Saratoga down off Palm Beach, FL

John. No name calling here. I’ll just simply say that your soap box post adds nothing to this thread. Honestly whether anyone or everyone agrees with you or not, begs the question: WTF does it matter?

Back on topic.
 
Well now, I just want to state for the record @arkvet may have an economic interest in steering the conversation away from the morality of saving animals humans commonly use as pets. Truth in advertising and all that jazz. That Toga ain't gonna fuel itself.

I keed brotha! :D :thumbsup:
 
arkvet said:
John. No name calling here. I’ll just simply say that your soap box post adds nothing to this thread. Honestly whether anyone or everyone agrees with you or not, begs the question: WTF does it matter?

Back on topic.
Click to expand...

I agree, I deleted my post I just made in response to John.
 
Anyone ever heard of the Federal Flight Administration? (And to think when you open the article it asks for a donation to support quality journalism....)
 
...since the topic of dogs came up.. when you guys file your IFR flight plans, do you include your dog as one of the souls?
 
Well, now that all the name calling and nastiness is done, can we see if there’s a POA radar expert out there.

I remember reading a few years ago that passing through radar returns that are green carries very little risk; radar returns that are yellow have about a 1-2% risk of damage and red returns about 4-5% risk. Is that about right?

Also, that the risk is contained within all of the contiguous radar areas. So if the whole field is green with a single yellow dot, then the risk for the whole area is in the yellow area.

It looks like the pilot was shooting for the hole between the severe returns. If you didn’t understand that the severe risk extends further than is indicated, then it’s possible to understand the decision making here.

Please, wiser people share with us.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
drjcustis said:
Well, now that all the name calling and nastiness is done, can we see if there’s a POA radar expert out there.

I remember reading a few years ago that passing through radar returns that are green carries very little risk; radar returns that are yellow have about a 1-2% risk of damage and red returns about 4-5% risk. Is that about right?

Also, that the risk is contained within all of the contiguous radar areas. So if the whole field is green with a single yellow dot, then the risk for the whole area is in the yellow area.

It looks like the pilot was shooting for the hole between the severe returns. If you didn’t understand that the severe risk extends further than is indicated, then it’s possible to understand the decision making here.

Please, wiser people share with us.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'd say you're about this much right...
upload_2019-2-4_15-30-48.png
:D
 
It depends, if red turned to yellow, little risk, if green turns to yellow, big risk...you need more than a static picture.
I prefer to use my eyes and remain VFR.


Tom
 
arkvet said:
John. No name calling here. I’ll just simply say that your soap box post adds nothing to this thread. Honestly whether anyone or everyone agrees with you or not, begs the question: WTF does it matter?
Click to expand...

Good point, it doesn't matter.

But I suspect most of us would sacrifice a hell of a lot of dogs to save say, one of our kids. If one wants to send "prayers for the pilot and dog", that's their right and mine is to remind that person that there is no equivalency. A real death happened here and if it were your loved one you might not appreciate some pilot placing your son/husband/brother on the same level as a dog. Also, when I said I'd do it with a smile, of course I wouldn't be happy about killing a bunch of dogs; just trying to emphasize that I would in a heart beat to save a human life.

MooneyDriver78 said:
...anyone who smiles while killing 10,000 dogs has a mental problem, even if it’s to save a human life.
Click to expand...

Tom, I hope the explanation above keeps me out of the nut house. To me, NOT placing human life at least several levels above that of a dog is psychotic.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
But I suspect most of us would sacrifice a hell of a lot of dogs to save say, one of our kids. If one wants to send "prayers for the pilot and dog", that's their right and mine is to remind that person that there is no equivalency. A real death happened here and if it were your loved one you might not appreciate some pilot placing your son/husband/brother on the same level as a dog. Also, when I said I'd do it with a smile, of course I wouldn't be happy about killing a bunch of dogs; just trying to emphasize that I would in a heart beat to save a human life.
Click to expand...
What is it with you and dogs? We get it, you'd happily murder a ton of dogs to save one person

And no, if I crash and die in my plane with my dog then I wouldn't be upset of people putting him on the same "equal" as me. In just about every aspect my dog is a better living being than I am.. in fact, if we both crashed and die if anything it is him who should be offended about being considered equal to me!

PS, these morality games that people love to play are ridiculous "would the AI car swerve into the child or the bus load of elderly?!" .. "would you murder 10,000 dogs to save one human?" <- it's completely absurd.. the world is never as simple or black and white where if A then B occurs.. that's why these hypotheticals always involve "a man puts a gun to your head... kill 10,000 dogs or one human?" <- it's absurd, and dark, and has no place on an aviation forum

PS - this pilot deserves a very limited amount of sympathy.. yes it's sad people had to die (so he gets that default sympathy), but the guy, just be honest here, was a total clown for attempting to fly through that wall of hell. That was a suicide mission and it's borderline criminal that others were murdered as a result of his carelessness
 
Tantalum said:
...since the topic of dogs came up.. when you guys file your IFR flight plans, do you include your dog as one of the souls?
Click to expand...

