5 related adults dead in Cessna 340 crash

[Tantalum]

will only be a "contributing factor" in the NTSB report. PIC always get at least some blame.

"Pilot's failure to maintain level, controlled flight after collision with asteroid caused separation of the aircraft wings, horizontal stabilizer, and vertical stabilizer"

 

[Salty]

How many dead horses must be beaten before the gods of POA are satisfied? Maybe that would be a better question than pointless speculation on an accident with an open investigation.

All of them

 

[Clark1961]

All of them

May I humbly suggest that each participating beater limit themselves to no more than ten (10) whacks with no trading, gifting, selling, appropriating, or otherwise endeavoring to increase the individual total whack count (WC)? Perhaps a monitor should be appointed and any individual who exceeds the WC will be subject to public humiliation such as time in stocks or painting parking stripes downtown? I think this would be a healthy thing for both the whackers and POA.

 

[Ryan F.]

That is one h3ll of an assumption to make about other pilots. You might dislike their lack of taste or tact, but to accuse them of being TOTALLY uninformed is limiting your objectivity.

I disagree completely. It's an objectively true statement. We are all, as of today, totally uninformed. We know there was an accident. We know people died. We know there was low IMC at the time. That's it. We may know more tomorrow, or in a week or a few months, but today, we know nothing more than these basic facts. There is not a whit of evidence to lay blame at the feet of the dead pilot, yet it has been heaped on.

We're not in violent disagreement.

Actually, I think we are.

I think your posts are in conflict with your own opinion.

Given the simplicity and consistency of my statements, I find that to be a rather entertaining conclusion on your part. But at this point, I'm okay with disagreeing and letting it go. Based on your style of debate, this is just going to go in circles from here on out.

I stand behind everything I've said. I feel I've been consistent and thorough. I retract nothing.

I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

 

[Ryan F.]

Right, we should all avoid IMC conditions at all times because it can induce Spatial D. Got it! Should I hand in my Instrument Rating now?

Eloquence!

That's the beauty of risk management. The only way to eliminate risk in aviation is to leave the aircraft in the hangar. So from the get-go, we are accepting a compromise.

At some point we all decided that the convenience of traveling at highway speeds was worth the risk of a head-on collision. So despite the fact that entire families die horrific, burning deaths, many times per year, we still drive automobiles on the highway.

In aviation we decided that the convenience of reliably arriving at our destination despite low visibility was worth equipping airplanes with the proper equipment to handle those conditions, and training pilots to deal with them as well. It's a riskier activity that day VFR flying, for sure, but we choose to do it, because the risk is worth the reward.

You can move the slider around based on your experience, your equipment, your comfort level, and even your profession. But there is a slider, and we each get one, and we each let it rest in a different place. For many of us the slider starts at the extreme conservative edge and slowly moves into progressively "riskier" profiles as we learn to manage those risks.

We've all seen that guy (maybe even in this thread) who believes his slider is placed appropriately, but everyone else, well, they're just wrong. There's a perfect spot for all of us, and if we'd just listen to this one guy, we'd all be safer, better pilots for it.

Of course, that's clearly a fallacy. And ironically, people who believe that, over time, prove themselves wrong as their limitations change. I'd bet that a lot of us increase our risk exposures to a point, then start dropping them back down. Lots of reasons why; experience, close calls, age, more to lose (family), you name it. Speaking for myself, in some regimes my willingness to take "risk" might seem insane to another pilot. And in others, I might seem excessively risk-averse (how many of you feel comfortable flying around at night in a single engine airplane? ... I don't.)

The fact is, departing in low IMC in a plane as capable as a Cessna 340 simply does not, in and of itself, suggest a given pilot's ADM and risk management are suspect. With more data, perhaps we will decide that in fact, it wasn't wise for this unfortunate man to have felt that this was within his wheelhouse of acceptable risk and commensurate airmanship. But maybe the data will also show that it had nothing to do with the weather, that it was a mechanical issue, medical, or who knows what. Of course low weather will always increase the risk... but we still drive automobiles, don't we?

