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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Are pilots really good or just lucky???
When I read something like this:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...2/A03A0022.asp ....I worry a lot. We have a pilot with 110 successfully Atlantic crossings and 5000 hours, taking a plane...IFR... 2000 miles across the North Atlantic into the Canadian sub-Arctic in the dead of winter... The plane has no Cabin heat. The plane has no working turn coordinator. The plane's ELT battery is out of date. That doesn't really matter because the ELT switch was turned to "OFF", anyway. The plane does not have enough fuel to reach alternate + 45... barely enough to reach alternate. That doesn't really matter, because the alternate was actual and forecast below limits anyway. That doesn't matter either, because the plane was not equipped with the necessary equipment to accomplish any of the published approaches at the alternate, anyway. In spite of all that, if she could have lasted just 6 more miles, it would have been another ho-hum crossing. .... but the AI gyro gave up with 6 NM to go, and with no Turn coordinator...in IMC..., she became a statistic on the ice of Hamilton Inlet. Which brings up the question.... is this kind of decision-making truly an anomaly.... or is it the norm more often than we would like to think? Do a whole ton of flights stay out of the Safety Board's reports more by good luck than good management? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Some people just like a challenge.
Which brings up the question.... is this kind of decision-making truly an anomaly.... or is it the norm more often than we would like to think? Do a whole ton of flights stay out of the Safety Board's reports more by good luck than good management? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. You wonder how many other trips she made just like this one and made it...... "Icebound" wrote in message ... When I read something like this: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...2/A03A0022.asp ...I worry a lot. We have a pilot with 110 successfully Atlantic crossings and 5000 hours, taking a plane...IFR... 2000 miles across the North Atlantic into the Canadian sub-Arctic in the dead of winter... The plane has no Cabin heat. The plane has no working turn coordinator. The plane's ELT battery is out of date. That doesn't really matter because the ELT switch was turned to "OFF", anyway. The plane does not have enough fuel to reach alternate + 45... barely enough to reach alternate. That doesn't really matter, because the alternate was actual and forecast below limits anyway. That doesn't matter either, because the plane was not equipped with the necessary equipment to accomplish any of the published approaches at the alternate, anyway. In spite of all that, if she could have lasted just 6 more miles, it would have been another ho-hum crossing. ... but the AI gyro gave up with 6 NM to go, and with no Turn coordinator...in IMC..., she became a statistic on the ice of Hamilton Inlet. Which brings up the question.... is this kind of decision-making truly an anomaly.... or is it the norm more often than we would like to think? Do a whole ton of flights stay out of the Safety Board's reports more by good luck than good management? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Icebound" wrote
We have a pilot with 110 successfully Atlantic crossings and 5000 hours, taking a plane...IFR... 2000 miles across the North Atlantic into the Canadian sub-Arctic in the dead of winter... If you make your living ferrying aircraft internationally (not make the odd flight, but make your living that way - there is a huge difference) then you can't really afford to turn down a plane just because it's not really airworthy for IFR flight (most of them are not) and you can't afford to scrub the flight just because you can't legally make it. It's a dangerous way to make a living. So is flying airshow aerobatics, cropdusting, fire bombing... The only real question in my mind is why she brought her daughter along. Which brings up the question.... is this kind of decision-making truly an anomaly.... or is it the norm more often than we would like to think? I've known some people who routinely made ferry flights. Some of the stories they told make me believe this isn't so far out. You see, when a plane is in good shape and the ferry flight is reasonably within the airplane's capability, you don't hire a pro. They're expensive. You get an experienced local pilot to do it. It's way cheaper, because they'll do it for expenses and pocket change. It's when the experienced local pilots won't touch it, and the only volunteers are kids with hours in three digits, that you hire the pro - usually because the insurance company demands it or you don't trust the kid with an uninsured airplane. Do a whole ton of flights stay out of the Safety Board's reports more by good luck than good management? Yes, of course. Today's aircraft are pretty reliable. In 1900+ hours, I've seen an AI failure twice. That's not a lot. When you're looking at only spending a few hours in IMC for the whole trip, there is the tendency to ask "Well, what are the odds?" And they're not high. But if you keep doing it time after time after time, the odds catch up with you. That's all that happened here - the odds finally caught up with a pilot after 5000 hours. But what 5000 hours they must have been. Could any number of hours getting hundred dollar hamburgers, going around the pattern, or reading the newspaper while the autopilot flies the plane and the stews serve drinks ever compare? To quote Lindbergh (whose transatlantic crossing was made with far more preparation, but whose equipment was less capable, more finicky, and less redundant than what this pilot had): "If I could fly for 10 years before being killed in a crash, that would be a good trade for an ordinary lifetime." Of course Lindbergh only did it once. Michael |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message om... But what 5000 hours they must have been. Could any number of hours getting hundred dollar hamburgers, going around the pattern, or reading the newspaper while the autopilot flies the plane and the stews serve drinks ever compare? There's a lot of truth in that. Ferrying little planes over big oceans does not attract the risk-averse, that's for sure. This kind of flying is right up there in my book with fishing in the Bering Sea or climbing the Himalayas. A good part of the US was settled by people who piled wives and little children into covered wagons to cross a continent full of deadly weather and hostile natives. There isn't a lot of room left in the world for people like that. 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. Plan A is you have the AI. Plan B is you have the TC. Plan C is compass and altimeter. There's a realistic chance you'll need Plan B eventually and it is survivable. Plan C means you're most likely f---ed, but it's pretty unlikely you'll lose both the AI or vacuum and the electrical system at the same time, so I don't think about it. Taking off without a working TC meant her Plan B was really Plan C. So yeah, I'm going to conclude there was a serious element of recklessness here. -cwk. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
There's a lot of truth in that. Ferrying little planes over big oceans does not attract the risk-averse, that's for sure. This kind of flying is right up there in my book with fishing in the Bering Sea or climbing the Himalayas. A good part of the US was settled by people who piled wives and little children into covered wagons to cross a continent full of deadly weather and hostile natives. There isn't a lot of room left in the world for people like that. 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message ink.net... 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. Plan A is you have the AI. Plan B is you have the TC. Plan C is compass and altimeter. Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296, with TC and AI displays? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message..
Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296, with TC and AI displays? The 296 has a Attitude Indicator??? A portable GPS would have been a decent backup, but the report mentions no GPS. I would have to imagine in this day in age, a GPS (or a bunch of them) would be a necessity. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. -cwk. "C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "C Kingsbury" wrote in message ink.net... 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. Plan A is you have the AI. Plan B is you have the TC. Plan C is compass and altimeter. Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin 296, with TC and AI displays? |
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 |
Good plans-built Light Sport Aircraft | Rob Schneider | Home Built | 15 | August 19th 04 05:50 PM |
DCPilots for Washington, DC area pilots | Bill | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | June 5th 04 12:32 AM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
bulding a kitplane maybe Van's RV9A --- a good idea ????? | Flightdeck | Home Built | 10 | September 9th 03 07:20 PM |