0/0 Takeoff

[poadeleted20]

Like landing at Cat III ILS minimums?

Since nobody I've ever heard of operates Cat III with less than 300 RVR, and that allows you to see well enough to find your way to the terminal, no, it's not the same. Further, given the access controls at the airports with Cat III ILS systems, it's not likely you'll find a cow on the runway there.

 

[gismo]

I've only done 0/0 takeoffs during my instrument training and it seemed pretty safe unless of course you have a vacuum failure or gyro malfunction.

Like others have said, the simulated 0/0 takeoff is nothing more than a training exercise and one I don't like because (as evidenced in this thread) it leaves some pilots with the very incorrect notion that this is safe to do in real IMC. Granted it's very rare that the visibility is so bad that you can't see the runway centerline so the opportunity to do this isn't all that likely to occur but the simulated 0/0 doesn't really prepare you for a real low IMC takeoff either. For one thing you cannot rely on the DG to keep you in the center of the runway, if it decided to precess you'd be mowing runway lights, and for another it won't take much of a crosswind to cause you to drift off the side even if your DG performs perfectly.

For the real thing (low visibility takeoff) you need to steer on the ground using the visual references outside the airplane and immediately transition to instruments as soon as you break ground (or when you lift the nose if that blocks your forward view).

 

[kimberlyanne546]

I think most of us might agree with this. However, there seems to be at least one pilot who visits this board who takes the attitude of, "I've done it before with my instructor, so I know what to expect and I know that I can do it. So, in the future it won't be a big deal because I've already practiced it and am a better pilot for it."

This is EXACTLY why I said "sounds dangerous." I was thinking of the type of pilot you are speaking about. And I dare say there might be more than one of those that visits and posts on this board!

 

[DavidWhite]

I've never done a "simulated 0/0 departure" and I'm instrument rated. It just seems like a bad idea to me.

 

[nosehair]

In the air I find it is not hard for me to trust the instruments, but the takeoff was a bit trickier. I followed my heading well, he said I stayed on the center line, but it was really difficult for me to trust that I was.

I think this is the underlying purpose of your experience.

I find that doing a hooded take-off teaches a student to really focus on heading control.

If a student has not gotten that heading control is primary in scanning, and I have him/her do a take-off with the hood on and focus entirely on heading control down the runway and throughout the lift off and climb-out, and ...well, all the way through the flight, this helps drive home the message. Every student gains better control of heading when they practice the hooded take-off.

It is a training exercise, not an operational demonstration.

And it is no more dangerous than a non-hooded take-off with any brand new student. Every instructor is cocked and ready for the unexpected during take-offs and landings.

 

[Richard]

Like others have said, the simulated 0/0 takeoff is nothing more than a training exercise and one I don't like because (as evidenced in this thread) it leaves some pilots with the very incorrect notion that this is safe to do in real IMC. Granted it's very rare that the visibility is so bad that you can't see the runway centerline so the opportunity to do this isn't all that likely to occur but the simulated 0/0 doesn't really prepare you for a real low IMC takeoff either. For one thing you cannot rely on the DG to keep you in the center of the runway, if it decided to precess you'd be mowing runway lights, and for another it won't take much of a crosswind to cause you to drift off the side even if your DG performs perfectly.

For the real thing (low visibility takeoff) you need to steer on the ground using the visual references outside the airplane and immediately transition to instruments as soon as you break ground (or when you lift the nose if that blocks your forward view).

And that transition would be very uncomfortable. Pilots don't do well when they are uncomfortable and the possible consequences are immediate.

To take it a step further, even with zero wind, no precission of DG, a perfectly rigged aircraft...unless the rwy is 300' wide and you're in a single engine spam can, you'd likey be drifting into the edge lighting before too long. The painted CL is there for guidance, absent that visual who knows if you would lift off before plowing the grass.

 

[Richard]

I think this is the underlying purpose of your experience.

I find that doing a hooded take-off teaches a student to really focus on heading control.

In flight I'll be darn if I can hold one degree heading. On the ground such a lack of precision poses immediate concern. Especially when coming up with power (changing power settings) and airspeed coming alive (flight controls becoming effective).

If a student has not gotten that heading control is primary in scanning, and I have him/her do a take-off with the hood on and focus entirely on heading control down the runway and throughout the lift off and climb-out, and ...well, all the way through the flight, this helps drive home the message. Every student gains better control of heading when they practice the hooded take-off.

