My first flight with a new CFII

airbornejohnny said:
"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.

Actually since summer 1953

He's got his judgment, 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,

use Skyvector and look at the distance between OKH and AWO, vs the distance of doing the pattern at OKH, off 07, up to 750' turn cross wind, continue to climb to 1000' turn down wind, fly to a point 45 to the TZ, turn base descend while turning final and return to OKH. remembering that the pattern is right traffic to 07.

Which route is longer over the water and maneuvering, to land

AWO is actually 21.3 miles at 081 degrees, almost directly ahead. 5 of which is over the water.

and the pilots judgment 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...
Click to expand...

the big issue here was that Ron thought I flew a unairworthy aircraft, and every one jumped on his band wagon, when in fact the aircraft wasn't unairworthy when the flight started and I did comply with 91.7 by discontinuing the flight at the first suitable airport. Which in my opinion as PIC was AWO. I'm not going to take any unnecessary risks with other owners aircraft by turning back to OKH when there is no requirement to do so.

we got it done.
we did it safe.
we broke no rules.

You as a pilot have the authority to make those decisions, use that authority to make safe ones, or the FAA will take that authority away from you.
 
Tom-D said:
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?
Click to expand...


The FAR is clear -- no person may operate an airplane with an INOP ASI. The FAR doesn't care when teh pilot "notices" the problem.

My understanding is that the general rule for landing upon discovery of a problem is to land as soon as practicable. That does not mean to land immediately, but it also doesn't mean to fly on willy-nilly either.

An FAA investigation would probably look at the totality of the circumstances. In your case you took off, noticed that the ASI was INOP, and then landed at the next airport. It just happened to be your destination. That's probably excusable. Taking off again without fixing the ASI would be verboten, however.

As for whether all the equipment needs to be working, the answer is no. A pilot needs to refer to the required equipment list. Some equipment can be INOP and there is no issue. Some equipment is necessary for flight. Sometimes the plane can be flown with INOP equipment but with limitations on one or more of speed, instrument flight, night flight, icing, and the like.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ok, now you guys are arguing just to be arguing.
Click to expand...

I think that the reason pilot message boards tend to be so contentious is that we are all taught to have a command mentality, and since individual pilot assessment of risk varies, we get these arguments. Imagine what it would be like to be on a flight with all captains and no crew members!
 
200+ posts and we still don't have a good count of how many angels are dancing on the head of that pin. How disappointing...
 
Palmpilot said:
I think that the reason pilot message boards tend to be so contentious is that we are all taught to have a command mentality, and since individual pilot assessment of risk varies, we get these arguments. Imagine what it would be like to be on a flight with all captains and no crew members!
Click to expand...

Wait... are you saying if we could get one of them to say "My Aircraft!" and then hand over positive control of the thread, this whole thing would stop? ;)

Heh heh... I think it's a secret ploy to get us all to donate to the cash kitty for Jesse to get him to code up an "Ignore Thread" button. He mentioned he could be bribed at Gastons in another thread.

I have determined that with the new job, I can't make Gastons, but I'm in on the donations! LOL!

:thumbsup: :crazy:
 
COFlyBoy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree that you are not required to declare an emergency, but a declaration is not necessary in order to trigger the emergency authority in 91.3(b). And I say that that emergency authority justified the OP in making a command decision about which fields were suitable under the circumstances and which weren't. It doesn't matter if any of us would have made a different decision; as PIC, it was his decision to make.

Now I'm not saying that flying all the way to Portland would have been justifiable, but come on, people, Arlington was very close. Look at the chart!

http://skyvector.com/?ll=48.251527778,-122.673666667&chart=1&zoom=3

Keep in mind also that, per the Pilot/Controller Glossary, an aircraft does not have to be in distress for an emergency to exist.

I suggest you get with an instructor and spend an hour finding out how easy it is to fly w/o an ASI.
Click to expand...

Probably a good idea, but I don't dispute that it's easy.

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.
Click to expand...

How does using one's emergency authority to select an airport that's suitable "gum up the works"? :confused:
 
denverpilot said:
Heh heh... I think it's a secret ploy to get us all to donate to the cash kitty for Jesse to get him to code up an "Ignore Thread" button. He mentioned he could be bribed at Gastons in another thread.
Click to expand...

My browser has an automatic "Ignore Thread" feature. It ignores all threads unless I override it by clicking on one!
 
dmccormack said:
That's a bit surprising, actually.
Click to expand...

