Scud running fatal in Maine

Oh right, I forgot that she would have been starting off in Class G. I'm
used to thinking about what I need to get out of our Class C.

--

Roger Long



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:Xb%Wc.312020$%_6.145966@attbi_s01...
"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
Of course, that could have meant revealing that she set off on
a less than legal VFR flight

The flight may have been unwise, but wasn't the weather (as reported at
MLT)
legal for daytime VFR in Class G as long as she stayed below the 700'
ceiling?

--Gary

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:48:36 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

snip

Coincidentally, we just had a scud-running accident here in the Northwest,
not too far from Vancouver, WA (across the river from Portland). Amazingly
enough, three out of four survived.

Pete

We headed home to the Seattle area from same fly-in (McMinnville, OR)
a couple hours before the accident aircraft. The front was moving
east at 15 knots, so it didn't take long for the "door to get closed".

Several other friends left McMinnville about the same time as the
accident aircraft, and they couldn't get any further north than
Scappoose, so they landed, borrowed the airport car and got a hotel.

Bela P. Havasreti

I've often wondered, usually while driving over the hills on the Mass
turnpike and sort of mentally flying myself through them, if the overcast
can fool you into thinking you are looking at the top of the hill when it's
actually in the clouds. A pilot might even pull up into the clouds for a
little extra clearance and plan to ease down on the other side. I've seen
lots of overcast up close in the hills that I could easily see suckering you
into a hill top; especially making decisions at twice automotive speed.

--

Roger Long



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:0E0Xc.57436$Fg5.30391@attbi_s53...
This is the kind of accident that scares me the most. As someone
posted earlier, you'd expect a rookie pilot to get sucked into this
kind of accident, but not someone with the experience this pilot had.
Leaves me wondering if there are weather conditions out there that can
be misleading to experienced pilots

Well said. I've often wondered how pilots get themselves into this sort
of
thing.

Is the problem a gradual lowering of the ceiling as they drone along,
oblivious to the growing danger? Is there a weather phenomenon that I've
never experienced that can slam the sunroof shut quickly -- faster than a
pilot can get on the ground? (I've seen fog envelop an airport in
minutes,
going from CAVU to 1/10th mile visibility almost instantly -- but that fog
was rolling in off a lake, and could have been easily out-run.)

Is it just old-fashioned "get-there-itis," an internal pressure that they
"must" get there for some reason? Or is it that they've "seen this a
thousand times" and always made it through before, so why should today be
any different?

I know as my flying hours have built, I've grown more comfortable with a
wider range of weather conditions. Is this "experience"? Or
"familiarity"? Or an insidious, gradual and foolish lowering of my
instinctive defenses?

Accidents like hers make you sit up and take notice.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
100' over a bridge? Any idea how the FAA/UK CAA define "while taking
off or landing"? If you're in the process of landing, just making a very
shallow approach, could you still be prosecuted for low flying?!

The part you'd fly over is a floating bridge, probably only 30-40' off the
water. In any case, even 500' would be sufficient, if you don't buy the
idea that an airplane transitioning from an instrument approach to its
destination is landing.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"zatatime" wrote in message
...
I didn't know they have instrument approaches to lakes.


If I recall correctly the Seattle area has some (a couple). Not sure
if its on the US or Canadian side though.

Sort of. There are no instrument approaches to waterways per se, but we
have several seaplane bases close enough to airports with instrument
approaches that for all intents and purposes, they might as well have
instrument approaches.

Non-precision, of course, but that's almost always good enough.

Felts Field in Spokane is designated to have three runways, one of which is
3W/21W. The nonprecision approaches don't forbid circling, so that says to
me this is a waterway with an instrument approach.

Hmmm.. however circling is not allowed to the northwest. Is the waterway NW
or SE of the hard-top? Don't know.

-- David Brooks

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
[snip]
I know as my flying hours have built, I've grown more
comfortable with a wider range of weather conditions.
Is this "experience"? Or "familiarity"? Or an insidious,
gradual and foolish lowering of my instinctive defenses?

I've noticed the same thing. The longer I go without getting in real
trouble, the less I am bothered by gnarly weather, particularly now that
I've got a way to keep a distant eye on it in flight.

We often read posts from pilots who think GA fatal accident statistics don't
apply to them because they would *never* do some of the "stupid" things
described in the NTSB reports. I bet if we had known a lot of those
"stupid" pilots, we'd realize that most were no dumber than the rest of us.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

This kind of accident seems a little too easy to fall into as soon as you
find yourself:
- Scud running (pick your definition)
- In non-flat terrain (remember manmade obstructions)
- in terrain that isn't as familiar as the back of your hand (catch-22 here)
- With a commitment at the other end (see get-home-itis)

Float planes sometimes rely on numerous landing areas - makes risky flights
even more attractive.

This pilot's experience could be described as mostly flying a/c and missions
that most weather can't stop. Perhaps a little confusion was experienced
vis-a-vis VFR light a/c work.

I would submit that IFR is the way to avoid scud running and the terrain.
This flight obviously could not be made IFR.

But everytime one does a VFR scud run to a destination that has an approach
or can be accessed by an approach, one is taking more risk than they need
to.

Don't you think?

"Roger Long" wrote in message
.. .
I've often wondered, usually while driving over the hills on the Mass
turnpike and sort of mentally flying myself through them, if the overcast
can fool you into thinking you are looking at the top of the hill when
it's
actually in the clouds. A pilot might even pull up into the clouds for a
little extra clearance and plan to ease down on the other side. I've seen
lots of overcast up close in the hills that I could easily see suckering
you
into a hill top; especially making decisions at twice automotive speed.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:0E0Xc.57436$Fg5.30391@attbi_s53...
This is the kind of accident that scares me the most. As someone
posted earlier, you'd expect a rookie pilot to get sucked into this
kind of accident, but not someone with the experience this pilot had.
Leaves me wondering if there are weather conditions out there that can
be misleading to experienced pilots

Well said. I've often wondered how pilots get themselves into this sort
of
thing.

Is the problem a gradual lowering of the ceiling as they drone along,
oblivious to the growing danger? Is there a weather phenomenon that
I've
never experienced that can slam the sunroof shut quickly -- faster than
a
pilot can get on the ground? (I've seen fog envelop an airport in
minutes,
going from CAVU to 1/10th mile visibility almost instantly -- but that
fog
was rolling in off a lake, and could have been easily out-run.)

Is it just old-fashioned "get-there-itis," an internal pressure that
they
"must" get there for some reason? Or is it that they've "seen this a
thousand times" and always made it through before, so why should today
be
any different?

I know as my flying hours have built, I've grown more comfortable with a
wider range of weather conditions. Is this "experience"? Or
"familiarity"? Or an insidious, gradual and foolish lowering of my
instinctive defenses?

Accidents like hers make you sit up and take notice.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Roger Long wrote:

Her option would have been to wait for better weather or climb and file pop
up for diversion to an airport with an approach if things were lower than
she thought.

How would she divert to an airport if she's got straight floats? There are seaplane
bases with approaches in the area?

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

Dan Luke wrote:

I've noticed the same thing. The longer I go without getting in real
trouble, the less I am bothered by gnarly weather, particularly now that
I've got a way to keep a distant eye on it in flight.

On the other hand, I find that the longer it's been since I've flown in borderline
conditions, the higher my weather standards get.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

In article ,
G.R. Patterson III wrote:

How would she divert to an airport if she's got straight floats?

Landing on a hard surface on straight floats sure sounds preferable
to what happened...

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/