I absolutely agree this demostartion was about heading control. However, it seems the primary lesson here is "this is how it feels, think again if you want to try this at home". Some students just need to be shown how bad it can be, this to overcome their idea of maybe they can pull this off. (That is NOT to say the OP had that notion) To me, the CFI was being proactive in demonstrating the danger.

It is a training exercise, not an operational demonstration.

None have said it as succintly and eloquently as this.

and it is no more dangerous than a non-hooded take-off with any brand new student. Every instructor is cocked and ready for the unexpected during take-offs and landings.

This is the part I don't get. Sure, the CFI is at the ready position, but to say 0/0 take off is no more risky than normal??? I suppose this comment makes sense when looked at from the CFI's point of view, but it's not about the CFI. Flight training is all about the student....transference of knowledge, etc.

Please elaborate.

 

[dmccormack]

I've never done a "simulated 0/0 departure" and I'm instrument rated. It just seems like a bad idea to me.

My IR checkride started with the foggles on as soon as I was centerline and they stayed on until I was abeam the numbers 500' AGL 1.2 hours later.

I did one actual 0/0 departure in a familiar airplane on a familiar long, wide runway. Once we broke out on top of the 2000' of fog I thought, "Yeah, I won't do that again ..."

 

[poadeleted20]

My IR checkride started with the foggles on as soon as I was centerline ...

Your examiner's choice to violate a lot of FAA directives is not one DPE's commonly make (I think this makes about three times I've ever heard of one who'd do that), and it is not a task/maneuver in the IR PTS. That puts you both (remember -- you're PIC) at great risk of FAA action if something goes wrong.

 

[dmccormack]

Your examiner's choice to violate a lot of FAA directives is not one DPE's commonly make (I think this makes about three times I've ever heard of one who'd do that), and it is not a task/maneuver in the IR PTS. That puts you both (remember -- you're PIC) at great risk of FAA action if something goes wrong.

This was a few years ago, Ron, and that DPE has given many, many checkrides over the ensuing years...

 

[jnmeade]

Your examiner's choice to violate a lot of FAA directives is not one DPE's commonly make (I think this makes about three times I've ever heard of one who'd do that), and it is not a task/maneuver in the IR PTS. That puts you both (remember -- you're PIC) at great risk of FAA action if something goes wrong.

Ron might further have said, "your choice to violate...". In my limited experience, it is unlikely but not inconceivable for an examiner to direct you to perform a maneuver that s/he knows is illegal with the intent of seeing if you will refuse, as you should. This puts you in a funny spot.

When I was taking my ME checkride, my examiner directed me to perform a maneuver in an Apache that something I'd checked out was not in the POH. This examiner was an old, grizzled, crusty corporate pilot who had tons of hours in the Apache and was a superb stick. I knew him pretty well professionally and fairly well socially. I didn't expect an easy checkride. Anyway, I said, "the POH says not to do that (or words to that effect)." He said something to the effect that he knew the airplane would do it so do it. Well, I did it and was fully successful. But, it made me a bit uneasy to do it.

On another flight, I was in a C310R transition flight with another old bear who had probably more hours in it than I had in flight. He wanted to do a full power Vmc demo. I told him the AFH said not to do that and I told him why, because of the danger of a stall spin. He said the airplane would handle it so do it. It was his airplane and his company. Well, I did it and, indeed, the airplane stalled fully under control with one engine feathered and the other at full power.

In both cases, I'm not especially proud that I did what I did. Both of these guys are now out of my environment and I'm not going to rat them out, anyway. They were both superb pilots whom I was very confident knew what they were talking about. Maybe they proved a point by showing that specific aircraft would do certain maneuvers that the general run of airplanes wouldn't do safely. However, in the context of this discussion, when specifically talking about examiners, the advice I'd give (admittedly not what I did) is I'd very politely decline the maneuver in a way that gave the examiner an out. We all know there are some DPE who "augment" the PTS with their own interpretation. Yes, I know a guy who went back to do lazy 8's three times and it didn't do to complain. This DPE liked yank and bank no matter what the PST and AFH say. A (usually) young, inexperienced, perhaps scared candidate doesn't always express the firmness of their convictions.

 

[Everskyward]

Like others have said, the simulated 0/0 takeoff is nothing more than a training exercise and one I don't like because (as evidenced in this thread) it leaves some pilots with the very incorrect notion that this is safe to do in real IMC. Granted it's very rare that the visibility is so bad that you can't see the runway centerline so the opportunity to do this isn't all that likely to occur but the simulated 0/0 doesn't really prepare you for a real low IMC takeoff either. For one thing you cannot rely on the DG to keep you in the center of the runway, if it decided to precess you'd be mowing runway lights, and for another it won't take much of a crosswind to cause you to drift off the side even if your DG performs perfectly.

