- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 5,128
- Location
- Lincoln, Nebraska
- Display Name
Display name:
Jason W (FlyNE)
Web site that mixes google maps and the NTSB database
- Thread starter jason
- Start date
K
KennyFlys
Guest
They are already behind on its upkeep. While I was gone, there was a crash that killed a family of three on approach to LZU (Christmas evening). That same day, an pilot and his elderly mother died in a crash, also near Chattanooga.
A few days prior, another family of four were killed when a Beech crashed in the Chattanooga area (Friday, 12/22). The same article includes a second crash killing a family of four on Friday in Charleston, SC.
With these constant happenings, it's no wonder a friend in St. Louis will never go flying in a small plane. All of these were in low ceilings, low visibility.
Sunday, I considered going up to shoot approaches to improve my instrument skills. But, in every field I looked at, layers were reported lower than published minimums. Our school now has a policy which forbids a pilot to attempt an approach in such conditions. While I have since come to agree with this, I did not at first. Several in the chat room also thought it "hogwash" but as it turns out, this was based on a threshold in place by many airlines. I think some don't recognize that a great many approaches that start with a look-see are done at controlled fields with "human augmentation" of reports. You won't get this luxury at the non-towered fields. So, if you don't have a healthy report, why make an attempt? Is it ego? Is it "getthereitis"? Is it an emergency and you're below the minimum (and reasonable) fuel reserve?
I know I'm the peon pilot with only 370 total time but I'll take the more reasonable, prudent route, whether it means making a stop well short of my destination, or perhaps incurring a heavy landing fee if I have to beg a large airport for use of their 10,000x150 runway or give up the trip even if that means staying home.
I'm sure some (if not all) of these people were wishing some of the same things in their final moments. I was once wishing that very thing. Fortunately, I had a positive outcome.
Some will disagree with me. But, what one person has for their minimum is not mine. Mine will remain somewhere around 200-500 above published minimum based on the surrounding terrain. But, if terrain is that questionable, such as RHP, I won't be going there.
Fly Safe,
Ken
A few days prior, another family of four were killed when a Beech crashed in the Chattanooga area (Friday, 12/22). The same article includes a second crash killing a family of four on Friday in Charleston, SC.
With these constant happenings, it's no wonder a friend in St. Louis will never go flying in a small plane. All of these were in low ceilings, low visibility.
Sunday, I considered going up to shoot approaches to improve my instrument skills. But, in every field I looked at, layers were reported lower than published minimums. Our school now has a policy which forbids a pilot to attempt an approach in such conditions. While I have since come to agree with this, I did not at first. Several in the chat room also thought it "hogwash" but as it turns out, this was based on a threshold in place by many airlines. I think some don't recognize that a great many approaches that start with a look-see are done at controlled fields with "human augmentation" of reports. You won't get this luxury at the non-towered fields. So, if you don't have a healthy report, why make an attempt? Is it ego? Is it "getthereitis"? Is it an emergency and you're below the minimum (and reasonable) fuel reserve?
I know I'm the peon pilot with only 370 total time but I'll take the more reasonable, prudent route, whether it means making a stop well short of my destination, or perhaps incurring a heavy landing fee if I have to beg a large airport for use of their 10,000x150 runway or give up the trip even if that means staying home.
I'm sure some (if not all) of these people were wishing some of the same things in their final moments. I was once wishing that very thing. Fortunately, I had a positive outcome.
Some will disagree with me. But, what one person has for their minimum is not mine. Mine will remain somewhere around 200-500 above published minimum based on the surrounding terrain. But, if terrain is that questionable, such as RHP, I won't be going there.
Fly Safe,
Ken
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
I still don't. Personal minimums should be just that - Personal.
It's not "many airlines," it's the FAR's. Specifically, 135.225(a)(2) and (Greg, correct me if this is the wrong one) 121.567.
No, it's "you don't really know what the weather really is 'til you get there." I shot the ILS 6 into GRB the other night. Wx was reported as OVC004. When I was at 350 AGL and still in the clag, I'll admit I was getting a bit nervous and quite ready to go missed, but then I saw the rabbit. It could just as easily have been the other way around (wx higher than actually reported), as the ceiling seems to change fairly quickly sometimes when it's that low.
