My first flight with a new CFII

Palmpilot said:
To me, a failed ASI is an emergency situation, because I haven't been trained in no-ASI operations (nor is there any mandate for such training). It's an emergency that requires "immediate action," because there is a need at all times to maintain a safe flying speed, and to avoid situations where circumstances could combine with the ASI failure to create undue hazard to myself or others.
Click to expand...

An ASI failure will not render your aircraft unsafe (in VMC). 91.205 makes it clear that an ASI is required for legal flight, but doesn't require you to declare an emergency. There are many other ways for a pilot to ensure that he is maintaining a safe flying speed.

I suggest you get with an instructor and spend an hour finding out how easy it is to fly w/o an ASI. Then you won't have to gum up the works with an emergency, you can simply turn to the nearest airport and execute a beautiful and normal landing.
 
Palmpilot said:
To me, a failed ASI is an emergency situation, because I haven't been trained in no-ASI operations (nor is there any mandate for such training). It's an emergency that requires "immediate action," because there is a need at all times to maintain a safe flying speed, and to avoid situations where circumstances could combine with the ASI failure to create undue hazard to myself or others.
Click to expand...

That's a bit surprising, actually.
 
COFlyBoy said:
Heh. Well the NTSB is only gonna get involved if you managed to spectacularly display a lack of skill at flying w/o an ASI.

Personally, the ASI doesn't make my list of failed instruments (assuming VMC) requiring an immediate diversion/aborted TO. Not saying I'd deliberately depart with a dead ASI, but I wouldn't lay black streaks just because it was flaky.
Click to expand...

You are basically professing total disregard for the FAR's publicly. I doubt the FAA reads this web board very often but it seems imprudent to make such statements. What is that old saying about messing with the bull? Oh yeah, you get the horns.
 
Auburn_CFI said:
You are basically professing total disregard for the FAR's publicly. I doubt the FAA reads this web board very often but it seems imprudent to make such statements. What is that old saying about messing with the bull? Oh yeah, you get the horns.
Click to expand...

You weren't a principal at Shermer High were you?
 
Auburn_CFI said:
You are basically professing total disregard for the FAR's publicly. I doubt the FAA reads this web board very often but it seems imprudent to make such statements. What is that old saying about messing with the bull? Oh yeah, you get the horns.
Click to expand...

While I wouldn't regard an ASI failure as an emergency (I wasn't trained in non-ASI operations either, but managed just fine on my checkride). However, I would divert to the nearest field, or at the very worst the nearest field with a repair facility. It is required equipment, period.
 
steingar said:
While I wouldn't regard an ASI failure as an emergency (I wasn't trained in non-ASI operations either, but managed just fine on my checkride). However, I would divert to the nearest field, or at the very worst the nearest field with a repair facility. It is required equipment, period.
Click to expand...


Michael, the question at hand isn't about the ASI as "required equipment." Rather, is immediate diversion to the nearest field required by the letter and intent of the regulation?
 
jesse said:
They really didn't. Safety has improved.
Click to expand...

Only for airliners that couldn't keep from midairing over the middle of the desert. GA safety remains about the same, and unless I see some numbers that prove that the FAA has improved the safety of, I'd be hard pressed to agree that the FAA serves any purpose for GA at all.

And that's not anti-authority, that's just debate over numbers.
 
Richard said:
Victim, er, pilot tells simulated CFI that he will commence simulated approach to simulated landing at simulated airport over yonder. Landing becomes lesson in go-around maneuver.
Click to expand...
Works for me.
 
dmccormack said:
Michael, the question at hand isn't about the ASI as "required equipment." Rather, is immediate diversion to the nearest field required by the letter and intent of the regulation?
Click to expand...

By the way I read the FARs, yes. I tend to think about things as if I were facing an FAA lawyer. Lets say that I kept going with the inoperative ASI and bent metal later due to something completely unrelated. The FAA is going to say I was operating an unairworthy airplane, and they'll be correct. If I bend metal at my nearest, I can truthfully say I was trying to correct the situation to the best of my ability.

I know a lot of this is academic. How will the FAA find out if our ASI was working or not? But you could wind up really wanting it if you got into wx, winds, or even turbulence later in the flight. Moreover, if you really are in that big a hurry, drive.

Most of this is utterly academic, the pitot/static system is sufficiently archaic and simple that I suspect most failures are due to blockages that occur on the ground. Most of us don't use runways with gulleys, rivers, wild animals, and Odin only knows what else, so we should be able to spot a dead ASI on takeoff. And if I see it on takeoff I'll shut down on any but the shortest runways and get the damn thing fixed.
 
