About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots

I again still respectfully disagree. I am VMC on top. How would I know
that the weather is worsening BELOW the overcast??? I am plodding along,
dumb and happy, enjoying the view a couple thousand feet above the
overcast.

ATIS. It's an error. Granted, it's one borne of inexperience, but
experience is how we become better pilots - it goes without saying that
prior to experience, we were worse pilots.

I followed the VFR rules to a tee when the wheels
went up.

Rules aren't sufficient, as you learned.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 04:21:48 GMT, Jose wrote:

I followed the VFR rules to a tee when the wheels
went up.

Rules aren't sufficient, as you learned.

Yep, you are so right. That flight made me pursue my IFR rating *smile*

Had I had my IFR rating, we wouldn't be discussing it, it would had been a
non eventful ILS approach with 800 foot ceilings, but as you said, we learn
from our experiences.

Every time I step on the ramp, I am in the learning mode....

Allen

BTW, VFR ON TOP is an IFR clearance restriction, VFR OVER
THE TOP is a VFR flight. VFR over the top is not allowed to
student, recreational or sport pilots and is not a good idea
for any VFR only pilot. If the edge of a cloud deck is
nearby and you can glide, power off to that edge, not just a
hole in a solid layer, but clear skies, go ahead. But if
you're on top of a layer and need to come down because of
power failure, fire, sickness or any reason, you may not be
able to maneuver to stay 1,000 above, 500 below and 2,000
horizontal (that is a hole about a mile to two mile wide to
allow a spiral and stay 2,000 feet from the edge.

Get a CFI, file an IFR flight to the practice area and
request a block altitude and try to fly down through a hole.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
| I again still respectfully disagree. I am VMC on top.
How would I know
| that the weather is worsening BELOW the overcast??? I
am plodding along,
| dumb and happy, enjoying the view a couple thousand feet
above the
| overcast.
|
| ATIS. It's an error. Granted, it's one borne of
inexperience, but
| experience is how we become better pilots - it goes
without saying that
| prior to experience, we were worse pilots.
|
| I followed the VFR rules to a tee when the wheels
| went up.
|
| Rules aren't sufficient, as you learned.
|
| Jose
| --
| Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
news:l3utdxp6k9u6.8nu4f8z2h9p3

Next time you are at your airport, be sure to thank your A&P.

All the good piloting is only as good as the reliability of the equipment
you fly.....

You'll recall my post referred to "...a very healthy allotment of good
luck...". That good luck was, in great part, in the form of professional
airline maintenance staff and required routine maintenance.

"A Lieberman" wrote

I would. Flying over a solid layer such that you can't easily know what
is happening below or even knowing if you can find a hole to descend
through shows bad judgement and is bad piloting in my opinion,

Everybody is naturally entitled to their opinion :-)


I'm with you, on this one. You had plenty of fuel, and there were good
alternates close at hand.

OK, group, weigh in. Right now, this is the Matt and Allen show. I would
like to see some more opinions from you'all!
--
Jim in NC

Remember, when the aircraft operator or owner takes his
aircraft in for an inspection or to troubleshoot a squawk,
unless you fix what they find, it isn't corrected and the
plane may not be safe. Ask a few mechanics at the airport,
how many times they have not been allowed to fix a problem
because of cost or the need to fly a scheduled trip and
they'll do it later?


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
|
| "A Lieberman" wrote in message
| news:l3utdxp6k9u6.8nu4f8z2h9p3
|
| Next time you are at your airport, be sure to thank your
A&P.
|
| All the good piloting is only as good as the reliability
of the equipment
| you fly.....
|
| You'll recall my post referred to "...a very healthy
allotment of good
| luck...". That good luck was, in great part, in the form
of professional
| airline maintenance staff and required routine
maintenance.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:tITJf.98200

Remember, when the aircraft operator or owner takes his
aircraft in for an inspection or to troubleshoot a squawk,
unless you fix what they find, it isn't corrected and the
plane may not be safe. Ask a few mechanics at the airport,
how many times they have not been allowed to fix a problem
because of cost or the need to fly a scheduled trip and
they'll do it later?

My conclusions are based upon many years of Part 121 airline experience.
What are your opinions based upon?

