- Joined
- Feb 15, 2003
- Posts
- 1,178
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
suicidal?
- Thread starter Vladimir Lenin
- Start date
- Watchers 0
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2003
- Posts
- 1,178
I have no idea what that means, but very often I learn that pilots who fly close to the ground, or in difficult circumstances, or beyond the limits of what some consider their personal boundaries, are "crazy," or "suicidal." How can this be?
Pilots fly A-10's into the face of heavy fire. Dangerous, risky. Heroic, or suicidal? I don't believe you'd find many who would classify this as suicidal.
Pilots fly a single engine T-65 close to the canopy spraying glyphosphate on coca plants to cut down on drug money used to fund terrorist activities. The aircraft frequently get shot up. Suicidal, or someone performing a job that most are unwilling or afraid to do?
Charles Lindbergh's grandson flies a single engine aircraft across the Atlantic to commemorate his progenitor's vaunted flight. Suicidal? Not hardly.
Every week pilots ferry single engine airplanes across the pacific and the atlantic, indeed, all over the globe. Suicidal, or working pilots performing a professional service?
Not enough information is provided to suggest that the pilot of the experimental aircraf that put down in the water was suicidal. To suggest as much is irresponsible. Anal to you, perhaps, but I would be displeased to learn you might banty such suggestions about were you to learn second hand of something I did...from a few incomplete paragraphs in some rag.
The mere accusation of a mental problem is enough to cost one a medical certificate, to end a career, or make it very difficult. It's not a frivilous comment; you're screwing with a man's life. Presenting such headlines and throwing them out as anyting more than uninformed journalism is not responsible, nor is it productive in light of what we should be trying to accomplish as an industry.
Pilots fly A-10's into the face of heavy fire. Dangerous, risky. Heroic, or suicidal? I don't believe you'd find many who would classify this as suicidal.
Pilots fly a single engine T-65 close to the canopy spraying glyphosphate on coca plants to cut down on drug money used to fund terrorist activities. The aircraft frequently get shot up. Suicidal, or someone performing a job that most are unwilling or afraid to do?
Charles Lindbergh's grandson flies a single engine aircraft across the Atlantic to commemorate his progenitor's vaunted flight. Suicidal? Not hardly.
Every week pilots ferry single engine airplanes across the pacific and the atlantic, indeed, all over the globe. Suicidal, or working pilots performing a professional service?
Not enough information is provided to suggest that the pilot of the experimental aircraf that put down in the water was suicidal. To suggest as much is irresponsible. Anal to you, perhaps, but I would be displeased to learn you might banty such suggestions about were you to learn second hand of something I did...from a few incomplete paragraphs in some rag.
The mere accusation of a mental problem is enough to cost one a medical certificate, to end a career, or make it very difficult. It's not a frivilous comment; you're screwing with a man's life. Presenting such headlines and throwing them out as anyting more than uninformed journalism is not responsible, nor is it productive in light of what we should be trying to accomplish as an industry.
3
350DRIVER
It sounds far from suicidal after reading that. I am sure one could think of a million and one other ways to take their own life in an airplane versus what happened in this case. Obviously if he had "intent" to commit suicide then he would not have hit the water in a manner to have been able to be "rescued".
Story line would have been "search and recovery" and surely the outcome would have been different if he indeed wanted to take his life.
Just my $.02
3 5 0
Story line would have been "search and recovery" and surely the outcome would have been different if he indeed wanted to take his life.
Just my $.02
3 5 0
3
350DRIVER
also....
I believe that this in itself would convince most that he had no intent on taking his life. Why report engine trouble then.... He could have very easily nosed the plane over and hit the water rather hard.
I would be interested in reading a more "detailed" report if and when you are able to come across one.
c h e e r s
3 5 0
I believe that this in itself would convince most that he had no intent on taking his life. Why report engine trouble then.... He could have very easily nosed the plane over and hit the water rather hard.
I would be interested in reading a more "detailed" report if and when you are able to come across one.
c h e e r s
3 5 0
mattfish42
missed the ground
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2003
- Posts
- 90
Ya know, I've always been a little puzzled by the disproportionate emphasis placed on avoiding single-engine flight beyond power-off gliding distance from shore. I realize that every little bit of extra safety is good, no dispute there, but why all the concern about this one particular situation? Lately I've been practicing my eights on pylons, and you know that any kind of engine problem that close to the ground would be really inconvenient. Whenever I fly back home to PWK there are several stretches where I can't see any decent places for a forced landing among all the houses, forest preserves, and power lines down there. Night IMC would be a pretty bad time as well.
On one IFR cross country lesson not too long ago, bad weather was moving faster than we expected; our options were to either accept vectors the long way 'round ORD directly into the bad stuff, accept vectors the short way 'round ORD by flying about ten miles off shore over the lake, or land somewhere else and wait it out. I decided to fly over the lake. My instructor accepted the decision at first, but as soon as we were "feet wet" he started getting really anxious about the situation. I thought he might be deliberately overreacting in order to educate me, but he said no, he was really that nervous about our engine quitting and either drowning or dying of hypothermia.
I don't get it. Why this reaction about the water, but we think nothing of low altitude night IMC over congested areas?
On one IFR cross country lesson not too long ago, bad weather was moving faster than we expected; our options were to either accept vectors the long way 'round ORD directly into the bad stuff, accept vectors the short way 'round ORD by flying about ten miles off shore over the lake, or land somewhere else and wait it out. I decided to fly over the lake. My instructor accepted the decision at first, but as soon as we were "feet wet" he started getting really anxious about the situation. I thought he might be deliberately overreacting in order to educate me, but he said no, he was really that nervous about our engine quitting and either drowning or dying of hypothermia.