For the real thing (low visibility takeoff) you need to steer on the ground using the visual references outside the airplane and immediately transition to instruments as soon as you break ground (or when you lift the nose if that blocks your forward view).

Exactly. We practice 500 RVR takeoffs in the sim all the time and you're still looking outside at the lights until you rotate. Speaking of lights, we are not authorized to do 500 RVR takeoffs unless the runway has centerline lights and there are two pilots with independent instruments. If there are no centerline or other lights we are limited to 1600 RVR or 1/4 mile with "adequate visual references". There's no way I would take off in any airplane in real life using only the instruments to stay straight on the runway.

 

[jnmeade]

I think this is the underlying purpose of your experience.

I find that doing a hooded take-off teaches a student to really focus on heading control.

If a student has not gotten that heading control is primary in scanning, and I have him/her do a take-off with the hood on and focus entirely on heading control down the runway and throughout the lift off and climb-out, and ...well, all the way through the flight, this helps drive home the message.

I don't advocate the 0/0 maneuver, but I grant the issue of gaining the student's undivided attention.

I listened to Prof. Tom Schnell of the University of Iowa Operations Performance Laboratory give a discussion of the factors involved in simulation training.

Tom showed us graphical proof of what we all know - simulation can be great but we sense it is not the real thing. For example, it is very hard to simulate g-forces. In another illustration, sensors on the pilot's body show that he knows the difference between the dangers of an actual approach to minimums and one flown in a simulator. It is difficult to reproduce the stress and fears of real flight in a simulator. So, how can we train in a lifelike but safe environment? OPL is working with the U.S. Navy on a training environment Schnell calls LVC, Live, Virtual, Constructive.

In Tom's own words, "Naval aviation flight training is performed using a combination of trainers, flight simulators and live aircraft. There are still many skills that can only be acquired through live training on aircraft. Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) is an integration concept that incorporates live, virtual, and constructive elements into a single environment, to leverage the best of each domain to minimize logistics and maximize training effectiveness. Live means a pilot flying a real aircraft, Virtual means a
pilot flying a flight simulator, Constructive means an artificial intelligence program flying a computer model of an aircraft. Constructive is typically used for Red force. LVC can connect geographically distributed airborne, ground, and ship-borne assets into a single net-centric training exercise. The integration of virtual and constructive elements into live training not only opens up new training avenues, but also raises concerns about flight safety as live aircraft trainees need to be able to
differentiate between live and virtual entities and threats. Current fourth-generation fighter aircraft lack an integrated avionics methodology to provide this LVC specific situation awareness (SA). The work performed at OPL is focused on the integration of LVC training systems on fifth generation fighters. At the end of the day, pilots still drink real beer, though."

In his test phases, Tom has a fighter pilot in the back seat of an L-29, another pilot flying a simulator and a computer generated airplane or missile interacting. The L-29 pilot sees the others on his heads up display. He maneuvers his aircraft in real time and space, dealing with both real and virtual targets on his HUD. The results look promising to provide realistic, affordable and flexible training to the next generation of fighter pilots.

 

[flav8r]

Your examiner's choice to violate a lot of FAA directives is not one DPE's commonly make (I think this makes about three times I've ever heard of one who'd do that), and it is not a task/maneuver in the IR PTS. That puts you both (remember -- you're PIC) at great risk of FAA action if something goes wrong.

I'm not quite clear on which FAR this violates... Could you give me an FAR to reference?

 

[bobmrg]

Professional pilots, carrying people for hire, cannot do zero-zero takeoffs unless they have something like a heads-up or FLIR display and the crew is specifically trained and approved for that operation. If I have to have one mile visibility in order to take off on a Part 135 trip, what makes you, as a non-professional, capable of doing s 0-0 takeoff?

I have never found any rationale for anyone to do a 0-0 takeoff, much less a private pilot. Please note that an applicant for the ATP must have no less than 100 feet of clear air before entering clouds after takeoff...no 0-0 for that most advanced of all pilot certificates.

Get the idea out of your head.

Bob Gardner

 

[bobmrg]

Sigh... As I already stated this was a one time thing. We had to practice instruments yesterday[as per the curriculum], and because the day before had gone so well with our practice of the instruments, he let me do a 0/0 takeoff. I don't think it was wasteful.

