Why CPL's should work for free!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeepys,
I think the IMC slant has come from the 'safety' pilot angle, and the CPL flying for free assumption that safety pilots would/should be CPL holders that then fly for free. I've not thought of a better title, but the suggestion was to pair inexperienced with more experienced with no income generated motivation.
FW
I think the IMC slant has come from the 'safety' pilot angle, and the CPL flying for free assumption that safety pilots would/should be CPL holders that then fly for free. I've not thought of a better title, but the suggestion was to pair inexperienced with more experienced with no income generated motivation.
FW
Wrong end of the stick.
Flingingwings,
I see where you are coming from. My problem is I never get to engrossed with the subject on hand and therefore many times I may get the wrong end of the stick, like last time, remember?
Anyway keep up the good work and say hi to S.T. for me please.
I see where you are coming from. My problem is I never get to engrossed with the subject on hand and therefore many times I may get the wrong end of the stick, like last time, remember?
Anyway keep up the good work and say hi to S.T. for me please.
Nigel,
What you are suggesting is foolish (not to mention illegal); only helicopters that have been certificated for flight in IMC (or assessed and approved in accordance with equivalent safety criteria) should be flown (deliberately) into cloud. Certification (in accordance with Appendix B of Parts 27/29) is concerned mainly with stability and handling qualities, instrumentation and limitations. These rules are provided to ensure safety not as a challenge to risk takers. All of us are aware that one of the main causes of (mainly fatal) accidents is loss of control due to lack of visual cues. As an experienced aviator you would be better employed in persuading less experienced aviators to avoid such circumstances not convince them that they should seek experience by deliberately challenging the limitations of themselves and/or their machines.
As an aside, what would happen if, after being frightened by a bad experience, a pilot sued a fellow pilot, instructor or training establishment?
I know that to achieve effect in communication, some feel it necessary to exaggerate (and I do not exclude myself from that principle). However, to make a statement in an open forum (when your identity and company may be known) that you (may) have deliberately operated below limits is somewhat incautious. At the very least, it draws attention to you and the other crew members on your flight and may be used against you (immediately, or later when command or future employment is under discussion - remember this is a small industry).
Offshore shuttling limits are contained in Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.465; they were provided by experienced pilots and are based upon years of experience in the North Sea environment. To remind you of some of the limits; Minima for flying between helidecks located in Class G airspace:
Jim
What you are suggesting is foolish (not to mention illegal); only helicopters that have been certificated for flight in IMC (or assessed and approved in accordance with equivalent safety criteria) should be flown (deliberately) into cloud. Certification (in accordance with Appendix B of Parts 27/29) is concerned mainly with stability and handling qualities, instrumentation and limitations. These rules are provided to ensure safety not as a challenge to risk takers. All of us are aware that one of the main causes of (mainly fatal) accidents is loss of control due to lack of visual cues. As an experienced aviator you would be better employed in persuading less experienced aviators to avoid such circumstances not convince them that they should seek experience by deliberately challenging the limitations of themselves and/or their machines.
As an aside, what would happen if, after being frightened by a bad experience, a pilot sued a fellow pilot, instructor or training establishment?
I know that to achieve effect in communication, some feel it necessary to exaggerate (and I do not exclude myself from that principle). However, to make a statement in an open forum (when your identity and company may be known) that you (may) have deliberately operated below limits is somewhat incautious. At the very least, it draws attention to you and the other crew members on your flight and may be used against you (immediately, or later when command or future employment is under discussion - remember this is a small industry).
Offshore shuttling limits are contained in Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.465; they were provided by experienced pilots and are based upon years of experience in the North Sea environment. To remind you of some of the limits; Minima for flying between helidecks located in Class G airspace:
- the operating height by day shall not be less than 300ft (and the cloud base shall be such as to allow that)
- Two pilot minimum visibility shall not be less than 2K unless one of the structures is continuously visible (i.e. can be seen in the normal FOV)
Jim
Flingwing . I do take your points and they are very valid. I accept that some of what i said was somewhat flippant 
I am not convinced ( having spoken to a handfull of experienced IR pilots ) that popping into cloud with a current IR pilot with say 1000 ft cloud base , is actually dangerous . They say that sas etc is not necessary for short periods of ifr and the mil do it regularly . I accept prob not a good idea in a r22 but if there was a way of giving people real hands on experience it would be a start. I knew people would blindly spout rules at me ...that is the nature of people , usually the ones who like to wear gold bars on their shirts. But there is no reason why one could not do some actual ifr training in a single safely . I have flown in an MD 500 quite happily , safely and legally in cloud so , other than the rules again, it would be quite possible . Lets just leave things as they are and wait for the next one i guess .