As far as Government Regulation "increasing" safety....

The impact of regulation is higher cost, which reduces the eligible pool of fliers.

Couple that with the time and other commitments required to jump through the various regulatory hoops, and you have an even finer sieve.

The reason for such rapid innovation in the 1910-40s was the widespread opportunity to fail and then learn from those failures.
 
steingar said:
By the way I read the FARs, yes. I tend to think about things as if I were facing an FAA lawyer. Lets say that I kept going with the inoperative ASI and bent metal later due to something completely unrelated. The FAA is going to say I was operating an unairworthy airplane, and they'll be correct. If I bend metal at my nearest, I can truthfully say I was trying to correct the situation to the best of my ability.

I know a lot of this is academic. How will the FAA find out if our ASI was working or not? But you could wind up really wanting it if you got into wx, winds, or even turbulence later in the flight. Moreover, if you really are in that big a hurry, drive.

Most of this is utterly academic, the pitot/static system is sufficiently archaic and simple that I suspect most failures are due to blockages that occur on the ground. Most of us don't use runways with gulleys, rivers, wild animals, and Odin only knows what else, so we should be able to spot a dead ASI on takeoff. And if I see it on takeoff I'll shut down on any but the shortest runways and get the damn thing fixed.
Click to expand...

(Hint: There is no unambiguous answer to the question. This permits judgement, which is supposed to fill in the ambiguity).

So, for example, if I am about to take off, see a huge CB heading my way and yet the winds are light and variable and the sky above still clear and I am heading away fom the impending CB, I may take off, level off and say, "Hmmm, my ASI is verklempfed."

So what's the better option? returning immediately to the field about to be swallowed by a huge Thunderstorm or fly 20 miles east to my home drome where I can ask my local A&P-IA about my problem?
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
Victim, er, pilot tells simulated CFI that he will commence simulated approach to simulated landing at simulated airport over yonder. Landing becomes lesson in go-around maneuver.
Click to expand...

Heh. I just caught "simulated CFI". Missed that one. Made me laugh.
 
dmccormack said:
(Hint: There is no unambiguous answer to the question. This permits judgement, which is supposed to fill in the ambiguity).

So, for example, if I am about to take off, see a huge CB heading my way and yet the winds are light and variable and the sky above still clear and I am heading away fom the impending CB, I may take off, level off and say, "Hmmm, my ASI is verklempfed."

So what's the better option? returning immediately to the field about to be swallowed by a huge Thunderstorm or fly 20 miles east to my home drome where I can ask my local A&P-IA about my problem?
Click to expand...

Return to the field and tie your aircraft down securely. If it's damaged, insurance will pay for it.

If you head off and skirt the CB, it will likely have friends in the vicinity. You'll be dealing with wind, turbulence, and other difficult conditions lacking an important instrument.

Now let me ask you something. What is it you had to gain by taking off with a defective piece of required equipment?

Saving your aircraft at risk to yourself? What is the most you will ever have to pay for your crashed airplane? The insurance deductible. What kind of idiot risks their life for an insurance deductible? Leave it tied down. If the T-storm gets it you'll drive home, get a nice check and go buy another. I hear they made lots. They only made one of you.

You are in that big a hurry? What is it you have to do when you get home that's so important? Unless you are scheduled to perform brain surgery, odds are what you're getting back to is not life or death. Probably not getting home will engender some inconvenience that can be cured with money. So what's your life worth?

Sorry, that's just how I see it.
 
steingar said:
Return to the field and tie your aircraft down securely. If it's damaged, insurance will pay for it.

If you head off and skirt the CB, it will likely have friends in the vicinity. You'll be dealing with wind, turbulence, and other difficult conditions lacking an important instrument.

Now let me ask you something. What is it you had to gain by taking off with a defective piece of required equipment?

Saving your aircraft at risk to yourself? What is the most you will ever have to pay for your crashed airplane? The insurance deductible. What kind of idiot risks their life for an insurance deductible? Leave it tied down. If the T-storm gets it you'll drive home, get a nice check and go buy another. I hear they made lots. They only made one of you.

You are in that big a hurry? What is it you have to do when you get home that's so important? Unless you are scheduled to perform brain surgery, odds are what you're getting back to is not life or death. Probably not getting home will engender some inconvenience that can be cured with money. So what's your life worth?

Sorry, that's just how I see it.
Click to expand...