I don't know your instructor's qualifications, but this doesn't fall under 61.109(a)(3). Better check that curriculum again. Student pilots do not receive instrument training, they receive flight training on control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments, and the maneuvers included in that section of the regulations do not include takeoffs. This training is intended only for the purposes of escaping instrument conditions if entered inadvertently. Unnecessary is a better description than wasteful.

Bob Gardner

 

[kgruber]

One of the reasons a 0/0 takeoff is difficult is that the human body can only feel accelerations. And strong accelerations can lead to vertigo. The beginning of the takeoff roll has the highest longitudinal acceleration. A Cessna 172 can probably get .25G coming from a full stop.

That acceleration decreases during the T/O roll so that the feelings the inner ear are feeling are continuously changing during the roll and then a spike vertical acceleration hits when one rotates.

All these changing accelerations, in several directions, can cause vertigo. This all happens in less than 20 seconds and then you have no accelerations. So that is yet another change back to 0G.

It is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Sac Arrow]

How is that even equivalent to teaching students to take off under the hood?

You would never do a true 0/0 takeoff anyway since there would be no way to get out to the runway. There needs to be some visibility. Someplace might be reporting 0/0 but that's only because it is below the lowest visibility they can measure.

YOU don't land at CAT III minimums. OTTO lands the airplane. You then hope you can find the taxiway or at least the follow-me.

Edit: Not an airline guy so I don't know if HUD advances have allowed hands-on flying down to the CATIII world.

Since nobody I've ever heard of operates Cat III with less than 300 RVR, and that allows you to see well enough to find your way to the terminal, no, it's not the same. Further, given the access controls at the airports with Cat III ILS systems, it's not likely you'll find a cow on the runway there.

I was alluding to the cow factor. Seemed a bit inconsistent that near 0/0 landings are "acceptable practice" but near 0/0 takeoffs aren't. But the point is taken somewhat, the secured towered airport I've flown 0/0 takeoffs from is fairly unlikely to have cars, equipment or animals on its runways. I don't think I would have been inclined to do the same at some non towered airport in aggie land.

 

[JoeSelch]

This is EXACTLY why I said "sounds dangerous." I was thinking of the type of pilot you are speaking about. And I dare say there might be more than one of those that visits and posts on this board!

And I sincerely hope you never fly with him. (Of course I'm certain you're much much smarter than that)

 

[JeffDG]

Flying a takeoff purely on the DG seems to be fairly common during PPL training, though I don't think it's required. It always seemed pretty sketchy to me.

Purely by DG? Ugh...I'd much rather have a localizer to work with.

 

[DavidWhite]

I'm not quite clear on which FAR this violates... Could you give me an FAR to reference?

91.13a comes to mind. Seems pretty careless to me.

 

[Ted]

If I have to have one mile visibility in order to take off on a Part 135 trip, what makes you, as a non-professional, capable of doing s 0-0 takeoff?

While I do typically agree with this rationale, it is important to remember that 135 exists because someone made a bad decision, and such it tries to regulate bad decisions out to the greatest extent practicable. We are given the luxury of making decisions based on our comfort level, equipment, and capabilities in Part 91. For this, I am glad.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

If I have to have one mile visibility in order to take off on a Part 135 trip, what makes you, as a non-professional, capable of doing s 0-0 takeoff?

Bob Gardner

So you can land in weather that you cannot take off in? Most ILS's you can go down to 200 feet and half a mile viz.

 

[Nsconductor]

Takeoff is optional. Landing is mandatory.

 

[TMetzinger]

So you can land in weather that you cannot take off in? Most ILS's you can go down to 200 feet and half a mile viz.

Is that not normal? I've seen a few 135 operators OpSpecs and they've all had higher minimums for the takeoff than the instrument approach and landing.

 

[Everskyward]

Is that not normal? I've seen a few 135 operators OpSpecs and they've all had higher minimums for the takeoff than the instrument approach and landing.

It depends on what ops specs you are approved for. We can use a takeoff minimum equal to the lowest authorized straight-in Category I IFR landing minimum, that is if takeoff minimums are less than or equal to standard. We can go down to 500 RVR, as mentioned above, in certain situations which include two pilots, two sets of instruments, etc.

