Who will you NOT let fly with you?

John Baker

John Baker

Final Approach
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
7,471
Location
San Diego, California
Display Name
John Baker
Home Airfield
KMYF
Assuming you are flying a small, two or four seater, what type of person, as a passenger in your right seat, do you think would pose the more significant risk to the safety of the flight?

All examples are adults.

1: A person who got their ticket years ago, and never flew again.

2: A person who is downright scared of flying in small aircraft.

3: A "has to be in charge" Alpha personality type.

4: A person who is a chronic drug user, marijuana, booze, prescription pain killers, etc..

5: Someone who suffers from severe motion sickness.

Feel free to add more.

What are your personal criteria for determining who you would not fly with?

John
 
2 & 3 make my list. I would be disinclined for #5 but I don't think it would pose a safety hazard per-se unless you consider a runined interior a potential safety issue.
 
John Baker said:
Assuming you are flying a small, two or four seater, what type of person, as a passenger in your right seat, do you think would pose the more significant risk to the safety of the flight?

All examples are adults.

1: A person who got their ticket years ago, and never flew again.

2: A person who is downright scared of flying in small aircraft.

3: A "has to be in charge" Alpha personality type.

4: A person who is a chronic drug user, marijuana, booze, prescription pain killers, etc..

5: Someone who suffers from severe motion sickness.

Feel free to add more.

What are your personal criteria for determining who you would not fly with?

John
Click to expand...


I will let all of the above fly with me,,, well maybe not the motion sickness person.. All the others can be neutralized by a wack in the head from the fire extinguisher... :idea::idea::D
 
CFIs end up flying with all of those -- from the right seat, no less.

There's a thing you can do with a pen or finger that will divert attention right quick, if needed.
 
2,3,4 for the right seat.

4 not in any seat, 3 maybe in the back row.
 
I've flown with a passenger with significant autism and even let him handle the controls. The one whom I would not want to fly with me is someone who is seriously suicidal.
 
Definitely number 3, and I wonder about adding "very overweight" to that list. Friends of mine, a couple, are serious foodies - loads of fun to dine out with (they know all the great places to eat and are very well versed in anything food related)... but together I bet their combined weight approaches that of the pony I had when I was a lass. I really hope they never ask me to take them for a ride when I (eventually) get my ticket.

On the other hand maybe that isn't a huge issue - I know tall guys can get into the mid 200s pretty easily which presumably isn't a problem with pax.
 
7) Video game "experts".

Back in the olden days, there was a gamer on rec.aviation... (many of you know who I mean) that was convinced that he knew how to fly (based on his video game) and most pilots didn't. And, if he flew, he would not let a pilot do something he considered unsafe (based on his video game experience). I would not want him anywhere in the airplane. I'm sure he would attempt to take over the controls to land at a "safe" (high) speed like MSFS instead of a slow speed where you "take the risk of stalling".
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
7) Video game "experts".

Back in the olden days, there was a gamer on rec.aviation... (many of you know who I mean) that was convinced that he knew how to fly (based on his video game) and most pilots didn't. And, if he flew, he would not let a pilot do something he considered unsafe (based on his video game experience). I would not want him anywhere in the airplane. I'm sure he would attempt to take over the controls to land at a "safe" (high) speed like MSFS instead of a slow speed where you "take the risk of stalling".
Click to expand...

I had not thought about him in a while. Wonder how things are in Paris?
 
1.) Anyone who expects to land anytime soon on less than 10,000 unobstructed feet with no obstacles at either end, and with less than a 30 knot, direct headwind at sea level or below.
 
gkainz said:
Lol! But Anthony let me fly with him ... hmmmm - I don't think I fit any of those items above ... :cornut:
Click to expand...


Yes, but your used to arresting wires and carrier ops, so what does that say about you? Plus it was a Grumman and remember, we installed that crowbar tailhook with duct tape from the Home Depot av dept. What could go wrong? :D
 
John Baker said:
Assuming you are flying a small, two or four seater, what type of person, as a passenger in your right seat, do you think would pose the more significant risk to the safety of the flight?

All examples are adults.

1: A person who got their ticket years ago, and never flew again.

2: A person who is downright scared of flying in small aircraft.

3: A "has to be in charge" Alpha personality type.

4: A person who is a chronic drug user, marijuana, booze, prescription pain killers, etc..

5: Someone who suffers from severe motion sickness.

Feel free to add more.

What are your personal criteria for determining who you would not fly with?

John
Click to expand...


3, 4 would pose the more significant risk.

5 wouldn't be a risk, but why would someone with severe motion sickness want to fly? otoh - I don't like turbulence so I tend to fly on nice benign days.
 
Anthony said:
Yes, but your used to arresting wires and carrier ops, so what does that say about you? Plus it was a Grumman and remember, we installed that crowbar tailhook with duct tape from the Home Depot av dept. What could go wrong? :D
Click to expand...

"squat to pee, flair to land" :D
 
Jaybird180 said:
Can you justify that statement other that citing FAA regs or political corectness?
Click to expand...