I don't get it. Why this reaction about the water, but we think nothing of low altitude night IMC over congested areas?
3
350DRIVER
Any time one decides and chooses to fly a single engine aircraft into conditions and situations where you can't control a few of the "important" variables then you are chancing your luck. I surely would not be caught in a single engine aircraft in low IMC having to shoot an approach down to minimums if I did not have a "way out" or VFR weather somewhere in the area nor would I fly over a large body of water that may end up coming back and biting me. You loose that one engine then you are screwed.
As a CFII I always made sure my students were given a good amount of solid imc time but I also made sure I had a safe window where I could break out and be able to make a choice on where to put the plane down should I loose that engine while in the soup. If you are solid IMC and the ceilings are way down and you loose the engine then you better be having a pretty good streak of luck cause you will not have many options when you break out right as you see the ground. Fortunately the engines are very reliable .
Flying over the larger bodies of water depends on many things like what is the oat, distance from land, freezing , etc, etc, etc, ... I would much rather loose the engine over water with decent circumstances then to loose it in solid imc that is right to the deck.
3 5 0
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2003
- Posts
- 1,178
Ty Webb
Hostage to Fortune
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2001
- Posts
- 6,524
Risk is largely a matter of perception.
When flying a Westwind from Puerto Rico back to the States, I put away my chart once we passed Grand Turk and started pointing out places in the Bahamas that I had flown to years ago, when I had my own Arrow and was building flight time during the last Aviation Depression (1991-1996.
As I passed Crooked Island and pointed out the lighthouse, my FO said, "You have been out here in a single-engine aircraft?" when I told him I had, not only once but many times, he said, "You're crazy! We're over 350 miles from shore!".
I pointed out that we weren't 350 miles from shore, only from the US, and that flying a single out here was reasonable if you did it right.
In my case, I was flying my own plane, which meant I was more in touch with it mechanically (Knew any/all sqwaks, aware of normal fuel and oil consumption, normal sounds, vibration levels, etc).
I always flew on an IFR flight plan. I would always fly at the higher altitiudes, keeping in touch with FSS. Since you had to be above 6000' to reach them on the radio, you would fly to the island of intended landing, cancel from altitude and spiral down over the landing field. Same with the departure- spiral up to altitude, file and open your flight plan, and then depart land. I would also advise using a cellphone from altitude to let a resposible person also know your departure, route, and when and whom you want them to notify if they haven;t heard from you by a set time.
Load the airplane in a way that you can get out with a raft. Discuss ditching with your pax beforehand, including how to secure the liferaft so it doesn;t float away, nor get pulled under with the aircraft. Make sure they know to pop the door before touchdown so it doesn;t jam shut.
Always track the nearest land, keeping ships in sight as well. Monitor several nav sources. We used to use Loran, which could be spotty at times in he Bahamas. Invest in a Pilot's Guide to the Bahamas and Caribbean- it's a great source.
Years later, I got a job flying a CE402 throughout the Bahamas, but it was never as much fun as it was in my Arrow, with a cooler full of food and beer and our snorkeling gear, blasting off for a week in the out islands . . . far from the tourist crowds, eating with locals and swilling rum out under the stars at night, listening to nothing but the waves.
Risk. . . . low. Benefit . . . high.
When flying a Westwind from Puerto Rico back to the States, I put away my chart once we passed Grand Turk and started pointing out places in the Bahamas that I had flown to years ago, when I had my own Arrow and was building flight time during the last Aviation Depression (1991-1996.
As I passed Crooked Island and pointed out the lighthouse, my FO said, "You have been out here in a single-engine aircraft?" when I told him I had, not only once but many times, he said, "You're crazy! We're over 350 miles from shore!".
I pointed out that we weren't 350 miles from shore, only from the US, and that flying a single out here was reasonable if you did it right.
In my case, I was flying my own plane, which meant I was more in touch with it mechanically (Knew any/all sqwaks, aware of normal fuel and oil consumption, normal sounds, vibration levels, etc).
I always flew on an IFR flight plan. I would always fly at the higher altitiudes, keeping in touch with FSS. Since you had to be above 6000' to reach them on the radio, you would fly to the island of intended landing, cancel from altitude and spiral down over the landing field. Same with the departure- spiral up to altitude, file and open your flight plan, and then depart land. I would also advise using a cellphone from altitude to let a resposible person also know your departure, route, and when and whom you want them to notify if they haven;t heard from you by a set time.
Load the airplane in a way that you can get out with a raft. Discuss ditching with your pax beforehand, including how to secure the liferaft so it doesn;t float away, nor get pulled under with the aircraft. Make sure they know to pop the door before touchdown so it doesn;t jam shut.
Always track the nearest land, keeping ships in sight as well. Monitor several nav sources. We used to use Loran, which could be spotty at times in he Bahamas. Invest in a Pilot's Guide to the Bahamas and Caribbean- it's a great source.
Years later, I got a job flying a CE402 throughout the Bahamas, but it was never as much fun as it was in my Arrow, with a cooler full of food and beer and our snorkeling gear, blasting off for a week in the out islands . . . far from the tourist crowds, eating with locals and swilling rum out under the stars at night, listening to nothing but the waves.
Risk. . . . low. Benefit . . . high.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