As someone who is typically flying with 30-40 dogs on board, I do not. My understanding of the FAA intent is that they are wanting to know human souls for search and rescue purposes. I also don't want to have to explain to someone why I listed 41 souls on board for a 7 seat aircraft. I typically put in the remarks that I'm flying an animal rescue transport with [x] dogs/cats/alligators/etc. on board, sometimes it gets priority handling and sometimes it does not.

I have flown through a lot of rotten weather in my day in lower altitude GA aircraft, including some convective activity (no, not intentionally). The worst turbulence I've flown in (definitely severe) has actually not been in convection, but in clear winter weather with insane winds and wind shear. I won't forget that day.

That radar return does not look like anything that would've "ripped the wings off" in my opinion, but of course that's just a FlightAware photo that may have questionable accuracy. However he could've ended up in a downdraft that he couldn't keep up with, maybe got scared/disoriented and pulled too hard on the yoke and had a structural failure. If you read through a bunch of NTSB reports of crashes like that you'll find that seems to generally be the probable cause - either stated, implied, or otherwise logically assumed if you read through the details of the report.

Should you end up in a thunderstorm or think you may end up in convective activity, keep your speed as close to Va as possible, and remember to worry about wings level, don't worry about altitude should things get bumpy. And, most importantly, keep calm, don't panic.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
As someone who is typically flying with 30-40 dogs on board, I do not. My understanding of the FAA intent is that they are wanting to know human souls for search and rescue purposes. I also don't want to have to explain to someone why I listed 41 souls on board for a 7 seat aircraft. I typically put in the remarks that I'm flying an animal rescue transport with [x] dogs/cats/alligators/etc. on board, sometimes it gets priority handling and sometimes it does not.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's sort of what I was thinking.. if I go down I'd love for the SAR to know that there was also a dog on board. Even though it's life is apparently far inferior to mine (10,000 dogs < 1 human) I'd want SAR to try finding him even if I was dead. Maybe they can save his life at least.. the remarks are a good idea, thanks!!

Ted DuPuis said:
That radar return does not look like anything that would've "ripped the wings off" in my opinion
Click to expand...
True, but the other posters here also indicated the weather that day just looked ugly, and if got disoriented or whatever he could have over controlled it and pulled the wings off. The radar return of that 414 flight probably wasn't much more than green either, but he also lost it apparently
 
Tantalum said:
Thanks, that's sort of what I was thinking.. if I go down I'd love for the SAR to know that there was also a dog on board. Even though it's life is apparently far inferior to mine (10,000 dogs < 1 human) I'd want SAR to try finding him even if I was dead. Maybe they can save his life at least.. the remarks are a good idea, thanks!!
Click to expand...

To me remarks are the appropriate place for it in my opinion, although I've never asked anyone who actually does SAR what they are told and where they'd prefer to have the information listed.

True, but the other posters here also indicated the weather that day just looked ugly, and if got disoriented or whatever he could have over controlled it and pulled the wings off. The radar return of that 414 flight probably wasn't much more than green either, but he also lost it apparently
Click to expand...

My point was that the issue was probably the pilot causing the wings to fall off, not the weather actually ripping the wings off due to its severity in a manner that the pilot could not have controlled it. There is an important distinction between those two.

I'm not saying it was good decision making on his part to fly through that cell, but the point is he may have handled it improperly once there causing the problem.
 
Tantalum said:
...since the topic of dogs came up.. when you guys file your IFR flight plans, do you include your dog as one of the souls?
Click to expand...

I have flown dead bodies and I always wondered what would happen if I crashed and the flight plan listed one on board but 2 or 3 bodies are found...

To simplify I would put 1 soul and in the comments section add the number of dead bodies in transport.
 
I never understood the whole "souls on board" thing. Why souls? Why not just number of people on board? Saying souls implies a religious or spiritual belief. If I'm ever asked that question, I'll say zero.
 
Zeldman said:
I have flown dead bodies and I always wondered what would happen if I crashed and the flight plan listed one on board but 2 or 3 bodies are found...
Click to expand...
That's actually an interesting point!

DutchRoller said:
Why souls?
Click to expand...
I agree, so I did some research, at least according to StackExchange (my second favorite site next to POA) the reason is not religious or spiritual at all

So... to @Zeldman point.. it seems "Souls" is used specifically to include all living occupants on board.. so it encompasses crew, passengers, etc., and excludes any corpses being transported.. interesting: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...on-a-plane-given-as-the-number-of-souls-on-bo
 
Tantalum said:
Thanks, that's sort of what I was thinking.. if I go down I'd love for the SAR to know that there was also a dog on board. Even though it's life is apparently far inferior to mine (10,000 dogs < 1 human) I'd want SAR to try finding him even if I was dead. Maybe they can save his life at least.. the remarks are a good idea, thanks!!