So, no harm taking a look. If you don't make it the first time, go to plan B right away, no more looks. But, the bottom line is that I want to be the one making the decision as to what MY minimums are, not the FBO.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
Kenny, just dont go below minimums.
K
KennyFlys
Guest
The limitations I point to are no different than those in operational specifications as approved by the FAA for a given operation.
My feeling is... if the FBO, club or school owns the aircraft, they set the limitations, write the rules, etc. If you don't want to abide by those, look for a place that has none. I don't think these are unreasonable limitations. By the way, I'd be more concerned for the location that doesn't have a healthy policy on certain procedures.
If you dislike my criticism for saying this, well I'd say you're starting an ego trip that may someday end up being the beginning of a preliminary NTSB report. Rules are rules, regardless of who sets them. You'll find them different for different airlines/flight employees.
This may or may not be an inconvenience for me. It really isn't. But either way, I'm going to side with the 15,000+ hour airline captain who owns the planes and makes the rules.
My feeling is... if the FBO, club or school owns the aircraft, they set the limitations, write the rules, etc. If you don't want to abide by those, look for a place that has none. I don't think these are unreasonable limitations. By the way, I'd be more concerned for the location that doesn't have a healthy policy on certain procedures.
If you dislike my criticism for saying this, well I'd say you're starting an ego trip that may someday end up being the beginning of a preliminary NTSB report. Rules are rules, regardless of who sets them. You'll find them different for different airlines/flight employees.
This may or may not be an inconvenience for me. It really isn't. But either way, I'm going to side with the 15,000+ hour airline captain who owns the planes and makes the rules.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Which is exactly what I did.
Policies run the gamut around here - The FBO I've always rented from allows you to land on grass and lots of other things that are often restricted by other FBO's. In fact, they have one aspect I've never encountered anywhere else: The renter is NAMED INSURED on their policy. If you bend a plane, you pay the deductible ($500 for FG singles, $1000 for RG's and twins IIRC). That is the kind of business that I want to support!
At the opposite end of the spectrum is a place that requires one of their CFI's to sign off any cross country flights (yes, for certificated pilots too, no matter if you have 100 times more XC time than said CFI, etc.), does not allow ANY actual IMC except for to punch up through a layer, cruise on top, and drop back through the layer, and you're not allowed to go anywhere where you'd have to shoot an approach to complete the flight. They have a three hour "daily" minimum which is assessed for any time you have the plane reserved for more than four hours, which pretty much precludes any $100 hamburgers without rushing like crazy to eat and leave.
Frankly, I believe the second FBO should be driven out of business, and I do that by avoiding them like the plague. If you take the fun out of flying, people stop flying, and that's simply not good for GA.
That actually reminds me of a place that I thought had the smartest policies: Things like no landing on a grass field... UNLESS you've had instruction on landing on grass and done so in the last 90 days. That sort of thing. It allows you to do things you're properly trained to do, which allows full use of airplanes and PP tickets while keeping a reasonable safety level as well. This is at LNA in Florida.
K
KennyFlys
Guest
I think we're in agreement there. In answering a question in the chat room regarding instrument ratings "making you a better pilot", I responded with something like... "An instrument rating gives you only a good start to becoming a better pilot. Proficiency and Safety are the only things that will actually make you a better pilot."
I went on to say that a PPL should require more like 6-8 hours of hood time. Three hours is hardly enough. Partial XC under the hood isn't an unreasonable step. In the end, it's still just barely enough to get out of a bad situation; hardly what's necessary to continue into one. The problem with most non-IR pilots is they never get the recurrent training truly necessary. And, IR pilots with little time seeking proficiency tend to be the ones getting into trouble. I'll be curious to read the final reports of these most recent events since this is the exact issue I'm "harping" on.
I went on to say that a PPL should require more like 6-8 hours of hood time. Three hours is hardly enough. Partial XC under the hood isn't an unreasonable step. In the end, it's still just barely enough to get out of a bad situation; hardly what's necessary to continue into one. The problem with most non-IR pilots is they never get the recurrent training truly necessary. And, IR pilots with little time seeking proficiency tend to be the ones getting into trouble. I'll be curious to read the final reports of these most recent events since this is the exact issue I'm "harping" on.