Dawdling pilot= go around

[dmccormack]

Huh? We can do circling approaches Part 135.

I'll correct my statement -- Of course CFR Part 135 ops permit circling approaches.

But which air transport (greater than 15 pax) carrier is doing circling approaches?

Just because they can doesn't mean they do.

 

[Everskyward]

I'll correct my statement -- Of course CFR Part 135 ops permit circling approaches.

But which air transport (greater than 15 pax) carrier is doing circling approaches?

Just because they can doesn't mean they do.

I'll say that we can and do do circling approaches... but not 0/0 takeoffs.

 

[dmccormack]

I'll say that we can and do do circling approaches... but not 0/0 takeoffs.

That's great! You know far more about 135 Ops than I do.

My point is that just because the "professional pilots" don't do something doesn't mean is automatically wrong / incorrect / bad / evil / immoral / unprofessional for others.

Instead of the circling approaches example (and I'm still waiting to hear which air transport carrier does them ) let's use rolls, loops, and spins, and power-idle 180-turn slipping turns from downwind to final.

Guess they don't do those regularly...?

 

[poadeleted20]

That's great! You know far more about 135 Ops than I do.

IIRC, Everskyward flies for a 121 carrier. And you really should ask your neigbor about doing hooded takeoffs next time you chat. Please let us know what s/he says about that.

 

[Everskyward]

IIRC, Everskyward flies for a 121 carrier. And you really should ask your neigbor about doing hooded takeoffs next time you chat. Please let us know what s/he says about that.

Me, I'm only 135...

 

[Greg Bockelman]

An inspector at my local FSDO is in the hangar next to mine. We chat frequently.

Which Air Carriers are doing circling approaches these days?

United does, but with higher minimums.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

My point is that just because the "professional pilots" don't do something

The REASON we don't do some things is because the RISK involved in doing them outweighs the benefit of doing them

doesn't mean is automatically wrong / incorrect / bad / evil / immoral / unprofessional for others.

That is true, but you have to understand the risks involved in doing so. Part 91 gives us the latitude to take higher risks than those of us that fly lots of passengers and paying freight.

 

[dmccormack]

The REASON we don't do some things is because the RISK involved in doing them outweighs the benefit of doing them

That is true, but you have to understand the risks involved in doing so. Part 91 gives us the latitude to take higher risks than those of us that fly lots of passengers and paying freight.

EXACTLY!!

If I choose to do a SPIFR low vis takeoff in a SEL at night... yes, it's risky, but it's not air carrier ops.

I have my risk limits. Some include no overflight of mountains at night, no takeoff below local field minimums, and no engine off landings.

Have I ever broken my own minimums? Perhaps.

But I have that flexibility and can make the decision, and for that freedom I am very grateful.

 

[poadeleted20]

United does

I'm absoulutely sure that's a 121 operator. But more importantly, there's just no such restriction in either Part -- 121 or 135.

 

[Steve Foley]

Yes, I believe there is, but it is a risk which must be undertaken.

The same can said for grass operations. I never landed on grass during training, although I simulated soft-field take-offs and landings. It wasn't until I had my own plane that I really landed on grass. It seems to me that at least practicing a 0/0 takeoff would be a good idea.

If it is such a bad idea, why does the FAA permit 0/0 takeoffs under part 91?

Since I'm not an instructor, I can't comprehend how the guy in the left seat wearing foggles during a takeoff roll will cause me to react worse than a new student.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I'm absoulutely sure that's a 121 operator. But more importantly, there's just no such restriction in either Part -- 121 or 135.

Of that, I 100% agree.

Having said that, it may be against an individual company's Op Specs, but it is NOT an FAR prohibition.

 

[poadeleted20]

The same can said for grass operations. I never landed on grass during training, although I simulated soft-field take-offs and landings. It wasn't until I had my own plane that I really landed on grass. It seems to me that at least practicing a 0/0 takeoff would be a good idea.

