FL180 Cessna 172 Skyhawk
- Thread starter sdfcvoh
- Start date
Berkut
Well-Known Member
What he said.Why push an airplane OUTSIDE its boundaries?
I'm no Internet Federale, but there is a big difference between busting a cloud clearance and exceeding an aircraft limitation. The people who fly that aircraft after you trust that you haven't been playing test pilot in it.
sdfcvoh
This is my Custom Title
I'll trust then that every time you hit a bump above max maneuvering in the future you'll ground that plane. Therefor, the next person who uses it isn't in danger. And you'll see that it gets a full structural test.
MFT1Air
Well-Known Member
I'll trust then that every time you hit a bump above max maneuvering in the future you'll ground that plane. Therefor, the next person who uses it isn't in danger. And you'll see that it gets a full structural test.
As you're not any kin of mine, I'm truly not concerned what you do. Hopefully your act or any subsequent acts will not compromise or harm anyone else but yourself. (Hey, there are plenty of candidates eligible for the Darwin Award) You got your thrill. . .fine. I'm happy it turned out not to be catastrophic for you, but a learning experience and reminder for those not to push the envelope. I'm simply hoping because the cavalier attitude you have about doing something both dumb and potentially compromising, yet getting away with it that no one else mimics your stunt resulting in negative consequences.
mode now on! Full structural test? Why don't you try flying it to 19000! Dare you! Just let me know when, for you'll need an audience next time. Who knows - the photo of the altitude could have been photoshopped!
Go ahead. . .do it again. I DARE you!!! 
mode off! I'm certain there are air traffic controllers who are also pilots on this forum who've read this thread. They'll read about your antics and truly keep the thought in the back of their minds. There will, unfortunately, probably be someone else, perform a stupid pilot trick similar to what you did and got away doing. If that person survives, I'm believing his "N" number will receive the appropriate FAA attention it truly deserves hopefully serving as a deterent for others not to be so careless.
sdfcvoh
This is my Custom Title
Wow. What I did was wrong!
I didn't realize it would be such a hot topic until all of this transpired. The whole class A bit didn't even enter my mind during the flight until some responses made it clear. I took for granted that Flight Following would advise me of any needed course corrections or altitude changes in the same way they direct me around traffic, active MOA's, or... different classes of airspace I've been vectored around when using flight following if the situation deems it necessary. Call it amateur hour, call it what you like.
Just remember that, according to your own right/wrong comparison back on page 1, the next time that you drive 56mph instead of 55mph you are as guilty as if you just killed your own mother with a dull knife as I am of busting class A airspace.
Oh, and I was only saying that because of.
I didn't realize it would be such a hot topic until all of this transpired. The whole class A bit didn't even enter my mind during the flight until some responses made it clear. I took for granted that Flight Following would advise me of any needed course corrections or altitude changes in the same way they direct me around traffic, active MOA's, or... different classes of airspace I've been vectored around when using flight following if the situation deems it necessary. Call it amateur hour, call it what you like.
Just remember that, according to your own right/wrong comparison back on page 1, the next time that you drive 56mph instead of 55mph you are as guilty as if you just killed your own mother with a dull knife as I am of busting class A airspace.
Oh, and I was only saying that because of
. As you're not any kin of mine, I'm truly not concerned what you do. Hopefully your act or any subsequent acts will not compromise or harm anyone else but yourself. (Hey, there are plenty of candidates eligible for the Darwin Award) You got your thrill. . .fine. I'm happy it turned out not to be catastrophic for you, but a learning experience and reminder for those not to push the envelope. I'm simply hoping because the cavalier attitude you have about doing something both dumb and potentially compromising, yet getting away with it that no one else mimics your stunt resulting in negative consequences.
Full structural test? Why don't you try flying it to 19000! Dare you! Just let me know when, for you'll need an audience next time. Who knows - the photo of the altitude could have been photoshopped!
I'm certain there are air traffic controllers who are also pilots on this forum who've read this thread. They'll read about your antics and truly keep the thought in the back of their minds. There will, unfortunately, probably be someone else, perform a stupid pilot trick similar to what you did and got away doing. If that person survives, I'm believing his "N" number will receive the appropriate FAA attention it truly deserves hopefully serving as a deterent for others not to be so careless.
tgrayson
New Member
Which aircraft limitation was exceeded?
staplegun
Well-Known Member
Isn't there a service ceiling on this aircraft?
I believe someone earlier said it was 12,000' or 13,000'...