I am not convinced ( having spoken to a handfull of experienced IR pilots ) that popping into cloud with a current IR pilot with say 1000 ft cloud base , is actually dangerous . They say that sas etc is not necessary for short periods of ifr and the mil do it regularly . I accept prob not a good idea in a r22 but if there was a way of giving people real hands on experience it would be a start. I knew people would blindly spout rules at me ...that is the nature of people , usually the ones who like to wear gold bars on their shirts. But there is no reason why one could not do some actual ifr training in a single safely . I have flown in an MD 500 quite happily , safely and legally in cloud so , other than the rules again, it would be quite possible . Lets just leave things as they are and wait for the next one i guess .
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel,
Practically there is another problem for you. Your IRI will more than likely only fly IMC legally in a certified twin. That's expensive (even more so when you add the type rating!). Any old IR holder is not automatically an IRI. IRI's don't work for £50 p/hr 
Not really a fair comparison the mil do lots of things regularly that us civvies don't, they also operate under a different set of rules. They select their pilots pre training, us civvies just insist you can afford to learn. 
(and no I've never been in the mil!)
How long is a short period IMC???? How long did the Morecombe bay crash take?
How long does a 180 turn at rate 1 take by comparision?
And again there is a BIG difference between a lone small fluffy friendly cloud when the prevailing viz and weather is good, and the mother of all CB's hidden away in some other more friendly clouds, when the prevailing conditions are not so favourable.
So you're suggesting that they gain their experience on a certified IFR machine but then look to use them for real when they SFH anything from an R22 upwards?? Not a realistic solution I'm afraid, surely for greatest benefit the pilot should be getting the exposure in the aircraft they'll be using 'in anger' 
It's not 'blindly spouting'. This is a public forum. Many of the people discussing this with you are employed pilots, and like it or not they are rules we have to follow. Love the rules or hate them the law is a 'set menu' not a buffet you can pick and choose at. The CAA can be very specific about this at times, so do you suggest I/we publicly advocate breaking the rules concerning the area responsible for the greatest number of incidents and deaths 
Sorry Nigel, but that comment is little more than childish and won't do much to help you win support
Other than the legal issues and the insurance...................... 
And we go full circle back to the whole point of this thread, which is experienced pilots trying to help the less experienced fly more safely. Not our fault we have to do that legally. BUT atleast those involved are trying to do something RATHER than simply sitting and waiting for the next one.
Legal issues aside (and far more simplistic) your proposal is not a huge amount different to a possible motoring solution.................
A high cause of accidents is driving at an inappropriate speed for the prevailing conditions (be they fog, mist, snow, ice etc etc).
Our suggestion is teach the drivers to better understand the prevailing conditions,the limitations of both their vehicle and themselves, and then hope that 'they' learn how to not get themselves into the problems in the first place.
Your suggestion is to take them out with an experienced driver in a top end car, race about in fog and ice, and then put them back in their own less able vehicle and let them presume they and they're vehicle will 'perform' when they really need it to
It is a very simplistic analogy but I prefer to drain the swamp of water, before I leap in (hoping it's clear), rather than worry about the water when I'm up to my @rse in crocodiles.
Each to their own I suppose.
FW
I am not convinced ( having spoken to a handfull of experienced IR pilots ) that popping into cloud with a current IR pilot with say 1000 ft cloud base , is actually dangerous
the mil do it regularly
(and no I've never been in the mil!)How long is a short period IMC???? How long did the Morecombe bay crash take?
How long does a 180 turn at rate 1 take by comparision?And again there is a BIG difference between a lone small fluffy friendly cloud when the prevailing viz and weather is good, and the mother of all CB's hidden away in some other more friendly clouds, when the prevailing conditions are not so favourable.
accept prob not a good idea in a r22 but if there was a way of giving people real hands on experience it would be a start.
