Are pilots really good or just lucky???

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
om...
Peter MacPherson wrote:

Comments like this woman taking their daughter across
the ocean is and into IMC really get me thinking. Flying hard IMC in
a bug smasher whether it is a C152 or a SR22 or a certified Known Ice
C210 with friends and family seems almost as bad as ferry crossing. You
might have some more airports to land at in case of an emergency but if
is hard IMC with 300 AGL ceilings, you really have the odds stacked
against you in both cases.


IMHO the thing to think about in this case is pilot failure more than
airplane failure. Seems to me most IMC accidents are either CFIT or spatial
disorientation. Though some appear to start when a mechanical or other
problem consumes the pilot's attention, many if not most seem to lack
aggravating factors.

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.


Personally I would not launch unless ceilings were 1000' and it looked like
I could cruise on top. But, the weather can always get worse, so you might
find a ceiling of 500' and be in the soup all the way. I don't have
different minimums for myself than for passengers, I don't want either of us
getting killed.

IMHO proficiency is the first thing to consider. If you never fly passengers
in IMC then it's not unlikely you don't fly much IMC period. In that case
you might want to stay out of the clouds too.

-cwk.

"C Kingsbury" wrote
Fair enough. Borrow one from somebody else's plane and give them the new one
when it shows up. You can always figure something out if you really want to.

Right, but the point is that if you do that for ALL the risk factors,
you're out of a job. There were lots of issues on this flight. There
always are. This is a flight that was really beyond the normal
capability of the aircraft.

As I said before, if the flight presents what an experienced pilot
would consider a reasonable risk, there is no need to hire a
professional. If you're willing to fix the plane - meaning make it
IFR capable, put in extended range tanks if necessary or wait for
favorable winds/weather, and do all the things that would make it a
reasonable flight, a local experienced pilot will do it for expenses
and pocket change. It's a hell of an adventure.

You call in the specialist when you're not willing to deal with the
constraints placed by that local pilot. You're not willing to fix the
plane properly, get ferry tanks or wait on winds/weather, etc. You
want to do the minimum. Did you notice how pilots from a local flying
club were flying the plane locally, day-VFR? It was in the writeup.
So why was an expensive specialist brought in? Because the plane was
really only suitable for local day_VFR flying the way it was, and
those pilots knew it.

I would not have taken that plane on that trip either. It wasn't just
the TC, either. There was no cabin heat - and that meant no
windshield deice. It would have taken only trace icing to stop all
forward visibility and make the plane unlandable. There wasn't an
adequate IFR panel. There was insufficient reserve for the
conditions. There was an engine of questionable history and an
overwater crossing. Too many risks, not enough reason. That's why
I'm not a ferry pilot - I don't have the guts. That's no reason to
put down those who do.

Michael

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.



thanks everyone for your honest replies. I guess my beliefs are inline
with everyone else. Too bad my wallet has enough time keeping up with
my IFR training much less buying that CJ1 / eclipse / Adams / etc.

Gerald

Gerald Sylvester wrote
When I first got my PPL almost a year ago, my first passengers were
beyond nervous with my being so green. The first few passengers raved
and now people are going out of their way to come visit and go for a
ride.

And in reality, that means nothing. Non-pilot pax are not equipped to
evaluate the safety or proficiency of a pilot in any meaningful way.
For that reason, we as pilots are responsible for managing risk for
them.

I'm now working on my IFR rating right. In this newsgroup
we had a thread running about taking friends and family into IMC and
their reactions and the added risks compared to VMC flights. For
me, going into IMC gets the adrenaline running for a week if not
more. I love the challenge but someday I just can't imagine
my friends and family feeling comfortable when they can't see anything
but the inside of the flask they are drinking from and the ceiling
as they pray.

I fairly routinely carry non-pilot passengers in IMC. None of them
have been uncomfortable, primarily because they have noted no changes
in how the airplane is flown, and they can see that I'm comfortable.
You see, as you develop more experience, it takes more to get the
adrenaline going. I find that simply going into IMC is no longer
enough to even break the ho-hum factor. Now if we're talking about an
overwater crossing, out of radio and RADAR contact, steering around
the storms using spherics, that's something. I would not take a
non-pilot passenger on a trip like that.

In fact, it's a good rule of thumb that if a flight is going to get
your adrenaline going, you shouldn't be carrying a passenger who can't
himself evaluate the risk.

Flying hard IMC in
a bug smasher whether it is a C152 or a SR22 or a certified Known Ice
C210 with friends and family seems almost as bad as ferry crossing.

I think that's nonsense of the first order. There is a HUGE
difference between doing it in a C-152 equipped for minimum IFR (how
else? There isn't the panel space nor the useful load for anything
more) and a well-equipped T-210 with known ice. There is NO TRUTH
WHATSOEVER to the idea that if you're not burning kerosene you might
as well be in a C-152. All airplanes have their operating envelopes
and risk factors, and there is not some huge step that is suddenly
crossed when you start buring kerosene.

You
might have some more airports to land at in case of an emergency but if
is hard IMC with 300 AGL ceilings, you really have the odds stacked
against you in both cases.

