My first flight with a new CFII

[dmccormack]

Pretty much. See 91.7(b) and the various NTSB cases on that point. Unless you can show that the nearest airport wasn't suitable under the circumstances (and that argument has only rarely been made successfully), you must land at the first suitable airport. Had Tom's story been that the ASI failed, say, entering the pattern at the other airport, no problem, but when he says it was dead on takeoff, he'd have to show that landing at OKH without an airspeed indicator wasn't safe.

Oh come on.

Unless you're in the habit of announcing on guard or Center freq "ASI is INOP! I repeat, Airspeed indicator is INOP! This is November One Two tree fower!!"

 

[COFlyBoy]

Oh come on.

Unless you're in the habit of announcing on guard or Center freq "ASI is INOP! I repeat, Airspeed indicator is INOP! This is November One Two tree fower!!"

Heh. Well the NTSB is only gonna get involved if you managed to spectacularly display a lack of skill at flying w/o an ASI.

Personally, the ASI doesn't make my list of failed instruments (assuming VMC) requiring an immediate diversion/aborted TO. Not saying I'd deliberately depart with a dead ASI, but I wouldn't lay black streaks just because it was flaky.

 

[Tom-D]

Tom, we have these things here called photographs, that you can use to show the cover manufacturers where the antennas are. We also have these really, really cool things called rulers, that allow you to measure where the antennas are relative to a fixed point or points.

I had a cover made for my 150. The manufacturer never saw it, and it fit like a glove because we used these tools I've mentioned. You should try using them some time, they'll make your life much better. I don't have a cover for my current airplane because we have these even cooler things called hangars.

Like I said that is between the cover company and the owner my job was to get the aircraft to AWO. not to measure or take note of any thing.

 

[poadeleted20]

Personally, the ASI doesn't make my list of failed instruments (assuming VMC) requiring an immediate diversion/aborted TO. Not saying I'd deliberately depart with a dead ASI, but I wouldn't lay black streaks just because it was flaky.

Which other FAR's are on your list of rules you feel you can choose to ignore?

 

[Tom-D]

You can easily see the airspeed indicator come alive on your takeoff roll, .

Yep, just about the time it's too late to do any thing but fly.

When you have deer, and other animals to watch for like Eagles, we now have 10 pair nesting with in 1 miles of the runway, the last thing you need to be watching is the airspeed indicator,

The aircraft will fly when it is ready, watching the airspeed indicator won't make that happen any quicker.

After lift off you can trim to a certain airspeed and notice it is not working.

what will you do then? go around and try to land at an airport that has a runway 20 feet wide and hill or take it 20 miles to where there is a nice big runway, and crash equipment?

 

[Tom-D]

Based on my experience, it's more common that a CFI does NOT know how to lean an engine than that he does know.

- Don't lean below 3000'
- Don't shock cool!
- etc.

But never anything useful like "wait for the oil to warm up". Sigh.

I find today this owner is a high time corporate jet type, hasn't seen a piston in a long time.

 

[Tom-D]

How long is the runway?

Does it matter when the runway is narrow, (varies from 15 - 20 feet now) and the grass is really soft? you make 1 mistake or a have a brake failure you will be in the grass and on your back before you can kiss your sweet cheeks good bye.

 

[Tom-D]

Aborting a takeoff in a Cessna 150 isn't an event - and nearly every paved runway out there permits plenty of room. We're not talking about a transport category jet here...

There are few legit reasons in a light single trainer with any typical runway to take to the air with an equipment failure.

If I'm with a student on a 6000 ft runway in a C150 and they don't see the airspeed come alive - I would very much like to see them make the abort decision. Sure it can be flown but there is no point.

Don't assume OKH is a typical runway. this winter has been hard on it, there are chunks of runway as large as a dinner plate coming up, and pot holes that large too. Would you like to try a panic stop on a runway in that condition that's 15-20 wide with deep mud on each side?