I knew people would blindly spout rules at me
that is the nature of people , usually the ones who like to wear gold bars on their shirts
But there is no reason why one could not do some actual ifr training in a single safely
Lets just leave things as they are and wait for the next one i guess .
Legal issues aside (and far more simplistic) your proposal is not a huge amount different to a possible motoring solution.................
A high cause of accidents is driving at an inappropriate speed for the prevailing conditions (be they fog, mist, snow, ice etc etc).
Our suggestion is teach the drivers to better understand the prevailing conditions,the limitations of both their vehicle and themselves, and then hope that 'they' learn how to not get themselves into the problems in the first place.
Your suggestion is to take them out with an experienced driver in a top end car, race about in fog and ice, and then put them back in their own less able vehicle and let them presume they and they're vehicle will 'perform' when they really need it to
It is a very simplistic analogy but I prefer to drain the swamp of water, before I leap in (hoping it's clear), rather than worry about the water when I'm up to my @rse in crocodiles.
Each to their own I suppose.
FW
I could equally use the analogy of sending your child to a skid pan to teach them to control a skid if they get into one . They will drive their own car , at speed on a very slippery road ( v dangerous and they should NOT do this in real life .....but in case they do you give them the experience ). They do this with an instructor , go out and skid...panic ....do the wrong thing ....and then learn . I do believe you would feel they are a safer driver after experiencing a high speed skid and learning how to correct it ???? It appears to me you think telling them it is against the law to drive fast , especially on wet roads, will do the trick ...... well it hasnt in aviation has it .
You brought up the analogy and i think it is v good . Both the driver AND the pilot NEVER experience these dangers for real in their training .....i imagine you think skid pan training is a useful tool in road safety .?? ( if you havent been trained with a pro you will definitely have practiced skids alone in your youth ...surely )
ps and yes i think the rules need breaking every now and then
You brought up the analogy and i think it is v good . Both the driver AND the pilot NEVER experience these dangers for real in their training .....i imagine you think skid pan training is a useful tool in road safety .?? ( if you havent been trained with a pro you will definitely have practiced skids alone in your youth ...surely )
ps and yes i think the rules need breaking every now and then
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears to me you think telling them it is against the law to drive fast , especially on wet roads, will do the trick
if you havent been trained with a pro you will definitely have practiced skids alone in your youth ...surely
I can also say I never needed to experience skids for the thrill in my youth, and despite exposure to skids at high speeds in 9 years of daily high speed driving I never needed that training.Surely IFR in an approved sim achieves that point? It's cheaper than using an aircraft, safer than using an unapproved single, legal for both student and instructor, and there are no insurance/ litigation issues.
ps and yes i think the rules need breaking every now and then
. I'm not advocating that ALL rules (not just aviation) must be followed all the time but there comes a point where a 'line' has to be drawn.It is evident that you feel pressing on and using your greater abilities to save yourself is acceptable. Experienced pilots are offering their time for free to educate the less experienced, and if that saves only one life then all the time and effort will be worthwhile.
On your own you can do what you like, legal, sensible or otherwise. I and many others don't agree with you (our freedom of choice). I sincerely hope Pprune doesn't ever have a NigelH CFIT thread.
This has gone full circle, much the same as a lenghty previous thread on which you voiced your views on scud running and inadvertant IMC. There are two sides that never see eye to eye. Its those that sit on the fence I fear for most.
Think we're done here.
FW
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: england
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one word
Nigelh, Flingingwings.
Have read your thoughts with interest.
one word sums up the difference between your points of view:
Subjectivity.
Nigelh - you believe in making a judgement based on the moment (incorporating all aspects of the pilot, ithe nstructor, the weather, the machine, the rules).
Flingingwings - you believe in dispensing with all aspects of subjectivity by designing a procedural system that is to be followed.
Neither is wrong, both have a place in every aspect of our daily lives, but often they are in conflict with each other.
A long while ago I came across the wreckage of a particular Jet Ranger. It was the first crashed heli I'd ever seen and I was staggered to see how COMPLETELY trashed it was. I asked my instructor (Mike Smith of Heliair fame) what had happened and he said that it had hit a tree whilst landing
"in a site which was smaller than the pilot's Ego".
