Getting along well with others.

[Timebuilder]

Recently, we had a spirited discussion involving smaller, slower planes in close proximity to larger, faster planes. As the President returned home, another GA pilot violated TFR airspace, puting our flying of non commercial aircraft in further jeopardy. A few noses got out of joint.

Let's talk a little about "rights".

You have a right to the airspace.

You have a right to abide by the regs.

You even have a right to be rude.

You don't have a right to put other's rights in jeopardy, and you particularly don't have a right to put other's lives in jeopardy.


Being a good pilot isn't so much a function of the size of your plane, or how fast you fly. It's a matter of how well you size up the situation, and your ability and willingness to act accordingly, as determined by the prevailing conditions. That is the essence of PIC authority. If you are unwilling to do so, aviation would be best served by a change in your approach to flying, and the underlying attitude that you bring into your cockpit. Check your text, and look up "hazardous attitudes". The FAA has identified several attitudes, and their "antidotes". Every pilot would do well to read them.

We can prevent further regulatory encroachment by flying smarter, now.

 

[Timebuilder]

If you are an AOPA member, and subscribe to "e pilot", you have just received this story:

FEDS WON'T CHARGE PILOT WHO CAUSED WHITE HOUSE STIR
Federal law enforcement officials say no criminal charges will be filed against the pilot of a Cessna 182 who caused the brief evacuation of the White House Wednesday night. The pilot violated the temporary flight restriction (TFR) over Washington, D.C., after diverting around weather. That very sort of pilot error was the topic of AOPA President Phil Boyer's Pilot Town Meeting in Nashville, which took place at virtually the same time as the violation. "In the climate that exists after the terrorist attacks, pilots have got to fly smarter than ever," Boyer told the assembly.
"It is imperative that GA pilots adhere to the restrictions. Not doing so could undo all that AOPA has accomplished since September 11."

Boyer reiterated that pilots must check and understand all notams before flight.
See ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2002/02-2-226x.html ).

.....and this, too, speaking of airspace....

CINCINNATI CLASS B CHANGE GOOD, BAD FOR GA
Effective July 11, the airspace over Cincinnati will change, and that's good news and bad news for general aviation. The FAA published a final rule that modifies Cincinnati Class B airspace. The good news is that it provides an AOPA-recommended airspace cutout for Clermont County Airport.
The bad news is that it also raises the ceiling of the Class B airspace to 10,000 feet msl.

See
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2002/02-2-213x.html ).

If you think that the things you do and the choices you make don't have an impact on aviation, think again.

 

[dlwdracos]

I don't disagree with anything you said Timbuilder. However, in light of the subject that started all this discussion, I have a few points.

First, a 182 is not a low performance dog. Most of them are in the low $70's to high $90's and are well equipped IFR capable 130knot airplanes. Flying at 10,000 MSL is not unreasonable for these airplanes. Saying that they shouldn't be shareing the same airspace as Jets is just plane ignorant.

If this had been a NORDO Taylorcraft or J-3 I would agree that it was not wise to be flying just above the top of a busy class B airport.

However, in light of the airplane involved, I don't see your point (or the points that brought about the nastyness).

 

[Timebuilder]

I understand.

I think the problem lies in dodging weather, in this case the remnants of the earlier thunderstorms, while flying an instrument capable airplane under VFR in a checkerboard of special use airspace.

I would have looked at the forecast, the radar, and the TFR, and remained on the ground until the convective activity died down, then filed IFR and gone flying. By 9:30pm, most of the nasty weather had passed on, and Baltimore and Washington looked like a beautiful carpet of lights.

Certainly, a C-182 can share the same airspace as jets. I'm trying to suggest that doing so requires a level of caution and expertise that many pilots have lost since their checkride day. The visibility of a transponder, and the control by ATC, even for advisories, is almost mandatory.

I don't want to see us lose the "almost" because of a disregard for proper procedures, or even a stubborn adherence to some regulations that may not ensure separation of traffic.

 

[KlingonLRDRVR]

Regarding the "Whitehouse flyby" I think the key words are in the press release. The Feds are not going to charge him criminally. Criminal matters would be the charged out by a US Attorney who would have a hard time proving intent to bust the airspace. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt and all that sillyness, ya know. Nothing was said that I know of about the Fed's we all know so well on violating him. All I know is I would not want to be in his hotseat. I doubt the FAA is done with him.

