My first flight with a new CFII

I am very hesitant to get involved, but, regulation violation or not, I'm glad nobody got hurt, and glad nothing got bent.
 
But Tom, you left the airport surface area to make an overwater flight. Now I agree with your actions and would have done the same. Yet, that is the point of contention now, I think.

Heavens to Betsy, how did pilots keep from killing themselves before govt intervention? (CAA/FAA)
 
Ahhh good, a pizzin contest... Spices up the life...
Anyway - yes it is good to have a working ASI... Not necessary in a light aircraft, but nice...
OTOH, I always have a few sink stoppers in my shirt pocket and if you go for a show and tell ride with me you can assume that you are gonna have some INOP stuff pop up - and the ASI is almost guaranteed to go during the takeoff roll... And if we are going XC, it is a done deal that you will eventually wind up with needle/ball/altimeter/whiskey compass/clock as your working instruments (engine instruments are exempt from sink stoppers for obvious reasons) Now sometimes I veer off into the weeds and the victim, errr pilot, is left with an ASI in place of an altimeter for a demonstration of how easy it is to maintain altitude with the speedo...
****** ****************************************************
This is a fun exercise anyone can do... Start with being straight and level at a given altitude and constant power setting... Cover the altimeter... Fly for 5 minutes keeping a constant power setting and constant ASI reading (you do remember the elevator is your primary speed control, right?)... Uncover the altimeter and see how you did... In smooth conditions staying within 100 feet is duck soup...
If you are good at this then insert a pair of 180 degree turns into the exercise... How'd you do?
********************************************

Now, this is hard work so the victim, errr pilot, needs a coffee break (I'm the one who gets to drink the coffee from my thermos) where just for grins the victim, err pilot, gets to fly with total failure of the yoke - meaning he has to maneuver back onto final approach using only the rudder pedals, throttle, and elevator trim tab (though I usually give him back his speedo for this exercise) and we do break it off at a safe altitude... The idea is not to torture the pilot, but is to instill confidence that he can herd the airplane around the sky and reach the airport with limited instruments or controls and that a simple failure of this or that in flight is an annoyance not an emergency...

This is not intended as a slam on CFI types... They have a job to prepare the student to pass the FAA mandated PTS - and they do a good job at this... My goal is to expand the pilot's thinking of how little it takes to safely control the airplane...

My really strong recommendation to every pilot is to read, and understand, Wolfgang Langewiesche's STICK AND RUDDER... Do that and you triple your chances of surviving an in flight emergency...

denny-o
 
JOOC, would one be required to land at the nearest suitable airport if one's CFI covered the ASI thereby making it "INOP"?
 
gismo said:
JOOC, would one be required to land at the nearest suitable airport if one's CFI covered the ASI thereby making it "INOP"?
Click to expand...

Now thats a damn good question.:ihih::ihih::ihih:..

I predict another 4 pages of chatter now... :idea:.:cool2::cool2:
 
I agree with a whole bunch of posters in this thread. Ron is right about the rules, as usual. Jesse is right, if you can't spot a working ASI and abort in a 150, something is seriously wrong with either you, the aircraft, or the runway. Tom has said that there was something seriously wrong with the runway, and the responsibility for a safe flight, his. Moreover, a safe flight is what he had.

I owe Tom a bit of an apology. When he said he was taking the airplane to get it measured for a cover, I gave a very, very snarky reply, as per my bad habit. However, had my cover been made at the next airport over, I myself would have flown it there to get measured by the maker. Mine was made somewhere far away, like Conneticut.
 
dmccormack said:
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?
Click to expand...
A pilot who gets to level-off at 1000 feet without ever looking at the panel isn't competent.
 
Dr. O said:
Anyway - yes it is good to have a working ASI... Not necessary in a light aircraft, but nice...
Click to expand...
If you mean necessary for safety, there is room for argument, but if you mean necessary to be legally airworthy, there is no argument -- 91.205(b)(1) makes that the #1 required piece of equipment and instruments to be legally airworthy even for day VFR flight.
 
gismo said:
JOOC, would one be required to land at the nearest suitable airport if one's CFI covered the ASI thereby making it "INOP"?
Click to expand...
Covered isn't "inoperative," just simulated inoperative, but I would expect my trainee to tell me that's what s/he'd do if that really happened.
 
Ron Levy said:
|I agree, but in this case, I think the absolute applies.
Click to expand...

To each his own. I think that a pilot who is sufficiently in touch with his airplane can fly it from throttle application to 1,000 feet without having the need to look at the ASI. If whatever situation warrants it...

(I can use the word "think", too.)
 
Ron Levy said:
Covered isn't "inoperative," just simulated inoperative, but I would expect my trainee to tell me that's what s/he'd do if that really happened.
Click to expand...

Now you are making up your own rules.............