A great expression, and one I've never forgotten.
Perhaps we should add another expression to our lexicon:
"flying in conditions beyond the capability of the pilot"
Big Ls
Have read your thoughts with interest.
one word sums up the difference between your points of view:
Subjectivity.
Nigelh - you believe in making a judgement based on the moment (incorporating all aspects of the pilot, ithe nstructor, the weather, the machine, the rules).
Flingingwings - you believe in dispensing with all aspects of subjectivity by designing a procedural system that is to be followed.
Neither is wrong, both have a place in every aspect of our daily lives, but often they are in conflict with each other.
A long while ago I came across the wreckage of a particular Jet Ranger. It was the first crashed heli I'd ever seen and I was staggered to see how COMPLETELY trashed it was. I asked my instructor (Mike Smith of Heliair fame) what had happened and he said that it had hit a tree whilst landing
"in a site which was smaller than the pilot's Ego".
A great expression, and one I've never forgotten.
Perhaps we should add another expression to our lexicon:
"flying in conditions beyond the capability of the pilot"
Big Ls
Last edited by biggles99; 9th Nov 2008 at 09:04. Reason: speeeeling agian
As much as I disagree with his ideas of a quick flight in cloud in a single, I don't wish to see a Nigelh CFIT thread. I don't particularly wish to see any more threads on the subject of one of us 'buying the farm'.
Accidents will continue to happen. Rules will continue to be bent and i'll bet a months salary( £15.22) that we'll be reading of at least one more bad weather accidnet in the next 12 months.
Whilst Nigelh is saying a bit of an eye opener will possibly help matters, Flingingwings is saying maybe we should use sensible means to fulfil this experience, and yes, I wouldn't get into a car driving argument with FW as he's probably the best placed to win that one any time.
FNPT2's may not be real helicopters, but they do have a place in the training environment which, being cheaper and 'unbreakable', would seem to be the best solution.
I'm pretty sure the operators of these procedural training devices would 'sell' some training time to ppl holders and even cpl holders. Give them a try. Ring them and ask. Look at Multiflight, (leeds), Fast (Thruxton), Helicopter Services (Wycombe) etc.There are probably more. I spent 40 hours in one (not all at once) and you really do get a lot from them.
Just plan a flight along a fixed route. Get used to the sensitivity of the controls (it's a non SAS B206 or AS35 mockup usually) and then set off with a 2000' cloud base with light winds etc. Get the operator to gradually reduce the viz and cloudbase, add in some turbulence, and just see how you get on. You decide how far you go. Replay any part you like over and over. It's a cheap and very safe way of getting that experience without taking a totally unsuitable machine into cloud. That is foolish under any circumstances and I don't car who is flying it.
NigelH, If you're happy breaking one rule, are you happy breaking others? I always thought the rules and certification limits were just that, not guidelines to use as you see fit.
Accidents will continue to happen. Rules will continue to be bent and i'll bet a months salary( £15.22) that we'll be reading of at least one more bad weather accidnet in the next 12 months.
Whilst Nigelh is saying a bit of an eye opener will possibly help matters, Flingingwings is saying maybe we should use sensible means to fulfil this experience, and yes, I wouldn't get into a car driving argument with FW as he's probably the best placed to win that one any time.
FNPT2's may not be real helicopters, but they do have a place in the training environment which, being cheaper and 'unbreakable', would seem to be the best solution.
I'm pretty sure the operators of these procedural training devices would 'sell' some training time to ppl holders and even cpl holders. Give them a try. Ring them and ask. Look at Multiflight, (leeds), Fast (Thruxton), Helicopter Services (Wycombe) etc.There are probably more. I spent 40 hours in one (not all at once) and you really do get a lot from them.
Just plan a flight along a fixed route. Get used to the sensitivity of the controls (it's a non SAS B206 or AS35 mockup usually) and then set off with a 2000' cloud base with light winds etc. Get the operator to gradually reduce the viz and cloudbase, add in some turbulence, and just see how you get on. You decide how far you go. Replay any part you like over and over. It's a cheap and very safe way of getting that experience without taking a totally unsuitable machine into cloud. That is foolish under any circumstances and I don't car who is flying it.