There is no significant added risk in landing on grass, and there are numerous operational advantages to be gained from using such airports. OTOH, there are huge risks in hooded takeoffs, and it really isn't legal to make a takeoff where you can't see out of the cockpit -- I'm pretty sure the FAA will haul out 91.13 if they catch you trying it.

OTOH, if you really want to learn how to do a low vis takeoff, find a low vis day and a good, experienced instrument instructor. Just don't do it under the hood! The techniques and demands of a true low-vis takeoff including the transition from outside references to inside references are just not the same as watching the heading indicator from brake release. And yes, I've done actual low-vis takeoffs in light planes in as little as about 1000 feet vis, and will do them with any trainee who wants to in the right conditions (which include a good alternate) -- only problem is you only get one, 'cause if the vis is that low, we're not going to get back in to try a second.

BTW, the thought just occurred that if you really want to simulate this, you can put on the hood and close your eyes while your instructor makes the takeoff. At 50 feet, you open your eyes and take control. Now that would be a fairly good simulation of what a real ITO in low vis conditions would be like. The only thing it wouldn't cover would be the necessary shift in visual focus distance as you transition from the runway a few hundred feet ahead to the instruments 24-30 inches ahead, but it's probably the best you can do outside a simulator or a real low-vis day.

 

[poadeleted20]

Having said that, it may be against an individual company's Op Specs

I've heard that several 121 air carriers prohibit circling at night, but I know of a lot of Part 91 pilots who won't do that, either, even if it's legal.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I think my students get the idea well enough when I tell them that despite my decades and thousands of hours of experience

Ah, the "resume" moment comes out again..........

 

[RotorAndWing]

I've heard that several 121 air carriers prohibit circling at night,

Circling approaches are an OpSpec issue. Day/Night is not differentiated unless the airport has it as a "Special Use" airport designation.

 

[RotorAndWing]

there are huge risks in hooded takeoffs, and it really isn't legal to make a takeoff where you can't see out of the cockpit -- I'm pretty sure the FAA will haul out 91.13 if they catch you trying it.

I don't know of any Inspectors going out and randomly getting into training aircraft cockpits and observing Instrument Flight Training. The very thought of someone receiving a 91.13 violation for carrying out training where no accident/incident has occurred is ludicrous.

There is no prohibition from allowing a student to do a hooded takeoff as long as the Instructor doesn't have obstructed vision and retains control of the aircraft if he needs to assume it.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't know of any Inspectors going out and randomly getting into training aircraft cockpits and observing Instrument Flight Training. The very thought of someone receiving a 91.13 violation for carrying out training where no accident/incident has occurred is ludicrous.

There is no prohibition from allowing a student to do a hooded takeoff as long as the Instructor doesn't have obstructed vision and retains control of the aircraft if he needs to assume it.

Nevertheless, several of your colleagues have told me they'd hang any instructor who conducted such training if it ended in an accident. So, I guess your position is that it's OK as long as you don't wreck?

And, to answer one of Dan's comments, what would you do if an applicant complained about an examiner requiring a hooded takeoff on an IR practical test?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Nevertheless, several of your colleagues have told me they'd hang any instructor who conducted such training if it ended in an accident. So, I guess your position is that it's OK as long as you don't wreck?

The key words are "if it ended in an accident". With a competent Instructor that should not happen.

And, to answer one of Dan's comments, what would you do if an applicant complained about an examiner requiring a hooded takeoff on an IR practical test?

If it's not on the PTS then it's not a required test item and cannot be graded as such.

 

[dmccormack]

Nevertheless, several of your colleagues have told me they'd hang any instructor who conducted such training if it ended in an accident. So, I guess your position is that it's OK as long as you don't wreck?

And, to answer one of Dan's comments, what would you do if an applicant complained about an examiner requiring a hooded takeoff on an IR practical test?

Hang on -- of course they'd "hang any instructor who conducted such training if it ended in an accident." (!)