If the problem was "Missing engine" or "surging RPMs" or some such I'm 100% agreement.

But an ASI? A non-functional ASI does not immediately imperil.
 
dmccormack said:
If the problem was "Missing engine" or "surging RPMs" or some such I'm 100% agreement.

But an ASI? A non-functional ASI does not immediately imperil.
Click to expand...
Unlike a control tower at midnight manned solely by a sleeping controller.:D
 
Auburn_CFI said:
You are basically professing total disregard for the FAR's publicly. I doubt the FAA reads this web board very often but it seems imprudent to make such statements. What is that old saying about messing with the bull? Oh yeah, you get the horns.
Click to expand...

Do you think they'll take my ticket for my interpretation of the rule? (Adding a bit more thread creep)
 
dmccormack said:
So, for example, if I am about to take off, see a huge CB heading my way and yet the winds are light and variable and the sky above still clear and I am heading away fom the impending CB, I may take off, level off and say, "Hmmm, my ASI is verklempfed."

So what's the better option? returning immediately to the field about to be swallowed by a huge Thunderstorm or fly 20 miles east to my home drome where I can ask my local A&P-IA about my problem?
Click to expand...
As I was reading this thread it occured to me there isn't a specific scenario (other than as in the OP) therefore each individual conjurs their own when posting to this thread.

Perhaps you too realized that hence you provided your own specific scenario when speaking of the approaching Tstrm. Yet, what you propose is no different than say, a 0/0 takeoff. You are hesitent to return due to meteorological conditions.

Lately I have been thinking of how it is quite possible right here in the lower 48 to fly for 50, maybe even 100 miles before reaching a suitable airfield, and which involves flying past numerous strips. The scenario is a cross country leg sans ASI. None of those strips are suitable. Sparky Imesen left his rag wing unattended at such a strip. Upon his return he found predator animals had ravaged his aircraft. I'm more ascared of the 2 legged variety but no way will a failed ASI warrant my aircraft to such exposure. What will the FAA say in that case? Even if some of those strips were BLM or USFG (govt agency) strips?
 
COFlyBoy said:
Do you think they'll take my ticket for my interpretation of the rule? (Adding a bit more thread creep)
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if the Thought Police aren't beating down your door as we speak.

BTW: the quote to which you replied is evidentiary of the wussification of the public wrought by the govt. Someone, I think it is Greg, had something to that effect in their sig line.
 
Auburn_CFI said:
You are basically professing total disregard for the FAR's publicly. I doubt the FAA reads this web board very often but it seems imprudent to make such statements. What is that old saying about messing with the bull? Oh yeah, you get the horns.
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say some may be reading but have enough common sense to separate the wheat from the chaff. :)
 
Richard said:
I'd be surprised if the Thought Police aren't beating down your door as we speak.

BTW: the quote to which you replied is evidentiary of the wussification of the public wrought by the govt. Someone, I think it is Greg, had something to that effect in their sig line.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have anything to do with wussification of the public or fear of the government. I'm not scared of the FAA because I comply with their rules. If you disagree with certain regulations there is a means by which to propose change. Regulatory compliance is not a sign of fear but a sign of respect for what goes along with the privilege of being a certificated pilot.

That being said, I do not think it wise to say publicly, on the record so to speak, that you choose not to comply with certain aspects of the regulations. Clearly at this point you have just given an opinion and I think we have different opinions as to the interpretation of the regulation. I would find it hard to defend the choice to continue a flight much further than the pattern when you find that a required piece of equipment fails during departure. In flight with distance between yourself and the departure airport the decision process becomes more variable.

I do not expect the FAA to come beating down your door but God forbid you ever run into an incident you don't want there to be any case they can build against you. Does the procurement of a C-150 cover (OP) really seem worth the possibility of certificate action in the event that the FAA interprets something differently than you? The get-there-itis that is so deadly in aviation can also cause you to bend the rules more than you should and do something that may not be dangerous in your opinion but it may not be legal in the FAA's opinion.

My opinion may only be worth what you paid for it. Just thought I'd share.
 
Last edited:
Auburn_CFI said:
It doesn't have anything to do with wussification of the public or fear of the government. I'm not scared of the FAA because I comply with their rules. If you disagree with certain regulations there is a means by which to propose change. Regulatory compliance is not a sign of fear but a sign of respect for what goes along with the privilege of being a certificated pilot.

