Informal poll for the IR's: do you fly single piston in IMC?

[pilotyip]

The same as the age 60 thread, thanks

 

[A Squared]

Because people keep voting on it.

WHat he said. every time someone votes in the poll, it pushes the thread to the top like someong posted.

 

[Say Again Over]

Isn't it the PIC's main function in life to "eliminate risk", that's why we get the big bucks, duh!

Anybody that thinks adding a second engine eliminates the risk of crashing due to mechaincal failue is deluding themselves by USMCmech

Any of us with Cessna 400 (piston) time can relate to that statement.

Cheers SAO

 

[Lead Sled]

Isn't it the PIC's main function in life to "eliminate risk"...

Eliminate risk, I don't think that's really possible. Don't you mean minimize risk? After all, there is a certain risk associated with every human activity - from sleeping to free climbing. Our job is to minimize the risks we face. Oh well, I'll shut up - I know what you meant. I'm bored.

LS

 

[avbug]

One doesn't shoot to hit one's target, one shoots to hit it exactly; one shoots to destroy it. One doesn't paint to dabble on the color, but to cover what is being painted.

If one flies to exact standards, the the practical test standards, or any legal deviations, are not an issue; no law or regulation stipulates that one must perform to a minimum standard.

If one undertakes to eliminate risk, one will certainly take a big step toward minimizing it as a natural function of eliminating it.

 

[Lead Sled]

If one undertakes to eliminate risk, one will certainly take a big step toward minimizing it as a natural function of eliminating it.

To be pragmatic, if you were to totally eleminate the possibility of dying as the result of an aircraft accident you would: 1) Never get on board another aircraft for as long as you live; and 2) move into an underground bunker so as to not expose yourself to the risk, albeit slight, of having one fall on you. Everything else that you, I, or anyone else does is to minimize risk, not eliminate it. Perhaps we're really talking semantics here though.

LS

 

[avbug]

I said nothing about dying.

Risk elimination and death are not the same thing. Risk isn't inevitable. It's a pilot that makes a risk. Risk is a hazard in play. The pilot who sees a hazard and puts it in play has created risk, is taking a risk, is gambling. We do not gamble.

Risk elimination is a philosophy, a way of life. It occurs by necessity every second of every flight, moment by moment, as an ongoing process. We look for hazards and keep from putting them in play. We find ways over, around, under, or manage to open back doors to prevent the hazard from becoming a risk. We mitigate hazards, not risks, to prevent them from being. Most certainly risk elimination is possible. Moreover, it's a necessity. Rather than retype what's been said, read back to what's been said. I believe I was clear. Most definitely it is NOT a matter of semantics.

Death is a certainty. Risk is not. Death we cannot eliminate, but risk we can. Eliminating risk can in many cases forestall death, ideally for many decades to come. Risk and death are not the same.

 

[USMCmech]

Isn't it the PIC's main function in life to "eliminate risk", that's why we get the big bucks, duh!

Every pilot can and should "eliminate" all unessacry or foolish risks. Flying inverted under power lines whould fall under this catagory.

Then you should reduce or minimize your exposure to all the risks that can't be eliminated.

The never ending pursuit of eliminating risk is one we should all take part of.


However we must recognize that we live in an imperfect world and we can never completely eliminate risk from ANY human activity. Flying, walking, fishing, needlepoint, or watching TV all have risks that can't be eliminated.


Whenever we fly we place our faith in a highly engergized, very complex system of mechanical and human interactions that WILL fail us eventualy. Machine break, Humans make mistakes. The more complex the system the more likely it will fail. The more energized the system the more spetacular the failure will be.

If every one of us flys long enough we will have a crash, it is a mathamatical certianty. There is no way to eliminate the fundamental inherant risk of flying through the air.

We look for hazards and keep from putting them in play.

A hazard is a source of potential harm. A hazard has three modes:

1 Dormant (there are no people around; there is no risk). An airplane sitting on the ramp falls into this catagory

2 Armed (there is a person or people in the vicinity; there is risk). If a human is siting in the cockpit, then the hazard is "armed"

3 Active (human reaction time is too slow to combat the effect of the hazard; it is too late to prevent the conseqences of the hazard). Once you are lift off the runway, the hazard is "active"

The only way to keep the hazard from coming into play is to not participate.

 

[USMCmech]

Taking a quick look at the poll,

About 1/3 of posters have no problem flying behind one engine in the clouds.

About 1/3 of posters see it as an increased risk, but not unacceptable.

About 1/3 of posters see it as an unaccepable risk.

 

[avbug]

If every one of us flys long enough we will have a crash, it is a mathamatical certianty. There is no way to eliminate the fundamental inherant risk of flying through the air.

Show me that math. This is no more certain than the trite, but overused expression respecting gear up landings that "there's thems that has, and thems that will." Hogwash.

Then again, people tend to focus on the wrong things. Mention risk elimination and some focus on death and dying. Mention risk elimination, and some focus on aircraft accidents, crashes, rashes, or the flavor of the day. Most respondants are too busy crying that it can't be done to find out if it can...and therefore will never accept it. Truth is that it can be done, and it had better be done. All the time.

With regard to the poll...1/3 of the respondants have no problem flying behind one engine in instrument conditions. This is different than 1/3 of the respondants have no problem flying behind one engine.

Again, the focus gets put in the wrong spot. So many are quick to zero in on the concept of engine failure, when instrument failure and single-source instrument power failures are a much bigger hazard that differentiate single engine visual flight from single engine instrument flight. Vacum failures are very common in light airplanes, as are electrical failures...the power sources, and generally the only onbaord power sources, for the aircraft instrumentation, anti-ice, radar, etc. Just as bad as one engine to fail is one system source to fail. Couple that with limited performance, limited ability to handle convective weather, limited ability to see weather, limited or no deice/anti-ice capability, and you have a plethora of risk factors waiting to be brought to life by a willing pilot.

Again as discussed before, those willing to undertake single engine piston instrument flight are genrally inexperienced pilots with low hours and low experience bases. Most experienced pilots are less willing to accept this, or any other risk (myself included). Some of us are willing to drive, buy a ticket, wait it out, turn back, or find something else to do, because we know better...mabey, just mabey, because we learned the hard way.

Rather than give birth to risk to learn a lesson, eliminate it, learn on the backs of others, and live. Smart.