Why would you be surprised at CFIs not teaching something that the FAA doesn't require teaching? In the normal course of events, I would assume that there would be a lot of variation in the non-required portions of various CFIs' syllabuses.
 
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...

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that the FAA has interpreted the regs to mean that you have to land at the nearest suitable airport. It seems to me that the disagreement is mainly about what constituted a suitable field under the circumstances. Suitablility is a pilot judgment issue, so naturally, different pilots are going to have different opinions about it.

If people are claiming that the OP was taking an unacceptable legal risk in selecting a longer, wider, smoother piece of pavement that was as close as this one was, I view that as elevating legal concerns over safety to an unacceptable degree.
 
Palmpilot said:
My browser has an automatic "Ignore Thread" feature. It ignores all threads unless I override it by clicking on one!
Click to expand...

My browser has the same feature. The problem is that my mouse pad is a Ouija board. :yinyang:
 
ebacon said:
The FAR is clear -- no person may operate an airplane with an INOP ASI.

What far say's that? the 21 reference you gave says it must be equipped it says nothing about what to do when it quits.


The FAR doesn't care when the pilot "notices" the problem.

Which FAR 21? that is the certification FAR, Not the far telling you what must be done in flight.


Where does 91.7 require you to land immediately?

My understanding is that the general rule for landing upon discovery of a problem is to land as soon as practicable. That does not mean to land immediately, but it also doesn't mean to fly on willy-nilly either.

do you believe flying 21.3 miles or less en route AWO is flying willy-nilly?
.
Click to expand...

The rest of your post is speculation. and not relevant.

Do not confuse what any aircraft must have to meet its type certificate and what it requires for safe flight.

That determination is in 91.7 and the excepted definition of airworthiness.

In as much as the aircraft was equipped as required by FAR 21, it met its type certificate, and not knowing it was inop, I started the flight, after discovering the ASI was inop. I discontinued the flight as required by FAR 91.7.

No rule broken.

it is of no consequence that I was going to AWO to start with.
 
Palmpilot said:
Why would you be surprised at CFIs not teaching something that the FAA doesn't require teaching? In the normal course of events, I would assume that there would be a lot of variation in the non-required portions of various CFIs' syllabuses.
Click to expand...

I have a whole list of things I cover that isn't in a PTS because there's usually time during cross country flights, flights to-from a suitable practice areas, flights near the field on barely VFR days, and so on.

Flight with certain instruments covered is one example.
 
Palmpilot said:
Imagine what it would be like to be on a flight with all captains and no crew members!
Click to expand...
Add ATC asleep at the switch or blaring show tunes on a stuck mic.

Once on a dual flight my friend and his CFI landed in a Seneca with no one in control. They arrived to a perfect landing dead center on the centerline. They both realized only when neither was turning to exit the runway.
 
Tom-D said:
The rest of your post is speculation. and not relevant.

Do not confuse what any aircraft must have to meet its type certificate and what it requires for safe flight.

That determination is in 91.7 and the excepted definition of airworthiness.

In as much as the aircraft was equipped as required by FAR 21, it met its type certificate, and not knowing it was inop, I started the flight, after discovering the ASI was inop. I discontinued the flight as required by FAR 91.7.

No rule broken.

it is of no consequence that I was going to AWO to start with.
Click to expand...

I have too much respect for you to split these hairs any further. In the future a similar courtesy would be appreciated.
 
Richard said:
Once on a dual flight my friend and his CFI landed in a Seneca with no one in control. They arrived to a perfect landing dead center on the centerline. They both realized only when neither was turning to exit the runway.
Click to expand...

Score one for the "stabilized approach"! ;)
 
ebacon said:
I have too much respect for you to split these hairs any further. In the future a similar courtesy would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Asking him not to defend himself when he is being accused of violating FARs is a bit much, IMO.
 
Palmpilot said:
Asking him not to defend himself when he is being accused of violating FARs is a bit much, IMO.
Click to expand...

He and Ron both quit because they realized they are wrong.
 
Ron Levy said:
For that we look to the precedent case law.
(emphasis in original) Administrator v. Halbert, http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/3628.pdf.

Click to expand...


Ron,

I read all of the above, and it seems to me that the case isn't as clear-cut as you are stating here.