This really takes a dispassionate, objective, sober assessment to really "get it" down to the core. The knee-jerk isn't gonna cut it. The 5-word assessment of a 20 page problem isn't going to work, either.

And judging a dead guy without having any clue? Those who have... should be ashamed.

 

[Dave Theisen]

Was it Richard?

I don't think it was what he was trying to do, I got a "oops, that wasn't what I was trying to do, let me try to set that up again" or something along those lines.

I like to get weight off the nose wheel early on and I ride the mains a little more than some other guys, so with a little more back pressure than he was thinking he failed it, but I think he failed it a little later than he wanted lol

Got to admit, some of the situations that can out you in the sim are very rewarding and just things you wouldn't want to try to replicate in the actual plane.

Yup, it was Richard. After 10 years of going somewhere else, I was very pleased with the Flight Safety program. All top notch folks.

 

[ralarcon]

I can buy, somewhat, what you're saying about the Sheriff's opinion James, but there are a few law enforcement folks on here and your name calling, "donut muncher", etc, could be left out of your posts. FWIW most Sheriff departments, down south anyway, do have aviation branches, fixed and helo. So they may be familiar with aviation more than you think. One of the CFIs at the flight here is a Sheriff deputy for example.

My CFI happens to be a retired Polk county Sheriff Dept. Captain. Has been flying for many years. I live in nearby Hillsborough County, near the border with Polk County. Both Sheriffs Dept. are well led and have demonstrated , for many years, to the public, and Law enforcement organizations, a high level of professionalism. I have the utmost respect for both organizations. I have been living in the area for 20 years. Aviation in both Polk and Hillsborough counties is very advanced and both departments have very active aviation sections. Commercial, General, Law enforcement and Military Aviation is big and well developed in this part of Florida.

Cheers

 

[denverpilot]

So you don't want to interact, you just want to criticize from the gallery. When put on the spot to clarify what it is you are criticizing, you only insult.

I have made no insults. If you’d like insults I can oblige but they’re generally useless. “Weak” is not an insult, unless you’re fancying yourself an accident investigator.

Make that list of training required to insure a twin cessna pilot/operator yet? Referenced it back to the silly (mostly useless) conversation about this incident? Have the pilot’s logbook handy? Any clue whatsoever about his experience level or training?

You seem to still be having an emotional reaction to some made up insult you think I made, about a made up possible cause for this incident. I’ll wait.

Emotional reactions to pure fiction, usually aren’t very useful in accident investigation.

 

[Cooter]

I stand behind everything I've said. I feel I've been consistent and thorough. I retract nothing.

That lowers you a bit in my estimation. You allow for a prejudice in your own judgement but don’t extend that courtesy to others. You assume too much in thinking you know the motives and thoughts of the people that offend you.

I wouldn’t have made any mention of it except that you rejected that very thing in a previous post. I don’t assume the pilot in question is stupid, and I don’t assume the posters here are stupid. Based on the information you linked to, we should question why people respond that way, not outright reject it and label it stupid. I’m for hearing about what shaped their opinion, that makes sense to me. I don’t have to agree with it, but it doesn’t mean I can’t learn from it.

It’s a shame, I think you have some knowledge and experiences worth discussing. I have some ideas about why people react the way you oppose, and I think there are some learning points to be drawn from it. If they are just cast aside, those points are lost.

I wish you the best.

 

[mscard88]

OK y'all, time for the horsie.

 

[denverpilot]

Look beyond weather.

Gasp! Look at the whole picture?

Not likely around here.

 

[Cooter]

I have made no insults. If you’d like insults I can oblige but they’re generally useless. “Weak” is not an insult, unless you’re fancying yourself an accident investigator.

Make that list of training required to insure a twin cessna pilot/operator yet? Referenced it back to the silly (mostly useless) conversation about this incident? Have the pilot’s logbook handy? Any clue whatsoever about his experience level or training?

You seem to still be having an emotional reaction to some made up insult you think I made, about a made up possible cause for this incident. I’ll wait.

Emotional reactions to pure fiction, usually aren’t very useful in accident investigation.

We may have a legitimate disagreement about what an insult is, but that’s fine. I don’t care.

The only other relevant fact is that you categorized my argument as weak, but you can’t tell me what that argument is so that I can respond to it. I’m not going to chase ideas in your head around hoping I get lucky and address the right one. So far, every thing you’ve posted about my position is false.

I haven’t judged the pilot. I haven’t assumed why he crashed. I haven’t assumed anything about his experience. I simply noted that the conditions would have been challenging, and I base that on my personal experience. Based on my personal criteria, I would not have been taking off under normal circumstances. That is all I have personally said about it.

You have created a phantom to argue against. I cannot respond to that, and I cannot fix your inability to follow the discussion. Quote me on whatever it is you disagree with, and I’ll respond to it. I’m not even saying I can’t be wrong but you haven’t pointed out anything I actually argued.

I’ve asked you why you ignored some of my statements. I’ve asked you to clarify what it is you are calling weak, but you haven’t done it. Why?

 

[RyanB]

How many dead horses must be beaten before the gods of POA are satisfied? Maybe that would be a better question than pointless speculation on an accident with an open investigation.

Yeah no kidding. I’m surprised, but I’m not surprised this thread has reached 6 pages. What more is there to say??

 

[denverpilot]

We may have a legitimate disagreement about what an insult is, but that’s fine. I don’t care.

The only other relevant fact is that you categorized my argument as weak, but you can’t tell me what that argument is so that I can respond to it.

...

I’ve asked you why you ignored some of my statements. I’ve asked you to clarify what it is you are calling weak, but you haven’t done it. Why?

I can. I choose not to because you haven’t done your homework on any of this.

I instead provided a method to broaden your knowledge of what you’re talking about. What’s your background in twin engine aircraft accident investigation or operation, again? I don’t own one but I do know what most insurers require of the owners and know there’s quite a bit of training that would alleviate “Spacial D” as a typical culprit for an accident all by itself.

I’ve ignored the rest of your statements mostly because the vast majority of the thread like most accident treads here, is fiction. Pure fiction. (And most of the statements of others, you might note.)

Your argument about “Spacial D” (is that like Tenacious D? Is it a band name all capitalized like that? LOL...) was so far out the edge of whack that I said something.

There’s plenty of whack on this thread. That one was just extra special.

Continue on with the group foot-inserting session based on fiction. I forgot how annoying it is to respond to someone emotionally invested in the usual fiction.

The phrase, “Oh yeah, that guy probably has a crapload of time training for that and it’s a very low likelihood of a root-cause” is way less popular than arguing about what killed the poor guy and multiple family members, around here.

Or as lawyer friends would say, “Objection, facts not in evidence, Your Honor.” But beyond that, common sense is not being applied either.

Why I bothered to point that out, I don’t know. Go back to having your “interactive” fun at the expense of the dead people.

 

[Clark1961]

Yeah no kidding. I’m surprised, but I’m not surprised this thread has reached 6 pages. What more is there to say??

Four score and seven years ago...

 

[Cooter]

I can. I choose not to because you haven’t done your homework on any of this.

I instead provided a method to broaden your knowledge of what you’re talking about. What’s your background in twin engine aircraft accident investigation or operation, again? I don’t own one but I do know what most insurers require of the owners and know there’s quite a bit of training that would alleviate “Spacial D” as a typical culprit for an accident all by itself.

I’ve ignored the rest of your statements mostly because the vast majority of the thread like most accident treads here, is fiction. Pure fiction. (And most of the statements of others, you might note.)

Your argument about “Spacial D” (is that like Tenacious D? Is it a band name all capitalized like that? LOL...) was so far out the edge of whack that I said something.

There’s plenty of whack on this thread. That one was just extra special.

Continue on with the group foot-inserting session based on fiction. I forgot how annoying it is to respond to someone emotionally invested in the usual fiction.

The phrase, “Oh yeah, that guy probably has a crapload of time training for that and it’s a very low likelihood of a root-cause” is way less popular than arguing about what killed the poor guy and multiple family members, around here.

Or as lawyer friends would say, “Objection, facts not in evidence, Your Honor.” But beyond that, common sense is not being applied either.

Why I bothered to point that out, I don’t know. Go back to having your “interactive” fun at the expense of the dead people.

What are you talking about? Are you delusional? I’m supposed to chase down some stupid “homework assignment” that has nothing to do with what I’ve said, but you won’t bother to even get someone’s position right before attacking it. You are embarrassing yourself because you opened your mouth before having a clue what you were talking about, and now won’t admit that you were wrong. Your understanding of my argument is totally wrong. You cannot find where I’ve said any of the things you are responding to. Quit being a low life and own up. Right now you look very small.

Or, go ahead and continue your incoherent rambling, I’ll just ignore it like I do with the rest of your posts. Shame on me for actually trying to “interact”, which you acknowledge your aren’t interested in doing. It seems you are too consumed with your own proliferation of words to actually consider those of others.

 

[olasek]

Yeah no kidding. I’m surprised, but I’m not surprised this thread has reached 6 pages. What more is there to say??

And when Dr Richard Rockefeller perished in a very similar crash 2 years ago we barely had 5 (very brief) replies in the thread - and what's the difference - he was a lone victim and it wasn't around Christmas holidays.

 

[Rory]

And when Dr Richard Rockefeller perished in a very similar crash 2 years ago we barely had 5 (very brief) replies in the thread - and what's the difference - he was a lone victim and it wasn't around Christmas holidays.

Surely this is not complicated.

Dr. Rockefeller didn’t put four other people at risk when they could have been socializing over breakfast until the fog burned off.

Of course, this is a discussion where a lot of people are intent on ignoring the forest because it might get in the way of their favourite trees.

Why discuss the obvious when you could be discussing such esoteric issues as legality.

 

[FloridaPilot]

No

Just have my 4th amendment rights crapped on with those nazi "saftey" and "DUI" checkpoints.

Had a few things stolen and the cops just give me a report that isn't even made of good enough paper to wipe myself with, and they put in ZERO effort at recovering said items.

I've been through something similar. I got rear ended a little while back and I took a picture of the damages and the license plate of the 4X4 that did it. The person sped off and left me there standing. The cops came and I gave them, A picture of the car, The license plate number and picture of the person that did it. They told me that they couldn't find the person that did it. It didn't bother me that I ate the damages but what bothered me was the fact that person sped off without facing any consequences. I'm quite sure if he hit someone he would've done the same thing but even I wouldn't paint all police with the same broad brush.

How many dead horses must be beaten before the gods of POA are satisfied? Maybe that would be a better question than pointless speculation on an accident with an open investigation.

What is really disturbing is we can't solve our own discussions without wanting the POA police to intervene.

 

[mscard88]

What is really disturbing is we can't solve our own discussions without wanting the POA police to intervene.

Well they're arguing the same respective opinions back and forth, back and forth, once or twice ok, but now page 6....

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

Guys,

 

[Zeldman]

Four score and seven years ago...

Man, Mr. Lincoln sure wasn't much of a ladies man.... only 4 score in 7 years..????

 

[Tantalum]

Dr. Rockefeller didn’t put four other people at risk when they could have been socializing over breakfast until the fog burned off.

The January (?) issue of Flying had an article about safety, basically said that you compromise safety the minute you decide to go flying. Aviation is all about calculated risks. There is no guarantee that in VMC that he would have been fine either, people wreck twins pretty often in VMC. It seems rash to auto blame the fog (though it seems most obvious, I agree)

0/0 takeoffs in GA 91 aren't as uncommon as you think, it's not a guaranteed death sentence. They can be done safely *IF* you are smart about it. Check this video

Why discuss the obvious when you could be discussing such esoteric issues as legality.

I think it's important we look critically at everything during an accident and not jump to conclusions. Sometimes the obvious is a red herring. IMC by itself isn't a root cause.. there are people here that appear to be suggesting that any non VFR/VMC flight is crazy

 

[Clark1961]

Man, Mr. Lincoln sure wasn't much of a ladies man.... only 4 score in 7 years..????

Kennedy did much better...

 

[Velocity173]

The January (?) issue of Flying had an article about safety, basically said that you compromise safety the minute you decide to go flying. Aviation is all about calculated risks. There is no guarantee that in VMC that he would have been fine either, people wreck twins pretty often in VMC. It seems rash to auto blame the fog (though it seems most obvious, I agree)

0/0 takeoffs in GA 91 aren't as uncommon as you think, it's not a guaranteed death sentence. They can be done safely *IF* you are smart about it. Check this video


I think it's important we look critically at everything during an accident and not jump to conclusions. Sometimes the obvious is a red herring. IMC by itself isn't a root cause.. there are people here that appear to be suggesting that any non VFR/VMC flight is crazy

Good vid but even that isn’t true 0/0. You could see probably 100 ft there. In helos I’ve taken off with true 0/0 in dust while VFR and from the ground while IFR with a hood on... not supposed to do the later though. At any rate, yes you can do a departure with 0/0 safely.

 

[Rory]

yes you can do a departure with 0/0 safely.

Are you saying that you would do it in a winged aircraft (not a helicopter) in zero visibility fog with four family members, including your kids, on board, when you could avoid the fog by having breakfast until it burns off?

Should be possible to respond with a simple yes or no.

 

[Velocity173]

Are you saying that you would do it in a winged aircraft (not a helicopter) in zero visibility fog with four family members, including your kids, on board, when you could avoid the fog by having breakfast until it burns off?

Should be possible to respond with a simple yes or no.

Yes.

 

[Rory]

Yes.

Thanks for answering. You and I are living on different planets.

A second question. Would you tell your passengers, in this case family members, about the heightened risk you have accepted, or just lead them onto the plane? I’m curious to know whether they would be given the information they need to make an informed decision of their own about whether to fly with you.

Of course, as a result, some people might say something really radical, such as “How about we go have breakfast until the fog burns off”.

 

[denverpilot]

What are you talking about? Are you delusional? I’m supposed to chase down some stupid “homework assignment” that has nothing to do with what I’ve said, ...

LOL. It’s very clear you don’t know what I’m talking about.

Nor anything about operating or owning a mid-sized light twin.

Thus, the suggestion to do your homework on it.

Let us know what you learn about the required training and how that probably relates to your fictional theory.

Then let us know once you’ve gotten access to the dead pilot’s logbook and confirmed whether he accomplished said training.

Your “Spatial D” theory faces a number of significant common sense problems once reality and common sense are applied to it.

See if you can figure out why.

You floated a theory. I said it was weak. It is.

 

[Velocity173]

Thanks for answering. You and I are living on different planets.

Well you wanted a yes or no and that’s what you got.

Not sure why you use fixed wing over rotor wing as if to say it’s easier for helicopters. You do realize helicopters are generally statically unstable correct? That means they have no intent on staying where you put it. It also means that any input on one control, affects a completely different axis. So basically I’ve a taken an aircraft that is inherently unstable from the ground, with a hood on, with only 50 hours TT and flown safely to altitude. That’s not crazy, that’s just flying instruments. Done the same thing hundreds of times in the desert.

You don’t even get true 0/0 with fog anyway. You always have 100-200 ft vis in fog. Dust is a whole other issue but still can be done safely. Can it result in an accident? Yep, here’s an example of a true 0/0 take off gone bad. An extremely rare event but not dangerous or even “high risk” if done with appropriate experience.

 

[Rory]

LOL. It’s very clear you don’t know what I’m talking about.

Actually, what’s mostly LOL is that not a single one of you has suggested that the passengers have a right to be briefed on the heightened risk that they are incurring so that they can make an informed decision about whether to board the plane.

I guess it’s all about the pilot.

 

[Rory]

Well you wanted a yes or no and that’s what you got.

Not sure why you use fixed wing over rotor wing as if to say it’s easier for helicopters. You do realize helicopters are generally statically unstable correct? That means they have no intent on staying where you put it. It also means that any input on one control, affects a completely different axis. So basically I’ve a taken an aircraft that is inherently unstable from the ground, with a hood on, with only 50 hours TT and flown safely to altitude. That’s not crazy, that’s just flying instruments. Done the same thing hundreds of times in the desert.