KlingonLRDRVR

 

[LR25]

If he was avoiding weather, than thats that.

I not going to risk bending an airplane up or getting killed for airspace.

What should have happened was maybe quauk emergency and not go into a TRW if you know there is very sensitive airspace around, and then of course wave to the F-16 driver, it would only be the nieghborly thing to do.

LR25

 

[Timebuilder]

Yep.

The best way to avoid weather that you aren't prepared to take on is to delay your takeoff.

I think the pilot could have exercised better judgement in his flight planning.

 

[cvsfly]

Ever heard of a 180* turn? The weather was in front of this moron. He excercised his right to fly where he did that day and in the process threatens my future future right- and my future employment - to fly in that same airspace. You don't exist in a vacuum. Every accident effects all of us in increased insurance rates. Every violation effects all of us in potentially more regulation which we don't need. Every news broadcast with another idiot pilot scares the hell out of the general public who already consider general aviation a security threat and an elitist group with more money than sense. Get with the program. If you can't see the difference in operating a 130 kt, VFR, no-weather radar aircraft in a complex NE corridor airspace with TRWs at 10,000' with turbine aircraft that have closure rates of 300 kts or more than operating over Kansas on a CAVU day - then you have alot to learn. Also, have you ever seen your blood oxygen level at 10,000' (especially if you smoke)?

 

[aggiepilot87]

... Get with the program. If you can't see the difference in operating a 130 kt, VFR, no-weather radar aircraft in a complex NE corridor airspace with TRWs at 10,000' with turbine aircraft that have closure rates of 300 kts or more than operating over Kansas on a CAVU day - then you have alot to learn. Also, have you ever seen your blood oxygen level at 10,000' (especially if you smoke)?

A truly amazing level of arrogange from a King Air pilot!

 

[Timebuilder]

When you can't attack the facts, attack the man.

I was hoping for better.

 

[aggiepilot87]

I understand.

I would have looked at the forecast, the radar, and the TFR, and remained on the ground until the convective activity died down, then filed IFR and gone flying. By 9:30pm, most of the nasty weather had passed on, and Baltimore and Washington looked like a beautiful carpet of lights.

Certainly, a C-182 can share the same airspace as jets. I'm trying to suggest that doing so requires a level of caution and expertise that many pilots have lost since their checkride day. The visibility of a transponder, and the control by ATC, even for advisories, is almost mandatory.

I don't want to see us lose the "almost" because of a disregard for proper procedures, or even a stubborn adherence to some regulations that may not ensure separation of traffic.

In my earlier posts, I clearly stated that voilators need to be prosecuted for errors.

I also made a point about closure rates that seemed to miss its target... obviously I didn't speak plainly enough.

Letting that discussion go for now, Dracos and I seem to be getting lectures directed at us from pilots far less experienced that I'd choose to accept a lecture from.

BTW, who was rude? If you can't stand the heat of someone challenging your opinions, stay out of the kitchen!

 

[Timebuilder]

Truthfully, Aggie, I think you were rude. If you needed a lecture, then so be it. I need one from time to time myself. I'll be more than happy to be called "arrogant" if it means an increase in safety and efficiency, and a chance to avoid a larger regulatory burden.

If you are judging my experience by the hours in my profile, you have misjudged. I only began logging time five years ago, when I started working on certificates. However, even with zero time, my background as a journalist tells me that a great many bad things happen while operting within the letter of the regulations, and that the safest pilots go several steps farther to ensure safety. I've been flying with pilots like that since age 11. That's well over three decades.

I expected to hear some sort of substantive refutation of my contention that pilots need to act ahead of the regulatory curve, and not simply say that the regs allow me to do this or that, so there. Do you have a good argument against operating any aircraft in the safest manner our airspace system will allow? That's really what this is about.

I recall an accident in Florida, where a pilot out for recreation was struck by a jet, killing all involved. I want to keep that from happening again.

Is what we have here, as the Sheriff said, a failure to communicate? I don't think so. Just an "unusual attitude".

