Annual Inspection, Lots Of $$ This year! Mag's Oh My!!!

[USMCmech]

Avbug,

This is what puzzles me.

In your posts you come across as extreamly cautious, almost to a flaut. IE calling single engine IFR unsafe in any plane and anybody who does it needs to have their head examined.

YET, you have flown air tankers which is one of the riskiest jobs in aviation. I have spoken to few pilot who have flown tankers, and obviously they are very safe pilots, yet the inherent risks are there and cannot be elimnated.

This seems inconsistant.


All that said, Avbug is the guy who I want doing the annual on my plane, giving me a BFR, ect. He obviously knows what he is talking about. I may make a different judgement call, but his input wouldn't steer you wrong.

He is a valuable asset to this message board.

 

[jbDC9]

This is what puzzles me.

In your posts you come across as extremely cautious, almost to a fault. IE calling single engine IFR unsafe in any plane and anybody who does it needs to have their head examined.

YET, you have flown air tankers which is one of the riskiest jobs in aviation. I have spoken to few pilot who have flown tankers, and obviously they are very safe pilots, yet the inherent risks are there and cannot be elimnated.

This seems inconsistant.

Yep, I've thought the same thing. No offense Avbug... most of the time I like to read your posts, well done, articulate, thoughtful, etc. Then there's other times where you come across as an egomaniac who looks down on others who dare not have the same experience as you. Single engine IFR? Big deal, it happens. Why give a guy grief and talk down to him for doing something you wouldn't do yourself?

 

[avbug]

YET, you have flown air tankers which is one of the riskiest jobs in aviation. I have spoken to few pilot who have flown tankers, and obviously they are very safe pilots, yet the inherent risks are there and cannot be elimnated.

Flying tankers isn't about accepting risk, any more than any other kind of utility flying. It's about eliminating it. I don't approach flying an air tanker any different than I do flying a passenger leg in a certificate operation. I look at every aspect of the flight, before it ever starts, and work to eliminate risk.

When you or I line up today for a takeoff, we have precalculated our takeoff distance. We have refusal speeds, we have proceedures to undertake in the event of engine failures, equipment losses, etc. We don't execute the takeoff without a full fare of backup proceedures and the performance to handle whatever conceivable emergency might arise.

Flying a tanker is no different. From daily briefings about airspace, weather, hazards, relative humidities, fuel moistures, resource availabilities, etc, to the aircraft preflight, to systems checks and all that goes with flying on a normal sortie, we do every bit as much preparation. When we depart we have frequencies locally, enroute, at the fire, and for troops on the ground as well as air contacts. We have a list by aircraft callsign of all the aircraft going to the fire or that are expected to get called to the fire. We have a listing of hazards, obstacles, etc. We're even briefed on powerlines that might be out there. If we're entering airspace that needs coordination, a dispatch center jumps on it, and we work with them before we ever get there.

Approaching the fire there are specific proceedures and limitations as to how far we can go before establishing communications. We have a nocom ring which we can't enter without being in full communication, and for inexperienced pilots, there are special proceedures requiring aerial supervision and other aircraft on site, as well as daylight and weather requirements. Over the fire, we plan the drop carefully, have exits planned in the event of an emergency, and treat it just as professionally and carefully as any other aspect of professional aviation. Perhaps more so because we realize the significance of what's out there.

Risk? It's not about accepting risk, it's about eliminating it. I may be given a direction by an incident commander or an air attack, an air supervision module (ASM) or a Leadplane. I will evaluate it based on the existing ambient conditions, my aircraft performance, the potential outcome with respect to the drop and effectiveness, the fuel, the exit and entry to the drop, etc. If I don't like it, I refuse it, or tell the person with whom I'm working how it can better be done. We work together. In some cases, another aircraft without a load, a leadplane or ASM, goes down there and makes the run before me, checks it for exit, hazards, turbulence, winds, etc. We don't leave things to chance, and we avoid risk like the plague.

All someone need say is "safety of flight," and there's no arguing about it. If I see something over the fire that's not safe and say so, there is no more discussion about it; that word is now law. Anybody out there can do the same thing, and that observation is going to be respected. And we do it, too.

I got a commendation for the previously mentioned landing in which I called for the trucks; it was a safety award. The agencies and the personnel in them place a very high premium on safety for ground and air operations. Even though it occured during a very active and very violent fire when air support was desperately needed, and even though the aircraft ended up being down for four days away from it's home base and unable to support the fire at it's busiest time, no questions were asked, because taking risk and chance isn't part of the operation. Everybody works hard as a team to eliminate it.

