What's wrong with this idea?

"Mike Weller" wrote ...
Well, just always fly at an even or odd altitude plus or minus 250
feet and you won't have to worry about that.

Then you're just going to collide with the other aircraft that are doing the
exact same thing... grin

About a month or so ago, I was flying from New Orleans to Houston and was
down low checking out the scenery in the swamps... I was at 500 ft... Next
thing I know, another aircraft flew UNDERNEATH me... I saw him go under my
left wing and then come out under my right wing... He was perhaps flying at
200-300 ft...

One could assume that one could just allow their altitude to vary +/- 250
feet while flying at a normal altitude to decrease the chance of a
collision... Basically make the target a little more like hitting a moving
and dodging target instead of just a moving one... grin

"David Megginson" wrote in message
...
Canada requires instrument-rated pilots to retake the complete IFR
flight test (including the ground portion) every two years. I
understand that the IFR checkride in the U.S. is a once-in-a-lifetime
thing, like the PPL checkride. Would you prefer to use the Canadian
system, or would that seem like unwelcome government interference to
U.S. pilots?

I don't know how I feel about this one yet... I just completed my training
last week. In the U.S., you can maintain your currency as long as you fly 6
approaches and do some holding and tracking every 6 months. I'm wondering if
anybody who has let their currency lapse completely (beyond 12 months), and
has taken a checkride with a CFII or examiner, feels that that was adequate
to getting you current again? I imagine a lot of practice would be required
before someone felt safe enough to carry passengers or even fly solo in the
system once those skills have been idle for so long.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

"Guy Elden Jr." wrote in message
...
[...] I'm wondering if
anybody who has let their currency lapse completely (beyond 12 months),
and
has taken a checkride with a CFII or examiner, feels that that was
adequate
to getting you current again?

I have, several times.

I imagine a lot of practice would be required
before someone felt safe enough to carry passengers or even fly solo in
the
system once those skills have been idle for so long.

You are correct. If I haven't flown IFR for a year (give or take), it takes
at least three hours of instrument training for me to feel like I'm back up
to snuff, sometimes more. Two or three lessons has been typical when I've
been away from the instrument stuff that long.

Pete

(Snowbird) wrote
once you remove "it's illegal" as a restraining factor,
how will you second-guess or sanity check your judgement?

I have a real problem with the idea that legality is a valid sanity
check on your judgment.

2) I try to use words very carefully. Where did I say anything
to the effect that legality is a valid sanity check on an
individual's judgement?

See above. I can't imagine how it can be read other than to imply
that legality is a valid sanity check on an individual's judgment.

FTR, I look at it this way. Legal is often a least common denominator.
There are a number of things which are legal, which aren't particularly
safe. Including, for example, instrument-rated pilots who aren't
particularly proficient flying IFR in IMC. But asking "is it legal?"
gives one a first-pass approximation, that someone somewhere thought
that under some circumstances, the operation one proposes wasn't
horrendously unsafe.

Well, sure. But the important question to ask is this - WHO was this
someone who thought so? What do we know about him? Why should we
value his opinion?

If some random person hanging around the airport thought that under
some circumstances the operation you propose wasn't horrendously
unsafe, would that mean anything to you? How about the reverse?

Your argument stands or falls on the assumption that because this
person works for the FAA writing regulations, that makes his opinion
somehow more valid than the opinion of a random person hanging around
the airport. That assumption is exactly what I'm disputing.

All we really know about this person is that he works for the FAA.
This generally means that he attempted to make a living in aviation in
the private sector, failed to do so, and is now working for the
government. Thus my initial reaction is to assume that his opinion is
going to be less valid than average, not more.

To take that a step further - it's not that I believe that having
personal flying totally unregulated is the ideal case. I don't
believe that at all, though I can make a reasonable case that it would
not be nearly as bad as you might think, simply by comparing it to
other activities. What I do believe is that the people (it all comes
down to people in the end) doing the regulating are so incompetent and
so unethical (see http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf for
examples) that their net impact on safety is negative, and that having
nothing at all, while far from optimal, would still be better.