Any student activity that results in an accident means there is likely some sin of omission or comission.

A foggles takeoff accident would be suspect because the right seat occupant didn't correct, announce, or otherwise assist when things went badly.

 

[dmccormack]

And, to answer one of Dan's comments, what would you do if an applicant complained about an examiner requiring a hooded takeoff on an IR practical test?

Sadly, a few thousand pilots are flying around blissfully unaware of the horrors they were subjected to.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Sadly, a few thousand pilots are flying around blissfully unaware of the horrors they were subjected to.

 

[COFlyBoy]

Hang on -- of course they'd "hang any instructor who conducted such training if it ended in an accident." (!)

Any student activity that results in an accident means there is likely some sin of omission or comission.

A foggles takeoff accident would be suspect because the right seat occupant didn't correct, announce, or otherwise assist when things went badly.

So, I almost dropped the right wheel off the runway. My instructor said "A little left rudder." So, I stomped on the rudder. Fortunately I rotated at pretty much the same time, so it likely wouldn't have resulted in an embarrassing runway light collision. At that point I couldn't stand it anymore and flipped to hood up.

Here's a snippet from the Sporty's course syllabus with the instrument takeoff in it. I believe it is also in the Jepp syllabus (we just switched to Jepp):

Whoever is creating the syllabi must think that an instrument takeoff is a useful training activity.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Why do you people argue to the extreme degree? You are all right to a point. It isn't required, it isn't necessary in the real world of IFR flying, and it isn't a particularly useful excercise. But it can be done safely if the cfi is on his toes and watching out. It is usually done in the context of "see how stupid this is?" It gets the students attention better than just talking about it.

Why does every discussion that is marginally useful get ground down to useless banter from only extreme viewpoints?

 

[Ghery]

There is no significant added risk in landing on grass, and there are numerous operational advantages to be gained from using such airports.

Not to change the subject (once again), but if this is true, why does our club prohibit using anything other than paved runways? And the last time someone violated said rule they had a prop strike that caused us to have a virtually brand new engine torn down for inspection? Now, I'd love to operate off grass. I've done it once (not a club airplane) and there's a friend living on an airpark that I could visit if there wasn't that restriction.

 

[Arbiter419]

Not to change the subject (once again), but if this is true, why does our club prohibit using anything other than paved runways? And the last time someone violated said rule they had a prop strike that caused us to have a virtually brand new engine torn down for inspection? Now, I'd love to operate off grass. I've done it once (not a club airplane) and there's a friend living on an airpark that I could visit if there wasn't that restriction.

That's a darn shame, my favorite thing to do with an airplane is land it on grass. How'd they manage a prop strike? I can see it happening on a particularly bumpy grass field while not using soft field technique, but a tail strike seems way more likely than anything on soft fields.

 

[gprellwitz]

Not to change the subject (once again), but if this is true, why does our club prohibit using anything other than paved runways? And the last time someone violated said rule they had a prop strike that caused us to have a virtually brand new engine torn down for inspection? Now, I'd love to operate off grass. I've done it once (not a club airplane) and there's a friend living on an airpark that I could visit if there wasn't that restriction.

Because whomever has written the rules has no experience in operating off of non-paved runways. This means that they have no experience in teaching how to operate off of non-paved runways. The technique can be a little different, but if you use the grass technique on paved runways, there's no problem. If you go the other way, or are sloppy about it, then you may have issues. Heck, even if you use proper sealed runway technique, you should have no issues on well-maintained grass runways.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Not to change the subject (once again), but if this is true, why does our club prohibit using anything other than paved runways? And the last time someone violated said rule they had a prop strike that caused us to have a virtually brand new engine torn down for inspection? Now, I'd love to operate off grass. I've done it once (not a club airplane) and there's a friend living on an airpark that I could visit if there wasn't that restriction.

Ghery,

The grass didn't cause the prop strike - The pilot did.