We load retardant, and someone takes specfic gravity readings of the loaded or loading product to ensure that it's weight is correct, which is critical to an already heavy aircraft. Safety personnel are available on the ground to ensure nobody gets hurt when I'm hotloading, looking the aircraft over for damage, ensuring that I have water in a very hot cockpit, or anything else I need. We do everything possible in every way to ensure that we're available and alive to do it again tomorrow. This isn't a thrill seeking business; it's a professionally run operation. It's not about taking risks, it's about coming home at the end of the day to do it again.

Why give a guy grief and talk down to him for doing something you wouldn't do yourself?

Precisely for that reason. Because I won't do it, because I know it's dangerous, and a big risk. Because I feel strongly enough about it to say something.

A pilot was lost over a fire a few years ago. Gary Nagel, flying an S-2, was killed on a fire in California. It was very rough on that fire. A leadplane was rolled over and damaged over the fire; winds and turbulence can make it a violent place. But something happened in which the system broke down. That fall at the biennial meeting in Reno, several pilots stood to say that they knew it was bad, they thought it was dangerous. They were waiting for someone to shut the show down, to call it for safety reasons and put everybody on the ground. It wasn't until Gary was killed that someone finally took that step.

I don't believe in waiting that long, or remaining silent. Nor do I feel any great drive to remain exceptionally tactful about it when the point is worth making. I've never been one for tapdancing around the hat.

I flew on a fire on a very steep area southeast of Grangeville, ID, some years ago, in a PB4Y-2. Two tankers were assigned to the fire, with a number of ground troops working it directly. It was very steep, in a canyon, and the winds were stiff. It didn't look too bad on the approach, but on our drop, we got slammed hard. I made the call. The person with whom I was flying wanted to return when we were given the call we long to hear "Load and Return." I said no. He said yes, and I told him fine, you come back here on your own...which wasn't happening. The air attack officer overhead listened, and grounded both tankers from off the fire. Smart move. The other tanker, coming out of McCall, wasn't happy, and was very vocal about not being happy with my decision. I was in the doghouse, but it was a safety related call, which I stand by today, which I've made before, and will make again.

Single engine IFR? Single pilot IFR is by far the most dangerous thing we can do in general aviation. We fly instruments such that it's a routine thing today, but single engine single pilot IFR in a small underpowered limited performance piston airplane with limited nav and com capability, no autopilt or auto flight control system, and failure-prone systems is chock full of risks that cannot be eliminated or even scarcely mitigated. It's about accepting the risk, which is an unprofessional and unsafe act...generally undertaken by the inexperienced and those who haven't lived or flown long enough to know better.

In your posts you come across as extreamly cautious, almost to a flaut.

I certainly hope so, because that's how I am in person, too.

I'm alive for that very reason. Perhaps not tomorrow, for that I can't say. But today, I am. A combination of caution, learning the hard way, and taking great pains to learn from other's mistakes in order to not repeat them...I sincerely believe whence I speak, and for that reason, I'm not quick to keep quiet about those beliefs.

If others choose not to listen, that's their choice and their problem, but somethings need to be said.

 

[USMCmech]

Avbug, first off, know that I have a great respect for you, the experiance you have, and your input. I always try to learn from anybody who has "been there and done that".

However, I beg to differ with your philosophy

Risk? It's not about accepting risk, it's about eliminating it.

That is simply not possible on ANY flight in ANY airplane.

Any time you take off in an airplane you accept some risk (or drive a car, ride a bike, or stand on a ladder for that matter).

Certianly flying a older airplane, at max gross weight, in the mountians, at high density altitude,over a raging fire, in low visibilty, around other airplanes who may or may not be on freq, is filled with risk. It is only because of safety minded profesionals like yourself that prevents this type of flying from claiming more lives than it easily could.

In my mind being a safe profesional pilot is about not taking any unnessacery risks, and minimizing the ones that can't be eliminated.



I am afraid that when you tell someone that he is "stupid" for takeing a risk that you may disagree with, yet is not outside of conventional wisdom, you place yourself in danger of "crying wolf" and being ignored when you do have something important to say.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[avbug]

That is simply not possible on ANY flight in ANY airplane.

It's possible on every flight, every aircraft, all the time.

You find one risk at a time, and eliminate it. No magic wand to wave making everything all better, but instead planning, forethought, calculation, good decision making, proper inspection, and preparation.

Flight in a single in bad weather? Eliminate the weather. Wait for it to clear. Flight in single over the mountains at night? Eliminate the mountains and go day, or pick a pass, or go the long route over roads that offer a known surface.

Heavy takeoff? Reduce weight, plan for a downhill departure with lowering terrain. Wait until later in the day or leave earlier in the morning.

Find risk, eliminate risk. One at a time. If you find yourself accepting risk, you're justifying, and justification is truly the narcotic of the soul. Addicting, mind numbing, foolish, deadly.

A popular copout is the assertion that "everything in life has risk, so this is probably okay." Justification.

"We can never eliminate risk, so we need to learn to live with it." Justification.

