Angry [More Info]

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:

On 2005-12-30, Dylan Smith wrote:
I'm not entirely sure where these events took place, but even with our
mild climate here, I wouldn't launch in day IMC here in a light plane
because the freezing level is often below 2000 feet

... scratch that, I've just read the quoted NTSB report and the
temperature was far too high for icing. Given a Bonanza with decent
instrumentation and an IFR flight plan, I'd have probably gone too.


Of course, the problem here is that a VFR pilot, who didn't even have
the ink dry on his PP Certificate, launched at night, in lousy
conditions, into mountainous terrain.

Darwin, anyone?

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

"Morgans" wrote

You like to throw the dice, and hope they come up double 6's. I hope they
do.

If ever you are slapped with some system failure that is necessary to keep
the plane in the air, you just shot craps. In the mountains, (in IFR
especially) you are not too likely to find a good enough landing place to
save your life.

It is all about risk management, and risk acceptance. You are willing to
minimize the risk, and take what ever hand is dealt, from there on out.
Some are not.

I believe that statistics would indicate that fatal crashes that are the
result of an actual mechanical or electrical failure are quite rare. I also
suspect that the number of twin engine aircraft that have suffered an engine
failure in flight in IMC and then landed without incident is also quite low.
The risk comparison between single engine vs multi engine for a flight like
this in reality is probably close, although psychologically it may seem like
there is a vast difference.

How many multi-engine pilots do you know who routinely go out and practice
engine failure procedures? How many multi-engine crashes have been
attributed to mismanagement of the aircraft after an engine failure?

In the mountains it won't matter anyway, because the single engine service
ceiling of most light twins is down around 8,000 feet or so.

"Nick Danger" wrote

I believe that statistics would indicate that fatal crashes that are the
result of an actual mechanical or electrical failure are quite rare.

No doubt. It does suck,if you are the one that the "rare" statistic bites
your butt. The point is, that you are out of options. Prolly will not
happen. It could.

I also
suspect that the number of twin engine aircraft that have suffered an
engine
failure in flight in IMC and then landed without incident is also quite
low.
The risk comparison between single engine vs multi engine for a flight
like
this in reality is probably close, although psychologically it may seem
like
there is a vast difference.

No arguement there, either. As they say, a second engine is there to take
you to the crash site, ^o))
--
Jim in NC

Rick wrote:

Invisible Moon Conditions?

Those are the nights I won't fly. It's just too high a risk. If I cannot
see it, how can I avoid hitting it?

I certainly wouldn't trust the "big sky" theory.

- Andrew

I don't hope I have a well maintained plane, I know I do.
I don't hope I have a factory new engine, I know I do.
I don't hope I have regular scope inspections of my engine, I know I
do.
I don't hope that I complete 6 month IPCs with our local FAA Desginated
Pilot Examiner, I know I do.
I don't hope that I can fly my plane single pilot IFR, I know I do.

The "mountains" we are talking about here are baby hills. We're not
talking the Sierras here. On a typical IFR flight you maybe have 3
minutes of time you cannot glide out of the mountains to the well lit
freeway on the other side.

-Robert, CFI

Airways?

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:48:43 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

On 2005-12-29, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
No question but that pitch changes may be greater on takeoff than enroute.
But I've not noted any equilibrium problems while flying IMC. Maybe that's
from practice relying on the instruments and ignoring body cues?

Ignoring them isn't the problem, but you can still feel them

For whatever reason, I just don't feel the equilibrium problems that you
and others have described. Perhaps "ignore" is the wrong word to use, but
it has not ever been an issue for me, even during training.


and it adds
yet another thing on top of an already busy time. Added to this that it
is winter, it is night, there's a possibility of winds generating
turbulence off the terrain, and being winter - icing. I can hardly blame
a CFII for making a no-go decision in such conditions. It's nothing to
do with proficiency or 'being uncomfortable in night IMC'. It's a matter
of adding up the risk factors and finding the risk factors are too high
for a likely successful flight.

