My first flight with a new CFII

Fearless Tower said:
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!
Click to expand...
Yeah, I meant to address that my comment was not expressly in response to your comment. It was simply convenient to me.

Since you mentioned the 95%...perhaps more than suitablility of the airfield is the current weather. No one ever crashed with the sky and maintaining directional control after a steep descent to speedy landing may be dicey. Throw in a cross wind, viola'! It seems a high percentage of all pilots would be right on the edge of their ability.

I can see it now:
Probable Cause Incident resulted from attempt to comply with FAA regulations.
 
Richard said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I don't see loss of airspeed indication as having any bearing on directional control on landing, I don't see any contradiction between my two posts. If you can't land on that narrow but relatively long runway without an ASI, I don't see how you could land on it with one, either.
 
I still maintain that if you cannot abort a takeoff from the airspeed where an airspeed indicator would come alive on a C150 you shouldn't be flying on that runway. It comes alive VERY early at VERY manageable speeds and a 150 isn't exactly heavy. It will take *MORE* runway to complete the takeoff then it would take to stop the aircraft.

I really don't think we're talking about it not being safe to abort. That's just a B/S reason to justify the action. The truth was the pilot knew they could fly without, so they did just that. Not because it wasn't safe to stop.

All of this crap about trying to say aborting would be unsafe is an attempt to justify the regulations which were ignored. If you choose to ignore regulations, fine, just don't post about it, and don't expect B/S justifications to protect you.

Sorry I call it like it is.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
Sorry I call it like it is.
Click to expand...

You don't know how it is, or how it was, so how can you call it anything.

It's easy to set and criticize when you imagination is running wild, or brag how you could have seen the ASI earlier, but you really are guessing.

It was my decision, I did what was safe, and there was no violation. Any one who thinks there was, simply does not know the circumstances.

There are a lot more important things to watch at OKH than the ASI. I don't even look at it until I am setting trim for climb.

There is no regulation saying I when must look at it.

the simple fact the ASI failed in flight, by the rules I took it to where it could repaired.
Remember when a flight starts?
 
Ron Levy said:
As I don't see loss of airspeed indication as having any bearing on directional control on landing, I don't see any contradiction between my two posts. If you can't land on that narrow but relatively long runway without an ASI, I don't see how you could land on it with one, either.
Click to expand...

That's true Ron, but were you the owner of the 150, would you rather I take it back to where it could not be repaired, and in so doing beat the crap out of your aircraft and maybe destroy the prop, or take it to AWO where we were going anyway? there we can get the cover fitted, the radios installed, and the ASI fixed?

For all those who believe a violation occurred, tell me when it occurred, and what FAR was broken.

Do you believe the FAA would try to prove when the ASI quit?
Do you believe the FAA would try to prove I knew the ASI was bad prior to the flight?
Technically the ASI failed in flight, because a Flight begins at engine start up for the intended purpose of flight, and ends at engine shut down.

and I did exactly what the rules require, I complied with,
" The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur."

I just happened to discontinue at the place where we were going anyway
 
This thread is not at much about Tom's actions as it is about the hypothetical. Let's say the departure airport was, say Johnson's Bar. Every precaution being made prior to throttle in for takeoff, I'm going for the air no matter whatever instrument failure occurs tween start of roll and rotation.

And I am not diverting to return for immediate landing.

Goodness, the FARs have become like OSHA regs; compliance with one set guarantees noncompliance with others. Depending upon conditions, altering one's behavior to comply with 91.07 could put them closer to violating 91.13.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
the simple fact the ASI failed in flight, by the rules I took it to where it could repaired.
Remember when a flight starts?
Click to expand...

If you go by the 14CFR definition of flight time, it starts when the aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight.
 
Richard said:
This thread is not at much about Tom's actions as it is about the hypothetical. Let's say the departure airport was, say Johnson's Bar. Every precaution being made prior to throttle in for takeoff, I'm going for the air no matter whatever instrument failure occurs tween start of roll and rotation.
Click to expand...

For a day VFR flight in a C-150, I think the only instrument failure I'd for sure abort for would be the oil pressure going to 0.
 
Richard said:
Who could disagree with that? If psi dropped out the bottom, the gauge is still working.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of the oil pressure gauge failing and dropping to zero. But I'd abort anyway, thinking that the gauge was correct.
 
Trapper John said:
If you go by the 14CFR definition of flight time, it starts when the aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight.
Click to expand...

That refers to Pilot time

when does a flight start ?

