Non-certified aircraft and known ice?

[minitour]

Now here is my question, does all the above make me an unskilled or poor decision making pilot?

Honestly, I think when pilots set personal limitations (whatever they may be) and stick to them, it shows the opposite of an unskilled or poor decision making pilot.

I'd trust my wife to a person who says "no" when the conditions are below his/her personal limitations more so than someone who says "ok" just to get the flight done.

IMO

-mini

 

[mustangpilot]

I could not agree more with Minitour, we all must set our personal limits. The best pilots are those who know the regs and base thier own limits off those. So having personal limits does not make you a unskilled pilot its just the opposite from my seat.

 

[mustangpilot]

Awesome man, I drive a CBR to work every day so I know what you mean about being a little nuts. I like the term,,, "Extra Excitment" instead of dangerous.

 

[avbug]

NoNow when you start getting all bent out of shape about flying a single engine IMC starts making me wonder. I have flown skyhawk- bonaza-cherokee- 206ect,, the list goes on,, into imc and I am still here to talk about it....I will admit it is dangerous flying a single engine into IMC but flying can be a little exciting sometimes.

That's your position? That it's dangerous and your survived...therefore it's okay? Perhaps because it's exciting that it's okay, right? The wisdom of inexperience is founded in justification...but apparently just not very good justification. Thrill seeking should never be the foundation of your aeronautical decision making...save that for your CBR.

Another Cirrus deployed a parachute yesterday in severe ice in Alabama. And managed to submit a PIREP of severe icing while descending under canopy after losing control and activating the CAPS system on board. This with SIGMETs, forecasts, and reports of severe icing, in a weather system spawning all kinds of severe activity, including tornados. It seems brilliance knows no end.

They probably got a thrill too...and they survived. Which by your own standard makes it perfectly okay. You got it pegged, mate.

 

[Cat Driver]

Quote:

" The best pilots are those who know the regs and base thier own limits off those. "

Conversley I have known many pilots who "Knew the regs " and I wouldn't let them fly a hand launched toy.

Knowing the regs can be very time consuming and not always all that connected to safety, because regs are dependent on which country you are flying in at any given time.

I can honestly state that I fly in countries that have regs I have no idea of...and I do not think that it has become a safety issue for me yet.

But that is getting us off the subject here.

 

[minitour]

That's your position? That it's dangerous and your survived...therefore it's okay? Perhaps because it's exciting that it's okay, right? The wisdom of inexperience is founded in justification...but apparently just not very good justification. Thrill seeking should never be the foundation of your aeronautical decision making...save that for your CBR.

I have to wonder what your position is on: sky diving, base jumping, scuba diving, walking down the street, smoking, etc.

All are dangerous, but people do them every day. Are they foolish for doing such things?

-mini

 

[mcjohn]

About a week after I got my instrument rating, the weather was bad and all I wanted to do was take advantage of my new rating. Ceiling was 500' and I hopped in a PA-28-161 on a mission to go have lunch with my dad, 2 hours away. 1st time alone in IMC, no autopilot, plane was probably hanging on a thread for IMC legal and fully analog. Flew into KDNL's only approach that would work for me, an NDB. I popped out at 700' agl all sweatin' and stuff (NDBs suck!) Had lunch and went home with all the same misery. I took the flight b/c I had to. Avbug, unless you work for the insurance company or something, then you just had some bad experiences that are making you flip on this subject. Why do we fly? Do we fly because it's so safe? Or because of the challenge and efficiency of travel?
p.s. --Only referring to private endevors. I refused to let my wife go with me.

 

[USMCmech]

I will admit it is dangerous flying a single engine into IMC

Flying any airplane at any time under any conditions can be dangerous.

How much danger you accept is up to you.

Sitting on your couch and watching TV is considered risk free, but actually it is almost always fatal if continued long enough (heart disease, diabetes, ect). Skydiving is considered extreamly dangerous, but in reality sport jumping has acumulated an impressive safety record.



I really hate to break it to everybody, but you are all going to die someday. Just make sure you lived while you were alive.

