Breakout 91.213 discussion from Icing thread...

[shdw]

into a flow...end up as the routine

You do realize that routines and flows take up brain space. Perhaps "memorization" isn't the right wording for it, but brain space for useless information non the less.

As already discussed, a VFR pilot will not be in conditions that promote icing unless they are: 1) Breaking the regulations and 2) Being stupid.

Do you check if the magnetos are grounded after every single flight? Do you check the fuel shutoff? Do you pull every circuit breaker to verify proper connection?

My point is, where do you draw the line of useless things to check?


As for planting a seed to skip over things, I teach them to stick to 91.205 to a T. That isn't skipping, that is teaching to meet the regulations.

The checks within 91.205 allow for perfectly safe operation, but I don't add useless information. To my knowledge, please someone give me a source if you have one, no VFR pilot has ever died for failure to check pitot heat. Thus I find it to be a statistical anomaly and readily useless.

Finally, for me, part of planning the cross country is determining the equipment necessary for the flight. I also request my students have backups in case their primary systems fail. The equipment they choose to use during their planning, both primary and backup, must be checked during preflight.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

blah blah blah

Adavera Kedavra!

 

[Xiph]

You do realize that routines and flows take up brain space.

Anything takes up brain space, but having to decide whether something in a flow is worth checking or not takes up more space than it would if you just checked it anyway.

As already discussed, a VFR pilot will not be in conditions that promote icing unless they are: 1) Breaking the regulations and 2) Being stupid.

Perhaps. I'm not sure about #2. But I can say that since the capabilities of human stupidity are infinite, it makes sense to teach people how to get out of situations if they manage to get themselves into them.

Do you check if the magnetos are grounded after every single flight? Do you check the fuel shutoff? Do you pull every circuit breaker to verify proper connection?

My point is, where do you draw the line of useless things to check?

The checklist. If the checklist calls for me to check something during the preflight, I'll check it, whether I need it or not (and yes, I do check the magneto grounding after every flight, since the checklist I use calls for it). If it's not working, then I can decide what I want to do about it (most likely placard it and press on, unless it's required for the flight). If the checklist doesn't call to check something (for instance, each circuit breaker connection), then I'm probably not going to check it unless I know I'm going to need it or I've got a lot of spare time on my hands.

As for planting a seed to skip over things, I teach them to stick to 91.205 to a T. That isn't skipping, that is teaching to meet the regulations.

The checks within 91.205 allow for perfectly safe operation, but I don't add useless information. To my knowledge, please someone give me a source if you have one, no VFR pilot has ever died for failure to check pitot heat. Thus I find it to be a statistical anomaly and readily useless.

Finally, for me, part of planning the cross country is determining the equipment necessary for the flight. I also request my students have backups in case their primary systems fail. The equipment they choose to use during their planning, both primary and backup, must be checked during preflight.

There's a lot of stuff that isn't covered by 91.205 that I would want to check before the flight. Radios, for instance - I don't need them for VFR flight, and I may well decide to go without them, but I'd sure as hell want to know that they're not working before I took off.

But that's a pretty out-there example, so let's stick with the pitot heat. I agree that it's very unlikely that an inop pitot heat will kill a VFR pilot. The point I was trying to make is that if you get into the habit of not checking it when flying VFR because it's not required, you're setting yourself up to not check it when flying IFR, because not checking it has become part of your routine. Sure, you could tell yourself "this is an IFR flight, so I need to check the pitot heat", but to me that's devoting it more attention than it needs (like you said, wasting memory space). Doing something as a matter of habit or routine uses fewer mental resources than having to actively remember to do it. Checking it doesn't take much time, and it doesn't take much mental energy either (either you do it out of habit, or you just read it out of the checklist), and it builds a good habit, so why not do it?

I'm certainly not advocating grounding an airplane because of inop pitot heat - I've seen places that will do that, and to me it makes no sense. But if there's something that isn't working on my airplane, I'd prefer to know about it, just for my SA benefit.

Avada Kedavra!

FIFY

 

[Roger, Roger]

Adavera Kedavra!

Nerd FAIL.

Avada Kedavra!

Though HP's posts are a sort of Cruciatus...

 

[ppragman]

As already discussed, a VFR pilot will not be in conditions that promote icing unless they are: 1) Breaking the regulations and 2) Being stupid.


The checks within 91.205 allow for perfectly safe operation, but I don't add useless information. To my knowledge, please someone give me a source if you have one, no VFR pilot has ever died for failure to check pitot heat. Thus I find it to be a statistical anomaly and readily useless.

You can be perfectly legal, trucking along in good VFR with an overcast, and fly through freezing rain, nothing stupid, or illegal about that, an opinion like that would incline me to believe that your level of experience in such matters is limited.

