision to use runway 27. If the weather resembled
what was reported nearby at OKV, runway 9 would have had a negligible
tailwind component.

Probably the same reason after all these years of using tools I stuck
my thumb in a table saw a little over a month ago. Up 16 hours,
something on his mind, decision making capabilities gone out the
window.

BTW, the thumb is healing nicely but the thumb print will never be the
same and being "just a tad sensitive" I seem to keep poking things
with it.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

In article ,
Dan wrote:

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!

True. Luckily, I don't and I do.

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

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:28:46 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 11:08*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "[...]"
where do you see that it's anything other than a weather-minimum? *
(f)1 (f)2 and (f)3 define
standard visibility requirements for takeoff referenced to how many
engines or helicopter, nothing about DP or ODP.

The first sentence of 91.175f (exempting Part 91) occurs prior to f1,
f2, and f3, and scopes over all of those. Please re-read 91.175f3; it
does refer to ODPs.

Part 97 says what the takeoff minimums and ODPs are. But 91.175f says
which flights the Part 97 resrictions do or don't apply to.

Sec. 91.175 - Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(f) Civil airport takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator, no pilot operating an aircraft under parts 121, 125,
129, or 135 of this chapter may take off from a civil airport under
IFR unless weather conditions are at or above the weather minimum for
IFR takeoff prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter.
If takeoff minimums are not prescribed under part 97 of this chapter
for a particular airport, the following minimums apply to takeoffs
under IFR for aircraft operating under those parts:

(1) For aircraft, other than helicopters, having two engines or less
-- 1 statute mile visibility.

(2) For aircraft having more than two engines -- 1/2 statute mile
visibility.

(3) For helicopters -- 1/2 statute mile visibility.

Where does it say DP/ODP? It says weather conditions.

Part 97:

Sec. 97.1 - Applicability.

This part prescribes standard instrument approach procedures for
instrument letdown to airports in the United States and the weather
minimums that apply to takeoffs and landings under IFR at those
airports.

Says IAP and weather minimums, not DP/ODP.

Where do you see DP/ODP?

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 11:08*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "Civil airport
takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no
pilot operating an aircraft under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter may take off from a civil airport under IFR unless weather
conditions are at or above the weather minimum for IFR takeoff
prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter. [...]"

Oops, I shouldn't have snipped your FAR quote from my previous reply;
the quote is the crux of the matter. What you've quoted does not match
the CFRs as currently given on the government's web site (just google
e-CFR). There, 91.175f begins as I quoted it previously. Perhaps
you're referring to an obsolete version?

Original paste was from risingup. Looks like they might need to
update the FAR. Interesting.

On Mar 21, 1:23*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What you've quoted does not match
the CFRs as currently given on the government's web site (just google
e-CFR). There, 91.175f begins as I quoted it previously. Perhaps
you're referring to an obsolete version?

Original paste was from risingup. *Looks like they might need to
update the FAR. *Interesting.

Risingup.com's version of that section is from 2001. Their page
contains a link to the 2004 amendment, but the link is broken. The
most recent amendment was in 2007. Risingup's database copyright says
1998-2006, so it may not have been updated for a couple of years. It
has a disclaimer saying not to trust it.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 1:23*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What you've quoted does not match
the CFRs as currently given on the government's web site (just google
e-CFR). There, 91.175f begins as I quoted it previously. Perhaps
you're referring to an obsolete version?

Original paste was from risingup. *Looks like they might need to
update the FAR. *Interesting.

Risingup.com's version of that section is from 2001. Their page
contains a link to the 2004 amendment, but the link is broken. The
most recent amendment was in 2007. Risingup's database copyright says
1998-2006, so it may not have been updated for a couple of years. It
has a disclaimer saying not to trust it.

Yea, but I've not seen it be that wrong on something before.

On Mar 21, 1:43*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
Risingup.com's version of that section is from 2001. Their page
contains a link to the 2004 amendment, but the link is broken. The
most recent amendment was in 2007. Risingup's database copyright says
1998-2006, so it may not have been updated for a couple of years. It
has a disclaimer saying not to trust it.

Yea, but I've not seen it be that wrong on something before.

How often have you cross-checked? (You didn't in this instance even
after you found text there that differed from what I'd already posted,
so I assume you don't routinely verify what appears there.)

But yeah, most of the CFRs are fairly static, so that probably limits
their opportunity to get it wrong.

On Mar 21, 1:43*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
Risingup.com's version of that section is from 2001. Their page
contains a link to the 2004 amendment, but the link is broken. The
most recent amendment was in 2007. Risingup's database copyright says
1998-2006, so it may not have been updated for a couple of years. It
has a disclaimer saying not to trust it.

Yea, but I've not seen it be that wrong on something before.

I notice that its version of 61.1 says it's from 1997; but the latest
amendment was in 2004.

It seems like a great resource for historical versions of the FARs,
but I wouldn't use it for anything current.

Roger wrote:
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

Something our human factors accident workgroup came up with early on is
the tie in between accidents and a breakdown in the basics somewhere in
the accident chain .
On the face of this statement, this might seem obvious, but it's
amazing how this link shows up under scrutiny in every accident
involving human factors.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 21, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:


Something our human factors accident workgroup came up with early on is
the tie in between accidents and a breakdown in the basics somewhere in
the accident chain .
On the face of this statement, this might seem obvious, but it's
amazing how this link shows up under scrutiny in every accident
involving human factors.

--
Dudley Henriques

The dangerous reality about the accident chain is that many pilots get
away with just this one tiny thing over and over.

Nothing breeds complacency like unexpected success.


Dan Mc