Do you know how rare it is to have widespread areas of 300 AGL
ceilings? I agree with you - widespread ceilings of 300 AGL or less
give you few options in a single. Few does not mean none. We have a
regular contributor here who flies a 210 and regularly practices a
deadstick instrument approach. Of course you have a lot more options
for that if you cruise at 15,000 ft than if you cruise at 5,000. Lots
of T-210's cruising at those altitudes, but no C-152's. And of course
in a light twin flying over relatively flat terrain, widespread 300 ft
ceilings are no big deal if your systems are properly redundant. Some
are, some are not.

In this case, she made the ferry crossing 'fine.' She got across the
pond after all but the bad part was she was a few miles short of
perfect. The bad part is her decision making about the
airworthiness of the plane combined with weather and fuel planning were
quite poor.

But the reality is that what took her out was a point failure for
which she did not have a backup. That's something to think about.

The average pilot does not get taken out by a point failure, but then
the average pilot does not fly or train often enough to be proficient
for IFR - and that includes the instrument rated pilots. If you're
going to fly IFR enough to be good at it, you're looking at a lot of
exposure to point failures, and need to think about having backups for
stuff. If you're going to be only an occasional IFR pilot, as is the
case for most active instrument rated private pilots, then don't worry
too much about redundancy. Worry about your proficiency, because
that's what causes most of the accidents. In that case, you're
probably safer in a C-152 than you would be in a T-210 - or a King
Air.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

I would not have taken that plane on that trip either. It wasn't just
the TC, either. There was no cabin heat - and that meant no
windshield deice. It would have taken only trace icing to stop all
forward visibility and make the plane unlandable. There wasn't an
adequate IFR panel. There was insufficient reserve for the
conditions. There was an engine of questionable history and an
overwater crossing. Too many risks, not enough reason. That's why
I'm not a ferry pilot - I don't have the guts. That's no reason to
put down those who do.


I guess my focus on the TC is that out of all these issues it's the one that
simply screams at me because it's high-risk and easy to fix. There's no
low-cost easy fix for the engine, and I can see taking the chance with the
window ice. I suppose you could fly the ILS with a stabilized power-on
approach setting and figure you'll hit the ground in the best attitude
possible. Crack the plane up but reasonable chance of survival. Fuel-wise
I'll defer since she'd done 100+ flights and thus conceivably knew how to
play that game better than most. But lose the vacuum or AI in IMC, well,
bang, you're at the top of s--t creek, please hand over the paddle. And
that's true whether you're over the North Atlantic or the Great Plains. I
have very few qualms about flying with just the DG and TC; I did half of my
instrument raining in just that configuration. TC alone makes it a bit
tougher but I'm confident I could handle it, though you can bet I'd be on
the line asking for no-gyro vectors to the closest ILS without hesitation.
But compass and altimeter alone, that's a scary thought. Will have to try
that next time I go up for a ride with my CFII.

In any case, I can respect someone's guts and at the same time find their
disregard for safety a bit... um... pathological? And I'm hardly an
anti-risk person.

-cwk.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:31:08 -0600, "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.

Solid IMC? sure and without hesitation.
Solid IMC and turbulence, the occasional embedded TS, or ice. Not a
chance.

I wouldn't take friends and family without
another
pilot on a flight down to minimums but I'm wondering if IFR in

It depends on two things. How much you fly and your comfort factor.
I find flying down to minimums little different than breaking out a
100 or 200 feet above minimums.

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.

To me, IFR isn't all that different than VFR any more. If find that to
be true even in solid IMC. Where I draw the line with passengers is
turbulence.

I was lucky I had instructors who put me through a lot of IMC right
down to minimums so by the time I received my rating I felt competent
(and comfortable) to fly down to minimums and did. Actually my first
solo IFR flight was near minimums on both ends. Coming home it was
forecast to be below minimums for 3BS, but above for MBS which is just
11.3 miles and they have and ILS. Had to file FNT as the alternate,
but you can go any where.

Shot the VOR-A into 3BS and it was good, but 10 minutes earlier, or
later and it would have been doing the missed to the ILS at MBS and
having my wife pick me up. A couple miles either side of the approach
was well below minimums. When I called the airport in site, there was
a pause and APP asked what conditions looked like.

As far as passengers I really don't see it as any more risky than VFR,
but I won't take inexperienced passengers into solid IMC. I don't
like cleaning airplanes.

True, I fly over the mid west which is mostly flat land and if it's
minimums or above you can make a visual landing ... somewhere. OTOH
there are a *lot* of densely wooded areas.

I look at it this way. *If* I'm comfortable with the conditions I'll
take friends and family. If I find the "pucker factor" to be
uncomfortable, I not only won't take friends and family, I won't go
either.

My life is every bit as important to me as any one else's. My basic
rule, which is very easy to keep; I won't take some one else where I
wouldn't go. :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Michael wrote:

Gerald Sylvester wrote

When I first got my PPL almost a year ago, my first passengers were
beyond nervous with my being so green. The first few passengers raved
and now people are going out of their way to come visit and go for a
ride.