You make the tiniest mistake or have any failure your customer's aircraft is toast, and maybe you hurt him too. When it is much safer to take it flying.

 

[Tom-D]

Is AWO a more suitable field than OKH? Yes...continue the flight.

Oh he-- yes! I'll take 7000' over 1300 any day.

The return leg involves flight with a known deficiency if ASI has not been made IAW type certificate. This includes the appropriate logbook entry made by authorized person. What's the dealio again?

It'll get fixed before it goes anywhere.

RE: This CFI...block the rudders right after rotation...watch his reaction. A cuff behind the ears may be entirely appropriate.

I don't play games while fly the customer's aircraft.

 

[Tom-D]

No issue there, but continuing the flight to another airport rather than returning to land? That doesn't sound much like "discontinu[ing] the flight" unless you can make the case that OKH is unsuitable for landing without an airspeed indicator.

If any thing here becomes an issue, I'll ask my PMI to bring his Bonanza up to inspect the runway, that'll close the case.

By the way, prove when the indicator failed. when is it required to look at the ASI?

I really don't believe the FAA will chase this one.

 

[steingar]

I really don't believe the FAA will chase this one.

Nor do I. but you were complaining about a CFI in the same breath as describing you own infraction.

Honestly, if the strip is that bad, perhaps you should find another. I would, if a takeoff in a mere 150 involved that much drama, suspense, and outright peril.

 

[Tom-D]

Nor do I. but you were complaining about a CFI in the same breath as describing you own infraction.

Honestly, if the strip is that bad, perhaps you should find another. I would, if a takeoff in a mere 150 involved that much drama, suspense, and outright peril.

You may read that as a complaint but it was a mere observation. You read way too much of your self into my posts.

what infraction?


I have already moved my Fairchild to BVS.

 

[steingar]

I have already moved my Fairchild to BVS.

Good to hear. We value your contributions, and wouldn't want to see you wadded up because of a poorly maintained runway.

 

[Tom-D]

Good to hear. We value your contributions, and wouldn't want to see you wadded up because of a poorly maintained runway.

The airport is suffering the neglect of a slum lord. I was mowing 14 ac for rent on my hangar, ($230) it worked well for 3 years, but he got greedy, and upped the rent on me, I simply told him NO and found a lot better hangar at BVS for less that 100 bucks a month more.

I now have great hangar with a bi-fold door that opens with a push of a button, no rats, no bats, or wet floors, I have security, approaches, a big runway, fire suppression, lights, and heat.

OBTW, the 150 isn't coming back either.

and to set your mind free, I did land at the nearest airport after knowing I had a failure, check the sectional. just happens I was going there anyway.

 

[steingar]

and to set your mind free, I did land at the nearest airport after knowing I had a failure, check the sectional. just happens I was going there anyway.

Then there was no infraction. Sorry, I don't need to break out a sectional of a place thousands of miles from me that I may never see with my own eyes.

 

[Tim]

Which other FAR's are on your list of rules you feel you can choose to ignore?

The ones that change with the wind direction.

 

[Tom-D]

Then there was no infraction. Sorry, I don't need to break out a sectional of a place thousands of miles from me that I may never see with my own eyes.

http://skyvector.com/

 

[rottydaddy]

Regarding the importance of a reliable ASI: the only time I ever had one fail on me was in a Champ (spring-loaded pitot cover got stuck during takeoff roll). It being a Champ and it being a 3000+-foot runway (KSDM), I put it back on the runway and climbed out after exiting to give it a good finger-flick to "clear" it (with the engine idling- OMG!). In retrospect, the very fact that I was able to abort and land, without going around, with no ASI shows how superfluous that instrument is in such an aircraft... I only aborted because my primary training stressed the importance of a functional ASI; could've easily continued without it.

As we all know, some aircraft have much more particular requirements (and my training had prepared me for that), but in general, if you don't know what Vne and Vs for your particular bird feel, sound, and look like, you should not be flying it, IMHO. Nothing will teach you this better than having no ASI.