Going on 35 years as a professional pilot and aircraft
mechanic. My eldest son now also works as a full-time A&P.
Both of us have had owners refuse to fix squawks, saying
they would do it later or just skip it all together because
"we" were just trying to pad the bill.
Even worse, some shops management think that a fast job
keeps the customer happy and the shop manager may tell the
mechanic to stop working on a plane.
We have seen airplanes with landing gear ready to collapse
because rather than fix the motors and linkage, adjustments
have been made that would get a light even though the gear
was not properly locked. When the owner of that airplane
was actually told about the shoddy work that he had been
paying for he was grateful for the proper and more expensive
FIX.
Airlines are generally better at fixing things, but when
they fail to do the job, such as lubricating the elevator
jack screw on a DC 9 [Alaska] because it takes time to get
the grease in the tail. The result of that management
policy failure killed a bunch of people. The crew also
failed to reject flying the airplane even though it was not
really right for some time before the crash.

Remember people, the money you save on maintenance will not
pay for the funeral.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
. ..
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:tITJf.98200
|
| Remember, when the aircraft operator or owner takes his
| aircraft in for an inspection or to troubleshoot a
squawk,
| unless you fix what they find, it isn't corrected and
the
| plane may not be safe. Ask a few mechanics at the
airport,
| how many times they have not been allowed to fix a
problem
| because of cost or the need to fly a scheduled trip and
| they'll do it later?
|
| My conclusions are based upon many years of Part 121
airline experience.
| What are your opinions based upon?
|
|

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:28:18 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

If one of my kids was in need of a transplant and had 24 hours to live
and flying to pick up the organ was the only option, then I'd take that
risk in a heartbeat. I would fly alone given the risk, but I'd do it
without hesitation.

However, such situations are extremely rare and thus don't factor into
normal decision making.

Excuse me?

What you describe above is the worst possible pilot decision one could
make.

With what you describe above, your mind will be far from the safety of
flying. I am sure get there itis would kill you and those on the ground
after you bought the farm.

And here I stay within the confines of the rules and regulations, you
accuse me of making bad piloting decisions for flying VFR over the top,
and
you want exceptions to break the rules and regulations that are suppose to
keep the airways safe. What exactly is wrong with this picture???

What you described above sure ain't safe or a good pilot decision in my
opinion.

Staying within the rules and regulations is one thing but they are only set
the baseline for acting properly. Good pilots build on the rules to create a
personal set of rules which go beyond the basics and one needs to recognise
the rules for what they are.
Accuse me of gold plating the rules fine but for me the rules only tell me
what's legal, not what's right.
The rules tell what's legal to retain IFR currency. Personally, it is not
right for me, so I do twice what the rules say.
The rules require the two yearly review, I go up with an instructor and try
things out whenever I feel like it and that is more than every two years.

I remember flying from Niagara Falls to Madison, Wi on the Monday of Oshkosh
last year. The weather was not good.

Set off OK but the headwinds were way above forecast for the trip and would
have taken me down to an hours fuel left on top of the reserve at MSN so I
decided to stop off at Flint. The weather forecast was not good across the
Lake, with a Convective Sigmet issued. However the weather was OK to
Muskegon, so we launched with MKG as the place to stop if it was too bad in
Wisconsin, but with plenty of fuel.

As we flew neared MKG, I got on to the FSS and got the weather update. It
seemed there was a strip of good weather 100 miles wide from Milwaukee
westwards 200 miles. On that basis we continued across the lake and made it
to MSN OK at about 13.00 local time. Once across the lake, then the
emergency alternate field kept changing. Later that afternoon about 4pm
Janesville was hit by a tornado.

The pleasure from that trip came from the actual flying for sure, but the
real sense of achievement came from the decision making that went on along
the way managing risk and applying my limited knowledge of mid west weather
with the information available from the FSS. The other thing that helped was
having 4 hours of fuel on hand when I landed. Too much, some may say, but
fuel was never going to be a factor for me, whereas it could have been.

Chris

A Lieberman wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:28:18 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:


If one of my kids was in need of a transplant and had 24 hours to live
and flying to pick up the organ was the only option, then I'd take that
risk in a heartbeat. I would fly alone given the risk, but I'd do it
without hesitation.

However, such situations are extremely rare and thus don't factor into
normal decision making.


Excuse me?

What you describe above is the worst possible pilot decision one could
make.

With what you describe above, your mind will be far from the safety of
flying. I am sure get there itis would kill you and those on the ground
after you bought the farm.

And here I stay within the confines of the rules and regulations, you
accuse me of making bad piloting decisions for flying VFR over the top, and
you want exceptions to break the rules and regulations that are suppose to
keep the airways safe. What exactly is wrong with this picture???

What you described above sure ain't safe or a good pilot decision in my
opinion.

Yes, I was intentionally contriving a high risk operation, but giving a
good reason for doing it. You conducted a high risk operation with no
good reason. That is exactly what is wrong with your picture.

Matt