I know a half dozen people who have died while flying . I fully expect for that number to climb. There is a real possiblity I could meet the same fate. None of this will keep me from doing what I love.

 

[avbug]

I have to wonder what your position is on: sky diving, base jumping, scuba diving, walking down the street, smoking, etc.

All are dangerous...

Skydiving is considered extreamly dangerous...

Skydiving is considered dangerous by the ignorant...but it is not dangerous, nor does one who is informed consider it so.

I do not consider it dangerous. A hazard becomes a risk when it is put in play. The risk can then be removed or mitigated such that it is no longer a risk. Flying to altitude in a jump aircraft represents a hazard, which becomes a risk when one exits the door. The risk is mitigated by numerous factors, from technologically advanced dual backpack parachute systems to advanced training, and of course, experience. The jump itself is not dangerous. The fall is not dangerous. The opening is not dangerous.

High risk jumps such as low level combat insertions, night tactical operations, etc, pose a certain amount of danger...but a sport parachute jump, a normal descent from altitude using an automatic activation device such as a Cypress, with a dual parachute system using a freebag reserve container, audible and visual altimeters, etc...there's a whole lot of routine activities that's far more statistically "dangerous," such that a sport parachute jump can hardly be called a danger.

I don't know anybody that jumps that considers it dangerous. Certainly you'll find a person here or there that has one jump under their belt who is an expert on the subject and thinks it's dangerous...but I know a lot of jumpers with thousands of jumps under their belt who would staunchly disagree.

Certainly the statistics don't bear it out...there's a popular bumpersticker that says "remember when sex was safe, and skydiving was dangerous?"

Lots of wisdom in that.

 

[mcjohn]

That's a bunch f'cking B.S. How about "Mavrick, you're dangerous."
or how about:
"Slider (sniff,sniff) you stink."

Combat insertions, dual Cypress what, audible whaaaa?

 

[minitour]

The fall is not dangerous.

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreally...

The fall from altitude isn't dangerous? Then why are we (you) worried about flying a single into IMC? What's the worst that can happen?

Is the plane going to explode? Certianly no more likely for that to happen in IMC than VMC.

If an engine fails, you're gliding (falling) to the earth...and we know falling isn't dangerous, right?

It must be Spacial-D...well that coule be a problem in a Lear just as easily as a 150. I'm sure there are bizjets (or larger) out there that have gone partial panel at one time or another...so lets just ground all aircraft when it's IFR! That'll solve all the problems.

-mini

*puts on the flame retardant and "brightspark" repellant suit*

 

[avbug]

Mini,

Surely you're not making a comparison between a freefall, and operating a single engine piston powered light airplane in the clouds. Of course you are. A ridiculous apples to coconuts comparison...but you're going to give it a shot anyway.

Disorientation isn't an issue on the skydive. Instrumentation failure isn't an issue, as numerous levels of safety and redundancy are built into the skydive. A closer comparison between IMC flight and making a skydive might be IMC flight in a high performance aircraft with many levels of redundancy, backup instruments, extra powerplants, etc.

In freefall, one jumps with a technologically advanced dual canopy backpack rig, and sometimes with a third, or tertiary parachute as well. One has mechanical and/or digital altimeter(s), and often an audible altimeter. One generally makes the skydive visually, and most often in clear, day conditions. One travels vertically, to a given point, and will reach that point regardless of what one does. So long as one can relax, or hold an arch, then one will get there, stable, and ready to open. Multiple altitude warnings and instrumentation, multiple parachutes, redundancy in deployment systems, backup computerized automatic activation devices with pyrotechnic ability to mechanically sever the parachute closing loop and deploy the parachute even in the event of a container failure.

Flight into IMC in a single engine airplane is typically done with one set of instrumentation, subject to a single power source, usually a vacum source from a questionable and notoriously unreliable carbon vane pump. Once IMC, adequate instrumentation is essential for safe operation, to overcome disorientation, and to maintain aircraft control. Loss of a generator or alternator can cause loss of navigational capability (unlike the jumper, who knows where he is going, and has no need to navigate--excepting certain high altitude tactical deployments). Proper orientation in the fixed wing single piston powered light airplane is necessary to avoid overstressing the aircraft, avoiding excessive speed, or stalling. This is never an issue for the jumper, who can control terminal velocity at will, and is never in danger even at upper limit max-track terminal velocities approaching the 250 mph vertical range.