I would suggest that Administrator vs. Skoglund is entirely irrelevant to Tom's case, as they were over Lake Erie but diverted to Milwaukee (maintenance base), and bypassed MANY other potential landing sites that were clearly consistent with the safe operation of the airplane, including flying right over Detroit on their way to Milwaukee. Additionally, they did not know the nature of the control problem at the time. Interestingly enough, there was a dissenting opinion from a board member on that one, who implies that the FAA did not allow their own airworthiness inspector WHO WAS PRESENT IN THE COCKPIT to testify at either hearing - Shady.

In addition, it seems that Administrator vs. Gordon would be on Tom's side - The ALJ *dismissed* the alleged 91.7(b) violation, the Administrator appealed, and the NTSB also sided with Gordon, denying the appeal:

The Administrator appeals only from the law judge's dismissal of the alleged 91.7(b) violation. As discussed below, we cannot find fault with the law judge's dismissal of that charge. Accordingly, the Administrator's appeal is denied.
...
The law judge concluded that the Administrator failed to prove that Noorvik was a suitable place to land under the circumstances of this case, and held that respondent's decision to fly to Kotzebue, where longer runways and assistance would be available, was proper.
...
Nonetheless, in light of the conditions at Noorvik -- particularly the shortness
of the runways and the fact that they were enclosed by snow berms, and the crosswind on the longer runway -- and the absence of any vibration in the aircraft or other signs of serious immediate danger, we decline to second-guess respondent's decision to continue on to Kotzebue rather than attempting another landing at Noorvik.
Click to expand...

That last paragraph seems to show that they also do consider more than just published information when determining the suitability of a field.

Administrator vs. Halbert would appear to make the strongest case for your assertions, but in that case Halbert (Albert Halbert? Someone's parents hated him!) admitted that Laramie would also have been a safe place to land, thus pretty much handing the case to the Administrator. That particular bit is also referenced in Gordon.

Thus, it appears that as long as the PIC can make a reasonable case for their actions, they won't have a 91.7(b) violation upheld against them.​
 
Palmpilot said:
How does using one's emergency authority to select an airport that's suitable "gum up the works"? :confused:
Click to expand...

At someplace busy (PAO maybe?), ATC will have to give you priority over other aircraft which may cause ripple effects to other aircraft in the air and on the ground.

Mostly I'm just not into declaring an emergency if there is no safety of flight issue. Which is why I suggested you fly with a CFI and w/o an ASI.

Now for an inop Altimeter, I would declare an emergency, because I operate too close to a Class B to be able to just eyeball altitudes.
 
COFlyBoy said:
At someplace busy (PAO maybe?), ATC will have to give you priority over other aircraft which may cause ripple effects to other aircraft in the air and on the ground.
Click to expand...

If that's really an issue, it's not the selection of a suitable airport that's "gumming up the works," it's declaring the emergency.

If you think declaring the emergency will cause unwarranted problems, don't declare it. That doesn't stop you from using your emergency authority to make a decision about which airports are suitable and which are not.

Mostly I'm just not into declaring an emergency if there is no safety of flight issue.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about declaring an emergency. I was talking about the pilot exercizing his emergency authority, which exists whether the emergency is declared or not.

And if the lack of an ASI is not a safety of flight issue, then why is it required equipment, and why does the FAA expect people to land at the nearest suitable airport when it is inop?

Which is why I suggested you fly with a CFI and w/o an ASI.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything wrong with getting such training (although I can think of higher priority things to get training on), but what does my inexperience with no-ASI landings have to do with whether the OP's suitability decision was appropriate? It was his decision to make, not yours or mine.

Now for an inop Altimeter, I would declare an emergency, because I operate too close to a Class B to be able to just eyeball altitudes.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
I have a whole list of things I cover that isn't in a PTS because there's usually time during cross country flights, flights to-from a suitable practice areas, flights near the field on barely VFR days, and so on.

Flight with certain instruments covered is one example.
Click to expand...

Good for you, but do you think the list of non-required things you teach is the same as most other instructors?

One thing I have noticed about different flight instructors is that, when it comes to things that are above and beyond the FAA-required list, they have different things that they emphasize.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ron,

I read all of the above, and it seems to me that the case isn't as clear-cut as you are stating here.

I would suggest that Administrator vs. Skoglund is entirely irrelevant to Tom's case, as they were over Lake Erie but diverted to Milwaukee (maintenance base), and bypassed MANY other potential landing sites that were clearly consistent with the safe operation of the airplane, including flying right over Detroit on their way to Milwaukee. Additionally, they did not know the nature of the control problem at the time. Interestingly enough, there was a dissenting opinion from a board member on that one, who implies that the FAA did not allow their own airworthiness inspector WHO WAS PRESENT IN THE COCKPIT to testify at either hearing - Shady.

