Baring soul

[Palmpilot]

Well I see everyone's point, but I was there monitoring the whole situation and I was on the CTAF. I had not contacted Departure yet. The pattern was empty, the radio was quiet, I had no visual traffic in sight and lastly I announced the right hand pattern due to a distress situation.

As PIC I am the final authority as to the operation of my aircraft. It was an informed, careful judgement call. It was the correct one IMO based on the facts I knew at the time.

Everyone has the right to an opinion, but without being smug, I was the only one there with the current data.

Gene

The level of Monday morning quarterbacking that goes on here makes me wonder why people complain about the red board.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Michael,

Seriously, think this through a bit more here...

That was me, and they're dogs. I love dogs, got two of 'em. But they're dogs. Muslims think they're unclean and they're right. They sniff each others butts, lick themselves in interesting places we thankfully can't reach on ourselves, and eat their own offal if given the chance. They're dogs.

If you're going to do more of these rescue flights (good for you, seriously) you might keep that in mind. You did good this time, but distractions at critical phases of flight get folks dead. I love dogs, but I'm sure as hell not dying for one.

And what did Gene do, exactly, that had a high chance of death?

If the standard traffic pattern is left hand then one should make right hand traffic. The stated reason was worry over a dog. I'm not making wrong-way traffic for a dog.

Then make wrong-way traffic for all the innocent PEOPLE on the ground who could get killed by a dog crate falling from the sky. Whether it was a dog or a sack of potatoes, that should be enough reason to make wrong-way traffic, even for you.

Sure is. If someone is simultaneously in the appropriate left hand pattern, they could come face to face on base or final. You want to be where other aircraft are likely to be looking for you, or they may not see you at all.

The only reason the OP didn't transition into a left hand pattern was a dog. Not an open door, a dog. I love rescue flights, and were I an IFR pilot I would be doing them. I love dogs. But like I said, I am not placing myself or anyone else in jeopardy for one, not even my own beloved pets.

The chances of an airplane appearing out of nowhere and ending up face-to-face with you on base are very small, and in that case standard traffic rules apply - The guy on right base gives way and goes to the right of the guy on left base, and a go-around would be an appropriate thing to execute at the same time. In addition, being face-to-face on base gives a MUCH higher likelihood that the two airplanes will see each other than, for example, the standard 45-to-downwind pattern entry gives to someone entering the pattern when there's already another plane in the pattern.

Doing a right-hand traffic pattern is only a slightly higher risk than doing a left-hand traffic pattern, and given the potential for injury to people on the ground as well as dogs in crates, it was an appropriate course of action here.

Well I see everyone's point, but I was there monitoring the whole situation and I was on the CTAF. I had not contacted Departure yet. The pattern was empty, the radio was quiet, I had no visual traffic in sight and lastly I announced the right hand pattern due to a distress situation.

As PIC I am the final authority as to the operation of my aircraft. It was an informed, careful judgement call. It was the correct one IMO based on the facts I knew at the time.

Bingo. Well done, Gene... I'll fly with you any time.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

"We began a right turn to go back to the runway" Seems a little dangerous to me. Right turns when talking to ATC when EVERYONE else is expecting you to be turning left. But what do I know my certificate ink isn't quite dry yet.

As the OP pointed out, he made his announcement on CTAF and there was nobody else on the radio and no other observed traffic.

Just because something is abnormal does not automatically make it "dangerous." In addition, the consequences of one's actions must be weighed. In this case, the consequence of a right turn would be a VERY tiny increase in the chances of a pattern mid-air, while the consequence of a left turn is a larger increase in the chances of dropping an object of significant weight out of the airplane, endangering unsuspecting people on the ground, not to mention the critters in the crate.

Two things to learn here for you, Sara, and for any other new pilots out there:

1) Think outside the box. Learn the reasons behind every thing that constitutes "the box" (IE, normal operating procedures) and think through why you might want to do things differently. Read accident reports, think through the scenario the pilot was presented with, and think through possible solutions that could have led to a more favorable outcome. If you're uncomfortable with things like right-hand patterns or any of the flight maneuvers, grab a CFI and go practice them - Both stick and rudder skills and quick judgement of various risks are important and will be what saves your life when faced with an emergency.

2) As pilots, our highest duty is not to protect ourselves or our passengers, but to those on the ground. As pilots, we accept the risks inherent in flying and do what we can to manage them, and our passengers accept the risks by choosing to take to the skies with us. Those on the ground have not made any decision to accept the risks of us flying, and we don't deserve to not respect that over the risk we have accepted for ourselves.