91.17 (b):

Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
#3 wouldn't be too bad. At first sign of 'attitude', pull the stick, kick the rudder, and say "Your airplane." After a few rounds of seeing nothing but green grass in the windscreen, they would be so puckered up they would keep their mouth shut for the rest of the flight.

#4 wouldn't be too bad, either. The stick on the right side pops out easily, so they couldn't freak out and try to chase the flying pink elephants.
 
#1, fine by me. Discussion about who's PIC and who's NOT. If you're disagreeing on the ground, see my added item N3 below. N3 actually trumps ALL rules.

#2, fine in the back seat and there must be someone else on board to deal with them if they freak out.

#3, every boss I've ever had. No problems handling that.

#4, No. All stocked up on crazy here.

#5, BTDT. The person didn't say a word about it but really wanted to go up, hurled in her sweatshirt, and actually thanked me for the ride... if you can believe that. :dunno: She's still married to the friend who was sitting in the front. Both knew she couldn't even ride in a car without feeling nauseous but did they say anything...? No...

Other criteria...

N1. I won't fly with a particular CFI who's known for pencil-whipping and sleeping in the right seat, but that has more to do with getting what you're paying for and an overall problem with how his students are getting through checkrides, than a problem for me in the cockpit.

N2. I won't fly in a light aircraft where it's likely that any rated pilots will be asked to not sit in a control seat by some big-wig who "wants to sit up front". Emergencies happen, and I'm not sitting in the back seat for them. Sorry there Mr. VP... get your license, that seat is yours. Otherwise, I'm sitting there to assist the guy in the left seat if something goes wrong. **** Happens.

N3. I won't fly with anyone I personally deem an *******. Life's too short. I do this for fun. You airline types can have all of them. And yes, it's purely a subjective call on my part, and I'm just fine with that. Call it profiling if you like.
 
Anyone that I think will puke or panic. I'd also avoid folks (other pilots) that have a penchant for twisting knobs - I threatened to throw out a CFI who intentionally reset my Garmin 430, in my plane, to a different mode without asking (he told me that it was "better" if I flew in the mode he changed it to, we had quite the discussion after we landed about who is PIC and how it is much better to discuss those things first, on the ground, and not reset them mid-IPC).

Alpha-mentality? I'd not want to fly with them unless they understood their limits in the plane.

I have flown any number of folks that are afraid to fly. Almost always they don't want to look outside the plane (one insists on wearing foggles when riding in the plane). What makes them afraid of flying tends to make them very fearful of the controls.
 
1 - I'd love to fly that person, maybe they'd get inspired to start flying again.
2 - BTDT, though he hadn't been in a small aircraft. He was scared of the big ones. About 10' AGL on takeoff he kinda freaked out and leaned way back, trying to not see out the window. So, I just went around the pattern and landed. Ya can't save some people. :frown2:
3 - Hmmm. Are they a pilot? If they're not, I'd take 'em flying, provided they're smart enough to know when they don't know anything. If they are a pilot... Well, tougher call.
4 - Nope. Who knows how they'll behave, how they might react physically to altitude, etc. and I don't want them getting the idea that they should learn how to fly. (Airplanes, that is.)
5 - Provided sufficient precautions are taken. In this case, what I do is to make sure they have an airsickness bag handy, and let them know that they should tell me if they start to feel airsick as soon as it starts. I also only fly them when the conditions are right for a nice, smooth flight. I generally take them on a city tour, taking off from 21 and going straight out or 32 and gently turning left after departure - And I talk through everything I'm doing to give them some warning as to what's happening ("Okay, I'm gonna start a left bank here and turn towards the city..."). We fly over the capitol, Camp Randall Stadium, and another local point of interest or two and then head back to the airport. The trick is to get them back on the ground before they even have a chance to think about being sick. Then when they go to get out of the airplane, they notice they have an empty bag in their hands, and that makes us both happy. :)

So, I guess the one I won't take under any circumstances is #4.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Anyone?
Click to expand...

Any use of illicit drugs is incompatible with air safety. Even the so-called soft drugs affect performance, mood and health. If they are "Chronic" they have it in their system.

Alcohol, taken even in small amounts; produces a dulling of judgement, comprehension and attention, lessened sense of responsibility, a slowing of reflexes and reduced coordination, decreases in eye efficiency, increased frequency of errors, decrease of memory and reasoning ability, and fatigue.

Alcohol is absorbed very rapidly into the blood and tissues of the body. Its effects on the physiology are apparent quite soon after ingestion and wear off very slowly. In fact, it takes about 3 hours for the effects of 1 ounce of alcohol to wear off. Nothing can speed up this process. Neither coffee nor hard exercises nor sleep will minimize the effects of alcohol.

Scientists have recently discovered that alcohol is absorbed into the fluid of the inner ear and stays there after it has gone from the blood and brain. Since the inner ear monitors; balance, alcohol there can be responsible for incorrect balance information and possibly spatial disorientation.