As for "No VFR pilot..." I've had my Pitot tube freeze shut, and guess what, it was VFR, I'm really glad that I knew it was working before the flight. If you don't want to check it that bad, you can be lazy, you know, you can turn the switch on in the airplane and notice the fluctuation in load, or the high pitched whine.

 

[Xiph]

You can be perfectly legal, trucking along in good VFR with an overcast, and fly through freezing rain, nothing stupid, or illegal about that

I've had it start snowing on me while flying VFR. It was cold, and the clouds were fairly low, but I was only doing patternwork, and the weather was well above what was required. Since I was in the pattern, it was a simple matter of declaring a full stop and calling it a day. I did nothing illegal, nor did I do anything stupid (snow wasn't forecast for another several hours), and yet I ended up in conditions that I would consider conducive to icing. So it can happen.

 

[ppragman]

I've had it start snowing on me while flying VFR. It was cold, and the clouds were fairly low, but I was only doing patternwork, and the weather was well above what was required. Since I was in the pattern, it was a simple matter of declaring a full stop and calling it a day. I did nothing illegal, nor did I do anything stupid (snow wasn't forecast for another several hours), and yet I ended up in conditions that I would consider conducive to icing. So it can happen.

Yep yep, and remember, snow is not ice. Snow that sticks to the fuselage and freezes is ice.

 

[shdw]

You can be perfectly legal, trucking along in good VFR with an overcast, and fly through freezing rain, nothing stupid, or illegal about that

I hope you are kidding. Flight into freezing rain without deice is beyond stupid IMO. Why don't you take a shot gun and shoot some holes in your wings and take her into a thunderstorm while your at it?

Also, depending on the operation it is illegal. 91.500s apply to flight instruction and various others on the list in 501. In that case 527 makes flight into known icing illegal.

Furthermore, you didn't show me what I asked for. I asked for a source to an accident that resulted from failure to check pitot heat. I don't know about you, but I can fly just fine without the airspeed indicator if she iced up. I also wouldn't be flying into conditions that promote icing as a VFR pilot, so that isn't an issue. I check the pitot heat at night as it is impossible to see if you are going to enter moisture then.

Anything takes up brain space, but having to decide whether something in a flow is worth checking or not takes up more space than it would if you just checked it anyway.

Not sure how you came to this conclusion.

Perhaps. I'm not sure about #2. But I can say that since the capabilities of human stupidity are infinite, it makes sense to teach people how to get out of situations if they manage to get themselves into them.

How does teaching someone to preflight the pitot heat teach them how to get out of a situation?

The checklist.

Which checklist?

Arrow POH: No check
172R POH: Check
Seminole POH: Check
172RG POH: No check
152 POH: No check

Another question, you spoke earlier of teaching to what is required. Is the checklist within the POH required?

These are just the POH's I have available to me. Now I have also seen various checklists for the 172R/SP models that do have and others that don't have pitot heat checks. If you teach to strictly follow the checklist, chances are half the time they won't have a pitot heat check.

I'd prefer to know about it, just for my SA benefit.

We agree! For myself at least, and any other instrument rated and beyond pilot. For the private pilot, chances are they have enough to think about. As far as what is on my list for a private pilot as important, as I cannot locate a single accident that has resulted from this, pitot heat is just above NDB use for AM radio reception.

I guess, like the others, we can just agree to disagree on that.

 

[ppragman]

I hope you are kidding. Flight into freezing rain without deice is beyond stupid IMO. Why don't you take a shot gun and shoot some holes in your wings and take her into a thunderstorm while your at it?

Also, depending on the operation it is illegal. 91.500s apply to flight instruction and various others on the list in 501. In that case 527 makes flight into known icing illegal.

Furthermore, you didn't show me what I asked for. I asked for a source to an accident that resulted from failure to check pitot heat. I don't know about you, but I can fly just fine without the airspeed indicator if she iced up. I also wouldn't be flying into conditions that promote icing as a VFR pilot, so that isn't an issue. I check the pitot heat at night as it is impossible to see if you are going to enter moisture then.

Inadvertent flight into icing conditions isn't stupid or illegal provided you don't continue, its just unlucky. If the conditions are such that you may encounter icing on a direct routing, and you modify your course as to avoid icing conditions, and still wind up in unforecast icing, that's not your fault. You better have a plan to get out of it, but it certainly isn't stupid, just unlucky. Most Airmets for Icing include the phrase "In Clouds" meaning that if you're VFR, you're unlikely to encounter icing as you're out driving around, that is not always the case. Again, how much VFR flying through conditions that could result in icing do you have?