That being said, I do not think it wise to say publicly, on the record so to speak, that you choose not to comply with certain aspects of the regulations. Clearly at this point you have just given an opinion and I think we have different opinions as to the interpretation of the regulation. I would find it hard to defend the choice to continue a flight much further than the pattern when you find that a required piece of equipment fails during departure. In flight with distance between yourself and the departure airport the decision process becomes more variable.

I do not expect the FAA to come beating down your door but God forbid you ever run into an incident you don't want there to be any case they can build against you. Does the procurement of a C-150 cover (OP) really seem worth the possibility of certificate action in the event that the FAA interprets something differently than you? The get-there-itis that is so deadly in aviation can also cause you to bend the rules more than you should and do something that may not be dangerous in your opinion but it may not be legal in the FAA's opinion.

My opinion may only be worth what you paid for it. Just thought I'd share.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is talking of actively, purposely, not complying with existing rules and regs. Certainly, I am not. However, the point in my most previous post was the penchant for non-questioning compliance. This is oft labled as over reliance. I'm pretty sure it was Greg B who had a sig line that addressed that; that the primary purpose of the TSA was to get the people content in their compliance with erosion of our personal freedoms.

That the exchange between you and COflyboy seemed to be about what one thinks as evidence of their scofflaw attitude is what I addressed. I am not about to condone a disregard of regulation however, in the case of flight, it is the PIC responsibility which dictates my actions and not blind adherence to regs. If as PIC I think it more safe to continue the flight, the reg be damned til I'm safe on the ground. I stand on my principal and take my responsibility seriously.

Regs are written in blood, yes, I believe that. I understand the concept of not having to reinvent the wheel and not having enough time or the desire to recreate every mistake already made. Actually, I am thankful for those others that have made those mistakes for I am more capable for them. I just won't be reticent about my commission of aviating as I let reg rule the day.

Thank you for your reply.
 
steingar said:
Return to the field and tie your aircraft down securely. If it's damaged, insurance will pay for it.

And maybe not, try selling a damaged aircraft to these posters.


Now let me ask you something. What is it you had to gain by taking off with a defective piece of required equipment?

How do you know it was bad, before take off, or what's the requirement as to when you are required to look at it specially when you have more important things to watch?


Saving your aircraft at risk to yourself? What is the most you will ever have to pay for your crashed airplane?

Can you guarantee a safe return to any airport?


The insurance deductible. What kind of idiot risks their life for an insurance deductible? Leave it tied down. If the T-storm gets it you'll drive home, get a nice check and go buy another. I hear they made lots. They only made one of you.

You are assuming that the owner has insurance.

You are in that big a hurry?

Remember we are in GA, you can't be in a hurry.

What is it you have to do when you get home that's so important?

Who says he was going home?

Unless you are scheduled to perform brain surgery, odds are what you're getting back to is not life or death.

getting your butt back home may just be.

Probably not getting home will engender some inconvenience that can be cured with money. So what's your life worth?

MY butt, the Pax Butt, and his aircraft is worth a lot more than following the rules, specially when the rule allows the pilots discretion as to where to land.

Sorry, that's just how I see it.
Click to expand...

I and a lot of others see it different.

I've bent 1 aircraft in my 58 years of flying, way back in 1956. when I hit an ice block some stupid fisherman cut out of a lake and left it to freeze down. I never saw it, until I walked back to see what I hit. I've had 1 eagle come thru a wind shield at OKH, so now my eyes are out side while I make the take off roll, because I can tell by feel when the aircraft is ready to fly.
 
Auburn_CFI said:
It doesn't have anything to do with wussification of the public or fear of the government. I'm not scared of the FAA because I comply with their rules. If you disagree with certain regulations there is a means by which to propose change. Regulatory compliance is not a sign of fear but a sign of respect for what goes along with the privilege of being a certificated pilot.

That being said, I do not think it wise to say publicly, on the record so to speak, that you choose not to comply with certain aspects of the regulations. Clearly at this point you have just given an opinion and I think we have different opinions as to the interpretation of the regulation. I would find it hard to defend the choice to continue a flight much further than the pattern when you find that a required piece of equipment fails during departure. In flight with distance between yourself and the departure airport the decision process becomes more variable.

I do not expect the FAA to come beating down your door but God forbid you ever run into an incident you don't want there to be any case they can build against you. Does the procurement of a C-150 cover (OP) really seem worth the possibility of certificate action in the event that the FAA interprets something differently than you? The get-there-itis that is so deadly in aviation can also cause you to bend the rules more than you should and do something that may not be dangerous in your opinion but it may not be legal in the FAA's opinion.

