drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
I was outside that morning, the fog was pretty bad. I wouldn't fly in it. I went sailing, and waited for it to clear before going out. Visibility was about 200 feet here.
Four killed in BOW crash
- Thread starter Murdoughnut
- Start date
I was outside that morning, the fog was pretty bad. I wouldn't fly in it. I went sailing, and waited for it to clear before going out. Visibility was about 200 feet here.
A300Capt
Freight Dawg
I don’t know the experience level or ratings held by the pilot in the accident. I don’t know if the weather was a very localized condition or widespread problem which would’ve played in the go/no go decision matrix. I don’t know if a sudden mechanical or even a medical condition causing the pilot to be distracted or impaired enough to lose his visual bearing with the rwy centerline. We may never know the real reason for the accident.
I do know the fog didn’t cause the aircraft to stop flying suddenly as the media would have us believe. I wish everyone in the media would not jump to conclusions right off the bat simply because it’s a situation *they* either don’t understand or wouldn’t be comfortable in.
As an example, we are certified in the MD11 to takeoff in as low as 500 RVR and land in 300 RVR provided certain criteria are met. Granted, it’s apples and oranges between the capabilities and qualifications required in the MD vs a C340, but many would think we also have no business taking off or landing in those types of conditions.
Would I take off in a GA aircraft during the wx conditions of the accident aircraft? Maybe.....keeping in mind I don’t know the exact weather that was being reported other than it was very foggy. My thought process, among other things, would include..Is it a very localized condition that I would soon fly out of? How well do I know my aircraft and how quickly can I get to a takeoff alternate airport in the event of a problem. How current and experienced am I in such conditions and how experience am I in the aircraft I’m currently flying. Many things to consider...it’s not always simply a black and white issue.
Bottom line....You have to stay in your comfort range and not let outside forces or people pressure you into doing something you’re not comfortable doing.
RIP
I do know the fog didn’t cause the aircraft to stop flying suddenly as the media would have us believe. I wish everyone in the media would not jump to conclusions right off the bat simply because it’s a situation *they* either don’t understand or wouldn’t be comfortable in.
As an example, we are certified in the MD11 to takeoff in as low as 500 RVR and land in 300 RVR provided certain criteria are met. Granted, it’s apples and oranges between the capabilities and qualifications required in the MD vs a C340, but many would think we also have no business taking off or landing in those types of conditions.
Would I take off in a GA aircraft during the wx conditions of the accident aircraft? Maybe.....keeping in mind I don’t know the exact weather that was being reported other than it was very foggy. My thought process, among other things, would include..Is it a very localized condition that I would soon fly out of? How well do I know my aircraft and how quickly can I get to a takeoff alternate airport in the event of a problem. How current and experienced am I in such conditions and how experience am I in the aircraft I’m currently flying. Many things to consider...it’s not always simply a black and white issue.
Bottom line....You have to stay in your comfort range and not let outside forces or people pressure you into doing something you’re not comfortable doing.
RIP
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
As mentioned earlier, a 0/0 departure is legal for a 91 flight. I even did one during my instrument training. Is it smart? Depends on your safety matrix. Just remember that not all of us perceive the same threats. Such as normal operations in Alaska are considered crazy in the south. 500RVR departures are legal for my shop, given certain conditions are met. Sent from my Startac using Tapatalk.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
I didn't say it was smart. But no rules were broken if they were appropriately rated and on an IFR clearance. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Not saying it broke any rules part 91. Just saying the visibility sucked, I was watching the METARs at the the time, 1/4 sm 100 AGL OVC fog was most of the area. I didn't think it was prudent to be on a sailboat until it cleared.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
This. If he could see a line or two on the runway, he probably could maintain centerline if he was proficient. An engine failure, distraction, or health condition could change that. We just don't know. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Yup. I'm not sure if I would do it, but it was legal. Maybe I would if the aircraft was capable and the fog wasn't deep.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
I did a 0/0 TO on my Instrument ride. It was already planned for me to take him to another airport. It was ok when I landed but fog by the time the oral was over... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
The thing is, you get recurrent training and checking on low-vis takeoffs. I don’t know about the accident pilot, but in general part 91 guys that manage to check the 6 approaches, hold, intercept, and track requirement may well only see an Instructor every 2 years, at which time there is no requirement to even review procedures for a low-vis takeoff much less practice one. Not that it necessarily has anything to do with this accident, but the topic was coming up a lot in here.