Really depends upon what you are reporting.

Aircraft Accident - an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which
takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and until
such time as all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious
injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. All aspects of the exceptions to
substantial damage (see "Substantial Damage") should be considered before making a final
substantial damage determination that would classify the occurrence as an accident.
 
Trapper John said:
I was thinking more along the lines of the oil pressure gauge failing and dropping to zero. But I'd abort anyway, thinking that the gauge was correct.
Click to expand...
In the sketchy departure scenario, I'll make a full power run-up prior to entering the runway. It's risk management. We accept/don't accept the risks inherent in flying.
 
Richard said:
In the sketchy departure scenario, I'll make a full power run-up prior to entering the runway. It's risk management. We accept/don't accept the risks inherent in flying.
Click to expand...

Run ups on a debris laden runway, are on the roll. Never set and hold full power if you like your prop.
 
Tom-D said:
Run ups on a debris laden runway, are on the roll. Never set and hold full power if you like your prop.
Click to expand...


:idea:Face it Tom you should just drive to OK city and present yourself to the FAA for a flogging!:hairraise: :rofl:
 
Richard said:
This thread is not at much about Tom's actions as it is about the hypothetical. Let's say the departure airport was, say Johnson's Bar. Every precaution being made prior to throttle in for takeoff, I'm going for the air no matter whatever instrument failure occurs tween start of roll and rotation.

And I am not diverting to return for immediate landing.
Click to expand...


Precisely correct.
 
Could someone be so kind as to point out where in the FARs it says that one has to look at the ASI before lifting off?
 
Tom-D said:
That's true Ron, but were you the owner of the 150, would you rather I take it back to where it could not be repaired, and in so doing beat the crap out of your aircraft and maybe destroy the prop, or take it to AWO where we were going anyway? there we can get the cover fitted, the radios installed, and the ASI fixed?
Click to expand...
When what the owner would rather have you do and what the FAA requires you to do conflict, we find out about your integrity.

For all those who believe a violation occurred, tell me when it occurred, and what FAR was broken.
Click to expand...
It certainly occurred when you departed the OKH area instead of landing back there, and the FAR broken was 14 CFR 91.7(b). It might have occurred when you got rolling fast enough that you should have known the airspeed was inop and there was sufficient remaining runway to stop, but that would be a more difficult case to make and an easier one to defend.

Do you believe the FAA would try to prove when the ASI quit?
Click to expand...
They don't have to -- you admitted it in post #1.

Do you believe the FAA would try to prove I knew the ASI was bad prior to the flight?
Click to expand...
They don't have to -- it's not an essential element of proving the violation.

Technically the ASI failed in flight, because a Flight begins at engine start up for the intended purpose of flight, and ends at engine shut down.
Click to expand...
First, that's both irrelevant and incorrect, and second, while that's consistent with your tale in post #1, it doesn't change the fact that the tale as told admits violating 91.7(b) unless you can demonstrate to an ALJ's satisfaction that OKH was unsuitable for landing in that condition. The fact that something went unairworthy after engine start but before takeoff doesn't allow you to go ahead and take off just because the "flight" might be considered in some contexts to have begun when the first person boarded or the engine was started.

and I did exactly what the rules require, I complied with,
" The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur."

I just happened to discontinue at the place where we were going anyway
Click to expand...
That's your interpretation of the rules. The FAA's and NTSB's interpretation says you must land at the first suitable airport, and I don't think your arguments about OKH (listed as being over 3000 feet long) being unsuitable will fly past them.

It's clear that you have your own personal feelings about what you did, but from a legal perspective, you just can't substitute your own interpretations of the rules for the FAA's. And most of all, putting it all in writing where it can be used against you by the FAA just strikes me as, well, let's just say "unwise."
 
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Could someone be so kind as to point out where in the FARs it says that one has to look at the ASI before lifting off?
Click to expand...
There's no specific FAR, but a reasonably prudent pilot checks for airspeed movement long before that. If a pilot on an Airplane practical test got to liftoff without noticing airspeed failure, I'm pretty sure that pilot would get a Notice of Disapproval, not a discontinuation letter.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
When what the owner would rather have you do and what the FAA requires you to do conflict, we find out about your integrity.
My integrity says that I should not hurt the pax or the aircraft. In my opinion it was safer to fly than to abort. I'm sure the FAA would rather you not bend metal or hurt the pax.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. No violation occurred


It certainly occurred when you departed the OKH area instead of landing back there, and the FAR broken was 14 CFR 91.7(b). It might have occurred when you got rolling fast enough that you should have known the airspeed was inop and there was sufficient remaining runway to stop, but that would be a more difficult case to make and an easier one to defend.

