Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

gatt writes:

If actual pilots here need advice they'll get it from pilots.

Since a lot of actual pilots ignore any advice that doesn't agree with their
own beliefs, it doesn't really matter where it comes from.

You don't know what you're talking about, you're not qualified to discuss
the "rules" and the actual pilots here don't need to and should not take
advice from a poser.

The rules are pretty clear, and anyone can understand them, pilot or not.
Even lawyers and insurance adjusters can understand them. It's not a secret
code.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:47:17 -0400, B A R R Y sayeth:

WingFlaps wrote:

I suspect that you are quite correct. I was intending to illustrate how
the slippery slope gets opened up once strict adherence to the letter
of the FAA regs. is made a criterion for insurance cover...

How is comparing a stall/spin on departure, in the pattern, or in IMC, a
slippery slope compared to a deliberate, willful act?



I recently read an accident report about a guy who walked around the
airport talking of rolling his Baron. On several occasions he had
rocked the plane to extreme bank attitudes with other pilots aboard,
stating that he "believed the plane could roll". One day, he went for
the full Monty and the Baron broke up in flight. All aboard were
killed.

I also recently read an accident report where a similar Beech Baron flew
into embedded T-storms in solid IMC, and also broke up in flight,
killing 4.

Both planes broke up in flight, for entirely different reasons. One,
following a deliberate act by the pilot, the other, accidentally.

You could argue that the baron pilot "deliberately" flew into the
thunderstorm. Or he "deliberately" took off knowing there could be
thunderstorms along his route.

Where's the slippery slope?

The slippery slope is in the fact that any accident is caused by a string
of deliberate decisions made by the pilot.

You can always argue that the pilot could have done /this/ differently,
or /that/ differently and the accident could have been avoided.

Buttman wrote:


The slippery slope is in the fact that any accident is caused by a string
of deliberate decisions made by the pilot.

Understood.

You can always argue that the pilot could have done /this/ differently,
or /that/ differently and the accident could have been avoided.

And that's totally different than knowingly and willfully violating a
limitation or rule, and then suffering the results that the limitation
or rule is designed to prevent.

"Buttman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:47:17 -0400, B A R R Y sayeth:

WingFlaps wrote:

I suspect that you are quite correct. I was intending to illustrate how
the slippery slope gets opened up once strict adherence to the letter
of the FAA regs. is made a criterion for insurance cover...

How is comparing a stall/spin on departure, in the pattern, or in IMC, a
slippery slope compared to a deliberate, willful act?



I recently read an accident report about a guy who walked around the
airport talking of rolling his Baron. On several occasions he had
rocked the plane to extreme bank attitudes with other pilots aboard,
stating that he "believed the plane could roll". One day, he went for
the full Monty and the Baron broke up in flight. All aboard were
killed.

I also recently read an accident report where a similar Beech Baron flew
into embedded T-storms in solid IMC, and also broke up in flight,
killing 4.

Both planes broke up in flight, for entirely different reasons. One,
following a deliberate act by the pilot, the other, accidentally.

You could argue that the baron pilot "deliberately" flew into the
thunderstorm. Or he "deliberately" took off knowing there could be
thunderstorms along his route.

Where's the slippery slope?

The slippery slope is in the fact that any accident is caused by a string
of deliberate decisions made by the pilot.

You can always argue that the pilot could have done /this/ differently,
or /that/ differently and the accident could have been avoided.

I beg your pardon!!!!!!

The part about most accidents being the culmination of a chain of events is
true. However, the extrapoltion that those events are deliberate is usually
pure poppycock--the exceptions simply get much greater coverage.

Peter

On Apr 22, 11:46*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Nomen Nescio writes:
Your attitude has sure taken you far in life.

I agree. *Skipping the testosterone, pride, and arrogance makes for a longer
life expectancy.

You're a castrato?

Cheers

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Dave Doe writes:

How will you know?

From the NTSB report.

In view of the discussion leading to it, that is really quite droll.

Peter

On Apr 22, 11:47*pm, B A R R Y wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:

I suspect that you are quite correct. I was intending to illustrate
how the slippery slope gets opened up once strict adherence to the
letter of the FAA regs. is made a criterion for insurance cover...

How is comparing a stall/spin on departure, in the pattern, or in IMC, a
slippery slope compared to a deliberate, willful act?


OK, who decided to fly into IMC? Who is responsible and did the
disobey FAR's? Think about what a lawyer could argue...

Cheers

On Apr 23, 6:31*am, Dave Doe wrote:
In article ,
says...

WingFlaps writes:

I'm sure you could advise the pilot on how it should be done.

If he chooses to fly overweight I'll suggest to the airline that he find a new
career.

How will you know? *And why won't you fly with a woman pilot?

Too risky, don't go there! :-)

Cheers

On Apr 23, 6:45*am, Mxsmanic wrote:


You don't know what you're talking about, you're not qualified to discuss
the "rules" and the actual pilots here don't need to and should not take
advice from a poser.

The rules are pretty clear, and anyone can understand them, pilot or not.
Even lawyers and insurance adjusters can understand them. *It's not a secret
code.

They have secret decoder rings that translate what you read into
something else.

Cheers

On Apr 23, 6:52*am, B A R R Y wrote:
Buttman wrote:

The slippery slope is in the fact that any accident is caused by a string
of deliberate decisions made by the pilot.

Understood.

You can always argue that the pilot could have done /this/ differently,
or /that/ differently and the accident could have been avoided.

And that's totally different than knowingly and willfully violating a
limitation or rule, and then suffering the results that the limitation
or rule is designed to prevent.

You still are missing the point. In almost every case that series of
actions somewhere violated a rule. This make the accident not an "act
of God".

Cheers