My opinion may only be worth what you paid for it. Just thought I'd share.
Click to expand...

When you have a ASI failure, are you required to return to the point of departure?

What certification action will occur if Pilot proceeds to an airport directly ahead, rather that turn back to the airport from which he came?

what part of 91.7 don't you understand?
 
Tom-D said:
When you have a ASI failure, are you required to return to the point of departure?

What certification action will occur if Pilot proceeds to an airport directly ahead, rather that turn back to the airport from which he came?

what part of 91.7 don't you understand?
Click to expand...

Did you read my post? I said that it is more variable if you are somewhere in cruise. My point about turning back is when you notice the failure immediately after takeoff. I'm out of this one because I have shared my opinion, no problem with us disagreeing.
 
Auburn_CFI said:
That being said, I do not think it wise to say publicly, on the record so to speak, that you choose not to comply with certain aspects of the regulations.
Click to expand...
This was clearly the main sin committed in this thread. Reading through it I'm inclined to believe that fellow posters will come down harder on someone than the FAA which I don't think has the personnel to sniff out and process every tiny infraction which in most cases would be impossible to know about.
 
Everskyward said:
This was clearly the main sin committed in this thread. Reading through it I'm inclined to believe that fellow posters will come down harder on someone than the FAA which I don't think has the personnel to sniff out and process every tiny infraction which in most cases would be impossible to know about.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Folks on this thread believe I should have returned to OKH, when in fact the 91.7 has no requirement to do that.

91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

In fact 91.7(b) Gives the pilot the authority do determine if the aircraft is safe to fly.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

Plus the rule does not say anything about returning to the place of departure, nor does it say where the pilot must land, or discontinue the flight.

So there was no violation of 91.7, those who think there was are reading into the rule things that are not there.
 
Tom-D said:
Folks on this thread believe I should have returned to OKH, when in fact the 91.7 has no requirement to do that.

91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

In fact 91.7(b) Gives the pilot the authority do determine if the aircraft is safe to fly.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

Plus the rule does not say anything about returning to the place of departure, nor does it say where the pilot must land, or discontinue the flight.

So there was no violation of 91.7, those who think there was are reading into the rule things that are not there.
Click to expand...

That's an invalid legal construction. When interpreting the FARs you have to use the rule that is most specific to the situation at hand. In this case the specific issue is an INOP ASI. According to the most specific rule on point, an INOP ASI is a no-go item.

§ 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.

(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft contains the instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and items of equipment are in operable condition.
(b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Airspeed indicator.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Using your "legal construction" the FARs, at least with regard to required equipment, would be reduced to a simple requirment of the pilot saying, "I'll fly it." That's obviously the wrong answer.
 
Tom-D said:
Folks on this thread believe I should have returned to OKH, when in fact the 91.7 has no requirement to do that.
Click to expand...

Actually Tom, I said I would land at the nearest suitable airport. Of course suitable is in t the eyes of the beholder, and you said the airport form which you departed was unsuitable, and you landed at your nearest. By even my very stringent interpretation, I see no harm nor foul.

Personally, I think an airport unsuitable for a stricken 150 landing is unsuitable for one taking off as well, but that's another argument for another day, I think.
 
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots"

Come on, the guy has been flying for 58 YEARS. He's got his judgement, as everyone else has their own as well, and we all learn from each other in one way or another. If the destination field really was all of five minutes from departure, time in the air would be very similar one choice to the other, and the pilots judgement of bigger runway and availability of crash/rescue equipment vs. none seems like a wiser choice as well. I am not familiar at all with the area, but from what I gathered from all of this we all seem to be making the Himilayas look like a back scratcher and it only started with a mole hill...
 
ebacon said:
That's an invalid legal construction. When interpreting the FARs you have to use the rule that is most specific to the situation at hand. In this case the specific issue is an INOP ASI. According to the most specific rule on point, an INOP ASI is a no-go item.

It is a no go item, but when it fails in flight what then? (And it did fail in flight.)

How would you know the ASI was inop, before you tried to fly, which by the way is during a flight.



Using your "legal construction" the FARs, at least with regard to required equipment, would be reduced to a simple requirement of the pilot saying, "I'll fly it." That's obviously the wrong answer.
Click to expand...

You are asuming I knew it did not work prior to flight. (not So)

I was already flying it (when I knew it failed). so where does 91.7 tell me where to land?
What FAR tells me I need to know the ASI is working before I leave the runway?

Does all equipment in any aircraft need to be in working order to be safe to operate?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top