Are pilots really good or just lucky???

Peter MacPherson wrote:
How about the part where she brings her daughter along. I don't
know how old the daughter was, or if she was a pilot, but you
would think someone would put your family's safety over completing
a ferry flight.

When I first got my PPL almost a year ago, my first passengers were
beyond nervous with my being so green. The first few passengers raved
and now people are going out of their way to come visit and go for a
ride.

I'm now working on my IFR rating right. In this newsgroup
we had a thread running about taking friends and family into IMC and
their reactions and the added risks compared to VMC flights. For
me, going into IMC gets the adrenaline running for a week if not
more. I love the challenge but someday I just can't imagine
my friends and family feeling comfortable when they can't see anything
but the inside of the flask they are drinking from and the ceiling
as they pray.

Comments like this woman taking their daughter across
the ocean is and into IMC really get me thinking. Flying hard IMC in
a bug smasher whether it is a C152 or a SR22 or a certified Known Ice
C210 with friends and family seems almost as bad as ferry crossing. You
might have some more airports to land at in case of an emergency but if
is hard IMC with 300 AGL ceilings, you really have the odds stacked
against you in both cases.

In this case, she made the ferry crossing 'fine.' She got across the
pond after all but the bad part was she was a few miles short of
perfect. The bad part is her decision making about the
airworthiness of the plane combined with weather and fuel planning were
quite poor.

So with my reasoning which certainly could be far off base, I guess my
question is, do you consider taking friends and family into
hard IMC that risky. I wouldn't take friends and family without another
pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in anything
but turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid in a way.

Gerald Sylvester
PPL-ASEL 12/17/03

I don't follow your logic. You say "nonsense" then go on to pretty much agree
with me.

Flying a Cessna under *ordinary* circumstances is quite different than a
wintertime ferry flight over treacherous areas with inoperative equipment.

The pioneers tried to time their journies West to avoid winter weather
conditions and were *usually* successful.

C Kingsbury wrote:

wrote in message ...

When the pioneers settled the area west of the Missippii via covered
wagon, and
such, there were not many alternatives other than staying put.

To compare this reckless woman with those pioneering individuals
denigrates
their memory.


Nonsense. The people who packed their families up for the difficult and
dangerous journey, let alone the uncertain times that followed, were taking
a chance to make their lives materially better. To own a piece of land, and
the fruits of their own labor, this was the dream that took so many people
West. There were measly and comparatively safe lives available for all of
them in the immigrant ghettoes of the East. This was not the exodus of the
Jews from Egypt- they were free people taking action to live a better life.

Recklessness to many people is defined as taking risks that are unnecessary.
For 99% of us, flying a small plane is unnecessary. Any trip we make by
Cessna we could make more safely by car or airline, and as for fun, most
people are content with fishing. You can either make your peace with this or
deny it, but facts is facts. As a society today we run from risks and deny
their consequences to the point that we have people suing McDonald's for
making them fat. In the midst of that I'll keep a light on for those who
choose something more adventurous. I'm sure the men and women who walked the
Oregon Trail wouldn't mind.

-cwk.

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote:
[snip]
So with my reasoning which certainly could be far off base, I guess my
question is, do you consider taking friends and family into
hard IMC that risky. I wouldn't take friends and family without
another
pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in
anything
but turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid in a way.

It's too risky, IMO, to take my family into large areas of very low IMC
in my SE airplane. There just aren't enough "outs" available in case of
trouble. Neither will I depart with non-pilot pax aboard if the airport
is at or below minimums.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

snip

do you consider taking friends and family into
hard IMC that risky. I wouldn't take friends and family without another
pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in anything
but turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid in a way.

These kinds of decisions are why you're a pilot.

My risk assessment equations change to become more conservative when I have
passengers. I'm willing to allow the risk level to go higher for myself than for
unsuspecting passengers who don't have the knowledge or experience to assess
the risk for themselves. For passengers who are also pilots, I expect them to be
able to assess for themselves whether they wish to go along for the ride or not.

In answer to your specific question, no, I don't think IFR in anything but
turbine powered aircraft is just outright stupid.

"C Kingsbury" wrote
The only thing I find myself really choking on in this case is the turn
coordinator. That strikes me as a sort of russian roulette.

No more so than night/IFR/overwater flying in a single, except that
engines are typically more reliable than AI's so you don't have quite
the same number of chambers.

It's just a question of how much of a chance you're willing to take.

Michael

"C Kingsbury" wrote
That would be interesting to know. However, I stand by my judgment that this
was pretty egregious. Fixing this wouldn't have been *that* difficult. They
knew about it at least a week beforehand--more than enough time to call
Chief and have them FedEx a new one and have any old mechanic slap it in.

Have you ever shipped electronic/mechanical equipment internationally?
I have. You can't make it happen in a week.

Michael

"C J Campbell" wrote
Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296,
with TC and AI displays?

That works well with relatively draggy and stable airplanes. There is
no gyro in the 296. It infers bank information from rate of turn
information, and that information is of course delayed. In something
nice and stable like a Cherokee (or, for that matter, any single
engine Cessna with struts and fixed gear) this works adequately well -
certainly well enough to shoot a no-gyro PAR in 1000 and 2 - because
the delay time between banking the wings and turn indication on the
GPS is not sufficient for anything really ugly to happen. But the 210
is a different beast - with retractable gear and no struts, it's more
like the Bonanzas and Mooneys than it is like most Cessnas. By the
time you get turn indication on the GPS, you might already be in a
spiral. It might work OK with a very sharp pilot familiar with the
plane, a well-trimmed airplane, and smooth air but it's not much of a
plan.

Michael

Anybody had any experience with the AI information on the Anywheremap
system?

It would be interesting to know what PDA is used, if there is anybody.


On 23 Nov 2004 07:09:49 -0800,
(Michael) wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote
Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296,
with TC and AI displays?

That works well with relatively draggy and stable airplanes. There is
no gyro in the 296. It infers bank information from rate of turn
information, and that information is of course delayed. In something
nice and stable like a Cherokee (or, for that matter, any single
engine Cessna with struts and fixed gear) this works adequately well -
certainly well enough to shoot a no-gyro PAR in 1000 and 2 - because
the delay time between banking the wings and turn indication on the
GPS is not sufficient for anything really ugly to happen. But the 210
is a different beast - with retractable gear and no struts, it's more
like the Bonanzas and Mooneys than it is like most Cessnas. By the
time you get turn indication on the GPS, you might already be in a
spiral. It might work OK with a very sharp pilot familiar with the
plane, a well-trimmed airplane, and smooth air but it's not much of a
plan.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"C Kingsbury" wrote
The only thing I find myself really choking on in this case is the turn
coordinator. That strikes me as a sort of russian roulette.

No more so than night/IFR/overwater flying in a single, except that
engines are typically more reliable than AI's so you don't have quite
the same number of chambers.

It's just a question of how much of a chance you're willing to take.

Yes, except that in risk management terms the likelihood of AI/vac failure
and engine failure are independent variables. So it still represents a
sizable net increase in total likelihood of a critical failure.

-cwk.

Fair enough. Borrow one from somebody else's plane and give them the new one
when it shows up. You can always figure something out if you really want to.

-cwk.

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"C Kingsbury" wrote
That would be interesting to know. However, I stand by my judgment that
this
was pretty egregious. Fixing this wouldn't have been *that* difficult.
They
knew about it at least a week beforehand--more than enough time to call
Chief and have them FedEx a new one and have any old mechanic slap it
in.

Have you ever shipped electronic/mechanical equipment internationally?
I have. You can't make it happen in a week.

Michael