A requirement for the PP-Glider is to make a precision landing from the pattern with no ASI... the key to success there is to simply know how to fly the aircraft. The instruments can be wrong or inoperative, but proper knowledge of the aircraft will always see you through.

 

[dmccormack]

By the way, prove when the indicator failed. when is it required to look at the ASI?

I really don't believe the FAA will chase this one.

Exactly.

I've come to a realization. Ron is extraordinarily brave.

If I worried about as many things as he apparently does, I'd put a FOR SALE CHEEP!! sign on the hangar and toss my neat plastic certs with Wibur and Orville's pictures in the trash.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I find it hard to believe that folks are arm chairing the ADM of an experienced aviator who has intimate knowledge of the departure airfield.

Can't speak for others, but since you quoted me - I am not necessarily arm-chairing Tom's decision making - more inquisitive in why he felt that it was safer to continue vs abort. Obviously not being familiar with that airport and having little experience operating off-pavement, I'll trust Tom's view.

What I do have a problem with is folks making blanket statements along the lines of aborting a takeoff with a failed ASI is riskier than continuing. On probably 95% of the runways in the US, that is pure bunk!

 

[poadeleted20]

what will you do then? go around and try to land at an airport that has a runway 20 feet wide and hill or take it 20 miles to where there is a nice big runway, and crash equipment?

What does runway width have to do with airspeed? However, that would be an argument you could make that the OKH runway was unsuitable, although length would probably be more the issue. Whether that would fly past the FAA or not is unknown, but with nearly 3300 feet of length and 25 feet of width, I personally don't see a major issue landing a C-150 without airspeed for anyone who meets Private Pilot PTS standards.

 

[poadeleted20]

Exactly.

I've come to a realization. Ron is extraordinarily brave.

If I worried about as many things as he apparently does, I'd put a FOR SALE CHEEP!! sign on the hangar and toss my neat plastic certs with Wibur and Orville's pictures in the trash.

Would you care to elaborate on that apparent accusation of violation of the FAR's? Or would you rather retract that post completely?

 

[steingar]

Exactly.

I've come to a realization. Ron is extraordinarily brave.

If I worried about as many things as he apparently does, I'd put a FOR SALE CHEEP!! sign on the hangar and toss my neat plastic certs with Wibur and Orville's pictures in the trash.

Actually, Ron is an invaluable resource, as he does seem to possess categorical knowledge of the FARs. We may not always see eye to eye, but I am loathe to dispute his expertise in this arena, nor am I likely to be ungrateful for its presence.

 

[gkainz]

It saddens me more and more to read this personal baiting and attacking crap on MY POA. What has become of our "aviation front porch" charter?

 

[Fearless Tower]

It saddens me more and more to read this personal baiting and attacking crap on MY POA. What has become of our "aviation front porch" charter?

You have to remember you are dealing with pilots. The pilot population in general tends to be a bit egocentric just by nature and consequently, pilots can be bad enough arguing in person, but pilots on the internet??? Even worse!

 

[COFlyBoy]

Which other FAR's are on your list of rules you feel you can choose to ignore?

Not ignoring, just interpreting the term "practicable".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating departing with a known defficiency. I'll get it fixed before I leave the ground.
However, if I determine late in my takeoff roll that the ASI is wonky, I'll probably elect to continue the departure, go around the patch, land, and get it fixed. There are risks to an aborted TO.
Enroute, the term "practicable" can become vague. For an ASI failure I wouldn't divert to Podunkville where there may be no hope of finding an A&P, I'd probably choose to continue to a larger field.

 

[jesse]

Not ignoring, just interpreting the term "practicable".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating departing with a known defficiency. I'll get it fixed before I leave the ground.
However, if I determine late in my takeoff roll that the ASI is wonky, I'll probably elect to continue the departure, go around the patch, land, and get it fixed. There are risks to an aborted TO.
Enroute, the term "practicable" can become vague. For an ASI failure I wouldn't divert to Podunkville where there may be no hope of finding an A&P, I'd probably choose to continue to a larger field.