What FAR requires you to look at the ASI? and when?
Where does 91.7 say the pilot must discontinue the flight at the airport of departure? and are you contending that the lack of a ASI is unsafe to fly?

They don't have to -- you admitted it in post #1.

No I did not admit anything, I think you best re-read the post.

They don't have to -- it's not an essential element of proving the violation.

First, that's both irrelevant and incorrect, and second, while that's consistent with your tale in post #1, it doesn't change the fact that the tale as told admits violating 91.7(b) unless you can demonstrate to an ALJ's satisfaction that OKH was unsuitable for landing in that condition. The fact that something went unairworthy after engine start but before takeoff doesn't allow you to go ahead and take off just because the "flight" might be considered in some contexts to have begun when the first person boarded or the engine was started.

bottom line, it still occurred in flight, after departure, Have you noticed what happens about 30 seconds after departure from 07 at OKH? Is it safer to proceed straight ahead to AWO or start maneuvering with no ASI?

That's your interpretation of the rules. The FAA's and NTSB's interpretation says you must land at the first suitable airport, and I don't think your arguments about OKH (listed as being over 3000 feet long) being unsuitable will fly past them.

The first suitable airport leaving OKH is AWO Look at the charts. there is nothing requiring the pilot to turn back to discontinue the flight. NUW is the nearest airport, but unless you have an emergency don't try. and the lack of a ASI isn't an emergency to me.
My interpretation of the FARs is correct, There is no FAR requiring you to look at the ASI before lift off, and there is no FAR requiring you to land back at the point of departure.

It's clear that you have your own personal feelings about what you did, but from a legal perspective, you just can't substitute your own interpretations of the rules for the FAA's. And most of all, putting it all in writing where it can be used against you by the FAA just strikes me as, well, let's just say "unwise."
Click to expand...

Your personal opinion of doesn't count here, There was no violation, no FARs were broken, no metal was bent and no one was hurt, It is the responsibility of the PIC is to insure that happens, You and the FAA would have a very difficult task proving other wise.

You have already pointed out that the lack of the ASI is no safety issue. So it's just a matter of which airport I chose to land, And there is no FAR directing any pilot which airport they must choose.other than " The FAA's and NTSB's interpretation says you must land at the first suitable airport,"

That's AWO 5 minutes directly ahead. No Brainer Ron. even the FAA would agree.
 
Tom-D said:
Your personal opinion of doesn't count here,
Click to expand...
Neither does yours -- only the FAA's. I'm done trying to explain the rules to you, since you seem to think you can make up your own interpretations of them which are not consistent with the FAA's.

You have already pointed out that the lack of the ASI is no safety issue.
Click to expand...
I did not say that.

So it's just a matter of which airport I chose to land, And there is no FAR directing any pilot which airport they must choose.other than " The FAA's and NTSB's interpretation says you must land at the first suitable airport,"
Click to expand...
Well, you've got that right.

That's AWO 5 minutes directly ahead. No Brainer Ron. even the FAA would agree.
Click to expand...
You mean you think the FAA would agree. They might, and they might not, depending on how you presented the case. They might even have concerns over your failure to abort, no less what you did in the air, and if you told them you couldn't land a plane on a 3265-foot runway without an ASI, they might think that demonstrated a lack of competency deserving a 709 ride. All possibilities, which you apparently reject. As you appear adamantly unwilling to believe you can substitute your judgement for the FAA's interpretations of its own rules, I'm done discussing this with you.
 
Yesterday I drive into town to get a pop knowing my proof of insurance card was still in the house.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't think that's an appropriate comparison to flying an airplane with a known mechanical airworthiness discrepancy, but YMMV.
Click to expand...

what about a '69 Int'l flatbed, in the rain, with no wipers and no speedometer? It seems to me that given certain shortcomings the responsibility falls on the PIC. Any investigator would need to know the circumstances and those facts are gathered by interviewing witnesses, obviously including the PIC. I do not know any of you, but whenever at the controls, the judgement is made by you. That same person would have to accept resposibility for anything that occurs, which in this case was a happy, safe ending for everybody. I doubt a pilot who has the confidence bestowed in him by another pilot to safely transport his aircraft, and who seems to be intimately familiar with both departure And arrival airports would make erroneous judgement simply to challenge authority. It boils down to a judgement call made by the PIC, which may seem by READING to be a less-than-safest judgement to some, but the last i checked a C-150 is a two-seater and there is only one poster on this thread who was there. He did what seemed to be the right thing to do at the time, and hes standing by his decision. Dont trip on that dead horse...
 