Last edited:
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Sure. You gotta know your limits. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
C'mon man, you're smarter than this. Yes, helicopter pilots can be instrument rated. Yes, helicopter pilots can judge wx conditions just like fixed wing pilots can, and be able to recognize wx conditioms that may be questionable. Yes helicopter pilots know what 14 CFR 91 is, and that it has application to both RW as well as FW. Point being, we arent talking about something only specific to FW or RW, such as aerodynamics or some detailed operating specifics, we're talking about something common to all aircraft: wx. Maybe the guy is dual-rated for all we know.
That said, in any interview (rule #1: never talk to the media. At best, you break even. At best.), when asked about observations on wx, i would recommend leave it at "it was very foggy, visibility was X, couldnt see from here to there, etc", keeping it an observation. And if asked whether i would have been going flying that morning, if the truth is no, then i would matter of factly answer no and leave it at that. Ie- state observed factors present, without making a causal link at that point.
Best to just never talk to the media though.
Box hauler
Well-Known Member
You did a 0/0 on your checkride? How did you find the runway or see the centerline ? Who knows what happened with this case but all I know is that if it's not safe to do in a Airbus it's definitely not safe in something like a 421. Legal or not
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
My point was that a helicopter pilot (one with no experience in fixed wing, which admittedly could not be true) doesn't have first-hand knowledge about his personal limits with low visibility takeoff in an airplane. I think it was poor form for him to tell the sheriff that the pilot had no business taking off, and it was poor form that the sheriff repeated it on television.C'mon man, you're smarter than this. Yes, helicopter pilots can be instrument rated. Yes, helicopter pilots can judge wx conditions just like fixed wing pilots can, and be able to recognize wx conditioms that may be questionable. Yes helicopter pilots know what 14 CFR 91 is, and that it has application to both RW as well as FW. Point being, we arent talking about something only specific to FW or RW, such as aerodynamics or some detailed operating specifics, we're talking about something common to all aircraft: wx. Maybe the guy is dual-rated for all we know. That said, in any interview (rule #1: never talk to the media. At best, you break even. At best.), when asked about observations on wx, i would recommend leave it at "it was very foggy, visibility was X, couldnt see from here to there, etc", keeping it an observation. And if asked whether i would have been going flying that morning, if the truth is no, then i would matter of factly answer no and leave it at that. Ie- state observed factors present, without making a causal link at that point. Best to just never talk to the media though.
To your point, I would feel the same if he were a fixed-wing pilot too (though slightly less annoyed).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Haven't verified myself, but people over on the Twin Cessna forum are saying he didn't have an IFR flight plan filed.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Well, that's certainly not legal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The helicopter pilot can give his opinion to the sheriff anytime, speaking as a pilot. The sheriff shouldve refrained from making a public statement about it inferring causality, I agree. Looking at the wx that was present, i can tell you that i wouldnt have departed in it if there wasnt some critical mission need to do so. And thats in FW. In RW, where I can depart in often even lower ceiling/viz than FW......special VFR for example, RW has no viz or night restrictions, FW does. And still I would've thought twice about launching in this wx for no critical need.
Even if this accident turns out to be mechanical or some other issue as the primary causal factor, being IMC while dealing with that when there was no critical need to be, will very likely be cited as a secondary factor in and of itself, as could same for PIC judgement.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Well, that's certainly not legal.
Without looking at a NOTAM, how do you know that? The Delta tower may have been closed at the time, making it Golf airspace. Possibly legal in that case.
Picking up clearances after departing IMC without a flight plan or clearance is something I personally try to avoid though, there are just way too many ways for things to go wrong.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Without knowing the exact conditions, it's impossible to know. If the weather went into class, E, it would be illegal to leave class G without a clearance. I wouldn't stay in class G IMC trying to get a clearance, though it's technically legal. IMHO, that would be FAR worse than trying a low visibility takeoff. Anyway. Really my only point was that there was ton of judgement going on both on and off the camera, and that's crappy. Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWithout looking at a NOTAM, how do you know that? The Delta tower may have been closed at the time, making it Golf airspace. Possibly legal in that case. Picking up clearances after departing IMC without a flight plan or clearance is something I personally try to avoid though, there are just way too many ways for things to go wrong.Well, that's certainly not legal.
dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
A local CFII, having just landed told JFK, Jr. something along these lines: "The weather is REALLY bad out there tonight. If you're not instrument rated, you better not go!"
I agree with @fholbert, you can try but you can't stop. IMHO, we have an obligation to the industry to try....
Not a fair statement! I happen to be both and as far as we know, so is the pilot that was interviewed. Even a helicopter pilot can see and, the more advanced ones can maybe even read a weather report. Some of them can even open a door and look out!
I DO agree that this guy should have shut his pie-hole about these things; comments like this never add to the situation but seemingly add to the hype!