In IMC, the pilot of the single engine piston light airplane is flying through considerably more airspace than the jumper, exposing the airplane to more weather, more possibilities. Generally without radar or any other insight into weather, the pilot of these type aircraft are at a disadvantage with respect to embedded weather. With one powerplant, the airplane does not have the advantages of the parachute when the engine fails...the airplane loses electrical power, loses vacum power, and loses the ability to maintain altitude. The result is then the potential for loss of control, loss of nav capability, loss of instrumentation and aids critical to orientation...never issues to the jumper.

Like a multi engine airplane, the jumper has two parachutes, where the single engine airplane has one engine and no parachute (excepting the cirrus...which doesn't seem to offer much of an advantage, and serves to draw unwise pilots into unwise places). A pilot may have a chance of fixing an engine failure, but a jumper has a very good probability of clearing a malfunction, and if unable, of selecting another fully servicable parachute without any loss of instrumentation...and has the added advantage that if he or she passes through a preset altitude with a given vertical velocity, the reserve parachute will be opened anyway. With added security such as a Stevens line, the main will open the reserve automatically.

Flying single engine at night, over water, over mountains when one cannot see to select a landing site, or in instrument conditions, is a fools errand...one largely engaged by the inexperienced and the foolish. Most experienced pilots won't disagree.

Spacial disorientation in the Lear? Sure it's possible. I've seen people get disoriented hand flying at night in turbulence with no outside references, when the dutch rolling gets started in a 20 series Lear. But the Lear is different than the piston powered light single...it's got two very reliable powerplants. It's got backup instrumentation; several attitude references, more sophisticated instrumentation and avionics (in some cases), and is generally flown by more experienced, more frequently trained pilots.

Flying the Lear in IMC is a poor comparison to flying a light single engine piston powred airplane in the cloud.

 

[minitour]

So is there a list of airplanes you would approve for flight into IMC?

...and just so I understand...jumping out of an airplane (in flight) is not dangerous?

-mini

 

[avbug]

That's a bunch f'cking B.S. How about "Mavrick, you're dangerous."
or how about:
"Slider (sniff,sniff) you stink."

Combat insertions, dual Cypress what, audible whaaaa?

Truly remarkable. You find it to be wrong and untrue, but at the same time you admit you don't even know what it is. Judgement in ignorance holds little credibility...hence, your post and your opinion on the matter is without merit.

Learn whence you speak, then speak, and you might just have something to say. Good luck!

(you'll need it)

 

[mcjohn]

Truly remarkable. You find it to be wrong and untrue, but at the same time you admit you don't even know what it is. Judgement in ignorance holds little credibility...hence, your post and your opinion on the matter is without merit.

Learn whence you speak, then speak, and you might just have something to say. Good luck!

(you'll need it)

I don't disagree with everything your saying. I'm calling B.S. on your diarrhea of the mouth or should I say of the keyboard and you're stubborn belittling of so many.

Another thing Mr. Know it all. You do a great job explaining how safe instrumentation and multiple parachutes are in skydiving, but for some reason you choose to bypass discussions on the dangers of approach and landing with a parachute. No need to try and show off with fancy semantics here.
Can we say "powerlines" "tree limbs" "broken ankles"
Oh, and by the way:
People can tumble in free fall, knock themselves out, and your uuggghh "third, or tertiary - which one is it?" parachute won't do much good if it opens while your spinning hundres of RPM in a free fall.

I'll bet you come back with some "over our heads" mumbo jumbo semantics regarding how safe landing with a parachute is.
Come on I'll make you feel great!