There are risks but given a typical runway in a typical light single they are very small. We are not flying transport aircraft. If you aren't comfortable aborting a takeoff from rotation speed with a few thousand feet remaining it'd be worth praticeing it with an instructor. It should be a non event.

The failed airspeed indicator should be noticed way before rotation speed with plenty of distance and runway remaing.

I'm not one to say flying without an airspeed indicator is highly dangerous, but it is illegal. I'd rather not see someone exaturate the risk of an aborted takeoff. If you don't have the runway remaining to abort at the airpspeed where it would typically come alive you probably shouldn't be operating on that runway.

 

[poadeleted20]

Not ignoring, just interpreting the term "practicable"

91.7(b) doesn't use that word.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating departing with a known defficiency. I'll get it fixed before I leave the ground.

Good.

However, if I determine late in my takeoff roll that the ASI is wonky, I'll probably elect to continue the departure, go around the patch, land, and get it fixed. There are risks to an aborted TO.

I'm OK with that.

Enroute, the term "practicable" can become vague. For an ASI failure I wouldn't divert to Podunkville where there may be no hope of finding an A&P, I'd probably choose to continue to a larger field.

If you read the cases on point, the availability of repair is not a factor in the FAA's thinking.

 

[COFlyBoy]

91.7(b) doesn't use that word.

If you read the cases on point, the availability of repair is not a factor in the FAA's thinking.

91.7 (a) and (b) provide provide for the Pilot to determine the airworthiness and requires the pilot to discontinue the flight when an unairworthy condition exists. 91.205 I guess provides insight into when one should determine the aircraft is unairworthy.
However, neither reg really defines how immediately one should discontinue. This can get gray when looking at IMC. A pilot may elect to divert farther in order to find a precision approach to fly when his ASI is failed. I don't think the FAA would fault that thinking.
I can see how the FAA could take a dim view of continuing somewhere out of convenience, especially if there's an accident. But I guess I'm willing to trust my own ability to judge the relative risks involved and not worry too much about an enforcement action for a failed ASI in VMC.

 

[N801BH]

Actually, Ron is an invaluable resource, as he does seem to possess categorical knowledge of the FARs. We may not always see eye to eye, but I am loathe to dispute his expertise in this arena, nor am I likely to be ungrateful for its presence.

I concur... Between Ron and Steven Mc Nichol there is really no reason to have to buy a FAR / AIM book as they both are walking databases...

Ben.

 

[N801BH]

91.7 (a) and (b) provide provide for the Pilot to determine the airworthiness and requires the pilot to discontinue the flight when an unairworthy condition exists. 91.205 I guess provides insight into when one should determine the aircraft is unairworthy.
However, neither reg really defines how immediately one should discontinue. This can get gray when looking at IMC. A pilot may elect to divert farther in order to find a precision approach to fly when his ASI is failed. I don't think the FAA would fault that thinking.
I can see how the FAA could take a dim view of continuing somewhere out of convenience, especially if there's an accident. But I guess I'm willing to trust my own ability to judge the relative risks involved and not worry too much about an enforcement action for a failed ASI in VMC.

What failed ASI??? It broke as I taxied in.. Prove it didn't.

 

[kgruber]

Regarding the importance of a reliable ASI: the only time I ever had one fail on me was in a Champ (spring-loaded pitot cover got stuck during takeoff roll). .

Yes. But was the "spring-loaded" pitot cover listed in the TCDS? Did it have a STC, PMA? Was it on the MEL? Was there a log book entry? Did you have an 8311? What about a change in the W&B? Was there an emergency check list item for the stickiness? Did you declare an emergency? Did you write a confession to the NTSB? Did you file a flight plan?

These near death stories are the bane of aviation!

