Angry [More Info]

Hi,

Unfortunately some folks have degraded the initial thread to some political
rambling, so I figured I'd post this to a new thread.

As I predicted:
1. "non-instrument rated private pilot"
2. "Night instrument meteorological conditions prevailed"
3. "a flight plan was not filed for the cross-country flight"
4. "As the airplane proceeded east from the departure airport, the pilot
reported that he was having trouble maintaining outside visual contact and
controlling the airplane and wanted help getting back to the airport."

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...27X02016&key=1

I am a CFI-I and I wouldn't have taken my wife and two kids up on that
flight in those conditions.

Hilton

Hilton wrote:
I am a CFI-I and I wouldn't have taken my wife and two kids up on that flight in those conditions.

Sounds like pilot error from the start. :^)

The Monk

Hilton wrote:

I am a CFI-I and I wouldn't have taken my wife and two kids up on that
flight in those conditions.

Are you referring to the weather/night conditions or are you stating you
wouldn't fly under all four of the accident flight circumstances you
listed?

If the latter, I agree (although I am not a CFI).

--
Peter

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:00:28 GMT, "Hilton" wrote:

I am a CFI-I and I wouldn't have taken my wife and two kids up on that
flight in those conditions.

I did not see the original thread.

What, exactly, are you implying?

Are you implying you would not feel comfortable flying night IMC, which is
what is described in the NTSB report? Or are you implying something else?

I found it interesting to do a little research on the web concerning the
weather at WVI and at FAT (and SNS and RHV) for times bracketing the
accident. (The report says he was going to Fresno).

Given the reported weather, it seems to me as if an IFR flight by a
competent IFR pilot would be reasonable, but perhaps not in a C172 if there
were icing conditions at the MEA at that time.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Hilton" wrote in message
nk.net...
Hi,

Unfortunately some folks have degraded the initial thread to some
political rambling, so I figured I'd post this to a new thread.

As I predicted:
1. "non-instrument rated private pilot"
2. "Night instrument meteorological conditions prevailed"
3. "a flight plan was not filed for the cross-country flight"
4. "As the airplane proceeded east from the departure airport, the pilot
reported that he was having trouble maintaining outside visual contact and
controlling the airplane and wanted help getting back to the airport."

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...27X02016&key=1

I am a CFI-I and I wouldn't have taken my wife and two kids up on that
flight in those conditions.

Hilton


Hilton,
We seem to share the frustration of watching someone's reckless disregard
for the consequences inherent in aviation result in the death of themselves
or those who depend on their judgment. In this case it would be revealing
to know if this flight was undertaken through ignorance (which could be a
training issue) or if other external forces (pilot or passenger
getthereitis) or other human factor caused the pilot to disregard the
recommendation regarding VFR flight not recommended. It seems that this
pilot did not recognize the level of risk (and final terror) to which he was
exposing his family.

This frustration lead me to start a thread last April subject "human factors
recklessness", where I said in part
I am tempted to ask why? where are we failing? are we glorifying
recklessness? Are we truly self destructive (cigarettes, food, alcohol,
pollution etc)? what can we do? but

I know that we must each find the answers within ourselves and to strive for
the personal situational control to handle these situations and temptations.
Training (and experience) helps, as do mentors. (Thank you Dudley, Gene
etal)

The study of human factors recognizes that (like Pogo) "We have seen the
problem and it is US". Controlling the aircraft is only a part of
successful flight operation, control of the pilot seems to be the largest
part of the problem.

My condolences and sympathy to all mourning family and friends.

In article ,
"Peter R." wrote:

Hilton wrote:

I am a CFI-I and I wouldn't have taken my wife and two kids up on that
flight in those conditions.

Are you referring to the weather/night conditions or are you stating you
wouldn't fly under all four of the accident flight circumstances you
listed?

If the latter, I agree (although I am not a CFI).

The area in question has hills that go up to 4000 ft, from approximately
sea level.

