Angry [More Info]

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:51:58 GMT, "Hilton" wrote:

and definitely not over
hills in a single engine with a 1956 172 (assuming it did not have the newer
6-pack configuration). You're welcome to say I'm too conservative, but
there you go.

That clarifies a lot for me.

And no, I would not say that you're too conservative. Not knowing more
about the route than looking at it using FliteStar, I, too, would not fly
it night IMC in a 1956 C172.

But you're unadorned statement that started this particular thread left me
wondering about *your* reasons.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Hilton wrote:

I fly at night, I fly IMC, I never fly IMC at night, and definitely not over
hills in a single engine with a 1956 172 (assuming it did not have the newer
6-pack configuration). You're welcome to say I'm too conservative, but
there you go. I know of a very experienced test pilot, Reno Race racer who
will not fly single-engine at night period, even in perfect VMC conditions.

I also know many who would never go up "in any of those little planes" and
would prefer to sit on their couch all day long hiding from any perceived
risk the world may hand out.

This is certainly not meant to be a slam on your personal limits. My point
is simply that it is a matter of perspective and a mitigation of the risks
involved.

I have had discussions with high-time corporate pilots who have had the
fortune to build their careers behind the yoke of a state-of-the-art, glass
cockpit corporate jet. These pilots also will not fly single engine IFR,
day or night.

How much of this rejection is based on the real risk versus how much is
based on emotion? It is certainly conceivable to me that a pilot with
many thousands of hours in a very well equipped aircraft may have forgotten
how to mitigate the risks of night IMC because they haven't done so in many
years. Thus, they shun night IMC out of emotion, rather than logic.

--
Peter

This case really amazes me. The guy had his PPL for a month or so, and
had
no problem at all with departing at night, in the rain, with his wife,
and 2
kids they planned to adopt.

Tom, it's unbelievable isn't it. Let's ignore what could have or should
have been taught to him, syllabii etc. How about common sense??? And
also perhaps another example (together with the stats) that Private pilots
need more (real) instrument time that what's required by Part 61.

Do you really think that would have helped?

This guy launched into conditions that would have given pause to many
experienced instrument-rated pilots. He clearly had no common sense, and
even less concern for his family. Extra training wouldn't hurt, but it
also won't help guys like this.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Peter R. wrote:
How much of this rejection is based on the real risk versus how much is
based on emotion?

Well, in the post to which you replied, I quoted hard statistics, so that's
real risk; remember people had to die to create those fatality statistics.
Secondly, tell me how you would handle an engine failure over the unlit
hills in the clouds (that 'cover' the hills), at night, IMC, etc etc etc.

It seems real to me.

Hilton

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:6Tntf.660955$x96.555576@attbi_s72...
Do you really think that would have helped?

This guy launched into conditions that would have given pause to many
experienced instrument-rated pilots. He clearly had no common sense, and
even less concern for his family. Extra training wouldn't hurt, but it
also won't help guys like this.

An obvious case of Darwinism in action... For once, Darwin was awake... He
removed the offending genes by way of the pilot and his kids... He removed
the wife because her genes were defective in that she had obviously even
been inclined to mate with the owner of the defective genes, thus her genes
were obviously also defective...

Now, myself on the other hand -- well, Darwin tends to have been asleep over
the years when I'm doing things that stupid...

Neither would I.

One wonders what was so pressing that he just had to go at this time. I
am sure he did not just wake up that morning and say to himself, "Today
I am going to kill myself and my whole family." Well, reasonably sure,
anyway. Maybe that is exactly what he did.

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:6Tntf.660955$x96.555576@attbi_s72...
Do you really think that would have helped?

This guy launched into conditions that would have given pause to many
experienced instrument-rated pilots. He clearly had no common sense,
and
even less concern for his family. Extra training wouldn't hurt, but it
also won't help guys like this.

An obvious case of Darwinism in action... For once, Darwin was awake... He
removed the offending genes by way of the pilot and his kids... He removed
the wife because her genes were defective in that she had obviously even
been inclined to mate with the owner of the defective genes, thus her
genes
were obviously also defective...


By and large an accurate assessment except for the kids. The news said they
were adopting the kids.

Jay Honeck wrote:
And also perhaps another example (together with the stats) that Private
pilots need more (real) instrument time that what's required by Part 61.

Do you really think that would have helped?

Yes Jay, I do believe training improves a pilot's skills.

Hilton

"Hilton" wrote in message
news
Jay Honeck wrote:
And also perhaps another example (together with the stats) that Private
pilots need more (real) instrument time that what's required by Part 61.

Do you really think that would have helped?

Yes Jay, I do believe training improves a pilot's skills.

Keeping in mind that better flying skills will not always save your butt,
training does not always teach someone to have better decision making
skills. I've got to think that was the biggest contributor, in this case,
don't you?
--
Jim in NC

Jay Honeck wrote:

This case really amazes me. The guy had his PPL for a month or so, and
had
no problem at all with departing at night, in the rain, with his wife,
and 2
kids they planned to adopt.

Tom, it's unbelievable isn't it. Let's ignore what could have or should
have been taught to him, syllabii etc. How about common sense??? And
also perhaps another example (together with the stats) that Private pilots
need more (real) instrument time that what's required by Part 61.


Do you really think that would have helped?

This guy launched into conditions that would have given pause to many
experienced instrument-rated pilots. He clearly had no common sense, and
even less concern for his family. Extra training wouldn't hurt, but it
also won't help guys like this.

Yes, judgment is exceedingly hard to teach.


Matt