"I'm a careful pilot so I can handle bigger risks than less careful pilots." Justification.

"I've flown a thousand hours without a problem, so I can go another thousand with the comfort of knowing nothing will happen." Justification.

Justification doesn't make anything right, it's a just a way of lying to yourself to tell yourself it's going to be allright. You can tell yourself you're on the ground when you're not, but that doesn't reduce your distance from the ground. You can tell yourself you're safe, when you're not, and that doesn't eliminate danger or risk, either.

Find it, take proactive steps to eliminate it.

You punch me. I don't pretend it's not coming. I block. I step into it and take your mind. I step back where you can't hit me. I step aside and let you pass. I shoot you. I use your momentum to toss you. I strike you first. I don't justify standing there and getting hit by saying I'm a big boy, I can take it. I don't justify myself by saying you're probably a poor aim and will likely miss. I don't justify by assuming you can't punch hard. I don't tell myself I've been hit before, so this will probably not be a big deal. I take action to meet the needs of the occasion and eliminate the risk that standing before your fist presents to me. Justification is failure, it is suicide, it is falsehood.

The beliefe that one cannot eliminate risk, that one must accept it, is justification, and it is a lie. Don't be trapped by that lie...be creative, find ways to eliminate risk, not live with it.

 

[TrafficInSight]

I can annual the airplane every single day, go day VFR every time, cancel the flight if there's a cloud in the sky, plan my fuel burn to the hundredth of a gallon, and always carry a parachute and it still might not stop the engine from disintegrating at 400 feet... Should I just stay on the ground then?

I'm really not getting where you're coming from... maybe small words?

 

[USMCmech]

You find one risk at a time, and eliminate it. No magic wand to wave making everything all better, but instead planning, forethought, calculation, good decision making, proper inspection, and preparation.

All of these things has led to a truely amazing acompishment (probably the most amazing thing in the 20th century).

Flying in an aluminum tube at 8 tenths the speed of sound, at an altutude higher than Mt Everest, with outside temps 50 below, through very crowded skies, with a minimum speed at over 140 MPH, has become signifantly LESS RISKY than driving to the airport.

However you are still takeing a risk even on a flight in a airliner, not to mention the more risky flying that encompases general aviation.

I have seen data closely comparing flying GA aircraft with riding motorcycles. Which I think is a fair comparison.

Anytime your body is moving at over 100 MPH ther is a risk that you may come to a sudden stop. If you do, you will most likely not survive, I don't see how you eliminate this risk without staying on the ground.

 

[avbug]

Anytime your body is moving at over 100 MPH ther is a risk that you may come to a sudden stop. If you do, you will most likely not survive, I don't see how you eliminate this risk without staying on the ground.

There you go with justification, again. The risk is only there if you allow it. Eliminate that risk. Think.

You can certainly do it by staying on the ground. But you don't have to risk coming to a "sudden stop."

When I was eighteen I started spraying. My boss kept me on a tight leash, had us fly formation where he could keep an eye on me. I knew everything then. Tucked in close, I could play in the wake of the lead, and in a tight ag turn, close to the stall and close to the ground, the aircraft would buffet in the leads wake, try to roll off on the outside, tuck in on the inside. I got white knuckled, knew all about stalls and spins, and felt like I had to be in the riskiest place in the world.

My boss put me there to eliminate the risk. One day he 'splained it to me.

So what if the aircraft stalls in that turn? Are you going to come to a sudden stop and just drop out of the sky? If you fly into a vacum all of a sudden, do you quit flying, and disintegrate? Not hardly. Your aircraft has momentum, inertia, energy. You will keep moving forward, and that vortice, that gust, that shear, that buffet you felt will pass, and before you know it you're back into good air again.

We see this with passengers...each bump is a terror, a boogie man hiding beneath the aircraft with a sledge hammer, monsters waiting to saw through the wing and eat them alive. But we know the bump passes, and we will never feel that bump again. Another perhaps but we learn to let each moment slip behind us, as our understanding increases. A wing drops. We're spilling lift, and lift is keeping us alive! We're going to die! No, we just pick up the wing again, hey, we're flying once more. I can do that. Let's do it again. That terrifying bank, that big risk of falling out of your seat to the ground so far below...that went away when we realized that the risk is eliminated by centrifugal/centripetal force...we stay stuck in our seat and don't fall after all.

My gyroplane bunts...pushes over and crashes. PIO, pilot induced oscillation, becomes a factor at any speed, but more so at higher speeds, as can bunting. A risk...it's hurt and killed a lot of would be gyro pilots. So I don't go as fast, not so quick on the controls, I avoid negative loaded maneuvers and pushovers, keep the rotor loaded all the time...eliminate the risk.