Scud running over flat terrain by day is one thinh; scud running ovver
flat terrain at night is another; scud running in mountains by day is
dicey; at night it is suicide.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news
Are you referring to the weather/night conditions or are you
stating you wouldn't fly under all four of the accident flight
circumstances you listed?

Lately, we've had more than our share of accidents in the SF Bay
Area.

Earlier this month, the person who purchased our Piper Lance several
years ago left Reid-Hillview at about 10:30 AM for a trip to Visalia
(in the San Joaquin Valley). The visibility in Visalia at the time
was less than 1/4 mile with a ceiling of 100. He held Comm/ME/Inst
but both he and his wife died in the crash and ensuing fire.


--

On 2005-12-29, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
Are you implying you would not feel comfortable flying night IMC, which is
what is described in the NTSB report? Or are you implying something else?

I can't (obviously) speak for Hilton but there is night IMC, and then
there is other night IMC.

As a preamble - but I find it odd that in training, huge emphasis is put
on instrument approaches. You do approach after approach after approach
as if it's the real thing, but not so many departures. Personally, I
find the approach a piece of cake. You have time to mentally prepare
yourself for it as you start getting close to your destination and
assess what's happening, and everything happens relatively slowly.
You're already in the 'IFR groove' so to speak when you're starting
the approach.

Departure on the other hand I find _much_ higher workload, single pilot
IFR (especailly at night), especially in a high performance plane (less
so in a C172). Things are happening quickly, and at least when I lived
in Houston, it seems that you rarely got the clearance you asked for and
had some sort of re-route just about when you'd levelled off at your
initial altitude, meaning another climbing turn. Plus the effects on
your inner ear seem to be the most pronounced at this point too (by the
time you're on an approach, you're usually 'in the groove' so to speak).
Night IFR plus mountains has to be higher workload still as there are
even more fsck ups that can lead you to be smeared over the ground - in
the flatlands, a minor navigational error is unlikely to kill you.

Personally, I wouldn't do single pilot IFR at night in the mountains
while solo, let alone with the added distraction of having family
members along for the ride.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Recently, Hilton posted:

Hi,

Unfortunately some folks have degraded the initial thread to some
political rambling, so I figured I'd post this to a new thread.

As I predicted:
1. "non-instrument rated private pilot"
2. "Night instrument meteorological conditions prevailed"

What does this mean, exactly? A clear, moonless night in a rural area
would qualify. I thought this accident was during a time when IMC
prevailed, regardless of the time of day?

3. "a flight plan was not filed for the cross-country flight"

Would that have made a difference?

4. "As the airplane proceeded east from the departure airport, the
pilot reported that he was having trouble maintaining outside visual
contact and controlling the airplane and wanted help getting back to
the airport."

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...27X02016&key=1

I am a CFI-I and I wouldn't have taken my wife and two kids up on that
flight in those conditions.

My own rule-of-thumb is that, one might survive a single bad decision, but
would be unlikely to survive multiple simultaneous bad decisions. If this
person took off in IMC (not being instrument rated), he made the worst
possible decision, and any other aspect of the flight only served to
guarantee his demise.

Neil

On 2005-12-29, Neil Gould wrote:
Unfortunately some folks have degraded the initial thread to some
political rambling, so I figured I'd post this to a new thread.

As I predicted:
1. "non-instrument rated private pilot"
2. "Night instrument meteorological conditions prevailed"

What does this mean, exactly? A clear, moonless night in a rural area
would qualify. I thought this accident was during a time when IMC
prevailed, regardless of the time of day?

It may qualify, but officially night IMC doesn't mean a clear moonless
night - that's still (officially) night VMC. Also, anywhere where there
is significant amount of lighting on the ground, night VMC (on a clear
moonless night, which is likely to also mean smooth flying conditions)
compared to a cloudy night with poor visibility (which may include
turbulence and icing in the clouds).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net