NigelH, If you're happy breaking one rule, are you happy breaking others? I always thought the rules and certification limits were just that, not guidelines to use as you see fit.
Sometimes on this site you have to throw in a curved ball to get people to react and not just sit back and read . I do not intend to be on this site re cfit , i assure you . Do i fly in poor wx? Yes because i am careful and if i didnt i would rarely fly at all !!!! ( This is yorkshire ) This type of flying can only be done safely with practice and is not for new ppl, s i agree and i have never advocated them "pushing on " . One very good idea to come out of this has to be the sim and encouraging pilots to do the flights into reducing viz . If there could be a push to offer some evenings incl watching other people get into trouble and with an instructor talking it through, that would be a step in the right direction .
Ref my comments on earlier posts....i fully accept that the F W,s , Helimuts etc may have far more skills than i possess . My problem is that we have so many good brains available to try to help reduce the high level of cfit and yet we seem to be unable to come up with anything better than ..stick to the rules ...dont fly if there is any poor wx ..etc How many of the pilots in these incidents had more ifr training than the basics ? Do ifr rated ppl,s ( prob not many of them ) and cpl,s suffer cfit less ? I still believe there could be a way of doing actual in a single cheaply . ( there are 206 and 500,s out there with full ifr kit )
Ref my comments on earlier posts....i fully accept that the F W,s , Helimuts etc may have far more skills than i possess . My problem is that we have so many good brains available to try to help reduce the high level of cfit and yet we seem to be unable to come up with anything better than ..stick to the rules ...dont fly if there is any poor wx ..etc How many of the pilots in these incidents had more ifr training than the basics ? Do ifr rated ppl,s ( prob not many of them ) and cpl,s suffer cfit less ? I still believe there could be a way of doing actual in a single cheaply . ( there are 206 and 500,s out there with full ifr kit )
Yes some do have the kit. There's a nice shiny red R44 with a pretty comprehensive kit in Sheffield, but would I fly it IMC? No way. I don't feel competent to take what is basically a non SAS machine into clouds. Apart from the fact that it'd be illegal, and probably void any insurance if I knowingly took it there and had an incident. The instruments and the helicopter don't know they're in cloud. They couldn't care less, but that isn't the point. I don't profess to have thousands of hours IMC. I have only probably a couple hundred actual IMC. But that is in a medium twin, with two crew, full dual auto pilot and all the bells and whistles. It's just another day at work for us but would I like to do it onshore, SPIFR? Not sure yet. Ask me in a year or two when I have more experience. 
You're right that something should be done. the Safety evening themes are running into other things and hopefully VeeAny will be able to give more info soon. He has enough on his plate right now but watch this space. There is possibly to be a study carried out using sim and low experience pilots.
All we want is no accidents due to the same causes.
Not a lot to ask but getting that message across isn't as easy as you think, unfortunately.
You're right that something should be done. the Safety evening themes are running into other things and hopefully VeeAny will be able to give more info soon. He has enough on his plate right now but watch this space. There is possibly to be a study carried out using sim and low experience pilots.
All we want is no accidents due to the same causes.
Not a lot to ask but getting that message across isn't as easy as you think, unfortunately.
Well something may come out of this ....i think the sim idea is great and hope to hear more soon . Dont mean to be like a dog with a bone but ....wouldnt an experienced instrument instructor be able to safely fly that R44 ifr ? Why does it need sas ? what happens in an ifr machine if the sas fails ...are you toast ? I dont think so !! In which case you could demonstrate and give hands on for students in actual for no great cost . If the only reason is the rules ...well maybe they should be changed to allow for training . I am sorry but there are a lot of rules that are just daft ( singles into Battersea etc )and maybe the single engine ifr should be changed to allow at least for training to encourage people to do it or make 5hrs actual mandatory.
My last word ( honest !) has to be the daft way we all practice autos relentlessly in training when engine failure is the very least likely thing that is going to kill you !!! ( and we wreck countless machines ...albeit mostly 22,s !)