There are arguably a number of things which aren't legal, but
probably are relatively safe. Such as, for example, a non-IR pilot
who is proficient and familiar with the system flying IFR in IMC.
But if such a pilot contemplates doing so, who *is* sanity-checking
their judgement?

Really, the same person who is sanity-checking the judgment of an
instrument rated pilot who got his rating years ago - he and nobody
else. As long as you go under the hood in bright daylight with a
safety pilot and do six full-panel ILS approaches and one hold every
six months, you're good to go. And the safety pilot need not even be
instrument rated or qualified in the aircraft. The point is that
legality does nothing whatsoever to keep the unqualified out of the
clouds. In the end, the pilot makes his own judgments.

As an aside, I recently did an ICC. I will note that the CFII/MEI was
ready to sign me off LONG before I felt that I had reached adequate
proficiency. Of course he was more than willing to fly additional
hours while I practiced - multi time is like gold to these guys - but
what that means is that even for someone like me, who does get
recurrent training and really meets not only the letter but the spirit
of the IFR currency regs, there is still nobody sanity checking my
judgment.

And if they are proficient
and familiar enough to fly in the system safely, why not get the
"sanity check" from the system? Why not bone up, hone up, take the
tests and do so legally?

Any number of reasons. Ones that I'm familiar with (these are all
real cases) include reasons like:

Not enough instrument hours for IFR checkride. I know LOTS of
instrument rated pilots who had about 5-10 hours solo actual before
the checkride, but are now rated.

Airplane won't pass pitot-static check - quite possibly because it
never had a static port. That's common for the earlier airplanes. On
low speed non-pressurized airplanes, it's simply not an issue, but the
rules are the rules.

Got ****ed off and didn't complete training. This is more common than
you might imagine, and is IMO mostly a reflection on the largely
incompetent CFII community. This is one of those 'personality issues'
that I've observed in those who have little or no formal education.

Most formal education has a high bull**** factor; if you want to get
the dergee you WILL learn to do what you're told, even when you know
it's pointless, and to do it on time and according to arbitrary and
often suboptimal procedures. Some people learn to tolerate it, and
some don't. Most employers prefer (and many require) college
graduates not for the degree content (a surprising amount, including
all major airlines, absolutely don't care what the degree is in) but
for the proven ability to put up with pointless bull**** and smile
while doing it.

Your question of "If you can do it, why not jump through the hoops and
do it legally?" is basically asking why everyone can't put up with
pointless bull**** and smile while doing it just because you can.

Michael

In article nk.net,
Steven P. McNicoll writes

"David" wrote in message
...

One over New York DC-8/ Super Constellation


I don't think that one was enroute.

Depends on how you define enroute I guess! :-) The collision took place
at 5,000ft. But I agree that it might be described as the descent or
initial approach phase.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Francis E-Mail reply to
-----------------------------------------------------------

"David" wrote in message
...

Depends on how you define enroute I guess! :-) The collision took place
at 5,000ft. But I agree that it might be described as the descent or
initial approach phase.


Well, since the collision occurred at low altitude while the Constellation
was on approach and cleared to land, and the DC-8 cleared to a holding
pattern to await approach clearance, I don't think it fits any reasonable
definition of enroute.

In article et, Steven
P. McNicoll writes

"David" wrote in message
...

Depends on how you define enroute I guess! :-) The collision took place
at 5,000ft. But I agree that it might be described as the descent or
initial approach phase.


Well, since the collision occurred at low altitude while the Constellation
was on approach and cleared to land, and the DC-8 cleared to a holding
pattern to await approach clearance, I don't think it fits any reasonable
definition of enroute.

This is not really a very significant disagreement. :-) My reference
says the last instruction to the Constellation was 'turn left to a
heading of 130'.

Does your reference refer to a clearance to land? Isn't 5000 ft, a bit
high to be cleared to land? La Guardia is pretty close to sea level.

What is the aviation definition of 'enroute' by the way?
Is it the same as 'en route'?
My dictionary gives no help - it just says it means 'on the way'.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Francis E-Mail reply to
-----------------------------------------------------------

"David" wrote in message
...