True, but the other posters here also indicated the weather that day just looked ugly, and if got disoriented or whatever he could have over controlled it and pulled the wings off. The radar return of that 414 flight probably wasn't much more than green either, but he also lost it apparently
Click to expand...
Just put 1.0001 for souls on board. You acknowledge the presence of your dog AND Johnson McJohnson is happy with the dog being 1/10000th of a person.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 
ircphoenix said:
Just put 1.0001 for souls on board. You acknowledge the presence of your dog AND Johnson McJohnson is happy with the dog being 1/10000th of a person.
Click to expand...
Excellent and pragmatic solution. Cheers
 
Zeldman said:
I have flown dead bodies and I always wondered what would happen if I crashed and the flight plan listed one on board but 2 or 3 bodies are found...

To simplify I would put 1 soul and in the comments section add the number of dead bodies in transport.
Click to expand...
Just don't crash into a cemetery.
 
Last edited:
ja_user said:
Just don't crash into a cemetery
Click to expand...
There's a cemetary off the end of one of the runways at Nashua.. you'd be staring right at it in your base to final turn.. this made for common jokes in the club about convenient crash locations
 
At least the residents don't often complain of the noise.
 
DutchRoller said:
I never understood the whole "souls on board" thing. Why souls? Why not just number of people on board? Saying souls implies a religious or spiritual belief. If I'm ever asked that question, I'll say zero.
Click to expand...

It's a holdover from sea transport. You didn't differentiate between steerage, second class, crew, whatever. "How many souls aboard" was a full head count.
 
ja_user said:
Just don't crash into a cemetery.
Click to expand...

Old joke: “A small two-seater Cessna plane crashed into a cemetery early this afternoon near the University of Texas. Austin search and rescue workers have recovered 300 bodies so far and expect that number to climb as digging continues into the evening.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I’m not boots on the ground investigating the crash, nor was I in the plane, so I’ll just say RIP to all the living creatures aboard the plane who are no longer with us.
 
Last edited:
For about six months several years ago, my weekend commute to go home consisted of airports where both bumped up against cemeteries on approach/departure (depending on arrival/departure direction). For eight years I was based in the former, so I've flown almost my entire ownership tenure by airports that overflew the departed. It became rather normalized for me to fly over that irony. Frankly, it feels weird now not parking next to it these days LOL. I tell you what, they were better neighbors that's for sure, zero noise complaints! :D

Joking aside, once you bury a couple friends in this business, and console your spouse about as many times over the uncertainty of you coming home due to your vocational choices, these things becomes a bit lighter to carry with you. If you can't reach that level of daily levity, no harm no foul, but for your happiness' sake in life you shouldn't partake in this business. You can't white-knuckle life all the time, it'll drive you to an earlier grave.
 
I remember once being told that the term “souls on board” was derived due to the carrying of deceased people. Religion aside it’s intent was to discern alive from dead. Using the terms people or passengers, etc. was less clear. May not be true. Just what I remember.
 
Can you imagine an airliner having to cater to people's political and religious preference or non-preference? LOL

ATC: "Allegiant 6900, say type of emergency and souls on board"
AL6900: "yes sir, um we got uncontained engine failure on the left.... aaaaand 55 believers, 25 infidels, 2 agnostics, one undecided, two dogs, and 5 people arguing in the back about whether we should count the dogs...." :D
 
Going back through this guy's past flights...maybe its just a "Florida thing", but he seemed to fly around thunderstorms a lot.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Can you imagine an airliner having to cater to people's political and religious preference or non-preference? LOL

ATC: "Allegiant 6900, say type of emergency and souls on board"
AL6900: "yes sir, um we got uncontained engine failure on the left.... aaaaand 55 believers, 25 infidels, 2 agnostics, one undecided, two dogs, and 5 people arguing in the back about whether we should count the dogs...." :D
Click to expand...
ATC: Allegiant 6900, ummmm. Squawk 1200. Have a nice day. :D
 
tawood said:
Going back through this guy's past flights...maybe its just a "Florida thing", but he seemed to fly around thunderstorms a lot.
Click to expand...

Florida has a lot of small localized storms. Pretty normal.
 
Zeldman said:
I have flown dead bodies and I always wondered what would happen if I crashed and the flight plan listed one on board but 2 or 3 bodies are found...

To simplify I would put 1 soul and in the comments section add the number of dead bodies in transport.
Click to expand...

DutchRoller said:
I never understood the whole "souls on board" thing. Why souls? Why not just number of people on board? Saying souls implies a religious or spiritual belief. If I'm ever asked that question, I'll say zero.
Click to expand...

Its always been my understanding that it is "souls on board" for that very reason. In the case of flying bodies, basically it means the number of alive people on the plane when it takes off. And I believe it would be incorrect to count a dog as a soul because that number is typically used for SAR efforts. If you count the dog as a soul, they may be sent on a wild goose chase for another person that was never on board. Seems like some have said putting the dogs in the remarks portion to be the smart play.

2 cents from a guy that doesn't have a dog...though not because I dont like dogs
 
I wasn’t trying to make a equivalency statement, but now that I’ve seen the abusive response, I’ll save the dog over the dog massacre guy...

And the attempt to brand my original comment as “political correctness” tells me everything I need to know about this individual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top