The presence of alcohol in the blood interferes with the normal use of oxygen by the tissues (histotoxic hypoxia). Because of reduced pressure at high altitudes and the reduced ability of the hemoglobin to absorb oxygen, the effect of alcohol in the blood, during flight at high altitudes, is much more pronounced than at sea level. The effects of one drink are magnified 2 to 3 times over the effects the same drink would have at sea level.

A pilot should never carry a passenger that is under the influence of alcohol. Such a person's judgment is impaired. His reactions during ascent to higher altitudes are unpredictable. He may become belligerent and unmanageable and a serious hazard to the safety of the flight.

.An excellent rule is to allow 24 hours between the last drink and take-off time. The after effects (hangover) of alcohol consumption also affect performance capability, causing headache and impairing emotional stability and judgment.
 
If the passenger on drugs could repair an in-op ASI in flight...

I might consider taking them along...

;) :thumbsup: :cornut: :dunno: :cheerswine: :ihih: :crazy:

(Someone's going to throw something hard and heavy at me for that one. I honestly couldn't resist. And I'm surprised Ed hadn't gone there already...!)
 
Depends. How long is the flight, and are they chipping in for gas?
 
1. Sesame street 3 minute attention span types.
2. Anyone who gets wrapped up in micromanaging some tedious unimportant detail to smitereens while ignoring everything else around them.
3. Anyone with a whiney or must be better than everyone else or nit picks everything attitude.
4. Whoever freaks out in, for example; a 172 while slowing below 65 kts on final or insists that minimal controllable airspeed is 60kts. Same goes for grass runways or anything less than 75x5000.

The generic default aggressive type A, druggie, wacko's, bipolar, kamikaze, fruitcakes, empty look in the eyes types are eliminated by default.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Can you justify that statement other that citing FAA regs or political corectness?
Click to expand...

I would view the chronic drug user as someone I'm not confident would not flip out. As such that would pose more risk - which is a relative assessment. Note that I don't make any assessment of absolute risk.

Would you have been happier if I had typed "I believe 4 would pose the more significant risk"? In other words, make it clear that it's my belief rather than a claim of fact.
 
John Baker said:
Assuming you are flying a small, two or four seater, what type of person, as a passenger in your right seat, do you think would pose the more significant risk to the safety of the flight?
Click to expand...
Someone you're trying to impress.

dtuuri
 
Bob Noel said:
I would view the chronic drug user as someone I'm not confident would not flip out. As such that would pose more risk - which is a relative assessment. Note that I don't make any assessment of absolute risk.
Click to expand...

Did you know that the chronic use of prescription drugs is reputed to be a bigger problem than street drugs (bu so-called professionals)? But that's not the way it's played out.





Okay I'll buy this
cherokeeflyboy said:
He may become belligerent and unmanageable and a serious hazard to the safety of the flight.
Click to expand...
A good sock in the jaw make solve that (LOL):cryin:

EdFred said:
Ever seen someone on phencyclidine ?
Click to expand...
No I haven't. I had to gogle it just to know what you were talking about.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Did you know that the chronic use of prescription drugs is reputed to be a bigger problem than street drugs (bu so-called professionals)? But that's not the way it's played out.
Click to expand...

I've heard that.

And the OP's loose definition of chronic drug user included legal drugs as well as illegal drugs.
 
cherokeeflyboy said:
An excellent rule is to allow 24 hours between the last drink and take-off time. The after effects (hangover) of alcohol consumption also affect performance capability, causing headache and impairing emotional stability and judgment.
Click to expand...
We serve alcohol on board...
 
I have a very good friend who was a successful OBGYN here in San Diego. Years ago, after going through an especially nasty divorce, he started to maintain himself with prescription drugs. He had an incredibly high level of intelligence, so he just assumed he had complete control over the drugs. He didn't, he kept getting weirder and weirder, the drugs snuck up on him and took over his whole life, he just didn't seem to be aware of it.

He ended up losing his twenty some year practice and spending two years in state prison for shooting up his condo with an Uzi. He has long been out of prison, no longer practicing medicine, but working as a teacher at a medical school in another city. He doesn't do drugs, has a great girl friend, and seems downright happy.

My live in girl friend of many years, a PHD psychologist, went down the exact same road, thinking she was so intelligent, she could handle the prescription drugs. She ended up in a funny farm for many, many years.

I think if these geniuses had been doing street narcotics instead of prescription drugs, they would have known immediately that it was something they could not control, or at least been aware that they were doing not good things to themselves.

I had another MD acquaintance that did the same thing as well. I am convinced that the higher a persons IQ, the more susceptible they are of becoming hard core drug addicts. They all seemed convinced that they could control anything, including drugs.

Sorry about wandering away from the subject of the thread.

John
 
Last edited:
I can think of a couple of CFIs I've flown with who I'd allow to fly with me now, but only if they did not have access to the controls or anything on the panel.:D
 
Pilots that cannot make go/no go decisions on their own.
 
As for #4

Since about the age of 22 I have made an effort to cut off my contact to any user of illicit drugs if I became aware of it. It has served me well, I have never been in a car during a traffic stop where the 'so whose drugs are these' game of musical chairs had to be played. I have been accused of being boring and stubborn, but other than that I have yet to see any downside to this policy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top