I don't want to come to a sudden stop, so I stay alert, I learn and practice and train landing that airplane without a motor. I make students do it, landing on roads, in fields, and convincing them that they'll never have a flight with me without numerous, constant, frequent multiple emergencies and engine failures. They come to get nervous if they aren't having a failure, wandering what's coming next. They learn, and in so doing, learn to eliminate the risk by planning the risk right out of their way.

Hard to run out of fuel by not burning off the bottom half of the tank. There's that risk addressed. Hard to do a lot of things when you plan ahead, and for the things you don't anticipate, training frequently and seriously enough to be prepared is a way of helping eliminate those risks.

Don't justify. Think.

Eliminate.

Find risks, and make them go away. Make them go away by finding alternate soloutions, paths, backups.

I'm walking down the street. You pull up alongside me, grab me, pull me into your car. You have power when I resist, because you're stronger. By pulling away, I pit my strength against yours, and I am gauranteed to lose. I gamble. There's the risk. The risk is that it's a gamble, and the outcome, the odds, aren't good. So I eliminate the risk of you being bigger, stronger. I go that direction. You pull me toward the car, and I decide that's where I want to go, too. I take away your strength, and in so doing eliminate risk, and thereby take control. I now have power over you, and the outcome is now my decision. Find the risk, eliminate it.

You do that by changing what is risky, by creating avenues of escape, by doing whatever is necessary to see that the outcome is favorable.

Long flight over the mountains. Take instruction in flying around the mountains; learn the basics. Stock your airplane. Pick a route that allows you to make a safe forced landing. Carry fuel, flares, a mirror, water, protective clothing. File a flight plan. Practice forced landings. Get some experience flying around terrain. Watch the weather and plan your flight accordingly. Approach the ridges at an angle, carry enough altitude to give you options, choose your route close to help, carry a roadmap to find where roads intersect the mountains, providing you the lowest flyable terrain. Calculate your performance. Get enough sleep, eat a good breakfast, meditate and put aside the divorce or the cat having surgery, or the fact that your three year old daughter just flushed your wedding ring for the sixth time. Eliminate those risks and open yourself up to new possibilities to ensure that you don't come to a "sudden stop."

Yes, you can do it, and unless you do it each and every time, then you have no business being up there.

Say no to speculation and justification. You have the right to be safe, and the privilege to make it so.

 

[USMCmech]

Avbug I have no doubt that you don't take ANY unecssary risks.

However, my point that you seem to be missing is that you are taking your precious body (which does not withstand impacts well) up into the air at over 100MPH (sometimes well over).

Eventually gravity is going to win if enough things break.

UAL 232

TWA 007

All those brand new lycomings with crankshafts that broke without warning.

Midair colisions with someone who is not as safety concious as you.


We have improved the odds so much it is hard to comprehend sometimes, but they can still bite.

When I was eighteen I started spraying. My boss kept me on a tight leash, had us fly formation where he could keep an eye on me. I knew everything then. Tucked in close, I could play in the wake of the lead, and in a tight ag turn, close to the stall and close to the ground, the aircraft would buffet in the leads wake, try to roll off on the outside, tuck in on the inside.

WHAT?! you let your boss pressure you, a young unexperianced pilot, into flying formation areobactics at low altitude! I can't belive ANYBODY would be so stupid! The planes were porbably overweight, and poorly maintained. You need to quit while your ahead, take up acounting, and leave flying to profesionals.

Note the sarcasam.

 

[nitrogen]

Yeah, sure

Its well documented in the past that Avbug used several alternate aliases to come to his aid when challenged on this board. Review the archives if you doubt me. Some were so transparent it was laughable. He actually attempted to gain credibility by vouching for himself (haha) using other sign on names.

He becomes hysterical and belittling when challenged. He has been cautioned on numerous occasions about abusive behavior toward others and has been suspended from this board at least once recently that I know of.

I am not saying you're one of his aliases but I will remain cautiously pessimistic.

Maybe he's just a kook who went over the hill. I guess that could be.

Regardless, his advice is uneven, capricious, and often outright dangerous in my opinion. Go back and review the discussion on Emergencies and inflight fires. His views are at best reckless and at worst suicidal.

I won't engage him. I am just cautioning people to realize what they're dealing with when they interact with him.

I know who Avbug is. I've never met him, but I know his name from having read his posts for many years (much more the 3 years) and having corresponded with him on a number of occasions over the years. No, I'm not going to name him, but I will say that I have looked him up in the FAA database, and he does indeed posess the certificates he says he does. His pilot certificate has a type rating for an airplane which he would be extremely unlikely to have unlesss he flew for a specific air tanker company. He also holds another fairly uncommon ceritificate which would be consistent with having crewed another type which that same company was the sole operator. You may disagree with Avbug, but he's not a fraud. He's got the certificates and ratings he says he does.