If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"...everything to do with avoiding obstacles (terrain, buildings, other
aircraft, etc.)." Duh! My bad! I guess I need new spectacles. Yeah, that's it! Jose -- The price of freedom is... well... freedom. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
: snip Will you sit right seat? Will you take off if the weather is BELOW MINIMUMS? No, you're right, I wouldn't take off then. I'd want to be able to approach and land if a mechanical problem became apparent shortly after takeoff. On the other hand, their takeoff was uneventful, so that danger didn't materialize. When they flew the approach, in the absence of any mechanical problem, below-minimum visibility should not have been dangerous; it should just have prompted a missed approach. In fact, though, they crashed a mile or two from the field--long before below-minimum visibility should have been a factor at all. So even if taking off under those conditions was irresponsible, that particular irresponsibility was arguably not contributory to the accident, as things turned out. True. But the fact that they did take off in weather that was below minimums, helps to paint a picture of an instructor whose focus was on something other than safety of flight. And no, admittedly I'm not going to sit in the right seat or let my friend fly. I have no experience giving instruction or flying from the right seat. I don't know how if that would be particularly difficult for an experienced instructor to do. But from the reports I've seen, we don't know if the student was flying the approach at all; the NTSB report doesn't even say who was sitting where. It's conceivable that for the return leg, the instructor was sitting in the left seat and the student was just along for the ride. That is conceivable. It's equaly as conceivable that the instructor was not IFR current. After all, he let his medical lapse, what's to say that he didn't let his currency lapse? Obviously, a lapsed medical and an irresponsible take off didn't cause this accident. But they are among a series of facts that paint a picture of an instructor who had a pattern of taking less than responsible actions and failed to excercise good judgement. Nobody's perfect, but the apparent trend makes it easy to assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the cause of the accident lies in the hands of the instructor as well... |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Gary Drescher posted:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message m... Recently, Gary Drescher posted: "Neil Gould" wrote in message ... For example, a clear, moonless night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground. ;-) Well, it can be loggable as instrument time, but not as IMC--a clear, moonless night is definitely not IMC. If you spend any time over a large body of water or undeveloped landscape on a moonless night, you may arrive at a different opinion about that. I've done both, and they're definitely IMC. It's just a matter of terminology. Yes, you're describing conditions that require flying by instruments; and yes, the time spent in such conditions is loggable as instrument time. But IMC has a specific meaning under the FARs. It refers to visibility conditions that are less than the specified minimums for Visual Flight Rules. If the conditions you describe were really IMC, then you'd have to be instrument rated and under IFR to fly in those conditions. But in fact, there's no such requirement, because those conditions are not IMC. I think that Peter Duniho's response casts doubt on your perspective. The way I see it, "I" and "V" indicate the mode used for control of the aircraft; "MC" describes the conditions which require a particular mode of control. I suspect that we can make these things far more convoluted than they need to be. Remember, VMC and IMC are defined primarily for purposes of *separation* rather than aviation or navigation. You may still need instruments to keep the plane right side up, but that's a different matter. How would this be a different matter? Far more accidents are due to colliding with fixed obstacles and terrain than with other aircraft. Regards, Neil |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. .. I think that Peter Duniho's response casts doubt on your perspective. The way I see it, "I" and "V" indicate the mode used for control of the aircraft; "MC" describes the conditions which require a particular mode of control. Well, I did say the distinction was *primarily* a matter of separation. Pete correctly points out some other aspects of the distinction. But regardless of what motivates the distinction, the point remains that a clear, moonless night over the wilderness does not qualify as IMC (even though the conditions require the use of instruments to keep the plane upright), because flying in IMC, by definition, requires being under Instrument Flight Rules and having a (current) instrument rating; whereas flying over the wilderness on a clear, moonless night can be done under Visual Flight Rules. From the AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary: "Instrument Meteorological Conditions- Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions." The conditions you describe have visibility of many miles, no clouds, and no ceiling; those are, by definition, Visual Meteorological Conditions, even if everything is pitch black, with no visible horizon. (Night visibility is defined in terms of the distance from which a prominent lighted object would be seen.) --Gary |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. .. I think that Peter Duniho's response casts doubt on your perspective. I don't. My response was intended only to agree with Gary's statement, and to provide some additional insight into the situation. Nothing I wrote was intended to dispute what Gary wrote, nor do I see anything that does. The way I see it, "I" and "V" indicate the mode used for control of the aircraft; They do with respect to IFR versus VFR. They do not with respect to logging instrument conditions (which requires only control of the aircraft solely with reference to instruments, not a particular set of rules or meterological conditions). "MC" describes the conditions which require a particular mode of control. "meteorological conditions" by itself describes nothing. You need the "I" or "V" to make the phrase meaningful. IMC versus VMC describe weather conditions (specifically, visibility and clouds). IFR versus VFR describe a set of flight rules, only one of which permits one to fly in or near clouds. Neither of those pairs has direct control over logging instrument flight time (though there is, of course, a strong correlation between IMC and instrument flight time). I suspect that we can make these things far more convoluted than they need to be. One might even suggest you're demonstrating that now. Remember, VMC and IMC are defined primarily for purposes of *separation* rather than aviation or navigation. You may still need instruments to keep the plane right side up, but that's a different matter. How would this be a different matter? Far more accidents are due to colliding with fixed obstacles and terrain than with other aircraft. It's a different matter because VMC and IMC don't have anything to do with whether you log flight time as "instrument flight time", from a regulatory standpoint. Pete |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Gary Drescher posted:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message . .. I think that Peter Duniho's response casts doubt on your perspective. The way I see it, "I" and "V" indicate the mode used for control of the aircraft; "MC" describes the conditions which require a particular mode of control. Well, I did say the distinction was *primarily* a matter of separation. Pete correctly points out some other aspects of the distinction. But regardless of what motivates the distinction, the point remains that a clear, moonless night over the wilderness does not qualify as IMC (even though the conditions require the use of instruments to keep the plane upright), because flying in IMC, by definition, requires being under Instrument Flight Rules and having a (current) instrument rating; whereas flying over the wilderness on a clear, moonless night can be done under Visual Flight Rules. From the AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary: "Instrument Meteorological Conditions- Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions." Point taken. I was inappropriately referring to "IMC" in my example. Neil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
AmeriFlight Crash | C J Campbell | Piloting | 5 | December 1st 03 02:13 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |