FARS Vs PIC

[gismo]

Might be arrogance, might be fear of looking incompetent -- the two are not by any means the same. That's why the FAA includes "resignation" and "invulnerability" and "macho" in their list of hazardous attitudes. If you do their hazardous attitude training course, you'll see that any one of the five can be the reason for doing the same wrong thing.

Could it have been weight limits? Those women probably had a couple steamer trunks between them.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Dunno -- I wasn't in his head at the time he launched. But if you read the report, I think you'll see he was not in the habit of pushing his own limits, and over 75% of his 310 hours were flown with a CFI aboard (he racked up more dual in 310 hours TT than I have in almost 7000 hours), although he did turn down the offer of a CFI to ride with him on the accident flight.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&ntsbno=NYC99MA178&akey=1

The PIC wasn't IFR rated and in spite of reported VFR by Wx reporting facilities, there are contradictory statements in the various "PIREPS" (i.e: 3-5 miles vis in HAZE) and especially by one enroute pilot who said the entire flight was conducted VFR but, at one point he had "NO VISIBLE HORIZON" -that's IFR.

 

[poadeleted20]

The PIC wasn't IFR rated and in spite of reported VFR by Wx reporting facilities, there are contradictory statements in the various "PIREPS" (i.e: 3-5 miles vis in HAZE) and especially by one enroute pilot who said the entire flight was conducted VFR but, at one point he had "NO VISIBLE HORIZON" -that's IFR.

At the risk of picking a semantic nit, he was never IFR and wouldn't have been even if he'd flown into a cloud. The flight was conducted under visual flight rules (VFR) in legal visual meteorological conditions (VMC) per 91.155 at all times. The fact that he was in conditions in which only by reference to the instruments could he maintain attitude control (and thus was legally able to log actual instrument time per 61.51) is another story. The lack of a visible horizon does not by itself create the instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) which legally prevent VFR operations.

VMC/IMC are very clearly and specifically defined in 91.155, and a visible horizon is not one of the requirements. If it isn't IMC, it's VMC, and VFR flight is legal. VFR versus IFR is not a matter of how you fly your aircraft, but rather whether aircraft separation will be accomplished visually by the pilot or via procedures/radar by ATC, and there's no question that there was sufficient visibility for JFK Jr to have seen or have been seen other properly lighted aircraft, so VFR flight was quite legal.

All that said, I fully understand Dave's point -- one can be in legal VMC but be unable to fly solely by outside visual references. While there is an argument to be made that such conditions should require an aircraft equipped, and a pilot qualified, for IFR flight, and few among us would argue that prudence suggests both, JFK Jr. was operating quite legally if not safely.

Now, here's the $64 question -- does anyone out there support a change to the Part 91 flight rules prohibiting VFR flight in conditions in which attitude control and navigation require reference to the instruments, e.g., no visible horizon or no ground visible? The former is already incorporated in the night SVFR rules (91.157(b)(4) and the latter for student pilots (61.89(a)(7)). Many countries prohibit VFR flight on top and/or at night, but we don't. Does safety/prudence demand/suggest that the current FAA limitations on night SVFR and on-top flying be extended to all non-IR pilots/non-IFR-capable aircraft when flight solely by outside visual reference is not possible? I can see a whole bunch of arguments both ways, but what's your thinking?

{sound of worm can opening...}

 

[poadeleted3]

snip

Now, here's the $64 question -- does anyone out there support a change to the Part 91 flight rules prohibiting VFR flight in conditions in which attitude control and navigation require reference to the instruments, e.g., no visible horizon or no ground visible? The former is already incorporated in the night SVFR rules (91.157(b)(4) and the latter for student pilots (61.89(a)(7)). Many countries prohibit VFR flight on top and/or at night, but we don't. Does safety/prudence demand/suggest that the current FAA limitations on night SVFR and on-top flying be extended to all non-IR pilots/non-IFR-capable aircraft when flight solely by outside visual reference is not possible? I can see a whole bunch of arguments both ways, but what's your thinking?

{sound of worm can opening...}

Having been fortunate enough to have an instructor who let me make a "go" decision for a dual cross country one day with 3 miles vis, and haze that eliminated the horizon, I'd say yes, I'd support rules prohibiting flight without a visible horizon. Staying oriented was very difficult, and I'll venture that not enough pilots stay proficient enough to deal with that for long to permit it on a blanket basis. BTW, I ended up turning back, deciding that sooner or later I'd end up all out of whack. Flew right past my home airport....

{peering into the can}

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

At the risk of picking a semantic nit, he was never IFR and wouldn't have been even if he'd flown into a cloud. The flight was conducted under visual flight rules (VFR) in legal visual meteorological conditions (VMC) per 91.155 at all times. The fact that he was in conditions in which only by reference to the instruments could he maintain attitude control (and thus was legally able to log actual instrument time per 61.51) is another story. The lack of a visible horizon does not by itself create the instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) which legally prevent VFR operations.

VMC/IMC are very clearly and specifically defined in 91.155, and a visible horizon is not one of the requirements. If it isn't IMC, it's VMC, and VFR flight is legal. VFR versus IFR is not a matter of how you fly your aircraft, but rather whether aircraft separation will be accomplished visually by the pilot or via procedures/radar by ATC, and there's no question that there was sufficient visibility for JFK Jr to have seen or have been seen other properly lighted aircraft, so VFR flight was quite legal.

All that said, I fully understand Dave's point -- one can be in legal VMC but be unable to fly solely by outside visual references. While there is an argument to be made that such conditions should require an aircraft equipped, and a pilot qualified, for IFR flight, and few among us would argue that prudence suggests both, JFK Jr. was operating quite legally if not safely.

Now, here's the $64 question -- does anyone out there support a change to the Part 91 flight rules prohibiting VFR flight in conditions in which attitude control and navigation require reference to the instruments, e.g., no visible horizon or no ground visible? The former is already incorporated in the night SVFR rules (91.157(b)(4) and the latter for student pilots (61.89(a)(7)). Many countries prohibit VFR flight on top and/or at night, but we don't. Does safety/prudence demand/suggest that the current FAA limitations on night SVFR and on-top flying be extended to all non-IR pilots/non-IFR-capable aircraft when flight solely by outside visual reference is not possible? I can see a whole bunch of arguments both ways, but what's your thinking?

{sound of worm can opening...}

It might suffice, but would definately be helpful towards safety, to simply require one training flight on a clouded night over woods or other terrain with no lights whatsoever, but with "legal VFR" visibility.

 

[poadeleted20]

It might suffice, but would definately be helpful towards safety, to simply require one training flight on a clouded night over woods or other terrain with no lights whatsoever, but with "legal VFR" visibility.

While I agree with your sentiment, how does a pilot in West Texas or New Mexico get his ticket? Do you write in exceptions when the conditions aren't available, like the rules for commercial XC's in Hawaii and international flight by student pilots in Alaska?

 

[ejensen]

It might suffice, but would definately be helpful towards safety, to simply require one training flight on a clouded night over woods or other terrain with no lights whatsoever, but with "legal VFR" visibility.

Or a moonless night in the high desert, CAVU. This was the first Mooney I flew. Put over 100 hours on it before the owner moved to Idaho. The fatals were the owner, John Apple and his wife.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X21493&key=1

 

[ejensen]

I would support an endorsement or other additional training for night flight with pax. But VFR on-top, like you said, a can of worms. I think there are many situations where this can be safely done baring engine failure. Valley fog is the big one out here. If emergency landing is the concern then we'd have to stop all over water or mountain flights too.

 

[Richard]

No, I would not support an additional rule. My primary reason is because "to prohibit" does not "prevent", yet it would provide another way to "bust".

WRT Joe's remark, the rule will not prevail upon the CFI to change his "go" to a "no"; it not prevent a pilot from departing into conditions beyond his capabilities; and it will not prevent that pilot from getting lost. However, I can see such a rule aiding in the diminished proficiency of many pilots because it would reduce the hours in which they could legally fly. Face it, most pilots now don't spend more than the basic amount of time getting recurrent dual instruction, an additional rule will not change that.

 

[fgcason]

While I agree with your sentiment, how does a pilot in West Texas or New Mexico get his ticket?

Same way as you fly at night around here. Most of the FBO's I've seen locally mandate -IR or with their instructor or you're unconditionally grounded at night. One place to the point that they wouldn't even let you pick up the key the night before the flight without the rating or an instructor.

IMHO: Another regulation to the two inch thick FAR/AIM won't stop stupidity or determination. I think the biggest problem is that we live in a society where aborting or failure is not an acceptable option thus the press-on-got-away-with-it-last-time attitude no matter what. That is so ingrained in people nowadays that it's default behavior. We can't mandate ourselves into perfection by laws and regulations. It just doesn't work. What's needed is judgement and experience. I'm not saying rules are useless; just that the ones that are created to override basic judgement or bypass experience issues often ignore the real problem.

From what I've seen and oversimplifiying a bit, VFR over the top (clouds below/clear above) is for the most part basic PP level radio navigation and following the needle as long as you have a way down on the other side. You do need the judgement to make sure the undercast is thin enough to get through safely and adequate base-ground clearance if the engine quits.
Black holes at night or restricted horizon is judgement and experience to avoid or not get in over your head.

I myself, and have observed others, doing both very safely by VFR only pilots. I do think experience/judgement and probably some additional training beyond wet ink on the PP temp certificate is needed.

I haven't done over the top myself due to airplane issues or too thick or not enough base-to-ground clearance for my experience level. I have flown in restricted visibility 3-4 miles at several thousand AGL which can start being interesting since you're operationally MVFR even though keeping it upright and adequate collision avoidance isn't a problem. I've also done night flights where you are watching the AI a lot more than you normally would. It's not the easiest/safest thing one can be doing but if you have experience, sense to give it up if necessary and don't get stupid it's reasonably safe.

There are people out there that probably require 4.7 million regulations for once around the pattern to be marginally safe. Then there are those people who the 1927 air rules are excessively restrictive for them to be completely safe while flying once around the planet.

I'm not convinced a new rule in the book is needed. It would keep the honest people more honest. It wouldn't solve the judgement issue which is notorious for getting people mangled when they don't have any sense.

Yep. Lots of worms in that bucket.

Less rules, more judgement.

My two marbles worth anyway...

Excuse me while I pour gasoline all over myself and hand whoever want's it, the lighter...

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Rather than pussyfoot around with new MVFR/MIFR Regs & such, there's alot to be said positively for the current pilot pilot program where the new pilot studs get their VFR/IFR tickets concurrently and in less overall time than the two ratings now require.

 

[Everskyward]

No, I would not support an additional rule. My primary reason is because "to prohibit" does not "prevent", yet it would provide another way to "bust".

Like the guy in your story.

I think that's an example of a rule that could be written a little better, but I'm not sure how.

It could say, "Give clouds a decent margin because of flying machines that can pop out of them at a high rate of speed. And give them a bigger margin above 10,000' because they may be moving even faster." But that wouldn't be much of a rule. Instead they came up with the one they have which is difficult to figure out how to comply with (the horizontal distances in particular).

 

[Richard]

Like the guy in your story.

I think that's an example of a rule that could be written a little better, but I'm not sure how.

It could say, "Give clouds a decent margin because of flying machines that can pop out of them at a high rate of speed. And give them a bigger margin above 10,000' because they may be moving even faster." But that wouldn't be much of a rule. Instead they came up with the one they have which is difficult to figure out how to comply with (the horizontal distances in particular).

Okay, okay. My story was just something I came up with after reflecting upon an actual occurance (nope, not me). It's like many other stories I have. Maybe someday I'll collect them into a FICTION novella. The audience would be anyone compelled to pay money to read it.

My stories almost always are based upon an actual event. But, even if the actual event is immensely interesting already, I will add/delete sequences to avoid appearing like I am condoning certain events and/or to hide the identity of the person(s) involved.

 

[Everskyward]

Maybe someday I'll collect them into a FICTION novella. The audience would be anyone compelled to pay money to read it.

I appreciate anyone who's creative enough to write a story since I don't have a creative bone in my body.

My story would go, "There I was, droning along, and, uh oh, that wasn't supposed to happen. Hey, there's a hole. Up I go. The End."

 

[Carol]

I appreciate anyone who's creative enough to write a story since I don't have a creative bone in my body.

My story would go, "There I was, droning along, and, uh oh, that wasn't supposed to happen. Hey, there's a hole. Up I go. The End."

Hey, did you sneak a peak at my homework?

 

[Richard]

I appreciate anyone who's creative enough to write a story since I don't have a creative bone in my body.

My story would go, "There I was, droning along, and, uh oh, that wasn't supposed to happen. Hey, there's a hole. Up I go. The End."

That is the impetus for a new thread. Here goes nothing...

 

[Everskyward]

That is the impetus for a new thread. Here goes nothing...

Oh, no. I'm in trouble now.