I did mention the possibility of icing in another post. But I still have
not seen any note from Hilton as to why, as a CFII (he pointed out), *HE*
would not have made that trip in the reported weather conditions.

Clearly one should not have gone VFR!


I'm not entirely sure where these events took place, but even with our
mild climate here, I wouldn't launch in day IMC here in a light plane
because the freezing level is often below 2000 feet - even if I had
20,000 hours experience. From my 1000 hours or so experience of flying
in the United States, much of it outside the gulf coast seems to have
fairly low icing conditions in the winter.

I agree that you have to assess your equipment and experience before
launching into any type of conditions. But this morning in eastern ME, the
freezing level was well above the MEA. I would have no hesitation about
flying under those circumstances.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 02:08:01 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
roups.com...
I agree Ron, it sounds like a bunch of 172 pilots. I would have had no
problem flying my Mooney under the same situation (IFR of course), in
fact I've flown that route several times. However, I know my Mooney. I
have a factory new (not factory reman, not rebuilt, not overhauled,
factory new) engine with regular oil analysis and scoping. I've also
been known to cross the Gorman pass IFR at night IMC as well (or, if
icing exists, the V25/V27 coastal route).

You like to throw the dice, and hope they come up double 6's. I hope they
do.

If ever you are slapped with some system failure that is necessary to keep
the plane in the air, you just shot craps. In the mountains, (in IFR
especially) you are not too likely to find a good enough landing place to
save your life.

It is all about risk management, and risk acceptance. You are willing to
minimize the risk, and take what ever hand is dealt, from there on out.
Some are not.

Yes, I, and I presume Robert, minimize our risk by assuring that excellent
maintenance is done on our equipment; and by keeping current in our own
aircraft.

This gives us a substantially better than the 1 in 35 chance you seem to
expect you would have had on that flight (that's the odds of rolling double
6's). If those were my odds, I, too, would not take the risk. :-)


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

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:56:20 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Rick wrote:

Invisible Moon Conditions?

Those are the nights I won't fly. It's just too high a risk. If I cannot
see it, how can I avoid hitting it?

I certainly wouldn't trust the "big sky" theory.

- Andrew


I'm not sure what you're flying, but in my Mooney, I don't think I'd have
much of a problem avoiding the moon, even if I couldn't see it.


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

Ron wrote:
I did mention the possibility of icing in another post. But I still have
not seen any note from Hilton as to why, as a CFII (he pointed out), *HE*
would not have made that trip in the reported weather conditions.

Sorry, Ron, been really busy here with a new software release, etc...

I thought of a long reply that included the risks of flying, how people
needed to be really good at understanding themselves, the weather, the
aircraft systems, etc etc etc, but I guess it boils down to this:

Let's assume a 172 and IFR (which the accident pilot wasn't): Night, IMC
(cloudy, rainy, not benign fog), single-engine, hills which have claimed
lives, plane full of people (more chance of distraction), etc. Each of
these reduce your safety margin, or increase your risk. It's just not very
well stacked in my favor. You say you would do it, what if you had an
engine failure? You have no out, you and your passengers would likely die
or at best be very serously injured. I don't like those odds. Others might
be OK with them, others might put more faith in their engines than I do.
Allow me to quote a couple of sentences from the latest Nall Report (2004):

"Accidents in such conditions, for example, adverse weather or at night, are
more likely to result in fatality."
"...only 14.0 percent of daytime accidents resulted in fatalities. At night,
more than one in three (36.1 percent) was fatal."

I fly at night, I fly IMC, I never fly IMC at night, and definitely not over
hills in a single engine with a 1956 172 (assuming it did not have the newer
6-pack configuration). You're welcome to say I'm too conservative, but
there you go. I know of a very experienced test pilot, Reno Race racer who
will not fly single-engine at night period, even in perfect VMC conditions.

Hilton