In addition, it seems that Administrator vs. Gordon would be on Tom's side - The ALJ *dismissed* the alleged 91.7(b) violation, the Administrator appealed, and the NTSB also sided with Gordon, denying the appeal:



That last paragraph seems to show that they also do consider more than just published information when determining the suitability of a field.

Administrator vs. Halbert would appear to make the strongest case for your assertions, but in that case Halbert (Albert Halbert? Someone's parents hated him!) admitted that Laramie would also have been a safe place to land, thus pretty much handing the case to the Administrator. That particular bit is also referenced in Gordon.

Thus, it appears that as long as the PIC can make a reasonable case for their actions, they won't have a 91.7(b) violation upheld against them.
Click to expand...

I also note that in the two cases where sanctions were upheld, the distances involved were about 95 miles and 220 miles. If anyone can come up with a case where sanctions were upheld for discontinuing the flight after only 22 miles, I will be very surprised. That would seem awfully petty.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I read all of the above,

AS did I, the first isa safety issue of a failed engine and the pilot elected to fly past a suitable airport. I did not have a safety issue nor did I fly past a suitable airport
The sacond the pilot knew before he flew the aircraft that the props were damaged and flew it anyway, There was no apparent damage to the 150 nor can you tell that an ASI is inop until after the flight starts. The third case is a safety of flight hazard, and the pilot flew past several suitable airports, I did not..

and it seems to me that the case isn't as clear-cut as you are stating here.



In addition, it seems that Administrator vs. Gordon would be on Tom's side - The ALJ *dismissed* the alleged 91.7(b) violation, the Administrator appealed, and the NTSB also sided with Gordon, denying the appeal:

Good point, I missed it



Thus, it appears that as long as the PIC can make a reasonable case for their actions, they won't have a 91.7(b) violation upheld against them.
Click to expand...

There ya go, You aren't required to return to the point of departure, but you can't continue past a good airport. I did not.
 
jesse said:
Do you seriously believe that?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, Ron has tried to prove that I have violated 91.7, and has not been able to do that. Even our resident FAA type seems to agree.

It's pretty feeble attempt, to say I violated when the flight was terminated at a airport directly head at 20 miles.
 
Tom-D said:
Pretty much, Ron has tried to prove that I have violated 91.7, and has not been able to do that. Even our resident FAA type seems to agree.

It's pretty feeble attempt, to say I violated when the flight was terminated at a airport directly head at 20 miles.
Click to expand...

Gotta agree, which I did many posts previously. Tom departed a field that he felt was inappropriate to stage a return. He then proceeded to his nearest and landed safely. It can't be determined if the instrument broke on the ground or in the air. I don't see any violation of any kind.
 
Can we finally put this thread to bed, now???

It has most definitely gone viral - It is already infecting countless other threads on the board.
 
I don't know what you are talking about.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Can we finally put this thread to bed, now???

It has most definitely gone viral - It is already infecting countless other threads on the board.
Click to expand...

Naw ..... thread creep will keep it going another 20 pages or so.
 
I'm too lazy to read the previous 237 posts to find out if someone has already asked these questions:

If an airspeed indicator fails and no one ever looks at it, has it really failed?

And what of Schrodinger's famous air speed indicator gedanken experiment? Is it working, failed, or in a superposition of working and failed states? I'd hate to have to compute that partial differential equation during an approach.
 
Jim Logajan said:
I'm too lazy to read the previous 237 posts to find out if someone has already asked these questions:

If an airspeed indicator fails and no one ever looks at it, has it really failed?

And what of Schrodinger's famous air speed indicator gedanken experiment? Is it working, failed, or in a superposition of working and failed states? I'd hate to have to compute that partial differential equation during an approach.
Click to expand...

Probably the worst potential failure I've experienced in an instrument was intermittent failure of the GS.
 
Jim Logajan said:
I'm too lazy to read the previous 237 posts to find out if someone has already asked these questions:

If an airspeed indicator fails and no one ever looks at it, has it really failed?

And what of Schrodinger's famous air speed indicator gedanken experiment? Is it working, failed, or in a superposition of working and failed states? I'd hate to have to compute that partial differential equation during an approach.
Click to expand...

I think the Heisenberg uncertainty principle may come into play:
The more closely you look at the airspeed indicator the less it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top