Another local club used to have a 182, they had a prop strike bad enough that the insurance company totaled the airplane. Even my trusty friend N271G had a prop strike before I joined the club I'm in.

That's two clubs, two 182's, and two prop strikes on paved runways. Grass has nothing to do with it, and if I were in your club I'd be pushing to get that rule rescinded.

I think the vast majority of the prohibitions on grass are bogus fear of the unknown type things. Like anything else in flying, if you do it right you won't have a problem. Obviously, that includes paved runways!

 

[gismo]

Why do you people argue to the extreme degree? You are all right to a point. It isn't required, it isn't necessary in the real world of IFR flying, and it isn't a particularly useful excercise. But it can be done safely if the cfi is on his toes and watching out. It is usually done in the context of "see how stupid this is?" It gets the students attention better than just talking about it.

Why does every discussion that is marginally useful get ground down to useless banter from only extreme viewpoints?

+One.

 

[azure]

I've done it once. If a tire blew I could tilt my head up and see just fine. That's the advantage to the physical hood I guess. The real value in the exercise was the realization that if I ever lost sight of the runway during the takeoff roll I could switch to the DG and get reliable enough information to either stop the airplane on the runway or complete the takeoff without breaking anything. Had I not done it at least once I'd have a lot less confidence in the DG while on the takeoff roll.

This is actually a good point, and the first valid reason for practicing it that's been posted in this thread IMO. I'm still not all that motivated to try it though. If I ever decided I wanted to try it, I'd want the right seater to be at least a CFI with at least a few hours in my airplane (not just make and model, but the Branded Bird). The only CFI I know of who qualifies at this moment is the feller who sold it to me, and he lives about 400 miles away.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Whoever is creating the syllabi must think that an instrument takeoff is a useful training activity.

It is useful. As an example in the Air Carrier world we use "Reduced Takeoff Minimums" under OpSpecs (C078) which allowed us to depart with 500/500/500 RVR (Runway Visual Range). Of course we had to have runway centerline lights, runway edge lights, etc operating. But at 500 feet visibility you could see maybe two or three runway centerline marks ahead of the airplane once lined up and the edge lights just off the left. As the aircraft accelerated above 80knots the centerline lights were essentially useless and you were on the instruments for the remainder of the takeoff.

When I done my instrument training many years ago I was trained on how to do a zero visibility takeoff and I'm glad I had that foundation. When I taught Instruments as a Flight Instructor I taught the same thing and even taught zero vis takeoff in helicopters.

 

[dmccormack]

Why does every discussion that is marginally useful get ground down to useless banter from only extreme viewpoints?

Because this usually happens (names removed but maybe you'll figure out who is in what role):