On all 7 of the transport category aircraft I've flown the service ceiling is in the limitations section of the operating handbook. Is it not that way for Cessna's?
Kevin
Berkut
Well-Known Member
I never actually said he exceeded a limitation. I was just curious if he would reply that he hadn't exceeded one, or if he thought he had but would come up with some ridiculous hyperbole to rationalize it.
sdfcvoh
This is my Custom Title
Hyperbole (pronounced /haɪˈpɝbəli/ or "hy-PER-buh-lee"; "HY-per-bowl" is a mispronunciation) is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally.
tgrayson
New Member
Yes, but it's not an operating limitation. I would interpret a service ceiling as a performance measurement. If the aircraft had a "Maximum Operating Altitude", different story. ("Service ceiling" doesn't appear in Part 23.)
staplegun
Well-Known Member
You are correct and my mistake, then. I was using the term "service ceiling" and "maximum operating altitude" interchangeably.
So, I'll rephrase my original question:
Isn't there a maximum operating altitude on this aircraft?
I believe someone earlier said it was 12,000' or 13,000'...
On all 7 of the transport category aircraft I've flown the maximum operating altitude is in the limitations section of the operating handbook. Is it not that way for Cessna's?
Kevin
skidz
Well-Known Member
Wow, I busted the 1 5 2 cloud cover VFR rules! I should take a picture of that puff of cloud that I missed by 20 feet and post it.Phew! Got that off my chest.
Now. . . .
One day you decide to run for the Senate someone's gonna slip the picture of that cloud under your door and...
tgrayson
New Member
No. Scanning through the TCDS, the piston-engined aircraft that I see them on are mostly turbo-charged or pressurized and the altitudes tend to be 20 or 25,000, although the DA40 has one of 16,404.
staplegun
Well-Known Member
I was just curious because I don't know anything about this aircraft. I did find this TCDS from the European Aviation Safety Agency:
TCDS IM.A.051 Cessna Aircraft Model 172
10. Maximum Operating Altitude:
With a portable oxygen system, the aircraft is
limited to 5334 m (17500 ft MSL). Oxygen must be
provided as required by the operating rules. Only
portable oxygen systems listed in the AFM,
document number 11934-002, 11934-003, or later
FAA approved revisions, are allowed
Kevin
sdfcvoh
This is my Custom Title
One day you decide to run for the Senate someone's gonna slip the picture of that cloud under your door and...
:yup:
So much for my political aspirations! The real deal breaker would be someone named "Hans" showing up with a picture of me and his mom hanging out in a bar while I was stationed in Germany:nana2::banghead:.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
tgrayson I got mad respect for you but you are splitting hairs here.
The service ceiling it is defined as the highest altitude at which an aircraft can maintain a rate of climb of 100 feet per minute.
In my interpretation you are breaking the ability of an aircraft to climb, you are breaking the ability of it to operate like it was designed to do, breaking a limitation. As a pilot one of your jobs is to keep the airplane within its limitations.
If I owned a flight school and found out that one of my 172s was taken above 13,100 as defined in the POH, I would ask the renter/student to take his business else ware.
The service ceiling it is defined as the highest altitude at which an aircraft can maintain a rate of climb of 100 feet per minute.
In my interpretation you are breaking the ability of an aircraft to climb, you are breaking the ability of it to operate like it was designed to do, breaking a limitation. As a pilot one of your jobs is to keep the airplane within its limitations.
If I owned a flight school and found out that one of my 172s was taken above 13,100 as defined in the POH, I would ask the renter/student to take his business else ware.
tgrayson
New Member
Sure, but that's (most likely) max gross weight, standard conditions. Do you consider the short field takeoff or landing distance an aircraft limitation?
A flight school is in the business of education, and saying that something is a limitation when it isn't listed in the operating limitations and to say something is dangerous without any convincing argument or evidence isn't educating its students, IMO. An educator must live by the rules of logic and evidence that we try to teach our students, even when the conclusions make us uncomfortable.
My only concern with the OP is I would prefer to find a bit more timidity in a new pilot, but we need the Steve Fossetts of the world, too.
tgrayson
New Member
Interesting. That limitation does not exist in the US version of the TCDS. I would have assumed they used the US limitations without making any alterations. I wonder why the difference? Is there an altitude limitation to portable oxygen systems?
MFT1Air
Well-Known Member
:yeahthat:
or Korea or Panama. . .never mind. The "protection devices" lying around on the pool tables in the dayroom I utilized.
No concerns about "baby mommas" knocking on the door.
Wasn't me!!!