And in reality, that means nothing. Non-pilot pax are not equipped to
evaluate the safety or proficiency of a pilot in any meaningful way.
For that reason, we as pilots are responsible for managing risk for
them.


I'm now working on my IFR rating right. In this newsgroup
we had a thread running about taking friends and family into IMC and
their reactions and the added risks compared to VMC flights. For
me, going into IMC gets the adrenaline running for a week if not
more. I love the challenge but someday I just can't imagine
my friends and family feeling comfortable when they can't see anything
but the inside of the flask they are drinking from and the ceiling
as they pray.


I fairly routinely carry non-pilot passengers in IMC. None of them
have been uncomfortable, primarily because they have noted no changes
in how the airplane is flown, and they can see that I'm comfortable.
You see, as you develop more experience, it takes more to get the
adrenaline going. I find that simply going into IMC is no longer
enough to even break the ho-hum factor. Now if we're talking about an
overwater crossing, out of radio and RADAR contact, steering around
the storms using spherics, that's something. I would not take a
non-pilot passenger on a trip like that.

When I was flying IFR in IMC frequently in an airplane I was familiar
with (I owned a 182 for several years), I actually found it very
relaxing and peaceful. Even more so than in VMC. There is much less
traffic, no need to spend time scanning for traffic, etc.

Now, after a four year layoff, I'm not yet nearly that comfortable in
IMC, but it is coming back quickly. Also, I switched to a Piper Arrow
and learning a new plane takes away some of the comfort level, but I
agree that IMC should not be an adrenaline generating experience.


Matt

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:14:35 -0500, Roger wrote:

I was lucky I had instructors who put me through a lot of IMC right
down to minimums so by the time I received my rating I felt competent
(and comfortable) to fly down to minimums and did.

I really have to agree with Roger here!

I had two instructors in my IFR training. My first instructor took me on
days that were down to ILS minimums at HKS. My second instructor will not
fly in solid IMC for any period of time.

The second instructors opinion was that the purpose of an IFR ticket in a
single engine was to climb through the deck, get on top, and then decend
through the deck and land.

My first instructor on the other hand had me fly 2.4 in solid IMC doing
approaches and gave me the confidence to remain in IMC.

Talk about bringing up the confidence level, as when I did my first IFR
approaches after getting my ticket, it was 900 ceiling at HKS, and I felt
like I had a ton of time after breaking out to make the runway.

I had my first hold in solid IMC just three weeks ago, so again, because my
first instructor gave me the confidence, it really was no big deal. Just
rather boring going circles for 15 minutes.

So, depending on your instructor, probably will dictate your own confidence
level. After all, you practice down to minimums under the hood, it's no
different then in IMC.

As far as passengers, I took my wife up for her first trip. Granted, she
has been great throughout my flying experiences, but she was not
comfortable in solid IMC. It was smooth as silk, and we were in IMC for 40
minutes until I got on top at 8000 feet further down the road. She didn't
like the fact that she felt like a "speck" with no visual references. So,
each passenger will have their own tolerences.

To be honest, I wouldn't hesitate to take a passenger up in IMC, as if you
treat it as "normal", the passenger will not know any difference anyway.
It's when the pilot shows some concern, that the passenger will pick up on
that concern.

As far as comfort, turbulence has the most impact on passengers from my
experiences. Smooth air, and IMC really doesn't bother a passenger who
thinks it's perfectly normal.

Allen

In article , A Lieberman
writes:

As far as passengers, I took my wife up for her first trip. Granted, she
has been great throughout my flying experiences, but she was not
comfortable in solid IMC. It was smooth as silk, and we were in IMC for 40
minutes until I got on top at 8000 feet further down the road. She didn't
like the fact that she felt like a "speck" with no visual references. So,
each passenger will have their own tolerences.


Boy, you can say that again about "their own tolerences". The first time my
instructor took me into IMC I got a bit on edge and he said, "Just remember how
you felt today and understand how your wife is going to feel the first time."
Well in our first IMC flight I tried to brief the wife and when we entered the
clouds I kept asking how she felt and she kept saying "No problem, why are you
asking?" Now hit a few bumps and she is "Let's get this thing down - NOW" So
go figure.

Chuck

(Michael) wrote in
om:

"C J Campbell" wrote
Any reason Plan C could not have been a handheld GPS like the Garmin
296, with TC and AI displays?

That works well with relatively draggy and stable airplanes. There is
no gyro in the 296. It infers bank information from rate of turn
information, and that information is of course delayed. In something
nice and stable like a Cherokee (or, for that matter, any single
engine Cessna with struts and fixed gear) this works adequately well -
certainly well enough to shoot a no-gyro PAR in 1000 and 2 - because
the delay time between banking the wings and turn indication on the
GPS is not sufficient for anything really ugly to happen. But the 210
is a different beast - with retractable gear and no struts, it's more
like the Bonanzas and Mooneys than it is like most Cessnas. By the
time you get turn indication on the GPS, you might already be in a
spiral. It might work OK with a very sharp pilot familiar with the
plane, a well-trimmed airplane, and smooth air but it's not much of a
plan.

Michael


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

If it wasn't, wouldn't that be the first thing to do? Slow the plane WAY
down and fly the rudder?

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...