• "And so I like to land on grass..."
• "Go ahead, but I flew with the Wright Brothers and they preferred sand. And everyone in the FAA, TSA, CIA, NSA, GSA, DHS, NGB, PETA, NBC, CBS, CNN, and XYZ thinks it's stupid."
• "Oh yeah? Well I have thirty for gazillion grass takeoffs and landings!"
• "Well, you're a lucky idiot, but the owner of the FAA said 'No way!" So there."
• "Here we go again -- Mister Perfection trots out his contacts. "
• "I flew with the Wright Brothers. They preferred sand. Everyone in the FAA, TSA, CIA, NSA, GSA, DHS, NGB, PETA, NBC, CBS, CNN, and XYZ thinks it's stupid."
• "I've done an analysis on grass coefficient of friction and {rest deleted for brevity] and I love the DA-40!! "
• "My Comanche lands on grass in floods. And in Snow. And in Molten Lava. You're all wussies."
• "My seven hundred year old airplane lands on grass -- crunchy, wet, green, brown, and legal -- every day. And twice on Sundays."
• "Oh really? Have you flown with the Wright Brothers? They preferred sand. Ask everyone in the FAA, TSA, CIA, NSA, GSA, DHS, NGB, PETA, NBC, CBS, CNN, and XYZ what they think -- But don't ask, because they will say 'It's stupid.'"
• "Grass landings are fine -- but in Texas we prefer mesquite."
• "I have owned airlines, flown the Space Shuttle, and Mister Sikorsky swam in my pool. [Name deleted] is an idiot. I am right. That is all."
• "So there I was, flying 13 inches AGL during the normal August frost when all of a sudden I saw a goose. Here are pictures of the goose:"
• "The Wright Brothers preferred sand. I've logged every minute of IMC in coach and so I have more hours in the air than alive. Go ahead and be stupid -- just don't call me when you run into a log truck crossing the runway."
• "I can't wait until Gastons!"
• "I've logged 863 hours in the past month flying from Egypt to Missouri back to Antarctica and then Cozumel on the way to Cleveland. I'm carrying 323 dogs and they are getting tired. I use my twin to mow the grass because I don't have time for that sort of thing. I invented a new airfoil in my free time. And a perpetual motion machine. And shot fifteen 0/0 approaches into Philly. In a row."
• "I paid for the servers so I say grass is fine. -- it's a landing, isn't it? Here is my latest gun."
• "Can someone give me a ride to Gaston's? For free?"
• "I'm in Lower Bagonnellatoonoo and flew [names removed]'s personal 767 here for their honeymoon. Yeah, had her. And I always land on grass. Never anything harder because it makes depth perception poor."
• "Nancy Pelosi never, ever landed on grass: www.leftieblogosphere.org/moveon/colbert/foxisbad.jsp George Bush banned grass. Why are we afraid of grass? Is there a terrorist behind every blade?"
• "The MC has closed this thread"
• "Why? This is America -- or isn't it? Wii and Nintendo. Land of the Free! I salute every day! Come to my hotel. Don't ask for the car."
• "So you think you're tough stuff because you land on grass? Big deal... ."
• "I hand built an entire grass runway and supercharged it with nitrous methane hydrospheric acid."
• "Oh really? Ask everyone in the FAA, TSA, CIA, NSA, GSA, DHS, NGB, PETA, NBC, CBS, CNN, and XYZ what they think -- But don't ask, because they will say 'It's stupid.' nitrous methane hydropsheric acid (moron!) reduces the friction coefficient by .0001%!"
• "Good grief. As we all know:
  
  
  Therefore:
  

 

[Aztec Driver]

Because this usually happens (names removed but maybe you'll figure out who is in what role):

• "And so I like to land on grass..."
• "Go ahead, but I flew with the Wright Brothers and they preferred sand. And everyone in the FAA, TSA, CIA, NSA, GSA, DHS, NGB, PETA, NBC, CBS, CNN, and XYZ thinks it's stupid."
• "Oh yeah? Well I have thirty for gazillion grass takeoffs and landings!"
• "Well, you're a lucky idiot, but the owner of the FAA said 'No way!" So there."
• "Here we go again -- Mister Perfection trots out his contacts. "
• "Go ahead, but I flew with the Wright Brothers and they preferred sand. And everyone in the FAA, TSA, CIA, NSA, GSA, DHS, NGB, PETA, NBC, CBS, CNN, and XYZ thinks it's stupid."
• "I've done an analysis on grass coefficient of friction and {rest deleted for brevity] and I love the DA-40!! "
• "My Comanche lands on grass in floods. And in Snow. And in Molten Lava. You're all wussies."
• "My seven hundred year old airplane lands on grass -- crunchy, wet, green, brown, and legal -- every day."
• "Go ahead, but I flew with the Wright Brothers and they preferred sand. And everyone in the FAA, TSA, CIA, NSA, GSA, DHS, NGB, PETA, NBC, CBS, CNN, and XYZ thinks it's stupid."
• "Grass landings are fine -- but in Texas we prefer mesquite."
• "I have owned airlines, flown the Space Shuttle, and had Mister Sikorsky over to my pool. [Name deleted] is an idiot. I am right. That is all."
• "So there I was, flying 13 inches AGL, when all of a sudden I saw a goose. here are picture sof the goose:"
• "Go ahead, but I flew with the Wright Brothers and they preferred sand. And everyone in the FAA, TSA, CIA, NSA, GSA, DHS, NGB, PETA, NBC, CBS, CNN, and XYZ thinks it's stupid."
• "I can't wait until Gastons!"
• "I paid for the servers so I say grass is fine. -- it's a landing, isn't it? Here is my latest gun."
• "I'm in Lower Bagonnellatoonoo and flew [names removed]'s personal 767 here for their honeymoon. Yeah, had her. And I always land on grass. Never anything harder because it makes depth perception poor."