As for flying without airspeed, it helps to know what your airspeed is accurately, when you're fliying through snow, over white featureless terrain, with high overcast (flat light conditions) when you're going to land at a field that hasn't been plowed yet. Yeah, you can feel it down, but when you're essentially running your instrument scan because of no visible horizon even though you're VFR, its nice to have an additional part of the traditional six pack available to you. Also, the margin of error in airspeeds is different in a 172 then it is in a 210 at max gross. Do I know of any accidents where that was the cause of the crash? No, but just because there hasn't been an accident because of something doesn't mean I'm not going to check it. I've never heard of an accident where an inoperative landing light got someone to smash up an airplane during the day, but I still check it, because as a professional pilot it is my job to make certain that my equipment is functioning properly before flight.

Also, read the applicability part of subpart F, it says

This subpart prescribes operating rules, in addition to those prescribed in other subparts of this part, governing the operation of large airplanes of U.S. registry, turbo-jetpowered multi-engine civil airplanes of u.s. registry, and fractional ownership program aircraft of us registry that are operating under subpart K of this part in operation not involving common carriage. The operating rules in this subpart do not apply to those aircraft when they are required to be operated under parts 121, 125, 129...

Nothing in there about light piston machines for instructional purposes, part B of that says that operations "may" be operated under these rules, but remember, may is used in the permissive sense, so each operation will be different. Unless you're instructing in a bootless DC3, or a turbine bonanza without boots, then don't worry about it.

 

[SuperCubRick]

Furthermore, you didn't show me what I asked for. I asked for a source to an accident that resulted from failure to check pitot heat. I don't know about you, but I can fly just fine without the airspeed indicator if she iced up. I also wouldn't be flying into conditions that promote icing as a VFR pilot, so that isn't an issue. I check the pitot heat at night as it is impossible to see if you are going to enter moisture then.

Here's a 757 that went down as a result of an obstructed pitot tube, pretty wild.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19960206-0

There was a Northwest 727 that lost control as a result of a clogged pitot tube as well (didn't turn the pitot heat on), they had an unusually high airspeed reading that kept increasing in the climb, so they kept pulling it back and then got into a stall which they thought was mach buffet, went into a spin and ended up lawndarting, lost 23,000 ft in 83 secs.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19741201-1&lang=en

Then the Aero Peru 757 that crashed as a result of the tape being on the static ports.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19961002-0

I agree that if you're flying VFR and VFR weather is forecasted then I probably wouldn't be checking the pitot heat before a flight around the pattern or an hour of local VFR.

But for an instrument student, I think it's certainly worth having them check it just to get into the habit of doing so, even on a VFR flight - it only takes a second. Although we'd like to think that most people / students could fly with clogged static or pitot tubes, the icing up of a pitot tube or static ports may be the first and ultimately final link in an accident chain. It certainly can't hurt to eliminate at least that one possible factor while still on the ground.

 

[Xiph]

Not sure how you came to this conclusion.

If you make checking something a habit, you don't need to think about whether you need to check it or not. Thus, less mental capacity required.

How does teaching someone to preflight the pitot heat teach them how to get out of a situation?

It doesn't. Teaching someone to check the pitot heat and teaching them about how to recognize and what to do about it are two separate things.

Which checklist?

Arrow POH: No check
172R POH: Check
Seminole POH: Check
172RG POH: No check
152 POH: No check

The Arrow POH I've got does have a checklist in it - we probably have different versions. But even if there is no specific checklist, I haven't seen a POH that doesn't have some sort of Normal Procedures section, from which a checklist could be fairly easily derived.

Another question, you spoke earlier of teaching to what is required. Is the checklist within the POH required?

These are just the POH's I have available to me. Now I have also seen various checklists for the 172R/SP models that do have and others that don't have pitot heat checks. If you teach to strictly follow the checklist, chances are half the time they won't have a pitot heat check.

A specific checklist is not required in the POH, but 23.1585 does require normal operating procedures to be in the POH, and, like I said, you can derive a checklist from those if need be.

I feel it's also part of my responsibility as an instructor to explain the logic behind what I teach, and that would include why I think that checking the pitot heat is a good idea. I would hope that my students would check it should they fly somewhere where the checklist doesn't call for it (assuming a similar model of aircraft). If they choose not to, that's their call as PIC, but at least I did my due diligence.

I believe it was you, not me, that spoke to teaching what was required by the regulations. I have my own requirements that go a little further, because I believe it is prudent to do so. Just like I have my personal minimums for flight, I have personal minimums for instructing - that doesn't mean that yours are any worse or less safe, it's just a measure of the level of knowledge and proficiency that I feel comfortable sending a student to a checkride with (and, more importantly, out on their own after the checkride).

I guess, like the others, we can just agree to disagree on that.

We can indeed.