You don’t even get true 0/0 with fog anyway. You always have 100-200 ft vis in fog. Dust is a whole other issue but still can be done safely. Can it result in an accident? Yep, here’s an example of a true 0/0 take off gone bad. An extremely rare event but not dangerous or even “high risk” if done with appropriate experience.

Actually, in this situation I think that it’s harder for an airplane, especially to abort or do a forced landing.

Your statement that one always has 100’ to 200’ real visibility in fog is patently ridiculous for anyone with significant experience with fog, not that 100’ to 200’ is anything to be joyful about.

Would love to know your response to my additional question, which is what you think your family members are entitled to know about risk before they join you on a take off into zero visibility, instead of going for breakfast until the fog burns off.

 

[Cooter]

LOL. It’s very clear you don’t know what I’m talking about.

Nor anything about operating or owning a mid-sized light twin.

Thus, the suggestion to do your homework on it.

Let us know what you learn about the required training and how that probably relates to your fictional theory.

Then let us know once you’ve gotten access to the dead pilot’s logbook and confirmed whether he accomplished said training.

Your “Spatial D” theory faces a number of significant common sense problems once reality and common sense are applied to it.

See if you can figure out why.

You floated a theory. I said it was weak. It is.

Repeating yourself doesn’t fix your problem. You are a weak man if you continue to argue a lie when it has repeatedly been pointed out to you that you are wrong.

You floated a theory.

Except that you can’t find it, quote it, or identify it.

You are arguing with yourself, but that doesn’t seem to bother you.

 

[denverpilot]

Actually, what’s mostly LOL is that not a single one of you has suggested that the passengers have a right to be briefed on the heightened risk that they are incurring so that they can make an informed decision about whether to board the plane.

I guess it’s all about the pilot.

If you want to make a case for some new rule that Private Pilots should have to notify passengers that they’re not trained to Commercial standards nor flying an aircraft maintained to Commercial standards... I have no real complaint.

Seems like they’re awfully stupid people if they didn’t figure that out when they drove to the airport and crammed themselves into someone’s Cessna twin in their hangar, but hey... more mattress tags and carcinogen warnings will fix everything. Why not?

You’re essentially making the same argument FAA holds against Flytenow and other ride-sharing Services, and I haven’t met too many people who disagree with it.

My new takeoff briefing...

“I am planning on doing things on this flight that will create more risk for you than FAA allows if you pay for the ticket. Including but not limited to, not flying an aircraft with enough power to continue a climb out on a single engine, operating the aircraft without a 100 hour inspection, operating without a FSDO approved Operations Book covering all scenarios...” etc etc etc.

It’s going to take a while to write the entire script.

Of course, then we’ll have to modify it to remove the stuff the insurance company required to insure the pilot and aircraft, which may have added tighter limits than FAA...

Then we’ll write a script for every decision made during the flight itself.

Does everyone in the airplane get a vote about how to operate it, too? Wouldn’t want anything to seem “unfair” to anybody sitting in back, you know.

Or... maybe we’ll just have to accept that the PIC is PIC. Hmm. What’cha think?

 

[Rory]

I am struck by the number of people trying to skate this crash.

It’s real simple.

If the passengers (family members on a pleasure flight) had been told the risks of taking off in zero visibility, and that they had a choice between taking off and having breakfast and coffee until the fog burned off, it seems pretty obvious that they would have chosen the latter. And they would have been right. Instead, they are dead.

 

[Velocity173]

Actually, in this situation I think that it’s harder for an airplane, especially to abort or do a forced landing.

Your statement that one always has 100’ to 200’ real visibility in fog is patently ridiculous for anyone with significant experience with fog.

Would love to know your response to my additional question, which is what you think your family members are entitled to know about risk before they join you on a take off into zero visibility.

All the FW pilot has to do is pitch up to 5 degrees and climb out. There’s some linear acceleration illusion involved but nothing that an average pilot shouldn’t be able to overcome.

There’s no way you’re going to convince me that fog creates more of a reduction in vis than dust or snow. That’s why we call it “brown out” or “white out” in helicopter parlance. Meaning, you have no outside visual references at all. In a cloud, an aircraft can fly off of one another in formation. That’s because it’s not a true 0/0 experience. I’ve lost contact on a helicopter during dust landing several times. Heck, I’ve lost a ground guide with wands just outside my rotor disk at a hover in dust at night.

