I trust small general aviation planes and have flown and will continue to fly small general aviation planes at every chance I can get. I want to get my seaplane ratings in the next few years.
Sorry but minimizing the risks of flying isn't rocket science. Want to go out and practice IFR in a single engine airplane in actual conditions? Go right ahead. I did it a lot, just made sure my ceilings were at least 1000 feet and 3 miles vis. I knew if crap hit the fan, I wouldn't need to shoot an approach to minimums with a broken airplane with no back up systems.
Where's MTSU_av8r when I need him? I'm sure he'd have plenty to say about flying IFR in single engine aircraft without redundant systems.
Seggy, your response proves my point perfectly. Risk management is highly subjective and changes from pilot to pilot. You set your minimums at 1000/3. That's fine. Another pilot might want 2000/5 and another might be comfortable going to the legal limits. Who's to determine what's right? What happens in slightly different aircraft? Maybe one aircraft is barely legal for IFR, another has an electric attitude indicator, and yet another has dual vaccuum pumps. Maybe one has steam gauges, while another has a glass panel. Maybe one is piston powered while another is turbine powered. Does that change the criteria at all? If so, exactly how much? Where are the lines drawn?
I don't consider any set of criteria particularly dangerous as long as the pilot knows what he's getting in to. That's what I'm trying to say--there are SO many variables, this isn't a clear cut issue where one pilot can automatically call another one dangerous.
Have you ever taken off from an airport with no decent landing sites off the departure end of the runway? I've done it numerous times, usually either in major metropolitan areas or off in the mountains somewhere. If the engine cuts out when I'm 100 feet off the ground, I know I'll either be going in to buildings or trees, no doubt about it. But I accept that as a reasonable risk. I'm essentially risking my life that the only engine I have will keep turning for a few minutes after liftoff. I *minimize* risk by doing an engine runup to make sure the engine is healthy, I climb at Vy, etc. but when it comes down to it, I'm still making a takeoff without many options. I could just stay on the ground and refuse to fly in and out of such airports. Where should the line be drawn?
I could keep making up scenarios all day. I'm not saying I'm perfect or that you're overly conservative. My point is simply that risk management isn't nearly as clear cut as you're making it out to be.
So he takes the C-172 to FL180, which he really can't because he isn't IFR certified (I believe he actually took it ABOVE 180 so he broke a FAR) this time. He endures the engine, like you said to extreme temperature changes, he lands gets out and goes on his way. I get in the airplane, which now has a cracked cylinder because of the temperature changes and my engine fails right after take off. So he was able to 'test the envelope' while I lose an engine after takeoff and become a smoking hole at the end of the runway?
First, the regulatory violations are obvious and I don't condone those in any way. The only reason I didn't mention them in my first post was because 20 other people had already jumped on him about it and I didn't care to beat a dead horse. I only wanted to address the issue of "testing the limits" of a plane.
As for the issue of cracking a cylinder, of course that's a consideration, but he could have cracked a cylinder going to 14k almost as easily as going to 18k. The extreme altitude has less to do with cracking a cylinder as does the fact that an inexperienced pilot was operating the engine in a much less forgiving environment than they were used to.
There are numerous ways inexperienced pilots find to inadvertantly abuse planes. How many retractable gear aircraft (I'm thinking of Piper Arrows in particular) at flight schools have gear problems because inexperienced pilots repeatedly slam on landings? How many brakes get excessively worn because of pilots riding the brakes while they taxi?
Granted, cracking a cylinder is a little more extreme and unnecessary than my other examples, but my point is that rental planes get abused all the time. It sort of comes with the territory of being a renter pilot--you never really know what the goof before you did to the plane.
Does that mean pilots shouldn't operate their aircraft as gently and safely as possible? No, of course not. Every pilot has an obligation to be careful, but I've been around low time pilots long enough to know this sort of thing happens. It's just the way life is.
Like I said, no reason to push the airplane outside of its boundaries. I wouldn't land my Beech in a 2000 foot long runway, I CAN do it, but why risk it?
How about a 2100 foot runway? 2200? 2500? 3000? Hmm...where is the line drawn?
I think there's probably some Beech 1900 operators in Alaska that operate in and out of 2000 foot strips. Does that make them reckless? If not, why not?
I understand your point that your work doesn't require you to fly in to 2000 foot strips, so you don't want to risk it. Fair enough. I consider that good judgement. There's no reason to "cowboy" it and do something just to show off--especially at the professional level you're at.
Unfortunately, I don't think it works the same way in a flight training environment. For flight training, there's really no reason to fly on any day other than those that are CAVU with calm winds. It's not like there's a job to do, or any pressing need. But we still fly, for the sake of learning. We encourage people to expand their comfort zone and practice crosswind landings, or long solo cross countries. Those activities have an increased level of risk, but also reward the pilot with an increased level of proficiency--ultimately lowering their risk of an accident in the long run.
I don't see how taking a 172 to FL180 is any different. It's pushing the envelope (in a fairly mundane way, IMO) in order to learn something.