If I can't get reliable data from a primary flight instrument then I personally consider it INOP. And being covered up by any method leads to that outcome..... Just my opinion YMMV
 
Dr. O said:
Now sometimes I veer off into the weeds and the victim, errr pilot, is left with an ASI in place of an altimeter for a demonstration of how easy it is to maintain altitude with the speedo...
Click to expand...
Oh no you didn't. I know you didn't just say alt is controlled with power :D:cheerswine:

Whereas that goof ball Langewiesche says the exact opposite when he speaks of tail flippers.
 
jesse said:
They really didn't. Safety has improved.
Click to expand...
Pilots died then, pilots still die...or, in NTSB speech, they suffer fatal injuries.

No argument that flight has become more safe since, say, 1910. I attribute that to the mfgs more than govt. Which FAR has saved my life as opposed to improved aircraft design and metallurgy?
 
Richard said:
Which FAR has saved my life as opposed to improved aircraft design and metallurgy?
Click to expand...
I'm sure that improved aircraft design which was mandated by FARs have saved many lives. I'll throw out TCAS and TAWS as examples.
 
gismo said:
JOOC, would one be required to land at the nearest suitable airport if one's CFI covered the ASI thereby making it "INOP"?
Click to expand...
Victim, er, pilot tells simulated CFI that he will commence simulated approach to simulated landing at simulated airport over yonder. Landing becomes lesson in go-around maneuver.
 
N801BH said:
Now you are making up your own rules.............

If I can't get reliable data from a primary flight instrument then I personally consider it INOP. And being covered up by any method leads to that outcome..... Just my opinion YMMV
Click to expand...
Spot the irony?
 
Trapper John said:
If that were the case, why was CAR Part 3 written in the first place?
Click to expand...
Didn't you watch the Great Waldo Pepper? That scene where the guy who played Clint Eastwood's sidekick in the Everyway But Loose movies is now the chief of the newfangled CAA? Pepper's response sums it up.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
To each his own. I think that a pilot who is sufficiently in touch with his airplane can fly it from throttle application to 1,000 feet without having the need to look at the ASI. If whatever situation warrants it...
Click to expand...
The post said "the panel," not just the ASI. I'll stick with my answer to that question. As for ability/safety and the ASI in isolation, I'll agree with you generally, but not completely. But in my mind, that doesn't excuse not checking the ASI on the roll -- that's a habit out of which you do not want to get.
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
Now you are making up your own rules.............
Click to expand...
No, just reading FAA publications, like the PTS's for various certificates and ratings.

If I can't get reliable data from a primary flight instrument then I personally consider it INOP. And being covered up by any method leads to that outcome..... Just my opinion YMMV
Click to expand...
As you say, that's your personal opinion. Since the FAA not only authorizes but requires the covering of various flight instruments in flight without immediately discontinuing the flight, it's clear they do not share your personal opinion, and there's no variation in that mileage.
 
dmccormack said:
Really? :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
Yes, really.

(FWIW the only gauge I frequently consult in my airplane is oil pressure).
Click to expand...
Well, you had to look at the panel to see that one, and for sure I want to see the tach/MP (if there is one), too. In any event, I sure don't hold with anyone rolling for takeoff without checking the engine gauges, and unless they're on a HUD in your plane, that means looking at the panel. Also, particularly on short fields, I want to make sure I've got my "70 by 50" and going on feel alone isn't particularly reliable for that, especially with variations in wind.

For those unfamiliar, the "70 by 50" check is seeing that you have 70% of your liftoff speed by the time you've used 50% of the runway. It's not as accurate as the V1/Vr/V2 checks in Part 25 aircraft, but it's a pretty good performance check in light singles.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The post said "the panel," not just the ASI. I'll stick with my answer to that question. As for ability/safety and the ASI in isolation, I'll agree with you. But in my mind, that doesn't excuse not checking the ASI on the roll -- that's a habit out of which you do not want to get.
Click to expand...

Ron, I agree with you that it takes only a fraction of a second to glance at the airspeed indicator to see if it is working.

But I do not discount the idea that there may be some rare sort of circumstance that may preclude that from happening.

And with that, I am out of this part of the discussion.
 
Richard said:
Didn't you watch the Great Waldo Pepper? That scene where the guy who played Clint Eastwood's sidekick in the Everyway But Loose movies is now the chief of the newfangled CAA? Pepper's response sums it up.
Click to expand...
Waldo (Robert Redford) is telling Newt (Geoffrey Lewis) how much he dislikes the establishment of regulations over aviation. Newt says, "You done it to yourselves, buddy-boy." Although Newt isn't the head fo the CAA, just the local Inspector.
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, you had to look at the panel to see that one, and for sure I want to see the tach/MP (if there is one), too. In any event, I sure don't hold with anyone rolling for takeoff without checking the engine gauges, and unless they're on a HUD in your plane, that means looking at the panel. Also, particularly on short fields, I want to make sure I've got my "70 by 50" and going on feel alone isn't particularly reliable for that, especially with variations in wind.
Click to expand...

Have you seen my "panel"?