Let's break it down:

Competent pilot takes off from small strip. Never looks at the panel. Takes off normally, climbs to 1000' AGL, Levels off, reduces power, glances at ASI -- hmmm -- zero?

Aeronautical Decision making boiled down: What is the worst outcome of this non-functioning indicator?


  1. Is there a threat to a life?
  2. Is there a threat to the aircraft?
  3. Is there a threat to the pilot's privileges?

For most competent pilots flying familiar airplanes in benign conditions the answer to 1 & 2 is "no"
Note: I don't think a pilot should be deemed "competent" if he/she cannot fly a pattern with nothing but the windshield (but that's just me).
​
3 might pose a problem, if the circumstances conspire and the pilot aids in the piling up of those circumstances.
 
Tom-D said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correction: You already have a big problem. ;)
 
While, technically, there might have been a violation of the FAR's, certainly the officials at FAA and NTSB would take into consideration the opinion of the safest course of action from the PIC. The only way this would become an issue is if there was and accident/incident due to the discrepancy.
While my training included glancing at the ASI to confirm "airspeed alive," it also included flight without an ASI. I really can't see that a short flight without an ASI is of any real concern, and, in my own personal opinion, I do not think that any reasonable inspector would have any problem with it as long as it is repaired before further flight.

I would certainly not fault someone who continued a flight onward to another much more suitable airport than the departure airport, even if it does happen to be the airport they wanted to get to anyway. And one can't argue the better suitability of the arrival airport, considering it has a much longer and wider runway. There are some failures that require immediate diversion and action, but an ASI failure is not one of them.

Why do we have to argue extensively over the minutiae of unimportant details?
 
I feel the urge to jump into this thread even at this late date. When I first read Tom's post there were no responses. My FIRST thought was that he'd get plastered for flying without that ASI. Boy was I right.

In my 35 years of flying I have had more than my share of "excitement" and even full blown emergencies. In thinking about these events I can honestly say I never once considered the regulatory implications of the best course of action. Nor do I intend to in the future. I suggest that lower time pilots not get too caught up in figuring out which Part 91 subparagraph covers what to do when the SHTF. Yes, know the rules. Yes, follow the rules. But when faced with abnormal or emergency situations, aviate, aviate, aviate.
 
Lance F said:
I feel the urge to jump into this thread even at this late date. When I first read Tom's post there were no responses. My FIRST thought was that he'd get plastered for flying without that ASI. Boy was I right.

In my 35 years of flying I have had more than my share of "excitement" and even full blown emergencies. In thinking about these events I can honestly say I never once considered the regulatory implications of the best course of action. Nor do I intend to in the future. I suggest that lower time pilots not get too caught up in figuring out which Part 91 subparagraph covers what to do when the SHTF. Yes, know the rules. Yes, follow the rules. But when faced with abnormal or emergency situations, aviate, aviate, aviate.
Click to expand...

So very true!

Someone I know lost all electric power in IMC last year. He may have used a handheld GPS to fly the LOC 5 approach back to the departure field.

The landing was completed, ATC was called, and we that guy lived to fly another day.
 
dmccormack said:
So very true!

Someone I know lost all electric power in IMC last year. He may have used a handheld GPS to fly the LOC 5 approach back to the departure field.

The landing was completed, ATC was called, and we that guy lived to fly another day.
Click to expand...

Which would have been perfectly legal.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't think that's an appropriate comparison to flying an airplane with a known mechanical airworthiness discrepancy, but YMMV.
Click to expand...

It's pretty close, you have yet to explain when the ASI failed, or how the FAA would prove any thing.

Your case is pretty feeble, And only you would try to make a case of it.

You have yet to prove that it is required to land at the nearest airport, that simply isn't in the rules.

You have yet to show when the ASI failed, because I said "we depart 07 OKH and find the airspeed indicator is staying at 0" you have no idea when the ASI failed because you don't know when I looked at it during the departure.

You have yet to prove there was a safety issue. because you your self said,
"I personally don't see a major issue landing a C-150 without airspeed for anyone who meets Private Pilot PTS standards."

see your port #61

Bottom line, no violation, no safety issue, and the FAA won't touch it with out proof of when I knew the ASI was inop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top