 

[350DRIVER]

It is rather easy to monday morning quaterback this and discuss the what if's?, but's?, etc, etc, etc, yada, yada, yada......Every pilot has the "RIGHT" to do as he so chooses to do without having to rely and ponder the "opinions" of others and we "hope" the pilot makes the right choice however we must remember that this pilot was certificated and had "proven" himself along the lines to understand weather, airspace, etc......

We have no say in any way, shape, or form as to the "punishment" for the violations that took place and the feds which does have the "authority" thought otherwise than to violate/charge this pilot... .


C H E E R S

3 5 0

 

[Austpilot]

Timebuilder??

Timebuilder - I don't think any body has rights - WE and THEY have responsibilites, no one has a right to be in the sky - they have a rsponsibility that if they are in the sky, then they adhere to the books when they are there.

We have a responsibility to all and sundry when we fly an aeroplane around. I get a bit nervous when I hear talk of the right to be here there and everywhere as I feel anybody who thinks they have a right to do something is going to do it and wo betide anybody who gets in there way and will do it regardless of who they come into conflict with.

Time builder, I'm not having a go at you personally mate but I think in a modern world we have to shift from having rights to having responsibilities and thats a two way street.

Thats my call, but then again, I get along with everybody!! must be my quirky, weird sense of humour and the fact that I love drinking lots of beer, chatting up loose women,listening to the Beach Boys and and cooking mean curries.

 

[avbug]

Flying is not a right. It is a privilege.

There is a big difference between the two. Rights are inalienable; permenant, immutable, enforcable, and gauranteed.

Privileges may quickly be lost by mere disrespect of the regulations that establish them.

The opportunity to hold a pilot certificate, and exercise the privileges attached to it, is not gauranteed, and is not a right. This opportunity may be lost if care is not taken. I believe this is all Timebuilder was stating in his origional post. (I may be wrong...being wrong is a right...not a privilege ).

 

[Timebuilder]

Allright, you guys are right.....I mean privileged....oh heck, I give up!

Yes, I no doubt chose the wrong word at the head of this line. I worries me when a couple of pilots try to tell me that there is no problem with flying around near busy airspace with no radio, no transponder, and nothing but their eyes to protect themselves and unsuspecting jet traffic form a chance encounter. It's also legal to walk in a snowstorm in a T-shirt. Smart? Nope. Somehow, becuase I often burn Jet A, I have become a part of an "arrogant" group.

I just hope these guys are still around next week, following another round of exercising their "right".

 

[prodigal]

failure to communicate

Timebuilder mentioned that great line from Cool Hand Luke. It seems I read that the errant pilot in question was not talking to anyone. There's your failure to communicate. How smart is it to operate in that high density airspace even in good wx without at least being on flight following, let alone in bad wx. Bad decision making in my book.

 

[cvsfly]

I think the gist of Timebuilder's statement was to comment on those who propose the closed-minded view that they have a "right" to use any airspace that an anybody else. We proposed that one has to use discretion when operating in a complex, dynamic airspace. General Aviation has its back up against the wall. If we do not teach and demand professional precision, we will loose our "right" to fly where we want to - whether it be a C-182, LR-35, or B-737. Yes, I do have a "right" to comment on someones obvious errors as a taxpayer, citizen and as someone who may be called to comment on future regulations (thats going to effect my "rights" and my profession and employment). Mostly, I have the right to comment in the hopes that all of us can learn from this guys mistakes (the preferred way I like to learn vs learning through my errors). Those who want to debate the use of "right" or "priviledge" are welcome. Those who post a statement and disagree with the rebuttle are welcome. Those who respond with unproffessional name calling are welcome to .....well you know what. Well enough for this .... outta here....peace.

 

[jethro]

Get over it

Keep on sniffing the Jet-A guys - I'll fly in, around, and over your precious Class B airspace as I please. And for anyone who doesn't like it, when I'm flying over a busy bravo at 90 knots in my C172 and hear a controller stop a jet's climbout for me I'll take great satisfaction in knowing it could be you.

 

[bigD]

Ouch...fly where you want to, but that's a pretty poor attitude. Safety is safety - be it a 172 or Citation X. We're all in this together, man.