 

[p1l0t]

I don't know your instructor's qualifications, but this doesn't fall under 61.109(a)(3). Better check that curriculum again. Student pilots do not receive instrument training, they receive flight training on control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments, and the maneuvers included in that section of the regulations do not include takeoffs. This training is intended only for the purposes of escaping instrument conditions if entered inadvertently. Unnecessary is a better description than wasteful.

Bob Gardner

Yeah counting for the 3 hours.. and making those 3 hours count for something that a PP might really use are two VERY different things.

I am guilty myself of departing KMVY in conditions, not 0/0 but less than app minimums. All I had to do was break out at 700ft and it was severe clear all the way home. It was partly due to external pressure not wanting to be stuck on the island overnight.. Nearest airport from there was only ~30nm.. Haven't done it since though it was kind of a pucker factor. Not even hoping for no mechanical issues, but how fast I was in full scan mode after only being off the ground for 2 seconds was a wake up call. [0/0 takeoff with my primary instructor didn't deter me]

<---<^>--->

 

[gismo]

I'm not quite clear on which FAR this violates... Could you give me an FAR to reference?

I believe that Ron's "FAA directives" refers to their guidance to DEs not the FARs.

 

[flyingmoose]

Your examiner's choice to violate a lot of FAA directives is not one DPE's commonly make (I think this makes about three times I've ever heard of one who'd do that), and it is not a task/maneuver in the IR PTS. That puts you both (remember -- you're PIC) at great risk of FAA action if something goes wrong.

Could you please reference this directive that you are referencing?

Exactly. We practice 500 RVR takeoffs in the sim all the time and you're still looking outside at the lights until you rotate. Speaking of lights, we are not authorized to do 500 RVR takeoffs unless the runway has centerline lights and there are two pilots with independent instruments. If there are no centerline or other lights we are limited to 1600 RVR or 1/4 mile with "adequate visual references". There's no way I would take off in any airplane in real life using only the instruments to stay straight on the runway.

You are correct and depending on the op specs of your operations then other factors are in place. I seem to remember others as well like having more than one rvr reporting for the runway in question. Anyway I think that if this thread was called "near 0/0" it would be better 600 RVR is not very much vis at all.

I was alluding to the cow factor. Seemed a bit inconsistent that near 0/0 landings are "acceptable practice" but near 0/0 takeoffs aren't. But the point is taken somewhat, the secured towered airport I've flown 0/0 takeoffs from is fairly unlikely to have cars, equipment or animals on its runways. I don't think I would have been inclined to do the same at some non towered airport in aggie land.

Agreed. I hit a deer once in severe clear, guess I should have waited for better vis.

While I do typically agree with this rationale, it is important to remember that 135 exists because someone made a bad decision, and such it tries to regulate bad decisions out to the greatest extent practicable. We are given the luxury of making decisions based on our comfort level, equipment, and capabilities in Part 91. For this, I am glad.

Agreed.

I believe that Ron's "FAA directives" refers to their guidance to DEs not the FARs.

I would like to read these "FAA Directives" could you point me to them?

 

[Everskyward]

You are correct and depending on the op specs of your operations then other factors are in place. I seem to remember others as well like having more than one rvr reporting for the runway in question.

True, but I didn't want to go into all the other factors since it would have taken a page to post. Here are some samples if anyone is at all interested. C079 applies to 135.

http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/notices/n8900_38.htm

 

[John Collins]

Purely by DG? Ugh...I'd much rather have a localizer to work with.

If you are taking off in the opposite direction as the ILS final approach course, make sure you set the HSI course pointer head to the ILS final approach course and fly to the tail of the course pointer or things will get interesting.

 

[bobmrg]

So you can land in weather that you cannot take off in? Most ILS's you can go down to 200 feet and half a mile viz.

Non sequitur. Nothing in this thread relates to landing.

You have operated both 135 and 121, if I recall correctly, and you know darn well that takeoff minima are way above landing minima for for-hire operations.

Bob

 

[RotorAndWing]

You have operated both 135 and 121, if I recall correctly, and you know darn well that takeoff minima are way above landing minima for for-hire operations.

Bob

Depends.

If an Air Carrier desires they can have reduced takeoff minima via OpSpecs.

 

[gismo]

I would like to read these "FAA Directives" could you point me to them?

I think we're talking about publications, memos, etc. from the FAA to DEs.

The main one AFaIK is here:

http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/orders/8900_2.htm

 

[nosehair]

In flight I'll be darn if I can hold one degree heading.