 

[Tom-D]

What does runway width have to do with airspeed? However, that would be an argument you could make that the OKH runway was unsuitable, although length would probably be more the issue. Whether that would fly past the FAA or not is unknown, but with nearly 3300 feet of length and 25 feet of width, I personally don't see a major issue landing a C-150 without airspeed for anyone who meets Private Pilot PTS standards.

Do you really believe every thing you see on a chart when they only come out every 6 months and we are just coming out of the winter season? Do you know the condition of the runway? Do you know for sure how many feet we have that is usable? When you are going to land at a back country privately owned airport you best call ahead to find out what the conditions really are.

I do know the condition of the runway, that is why I use the same tactics as any gravel runway. Add power slowly get the aircraft rolling before you come in with all the power, by that time you are on the face of the hill with less than 1000' between you, the ditch, Monroe Landing Rd, a fence and a very soft meadow.

Do not believe you have 3300' to work with at OKH. I've never seen any one hit the first foot of 25, because of the fence which is only 25' from the hard surface, plus the fact 07 has a displaced threshold, that only leaves 2300' usable, (when it was usable).

I believe I could make a very good case why I didn't return to OKH without an accurate ASI. And Remember there are no mechanics working OKH any more My shop is at BVS, there's no services, nothing, at OKH any more.

And the length of the runway has no more to do with a non functional ASI than flying the aircraft does, but the condition of the runway does have a great deal to do with the decision to go to another airport where the pucker factor isn't as great.

 

[Tom-D]

What failed ASI??? It broke as I taxied in.. Prove it didn't.

Have you ever had a old plastic hose that Cessna used get brittle and break?

we just did.

 

[Keane]

Do you really believe every thing you see on a chart when they only come out every 6 months and we are just coming out of the winter season? Do you know the condition of the runway? Do you know for sure how many feet we have that is usable? When you are going to land at a back country privately owned airport you best call ahead to find out what the conditions really are.

I do know the condition of the runway, that is why I use the same tactics as any gravel runway. Add power slowly get the aircraft rolling before you come in with all the power, by that time you are on the face of the hill with less than 1000' between you, the ditch, Monroe Landing Rd, a fence and a very soft meadow.

Do not believe you have 3300' to work with at OKH. I've never seen any one hit the first foot of 25, because of the fence which is only 25' from the hard surface, plus the fact 07 has a displaced threshold, that only leaves 2300' usable, (when it was usable).

I believe I could make a very good case why I didn't return to OKH without an accurate ASI. And Remember there are no mechanics working OKH any more My shop is at BVS, there's no services, nothing, at OKH any more.

And the length of the runway has no more to do with a non functional ASI than flying the aircraft does, but the condition of the runway does have a great deal to do with the decision to go to another airport where the pucker factor isn't as great.

When I was there a few years ago, that '3300x25' was more like '2200 x 15'. I can't imagine it got any better.

 

[Tom-D]

When I was there a few years ago, that '3300x25' was more like '2200 x 15'. I can't imagine it got any better.

It hasn't, this morning the run off from the meadow is running over the runway due to a blockage of the drainage ditch on the north side.

it won't be long before we have a big problem.

 

[poadeleted20]

91.7 (a) and (b) provide provide for the Pilot to determine the airworthiness and requires the pilot to discontinue the flight when an unairworthy condition exists. 91.205 I guess provides insight into when one should determine the aircraft is unairworthy.
However, neither reg really defines how immediately one should discontinue.

For that we look to the precedent case law.

The standard to be followed when an aircraft becomes unairworthy in flight, however, is to land at the first location "`consistent with the safe operation of that aircraft.'" Administrator v. Genereaux, 4 NTSB 1245, 1247, reconsideration denied, 4 NTSB 1258 (1984)(quoting the law judge's decision)...We agree with Judge Pope's assessment of this issue: "The criteria is not that he discontinue the flight at the best point available consistent with the safe operation of the aircraft." (Decisional Order at 9, emphasis added.)