That said, we should also ensure that we take the necessary care to minimize risk to ourselves and our passengers as much as possible, too... But don't forget that there's a world outside your plane.

 

[BurtM]

Regardless of the motivation, I think the OP handled the situation very well. The baggage door on a Cardinal RG is on the left side, so much less likely for a box to fall out in a right turn. I'd announce what I was doing on the CTAF (assuming an uncontrolled field), maneuver as needed to keep the crate in the plane, and land. The OP did fine IMO.

BTW, double-checking that the baggage door is locked is one of my last walkaround items just before starting the engine. My door definitely springs open past a certain point, not closed, and I have a box with some odds and ends and a couple of quarts of oil just inside.

Yes, there was a positive outcome, and that's good.

But, if you don't mind me asking, why does the location and/or hinging of the baggage door make a difference?

If we're not skidding or slipping, does it matter where the baggage door is?

 

[azure]

Yes, there was a positive outcome, and that's good.

But, if you don't mind me asking, why does the location and/or hinging of the baggage door make a difference?

If we're not skidding or slipping, does it matter where the baggage door is?

If you're Bob Hoover, no it doesn't matter. If you're an ordinary mortal, chances are you're not doing a perfectly coordinated turn all the way through. Personally, I find that my feet lag my hands a little when rolling into a turn, so my own tendency is to slip rather than skid at the outset. So I know if it was me, I'd rather point that open door toward the sky instead of the ground.

Admittedly, though, maybe that's just me.

 

[BurtM]

If you're Bob Hoover, no it doesn't matter. If you're an ordinary mortal, chances are you're not doing a perfectly coordinated turn all the way through. Personally, I find that my feet lag my hands a little when rolling into a turn, so my own tendency is to slip rather than skid at the outset. So I know if it was me, I'd rather point that open door toward the sky instead of the ground.

Admittedly, though, maybe that's just me.

I'm having a little trouble thinking of any aircraft made since about 1928 that represents a challenge with respect to keeping the ball centered during normal maneuvers.

I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Steingar's candid assessment, but I would agree that if a person might experience trouble executing a basic maneuver in a coordinated fashion, that it would be in the PIC's best interest to not worry about what's happening behind the back seat.

Who knows, it may be just a year or two before Garmin or Avidyne comes out with the "PetSaver" plug-in that renders these kinds of what-ifs moot.

 

[rottydaddy]

What if while worrying so much about the dog the OP stalled and spun the plane?

Dog, child, case of wine... let's face it, if you care a lot about something in the baggage compartment with an open door, crashing is not going to protect it, so there's no use in drama. Even if it's "just stuff", but you are worried about doing damage or harm on the ground, again, crashing to prevent this would also be counter-productive, obviously. If you can take action to prevent it falling out, fine, but there's no use in flying the plane in an unsafe manner in an attempt to do that.


Like Gene, I think I'd also feel pretty bad afterwards, 'cuz I really like dogs. But I'd feel a lot worse if I had let my concern for anything falling from the plane distract me to where I created a further hazard.

It has nothing to do with how worthy a dog is of human concern... it's about flying the airplane safely regardless of the problem, and not dropping things that might hurt somebody on the ground.

Regardless of the cargo or the outcome of the incident, I'd mostly just feel dumb for not double-checking the door before takeoff. Again, not because of it being a dog, but because you have to double-check if there's anything back there, or if it's the kind of door that will create a flight hazard if it comes open. It's not good form to fly around dropping dogs and towbars and luggage on the poor "groundlings" down there.

That being said, I don't think the right turn was a big deal in that scenario- "nonstandard" does not always mean "unsafe." Keeping the open door up during the turn was worth a try, and I'd say he did it without causing any further problems.

Obviously, there are times when you just shouldn't try anything clever... this thread reminds (weirdly, i guess) me of an accident where a stunt man hanging on to a bar mounted between the mains of an airplane fell 500 feet after his safety rig failed and he could not hold on with his hands alone (Jim Bailey, see linked video). He had a comm link with the pilot, and it became obvious he was in distress. The pilot could have tried something stupid, to try to help the guy, or he could have panicked... but he didn't. He slowed down and began to descend gently, straight ahead... which was all he could be expected to do. It would be hard to just keep flying the plane under those circumstances, but he made the right move, I think.

The clip is not graphic, but definitely not pleasant, either. Haunting, actually. The usual callous YouTube comments below it are the only offensive part.

Definitely an education in flying when there's a problem... and why rigging should always have a very liberal over-rating for safety.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIP2IMaTmLM