Funny. Insulting, but funny.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Because this usually happens (names removed but maybe you'll figure out who is in what role):

Ok, I got a few of those.

And, I've landed on grass from here to Alaska.

But I can see where someone would have to go around if the runway was being mowed.

Do they put big X's on the runway during mowing? And can you ignore them if you are a Senator? Or a girl carrying a gun?

Grass could get the new paint on your Mooney dirty.

A 205 has no problem on grass, but it is too slow.

Do you have to do your runup one engine at a time with a multi engine aircraft on grass?

Why don't we have any smileys for grass runways?

(Did I miss any threads?)

 

[TMetzinger]

So, I almost dropped the right wheel off the runway. My instructor said "A little left rudder." So, I stomped on the rudder. Fortunately I rotated at pretty much the same time, so it likely wouldn't have resulted in an embarrassing runway light collision. At that point I couldn't stand it anymore and flipped to hood up.

Here's a snippet from the Sporty's course syllabus with the instrument takeoff in it. I believe it is also in the Jepp syllabus (we just switched to Jepp):

Whoever is creating the syllabi must think that an instrument takeoff is a useful training activity.

Your snippet didn't come through. Does the course specify a hooded takeoff, or a takeoff followed by an immediate transition to instrument flight (with the hood going on very soon after rotation)?

During my instrument training I did practice takeoffs with the hood on and "up" so I could see the runway and the hood came down between 25 and 50 feet. But my instructor(s) were adamant about not trying to roll down the runway solely by instrument reference.

I think there's a world of difference between being able to make out a centerline stripe or two ahead and the edge markings and lighting (I've taken off in conditions like those), and not seeing anything at all.

 

[dmccormack]

(Did I miss any threads?)

"The ****oles parked the 1982 Plymouth Reliant on the grass! See what our public schools have done? Back when I was running a huge multinational conglomerate we didn't have these problems..."

 

[Ted]

Me, I'm only 135...

In the mathematics world, 135 > 121 > 91, so that makes you best out of all of us.

Dan, you forgot one:

- "I landed my [piston twin] on grass, sand, and gravel in [foreign countries] and it worked fine, so stop whining and keep flying. No, it wasn't THAT kind of grass. DHS was asking about the grass in my right engine nacelle after [name withheld] flew it through a lake at Gaston's."

 

[dmccormack]

Dan, you forgot one:

- "I landed my [piston twin] on grass, sand, and gravel in [foreign countries] and it worked fine, so stop whining and keep flying. No, it wasn't THAT kind of grass. DHS was asking about the grass in my right engine nacelle after [name withheld] flew it through a lake at Gaston's."

Oh my, yes I did.

See post above for edits!

 

[Ted]

Oh my, yes I did.

See post above for edits!

Yours is even better! Well played, sir.

 

[dmccormack]

Yours is even better! Well played, sir.

 

[tonycondon]

Dan, you forgot one:

- "I landed my [piston twin] on grass, sand, and gravel in [foreign countries] and it worked fine, so stop whining and keep flying. No, it wasn't THAT kind of grass. DHS was asking about the grass in my right engine nacelle after [name withheld] flew it through a lake at Gaston's."

ROFLMAO