Flying when you know there is something wrong with the plane

I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the majority
of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
before he even took off. It does seem like a popular trend reading through
the accident databases. But can anyone point me to a study that actually
supports this view?

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the majority
of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
before he even took off.


Ever flown a rental that had nothing wrong with it?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"C J Campbell" writes:

I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the majority
of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
before he even took off. It does seem like a popular trend reading through
the accident databases.

(Well, we all know pilots like to be trendy and popular.)

It's also common that pilots checked the fuel levels before departing
on flights that resulted in fatal accidents. Are you going to try to
infer something from that too?

I'm willing to bet that it's about as "popular a trend" that planes that
are involved with safe landings have problems known to the pilot. What
does that mean?

Planes are commonly flown with *some* problem. If I never flew a plane
with any problems I would have never made it through flight training.
(Heck, I went through four planes just to finish my initial checkride
and I still didn't get fully-functional instrumentation.)

Whether or not the problem has something to do with the accident would
be more interesting.

--kyler

Like the skydivers say - There's no such thing as a perfectly good airplane....
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the majority
of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
before he even took off. It does seem like a popular trend reading through
the accident databases. But can anyone point me to a study that actually
supports this view?

In article , Teacherjh
wrote:

Ever flown a rental that had nothing wrong with it?

That's an oximoron isn't it?

What I want to know is how they interviewed the pilots after the accidents
to ask them if they knew the plane had a problem before takeoff....sir, nod
you head if the plane did not have a problem before takeoff and don't nod if
it did have a problem. The majority indicated they had problems.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the
majority
of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
before he even took off. It does seem like a popular trend reading through
the accident databases. But can anyone point me to a study that actually
supports this view?

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

No. I have _never_ flown a rental that didn't have something wrong with
it.


"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that in the
majority
of fatal accidents the pilot knew something was wrong with the airplane
before he even took off.


Ever flown a rental that had nothing wrong with it?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Saryon" wrote in message
...
| FWIW, I've flown 3 172SP's, rentals, with absolutely nothing wrong
| with them, and a 4th with the only thing wrong being an inop (CB
| pulled just to be sure) autopilot pending an AD-required software
| update. That all by itself wouldn't stop me from flying the airplane.
| Also doubtful that would contribute to an accident. But are we
| talking about minor niggly things that can be MEL'd, or "something
| *wrong* with the airplane" like a trim tab that seems a little loose,
| flight control cables that allow more deflection on one
| side............
|

I was thinking along the lines of "engine running rough on run-up" or "gas
cap was missing so I covered it with duct tape." One memorable incident was
the examiner asking the student why he didn't trim the airplane and the
reply was "Oh, my instructor says that trim wheel hasn't worked in years."

Saryon wrote

But are we talking about minor niggly things that can be MEL'd,
or "something *wrong* with the airplane"

Me'thinks that you are misusing the phrase since neither a
Cessna 172 nor any other small single engine airplane has
a published Minimum Equipment List (MEL). Hence...no MEL'ing
anything. Sure sounds good though.

Bob moore
ATP CFI

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:25:42 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:

But are we talking about minor niggly things that can be MEL'd,
or "something *wrong* with the airplane"

Me'thinks that you are misusing the phrase since neither a
Cessna 172 nor any other small single engine airplane has
a published Minimum Equipment List (MEL). Hence...no MEL'ing
anything. Sure sounds good though.

I used to rent at Sunbird Flight Services in Chandler, AZ. And they had
such a thing - MEL, that is. As I understand it it was used in combination
of some sort of certification or airworthiness (?). If you meet the MEL
with the inop equipment you was still legal to go.

Maybe it was only an insurance requirement.

Bob moore
ATP CFI

#m
--
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3358627.stm
A Brazilian judge has announced that US citizens will be fingerprinted and
photographed on entering the country. Judge Julier Sebastiao da Silva was
reacting to US plans to do the same to Brazilians entering the United States.