As far as informing family members of risk, I wouldn’t do something in an aircraft with other people’s families that I wouldn’t do with my own.

 

[GRG55]

The January (?) issue of Flying had an article about safety, basically said that you compromise safety the minute you decide to go flying. Aviation is all about calculated risks. There is no guarantee that in VMC that he would have been fine either, people wreck twins pretty often in VMC. It seems rash to auto blame the fog (though it seems most obvious, I agree)

0/0 takeoffs in GA 91 aren't as uncommon as you think, it's not a guaranteed death sentence. They can be done safely *IF* you are smart about it. Check this video


I think it's important we look critically at everything during an accident and not jump to conclusions. Sometimes the obvious is a red herring. IMC by itself isn't a root cause.. there are people here that appear to be suggesting that any non VFR/VMC flight is crazy

By this definition we "compromise safety" the moment we get out of bed in the morning. And if you live in a hurricane, tornado or earthquake zone you probably don't even need to get up some days.

Aviation is not risk free. Not much in life is. But let's keep things in perspective.

According to the National Safety Council statistics almost every year the fatality rate in the USA from accidental drowning in bathtubs + swimming pools is greater than ALL aircraft fatalities. Do we offer risk warning lectures to our visiting adult children about this? Do we train for it? Should we?

In a typical year as many people in the USA die from choking on food as in all aviation related accidents.
Generally these just aren't as prominent or spectacular as a plane crash.

Circling back to where I started this post, in a typical year for every two people that die in an aviation related accident, one person in the USA will die from accidental suffocation or strangulation in bed. No shzt, who wudda thought STAYING in bed could kill you.

You don't "compromise safety" the moment you decide to go flying. You compromise safety by ignoring or dismissing the known risks - not checking your W&B, not doing a thorough pre-flight, not reviewing the numbers and emergency procedures for a plane you aren't intimately familiar with, ignoring telltale early warning signs for maintenance the plane is giving you, pressing the weather, flying when you aren't rested and sharp, skipping the passenger briefing, and on it goes.

 

[Velocity173]

I am struck by the number of people trying to skate this crash.

It’s real simple.

If the passengers (family members on a pleasure flight) had been told the risks of taking off in zero visibility, and that they had a choice between taking off and having breakfast and coffee until the fog burned off, it seems pretty obvious that they would have chosen the latter. And they would have been right. Instead, they are dead.

And that would be pure speculation on your part. We have no idea if weather was a factor.

 

[denverpilot]

Repeating yourself doesn’t fix your problem. You are a weak man if you continue to argue a lie when it has repeatedly been pointed out to you that you are wrong.

Ummm. That would be you, repeating yourself.

I’m pretty sure you repeating that I’m wrong is not exactly a strong argument. LOL.

Which ratings do you hold that apply to operating a mid-sized Cessna light twin in instrument conditions?

FAA says I can not only operate that aircraft, I can teach someone how to. (And I’ve already stated the pilot took risks I wouldn’t take, but I would be required to discuss that with the trainee. Once they’re PIC, they can do as they please.)

Insurance company won’t allow me to exercise those FAA privileges. (Big hint for your reason to study the insurance requirements, is hiding in that factual statement.)

Looked up those insurance requirements on one yet? The lightbulb may come on, when you do.

 

[Rory]

There’s no way you’re going to convince me that fog creates more of a reduction in vis than dust or snow. That’s why we call it “brown out” or “white out” in helicopter parlance. Meaning, you have no outside visual references at all.

Gee, that’s my point and why I said that your claim of 100’ to 200’ visibility in dense fog is patently ridiculous.

Look, I spend six months a year on the coast of Newfoundland and have sailed the Pacific, Atlantic, Caribbean, Mediterranean and North Sea. Don’t give me rubbish about fog visibility.

As a Canadian, there’s also just a chance that I know something about white outs.

You got this part right: “you have no outside visual references at all”.

Meanwhile, I think that your judgement, and attitude about the right of passengers to make informed decisions, is appalling.