The MOST likely ...cfit ....what training ? Virtually none at all . Just wise old men saying "dont go there". One day we will see sense and prepare people for the worst and at least give them a fighting chance .
My last word ( honest !) has to be the daft way we all practice autos relentlessly in training when engine failure is the very least likely thing that is going to kill you !!! ( and we wreck countless machines ...albeit mostly 22,s !)
The MOST likely ...cfit ....what training ? Virtually none at all . Just wise old men saying "dont go there". One day we will see sense and prepare people for the worst and at least give them a fighting chance .
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I'd take all trainee ppls outside, point at a cloud and tell them "stay out. Those things kill if you don't know how to deal with them."
I recently did a charter on a fully kitted twin. The lead passenger had a PPL and 150 hours. We were IMC from the climb out until we reached DH on the approach (ILS). The lead passenger sat next to me and despite having a full set of instruments felt disorientated. He had been told that if you enter IMC you should do a 180 out of it. I've looked inside his R44 and doubt that a low hour/uncurrent pilot could carry out such a manouvre with any level of safety with the kit provdided and the position it is in. The cockpit layout is in no way conducive to accurate IF.
He's been great for business. When the weather is iffy the '44 stays in his shed and he hires us to get him there. If we say no then he knows it is meant purely on safety grounds.
Many of us have found ourselves in bad positions and luck more than skill has kept us alive. My customer has learned a lot flying as a passenger and has the sense to never try anything beyond his personally set limits. Too many people who own private helis are succesful in one area of life and believe that therefore they can be succesful at everything. The ego trap then opens before them. The lucky ones dodge the trap and learn some humbling lessons,
The unlucky get their actions discussed on here, at length.
I'd like to get to retirement without ever appearing on here as a statistic, and I'd like the same for everyone else.
VH
I recently did a charter on a fully kitted twin. The lead passenger had a PPL and 150 hours. We were IMC from the climb out until we reached DH on the approach (ILS). The lead passenger sat next to me and despite having a full set of instruments felt disorientated. He had been told that if you enter IMC you should do a 180 out of it. I've looked inside his R44 and doubt that a low hour/uncurrent pilot could carry out such a manouvre with any level of safety with the kit provdided and the position it is in. The cockpit layout is in no way conducive to accurate IF.
He's been great for business. When the weather is iffy the '44 stays in his shed and he hires us to get him there. If we say no then he knows it is meant purely on safety grounds.
Many of us have found ourselves in bad positions and luck more than skill has kept us alive. My customer has learned a lot flying as a passenger and has the sense to never try anything beyond his personally set limits. Too many people who own private helis are succesful in one area of life and believe that therefore they can be succesful at everything. The ego trap then opens before them. The lucky ones dodge the trap and learn some humbling lessons,
The unlucky get their actions discussed on here, at length.
I'd like to get to retirement without ever appearing on here as a statistic, and I'd like the same for everyone else.
VH
Verticalhold
I concur wholeheartedly with your sentiments, it does however make my recent experience even more ironic.
Take an IFR twin on a hard wx day company has given you wrong timings and what was no pressure turns into you can now arrive on time but with no leeway to meet the plane, throw in a GPS fails IMC enroute to airfield 30nms away (GPS goes into DR mode, so it doesn't go off it lies about where you are based on what you are doing), no problem we'll fly the procedure, ATIS gives wx now 150ft below minimums at destination for the NDB (an airfield who don't do TAFs), let down through hole, continue enroute VMC get pushed down, decide this is silly turn away from the hills towards nearest airfield (low and poor vis) DI gives up in the turn. Ask for position fix from Radar, they agree with where you tell them you think you are (can't pick up map, outside not nice). Consider landing decide against it due nearby horses, proceed to nearest non IF airfield about 3 miles away. Deposit boss in car to meet plane.
Get a phone call, from the boss a couple of days later to say I think someone else might have carried on and got me to the plane so I am going to use them from now on.
What would you say ?
Sorry for the thread creep, it seemed appropriate after VHs post.
I concur wholeheartedly with your sentiments, it does however make my recent experience even more ironic.