Well, that's because you haven't been practicing your zero-zero take-offs. :wink2:

On the ground such a lack of precision poses immediate concern. Especially when coming up with power (changing power settings) and airspeed coming alive (flight controls becoming effective).

Well, OK. As I eluded, this is a TRAINING EXERCISE, so, we would start off the first time by focusing on holding a heading as you ease in the power, get your rudder feet set, looking outside with the hood strapped in place, but tilted up enough to look out at the centerline, then back in to your heading. You would have set the heading bug if you have one, if you don't you would have made sure the little needle nose of the airplane on the heading indicator is PRECISELY covered over the PRECISE mark that is a fat 10 degree mark so you can see the fat degree mark peeking out from under the needle nose of the little airplane that would indicate a degree of movement.

This is how you have to take-off a tailwheel, by the way. Not more than one degree of movement either way.

So, as you gain the proficiency of seeing the Heading Indicator make the slightest movement, you will learn to make simultaneous rudder pressures to keep it on, or very near, the centerline. Of course, we are not doing it with even the slightest crosswind - it's a TRAINING EXERCISE. The objective is gaining INSTRUMENT CONTROL of the heading with the rudder.

To make the rudder pressures instantaneously with heading movements.

Like you want to fly the Localizer, later on down the road.

This is the part I don't get. Sure, the CFI is at the ready position, but to say 0/0 take off is no more risky than normal???

Starting the training exercise as I began describing, at the student's learning pace, with the student gradually reaching a positive control of the airplane is what a CFI does with a new student on take-off. A new student can jam a rudder in on you at any time.

The comments about it being dangerous is only lack of experience. Like spins, or the 180 turn-around on T.O., or simulated engine cuts at lift-off in multi-engine training.

People who are opposed to these type of more realistic maneuver training are not experienced at it, and therefore, the maneuver may be dangerous with that person.

But we did all that stuff, including zero-zero take-offs in the Old Way, and like everything else in Aviation, you can stack the odds in your favor, if you get training beyond the minimum required for the certificate/rating.

I suppose this comment makes sense when looked at from the CFI's point of view, but it's not about the CFI. Flight training is all about the student....transference of knowledge, etc.

Please elaborate.

I don't quite know what you mean here. That the student is going to try the 0-0 T.O. when he/she is rated? 'zat what you mean? That's a different topic of discussion, if you wanna go there.


Oh, and of all the many many years of doing a T.O. by heading reference, I have never had a gyro to go out on this roll. I have noted a few on VFR take-offs, but they are go into an obvious spin. You can recognize the failure. And don't do it in x/winds.


And to the folks looking for an FAR reference to the IR Take-Off, the PTS is an extension of the FARs.
FAR 61.65(c) lists the minimum required flight proficiency, and the list, , 1 thru 8 is expanded as TASKS in the PTS.
A hooded Take-Off is not listed as a TASK, ergo the "FARs" don't require a demonstration.

But, again, I am not talking of promoting actual 0-0 T.O.s, but I do like the heading control that a student develops without me saying "heading...altitude,...heading. OK, wha- oh watch that heading!...", all the time.

Basic instruments, and by that I mean absolute automatic knee-jerk response to Heading, and Altitude, are a necessary foundation to any further training in other procedures.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

And I sincerely hope you never fly with him. (Of course I'm certain you're much much smarter than that)

I am not as smart as I seem. You see, if I fly with pilots who DO NOT post online then I have no idea what kind of pilots they are. And, unfortunately, I have already encountered some bad ones. I live to tell the tale, and I guess this is why they say "live and learn."

 

[flyingmoose]

I am not as smart as I seem. You see, if I fly with pilots who DO NOT post online then I have no idea what kind of pilots they are. And, unfortunately, I have already encountered some bad ones. I live to tell the tale, and I guess this is why they say "live and learn."

So let me get this strait. You do know what kind of pilots people are by what they post on line?

 

[kimberlyanne546]

So let me get this strait. You do know what kind of pilots people are by what they post on line?

No I was talking about the ones who didn't post . . . argh . . . nevermind.

 

[flav8r]

No I was talking about the ones who didn't post . . . argh . . . nevermind.

I fully understood your point, it was pretty straight forward.

 

[bobmrg]

Depends.

If an Air Carrier desires they can have reduced takeoff minima via OpSpecs.

(Sarcasm alert!)

Thank you for pointing that out! I'm sure that the OP, who is a student pilot, is eager to learn about OpSpecs. A good subject for a pre-solo quiz, wouldn't you agree?

Bob