Are pilots really good or just lucky???

Judah wrote
If she was already on approach, wouldn't the plane already be dirty and
slowed down a bit?

Yesm but my experience is that planes of that class get harder to
handle in the approach configuration, not easier. They become less
stable and require more attention.

I seem to recall a thread a while back that discussed getting down safely
if you lose everything, and it involved trimming all the way up and
reducing the throttle and flying with the rudder only... Admittedly, I
never tried it, but it is an excercise worth trying because I'd be
curious to see if it really works...

When I owned a 100 kt fixed-gear, fixed-pitch airplane (TriPacer), I
could do it. If I had to, I could keep the wings level with just the
compass. Move up to a 160 kt retract, and it simply doesn't work that
well.

Michael

Dan Luke wrote:

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.

If always amazes me when pilots value others' lives more than their own.

Hilton

"Hilton" wrote:
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.

If always amazes me when pilots value others' lives more than their own.

You mean you don't? You wouldn't give your life to save your child's if
necessary?

Anyway, that's beside the point. My responsibility in this case is to try
and be the stand-in risk assessor for ignorant passengers. Since this is a
grey area at best, I err on the side of caution for them. They don't get
the same joy I do from flying, so I must assume the level of risk they would
accept if they knew all the facts is lower.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
"Hilton" wrote:
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.

If always amazes me when pilots value others' lives more than their own.

You mean you don't? You wouldn't give your life to save your child's if
necessary?

You're kinda changing the context there Dan.

Hilton

"Hilton" wrote:

You're kinda changing the context there Dan.

You kinda snipped the substantive reply there, Hilton.

"Dan Luke" wrote
Anyway, that's beside the point. My responsibility in this case is to try
and be the stand-in risk assessor for ignorant passengers. Since this is a
grey area at best, I err on the side of caution for them. They don't get
the same joy I do from flying, so I must assume the level of risk they would
accept if they knew all the facts is lower.

My initial reaction to reading that was that it was absolutely 100%
right, and I couldn't see how anyone could possibly disagree. Then I
realized that you (and I) made an implicit assumption. Let me make it
explicit.

The assumption you make is the assumption of a destination pilot.

When you make a trip that you would make in any case, only by private
airplane rather than an existing alternative (automobile, airline,
etc.) there are two separate classes of reasons for this. First,
there might be practical advantages such as cost (yeah, right),
comfort (my seats are a lot more comfortable than coach), convenience
(with regard to schedule flexibility and time - almost always the
case), and lack of frustration (sitting in traffic, being treated like
a criminal by the Thousands Standing Around, lost luggage). These I
would class as practical reasons, just as valid for your passenger as
they are for you, even if he doesn't care a bit about little airplanes
and will spend the flight sleeping or reading a book.

There is also that joy of flying that we all share - something that is
valid for you but not your passenger.

On the other hand, there is increased risk. It never ceases to amaze
me how many pilots are in denial about this increased risk. The truth
is, unless your alternative method of transportation was manufactured
by Yamaha or Harley Davidson, it is almost certainly safer.
Nevertheless, the other methods are not risk-free.

So we as pilots accept the increased risk for the increased benefits.
We have more increased benefits than our passengers (since we get to
enjoy the flight) so are willing to accept more risk. So far, I am
merely restating what you said, but in more detail (have you noticed I
have a habit of doing this?)

But suppose you are not going anywhere in particular? Just going up
to look at the scenery or get a hundred dollar hamburger? In other
words, making a flight whose purpose is NOT transportation, with no
real destination other than up and no purpose other than to enjoy the
flight. And let's say someone wants to go with you. Why?

Well, some people actually like flying in little airplanes, just
looking at the scenery and enjoying the ride, but have no desire (or
ability) to become pilots themselves. It does happen, you know. In
this case, your assumption that they don't get the same joy you do
from flying is unfounded. It makes no sense to make decisions for
them more conservative than you would for yourself.

I think this is the underlying basis of the disagreement. It is the
fundamental disconnect between someone who uses the airplane primarily
as a tool and someone who uses it primarily as a toy.

If most of your flights have no real destination - meaning they are
either to nowhere at all or to someplace you would not bother going if
it meant driving or taking the airlines or the bus - then you're
likely to have the same risk tolerance for yourself and your
passengers, because your reasons for making the flight are
fundamentally the same. If most of your flights are for the purpose
of travel, and you would probably make the trip by other means if the
airplane was not an option, then you are more likely to realize that
you have more of a reason to make the trip by airplane than someone
who does not enjoy the flight, and thus are willing to accept more
risk.

The special case here is flight instruction. It's flying without any
particular destination (usually) but with a purpose over and above
enojoying the flight - that purpose being training. Thus making the
flight is as important (and enjoyable) to the student as the
instructor, and it makes no sense for the instructor to make decisions
for the student more conservative than the decisions he would make for
himself. For that reason, the outlook of someone who primarily flies
to instruct is likely to resemble the outlook of the pilot who uses
the airplane primarily as a toy rather than a tool.

Michael

Hilton wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:

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.


If always amazes me when pilots value others' lives more than their own.

Why? I'd be sad if my wife or one of my kids died, however, if I get
killed, I won't be sad at all! :-)

Matt

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:32:55 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:



Why? I'd be sad if my wife or one of my kids died, however, if I get
killed, I won't be sad at all! :-)

Matt


In other words, you'd be happy to be with Jesus, but the fact that
your wife and kids would be bereft of a providing husband and
nutturing father, and whose lives would have presumably taken a turn
for the worse, wouldn't bother you at all.

Rather selfish of you, isn't it?

Gerald,

I guess my
question is, do you consider taking friends and family into
hard IMC that risky.


Why would your own life somehow be less important than that of other
people, however closely related you may be to them? I don't think that
way. If I consider the risk acceptable to my life, it is acceptable to
other people's, too. And yes, there would be types of IMC I consider
too risky for myself.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt,

Why? I'd be sad if my wife or one of my kids died, however, if I get
killed, I won't be sad at all! :-)


Well, if you claim you want the best for your beloved ones, what would
trouble them relatives more - to be dead or to lose you to death?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)