It's a typical pre-war mish-mash. It's as far from a six-pack as Arnold is now.

There's an enormous tach and as long as it's pointing somewhat up and the sound and the feel concur, I'm good to go.

Even then, my airplane has more than many other antiques. The "panel," (such as they were) confirmed what the pilot already should know.
 
Dr. O said:
This is a fun exercise anyone can do... Start with being straight and level at a given altitude and constant power setting... Cover the altimeter... Fly for 5 minutes keeping a constant power setting and constant ASI reading (you do remember the elevator is your primary speed control, right?)... Uncover the altimeter and see how you did... In smooth conditions staying within 100 feet is duck soup...
If you are good at this then insert a pair of 180 degree turns into the exercise... How'd you do?
Click to expand...

That's not only a fun exercise, it's a really useful exercise. When I was an instrument student, my CFII did this to me on a cross-country flight in actual. Before that, I had hardly paid attention to the ASI - Check alive on takeoff was pretty much it. I had power settings down to get my desired approach speeds and performance, so I didn't even pay much attention then.

Forcing me to pay attention to the ASI (as it was my only pitch reference, VSI was covered too) finally opened my eyes as to the usefulness of the ASI, and I discovered that not only could I hold altitude quite well with just the ASI, but also when he gave me all the instruments back, I was holding altitude MUCH more accurately than before.
 
Richard said:
Pilots died then, pilots still die...or, in NTSB speech, they suffer fatal injuries.

No argument that flight has become more safe since, say, 1910. I attribute that to the mfgs more than govt. Which FAR has saved my life as opposed to improved aircraft design and metallurgy?
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself only, I can't say which one has saved my life. Following them has probably saved me from doing something that, in hindsight, was dumb. Many of those rules came from bad experiences by others that I don't need to repeat.
 
steingar said:
I agree with a whole bunch of posters in this thread. Ron is right about the rules,

Not in this case he isn't. He is injecting his own opinion in the interpretation of where the rule 91.7 says to land.

as usual. Jesse is right, if you can't

Who says "CAN'T"

spot a working ASI and abort in a 150, something is seriously wrong with either you, the aircraft, or the runway. Tom has said that there was something seriously wrong with the runway, and the responsibility for a safe flight, his. Moreover, a safe flight is what he had.

Has anyone here has an eagle come thru your wind screen? I have, believe me it will make you watch for them from then on. And we have a bunch of them nesting and a bunch more doing their mating rituals this time of year right over the runway at OKH. Departing OKH the last thing a pilots should be doing is concentrating on anything insode the cockpit. like an airspeed gauge.

I owe Tom a bit of an apology. When he said he was taking the airplane to get it measured for a cover, I gave a very, very snarky reply, as per my bad habit. However, had my cover been made at the next airport over, I myself would have flown it there to get measured by the maker. Mine was made somewhere far away, like Conneticut.
Click to expand...

Not a problem, I get as "snarky" as any one from time to time.

When you fly from podunk dirt or back country fields you best have a priority list and know what's important, My ASI isn't very high on that list.
 
To me, a failed ASI is an emergency situation, because I haven't been trained in no-ASI operations (nor is there any mandate for such training). It's an emergency that requires "immediate action," because there is a need at all times to maintain a safe flying speed, and to avoid situations where circumstances could combine with the ASI failure to create undue hazard to myself or others.

So I need to find a nearby airport that's suitable. I would consider the published length of the departure airport irrelevant if I had knowledge that the usable length was considerably less, and I would consider myself negligent if I ignored that knowledge. I would want an airport that was considerably longer than what I normally would need, because I can't guarantee that my final approach speed will not be higher than normal, and I would consider it prudent to err on the high side because a stall on final approach is more dangerous than floating too far in the flare. The condition of the airport, its usable width, and the obstacle environment would constitute more things to manage, and I feel that increasing the workload when I already have the stress of an equipment failure is not a good idea.

The destination airport was close, and appears to me to be just long enough so that I would not be worried about running off the end if my estimate of airspeed turned out to be wrong. Looking at the chart, I don't see a significantly closer civil airport with what I consider to be adequate safety margins for a no-ASI landing. Although the failure was serious enough that I would be "concerned about safety" in the words of the P/CG, I don't think the danger was imminent enough to justify landing at the military airfields.

In any emergency, I'm going to do what I think I need to do to ensure a safe outcome. If I'm wrong in my estimate of what's required to ensure a safe outcome, such that there's a chance that the FAA may later find fault with my actions, I DON'T CARE! The ONLY thing I care about until I get safely on the ground is making sure that I do get safely on the ground. In fact, if I am called on the carpet for my actions, I will be GRATEFUL for the opportunity to face the music above ground instead of six feet under.

I think it's possible to worry so much about what the FAA will think that unsafe actions are taken. I think Cory Lidle's crash may be an example of that, since there may have been a point where they could have saved themselves by reversing the turn and continuing into the class B airspace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Lidle#Death
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top