 

[mtrv]

Flight into IMC in a single engine airplane is typically done with one set of instrumentation, subject to a single power source, usually a vacum source from a questionable and notoriously unreliable carbon vane pump. Once IMC, adequate instrumentation is essential for safe operation, to overcome disorientation, and to maintain aircraft control. Loss of a generator or alternator can cause loss of navigational capability

Since we're using skydiving with multiple backups as examples, I would like to point out, the fact that many new single engine aircraft do,

use two sets of batteries, two alternators/buss systems, or perhaps a backup alternator attached to the vacuum pump pad, and/or smaller backup batteries tied to essential instrumentation.

Interchangeable PFDs, and MFDs, linked to Satellite Weather, moving map terrain and terrain warning, and electrically or vacuum powered backup analog type instrumentation. And then of course, throw in a battery driven hand-held moving map GPS & Nav/Com as the 3rd source of backups.

These day's, just the hand-held moving map GPS is an extremely valuable source as a backup instrument, should the primary navigation systems fail.

And, if the engine DOES suffer catastrophic engine failure over a rugged mountain area at night, or DAYTIME ------
then hope you're flying a Cirrus!

 

[USMCmech]

AVbug, you've got a ton of knowledge, but not much wisdom.

The sad thing is that you have so much knowledge to contribute, yet you have made your self irealavent to many people through arrogance, name calling, and a "I know better than you" mentality. I now read your posts and think "well that's Avbug for ya". Some good info can still be gleaned from your posts, but most of it goes in one ear and out the other.

I don't mean any of this as an insult to Avbug, but more as a warning to anyone else. Young guys like me would love nothing more to learn from some of you older pros who have been there and done that. Please remeber how it was when you were first learning.



I would consider skydiving's risk to be fairly close to the risk level of single engine IMC.

Both are realitively safe if you use proper equipment, are properly trained, and use good judgement. The inhreant risks are still there, but you can do a lot to minimize them. Both are extreamly dangerous if any one of those are not pressent.

FYI I have seen video of a "double malfunction" where a jumper had to cut away his main and his reserve deployed all twisted. Truely frightening!

 

[FN FAL]

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreally...

The fall from altitude isn't dangerous? Then why are we (you) worried about flying a single into IMC? What's the worst that can happen?

Is the plane going to explode? Certianly no more likely for that to happen in IMC than VMC.

If an engine fails, you're gliding (falling) to the earth...and we know falling isn't dangerous, right?

It must be Spacial-D...well that coule be a problem in a Lear just as easily as a 150. I'm sure there are bizjets (or larger) out there that have gone partial panel at one time or another...so lets just ground all aircraft when it's IFR! That'll solve all the problems.

-mini

*puts on the flame retardant and "brightspark" repellant suit*

Although I can understand where you are going with this mini, I have to side with Avbug, in that a two parachute skydiving system correlates with a twin-engine aircraft in regards to system redundancy.

A single parachute system, such as one used for base jumping, might be a better correlation to a single engine aircraft.

 

[minitour]

Since we're using skydiving with multiple backups as examples, I would like to point out, the fact that many new single engine aircraft do,

use two sets of batteries, two alternators/buss systems, or perhaps a backup alternator attached to the vacuum pump pad, and/or smaller backup batteries tied to essential instrumentation.

Interchangeable PFDs, and MFDs, linked to Satellite Weather, moving map terrain and terrain warning, and electrically or vacuum powered backup analog type instrumentation. And then of course, throw in a battery driven hand-held moving map GPS & Nav/Com as the 3rd source of backups.

These day's, just the hand-held moving map GPS is an extremely valuable source as a backup instrument, should the primary navigation systems fail.

And, if the engine DOES suffer catastrophic engine failure over a rugged mountain area at night, or DAYTIME ------
then hope you're flying a Cirrus!

I guess someone had to finally spell it out for him.

But you know even with all the backup batteries, alternators, gyro pumps, etc., if you don't have a second engine...

FN - that's fine, I totally understand the concept of backups...I'm just wondering what happens when someone does start tumbling during the freefall, etc.