(emphasis in original) Administrator v. Halbert, http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/3628.pdf.

[W]e have interpreted section 91.7(b) as requiring -- upon the occurrence of an unairworthy condition -- a landing "at the first available point consistent with the safe operation of that aircraft." Administrator v. Genereaux, 4 NTSB 1245, 1247 (1984), (quoting the law judge's initial decision); Administrator v. Halbert, NTSB Order No. EA-3628 at 5 (1992).
...

Our decision in this case does not represent any retreat from our view, expressed in Halbert, that section 91.7(b) does not allow a pilot to choose the "best point available consistent with the safe operation of the aircraft," but rather requires a landing at the first available location consistent with such operation. In Halbert, we upheld a violation of section 91.7(b) where the respondent bypassed an airport after the occurrence of an unairworthy condition because he felt more confident and comfortable landing at another airport. The respondent in that case also cited factors such as runway length, temperature, and the availability of rescue equipment. However, unlike this case, the record in Halbert indicated that the bypassed airport would indeed have been suitable for a landing without jeopardizing the safe operation of the subject aircraft.

Administrator v. Gordon, http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/4329.pdf.

See also Administrator v. Skoglund, http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/Aviation/5149.pdf.

Respondent is being charged with failing to discontinue the flight when he became aware of an unairworthy condition. Given the crewmembers’ own statements, including their contemporaneous reports that they "could not control [the airplane] with the…ailerons," and of persistent "binding" and "tightness" in the aileron controls, we find that respondent no longer had adequate control over the aircraft and that the cause of this problem was unknown. The airplane, therefore, was not in a condition for safe flight. Accordingly, the aircraft had an unairworthy condition and respondent was obliged under section 91.7(b) to land as soon as practically possible (in other words, at the first location consistent with the safe operation of that aircraft; see Administrator v. Halbert, NTSB Order No. EA-3628 (1992)).

(emphasis added)

This can get gray when looking at IMC. A pilot may elect to divert farther in order to find a precision approach to fly when his ASI is failed. I don't think the FAA would fault that thinking.

In actual instrument conditions, maybe so, maybe not, but definitely not, I think, in good VMC when right over an otherwise-suitable airport (in this case, 3300 feet being about three times the book obstacle landing distance).

I can see how the FAA could take a dim view of continuing somewhere out of convenience, especially if there's an accident. But I guess I'm willing to trust my own ability to judge the relative risks involved and not worry too much about an enforcement action for a failed ASI in VMC.

Your ticket, your choice, but make that choice based on what you read above in the precedent cases.
​

 

[poadeleted20]

What failed ASI??? It broke as I taxied in.. Prove it didn't.

That's easy to do if you wrote the story about it having failed on takeoff in a public place like this. Folks, remember that anything you post here under your own login can easily be traced to you and used to convince an ALJ that it is more likely than not that you did what you wrote.

 

[Richard]

What does runway width have to do with airspeed? However, that would be an argument you could make that the OKH runway was unsuitable, although length would probably be more the issue. Whether that would fly past the FAA or not is unknown, but with nearly 3300 feet of length and 25 feet of width, I personally don't see a major issue landing a C-150 without airspeed for anyone who meets Private Pilot PTS standards.

I'm not part of the "Let's dogpile on Ron" crowd but what you say here has me wondering.... In a thread not to long ago about takeoffs in strong cross winds you made the point that not maintaining the centerline leaves less room before the bushes if something were to happen. I'm not certain, but I think you questioned how to explain to the FAA why one was arcing down the rwy in the event of an incident/accident.

Now here you remark that rwy width has little impact on a landing with INOP ASI.

 

[Richard]

Actually, Ron is an invaluable resource, as he does seem to possess categorical knowledge of the FARs. We may not always see eye to eye, but I am loathe to dispute his expertise in this arena, nor am I likely to be ungrateful for its presence.

+1...