This is not really a very significant disagreement. :-) My reference
says the last instruction to the Constellation was 'turn left to a
heading of 130'.

Does your reference refer to a clearance to land?


"A midair collision took place over Staten Island at 5,000 ft. The Connie
was cleared to land at La Guardia Airport on Runway 04 when the United DC-8
struck the Connie tearing it apart. The Connie immediately crashed to the
ground at Miller Army Air Field on Staten Island. One passenger was sucked
out into one of the DC8s jet engines. Other passengers fell from the Connie
as the spinning fuselage fell onto Staten Island. The United jet tried to
make an emergency landing at La Guardia Airport but could not maintain
altitude and crashed into the streets of Brooklyn. Forty-four passengers on
the Constellation and eight-four passengers on the DC-8 were killed. Three
passengers from the DC-8 died shortly after. One young boy, Stephen Baltz
survived several days before succumbing to his injuries. Six people were
also killed on the ground. The United crew entered a low-altitude holding
pattern at 500 miles per hour, twice the speed it should have been going and
flew past the clearance limits and airspace allocated to the flight. One of
2 VORs on the DC-8 was not functioning. Although the crew knew this, they
failed to report this to the ATC, who probably would have provided extra
radar assistance."

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1960/1960-51.htm



Isn't 5000 ft, a bit high to be cleared to land? La Guardia is pretty
close to sea level.


Not necessarily.



What is the aviation definition of 'enroute' by the way?
Is it the same as 'en route'?


Yes.



My dictionary gives no help - it just says it means 'on the way'.


En route procedures come after departure procedures and before arrival
procedures.

http://www1.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/chap5toc.htm

Steven,

Thanks a lot for your reference which does differ from mine in some
respects although the basics are the same. My reference is Aviation
Disasters by David Gero.

In article . net,
Steven P. McNicoll writes

"David" wrote in message
...

[Snip]

Does your reference refer to a clearance to land?


"A midair collision took place over Staten Island at 5,000 ft. The Connie
was cleared to land at La Guardia Airport on Runway 04 when the United DC-8
struck the Connie tearing it apart. The Connie immediately crashed to the
ground at Miller Army Air Field on Staten Island. One passenger was sucked
out into one of the DC8s jet engines. Other passengers fell from the Connie
as the spinning fuselage fell onto Staten Island. The United jet tried to
make an emergency landing at La Guardia Airport but could not maintain
altitude and crashed into the streets of Brooklyn. Forty-four passengers on
the Constellation and eight-four passengers on the DC-8 were killed. Three
passengers from the DC-8 died shortly after. One young boy, Stephen Baltz
survived several days before succumbing to his injuries. Six people were
also killed on the ground. The United crew entered a low-altitude holding
pattern at 500 miles per hour, twice the speed it should have been going and
flew past the clearance limits and airspace allocated to the flight. One of
2 VORs on the DC-8 was not functioning. Although the crew knew this, they
failed to report this to the ATC, who probably would have provided extra
radar assistance."


My reference says the DC8 was approaching at a ground speed of 380mph
(about 410 mph true at 5,000 ft ignoring wind effects). The above also
seems inconsistent, because if the aircraft entered a holding pattern it
should not have overshot its clearance to the Preston Intersection by 10
miles. The chart included with my reference shows no signs that the DC8
diverted from its flight path in the last few minutes, after being
allowed to 'cut the corner' towards Preston.

Is your reference from a newspaper report? To me, it has a few signs
that it might be.

My reference suggests to me that any attempt to land by the DC8 was
unlikely, as it had lost its no. 4 power plant and the wing outboard
of that in the impact.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1960/1960-51.htm

[Snip]

What is the aviation definition of 'enroute' by the way?
Is it the same as 'en route'?

[Snip]

En route procedures come after departure procedures and before arrival
procedures.

http://www1.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/chap5toc.htm

A useful reference - thank you.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Francis E-Mail reply to
-----------------------------------------------------------