Take an IFR twin on a hard wx day company has given you wrong timings and what was no pressure turns into you can now arrive on time but with no leeway to meet the plane, throw in a GPS fails IMC enroute to airfield 30nms away (GPS goes into DR mode, so it doesn't go off it lies about where you are based on what you are doing), no problem we'll fly the procedure, ATIS gives wx now 150ft below minimums at destination for the NDB (an airfield who don't do TAFs), let down through hole, continue enroute VMC get pushed down, decide this is silly turn away from the hills towards nearest airfield (low and poor vis) DI gives up in the turn. Ask for position fix from Radar, they agree with where you tell them you think you are (can't pick up map, outside not nice). Consider landing decide against it due nearby horses, proceed to nearest non IF airfield about 3 miles away. Deposit boss in car to meet plane.
Get a phone call, from the boss a couple of days later to say I think someone else might have carried on and got me to the plane so I am going to use them from now on
.What would you say ?
Sorry for the thread creep, it seemed appropriate after VHs post.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not flying on Jan 21st
Blackadder: Baldrick, what are you doing out there?
Baldrick: I'm carving something on this bullet sir.
Blackadder: What are you carving?
Baldrick: I'm carving "Baldrick", sir.
Blackadder: Why?
Baldrick: It's a cunning plan actually.
Blackadder: Of course it is.
Baldrick: You see, you know they say that somewhere there's a bullet with your name on it?
Blackadder: Yes?
Baldrick: Well, I thought if I owned the bullet with my name on it, I'd never get hit by it, 'cos I won't ever shoot myself.
Blackadder: Oh, shame.
Cheers
Whirls
Baldrick: I'm carving something on this bullet sir.
Blackadder: What are you carving?
Baldrick: I'm carving "Baldrick", sir.
Blackadder: Why?
Baldrick: It's a cunning plan actually.
Blackadder: Of course it is.
Baldrick: You see, you know they say that somewhere there's a bullet with your name on it?
Blackadder: Yes?
Baldrick: Well, I thought if I owned the bullet with my name on it, I'd never get hit by it, 'cos I won't ever shoot myself.
Blackadder: Oh, shame.
Cheers
Whirls
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VeeAny;
I remember you describing this flight at the time. Your boss never realised the work load you had and what the potential risks were. That is the sign of a bloody good pilot. I've lost customers in similar circumstances and it smarts.
What he doesn't realise is that the one who would press on is the one without the experience or knowledge to know how fast things will get out of hand. Last year I diverted from a private site (in a valley) to a field I knew I could get into 12 miles away. Told the boss to get into a car and had my ears ripped off all the way to Battersea as just as he was getting in the car a heli landed in the valley and collected it's customer from the same party.
The pilot of that aircraft took monumental risks. I tracked down who it was out of interest. He was new to both the game (recently ex-mil) and new to the heli. I would never use this pilot. His employer can't have line trained him properly as he should have known the rules or he set out to prove a point.
I hope your boss has calmed down. You deserved a bonus not a bollocking.
VH
I remember you describing this flight at the time. Your boss never realised the work load you had and what the potential risks were. That is the sign of a bloody good pilot. I've lost customers in similar circumstances and it smarts.
What he doesn't realise is that the one who would press on is the one without the experience or knowledge to know how fast things will get out of hand. Last year I diverted from a private site (in a valley) to a field I knew I could get into 12 miles away. Told the boss to get into a car and had my ears ripped off all the way to Battersea as just as he was getting in the car a heli landed in the valley and collected it's customer from the same party.
The pilot of that aircraft took monumental risks. I tracked down who it was out of interest. He was new to both the game (recently ex-mil) and new to the heli. I would never use this pilot. His employer can't have line trained him properly as he should have known the rules or he set out to prove a point.
I hope your boss has calmed down. You deserved a bonus not a bollocking.
VH
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Veeany,
Good call
Bosses like that aren't worth flying for.
It is frustrating, but lets hope the chap realises he can pay any old monkey to fly badly, what he's paying you for is to ensure he gets 'there' safely, professionally and most importantly alive.
FW
Good call
Bosses like that aren't worth flying for.
It is frustrating, but lets hope the chap realises he can pay any old monkey to fly badly, what he's paying you for is to ensure he gets 'there' safely, professionally and most importantly alive.
FW
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
Bosses like that aren't worth flying for.