Here's the point: Even drinking water can be dangerous...everyone calculates how much danger they can tolerate and then does what they deem "safe enough". Yes, it's justification...plain and simple. You justify eating a big mac by saying "well I was hungry", just like you justify flying a SE in IMC by doing your job as a Pilot In Command which means you obtained all information about the flight, then made a decision based on safety and legality...if you aren't doing your job as Pilot In Command, you don't have any business taking a Kite into IMC let alone an aircraft...even one with 10 backup attitude and navigation indication systems and 15 engines.

-mini

 

[avbug]

People can tumble in free fall, knock themselves out, and your uuggghh "third, or tertiary - which one is it?" parachute won't do much good if it opens while your spinning hundres of RPM in a free fall.

Remember the "cypress-what" that one poster knows nothing about? It's an automatic activation device, computer operated, device used to open the reserve parachute, with no intervention from the jumper. A tumbling, unconscious jumper spinning "hundreds of RPM" (that was pretty laughable) jumper will have the cypress-equipped reserve just like if he were conscious, stable, and fully functional.


Ever seen someone spinning hundreds of RPM in freefall? Ever been in freefall?

USMC mech, you almost made me misty. Get a grip on reality and deal with what you see and read. You have the option of not reading it...not changing what I write. Tough.

I would consider skydiving's risk to be fairly close to the risk level of single engine IMC.

Based on your extensive experience with both? Or based on the uninformed opinion of the casual observer? Having watched a video doesn't really count as experience, and one is hard pressed to lend credibility to an asessment of danger based on watching the video...however truly frightening it might have been.

I've deployed reserve parachutes during malfunctions on jumps, cleared malfunctions on jumps, landed reserves and main canopies on airfields, in fields, in the brush, in cactus, on hillsides, and even in strong winds and at night. I've had the learning experience of landing without power after descending from IMC following an engine failure in a piston powered single engine light airplane...and landing on a gravel strip. A long time ago, something I won't be repeating, something from which I learned...and my opinion is drawn on some very vivid experience.

My last parachute malfunction occured a couple of years ago during a sport jump. It occured during an approved modification to my vector sport rig. On the first jump with a new pocket for my pilot chute, I experienced difficulty extracting the pilot chute, made two attempts, and deployed the reserve. I landed without incident and even recovered the free bag. Another jumper on the same load also experienced a malfunction...a professional jumper, photographer, and competitor who works internationally. Both of us stowed our gear and were on the next load for another jump with backup rigs. Had it been "dangerous," neither of us would have been there. In fact, I made the next skydive a two-way with his girlfriend and partner.

The issue of injuries or fatalities while landing was raised...

You do a great job explaining how safe instrumentation and multiple parachutes are in skydiving, but for some reason you choose to bypass discussions on the dangers of approach and landing with a parachute.

That really has nothing to do with or any comparison to flying single engine piston driven light airplanes in instrument conditions...more akin to trying to land them...and there are more than enough landing accidents with light piston driven airplanes to make that a reasonable comparison. Both are fully controllable, both have a high potential for a safe arrival, and in both cases, stupidity can lead to some unpleasant results. More people are injured or killed landing good canopies today than from parachute malfunctions...even with the few malfunctions that take place...but then a heck of a lot of pilots are injured or killed by landing accidents, stalls and spins in the pattern, etc...including the pilots of the cirrus in Lancaster this past week who were in the pattern AND tried to use their CAPS parachute system. Go figure.

You're attempting to cloud the issue with confusion...making ridiculous comparisons that are nonsensical and borne of absolute inexperience with the topic. Doesn't fly.

Since we're using skydiving with multiple backups as examples, I would like to point out, the fact that many new single engine aircraft do,

use two sets of batteries, two alternators/buss systems, or perhaps a backup alternator attached to the vacuum pump pad, and/or smaller backup batteries tied to essential instrumentation.

A backup generator attached to a vacum pump pad?

Few single engine light piston driven airplanes have any redundancy at all.

And, if the engine DOES suffer catastrophic engine failure over a rugged mountain area at night, or DAYTIME ------
then hope you're flying a Cirrus!

First of all, we don't do things in aviation based on "hope," and second, the Cirrus doesn't have a very enviable record, thus far.