Ahh, but he could have prevented being hard on the engine if he was flying within limits. Also, a good instructor will teach you NOT to wear the brakes out. No need for them really. I could live with a bald spotted tire or worn breaks, but not a cracked cylindar because someone wanted to go flying at 18,000 feet.
He was flying within limits! Nobody's ever proved there was any limitation broken here.
And of course he shouldn't have pushed the engine that hard. Of course he should have been taught better. I'm not saying what he did was a-ok. I'm only saying he made a mistake out of ignorance, not recklessness, in the same way other pilots wear out planes because of their lack of experience.
Neither do I, but just because the engine is certified for that altitude are other components of the airplane certified for that altitude?
I highly doubt an aircraft manufacturer would certify an airframe to an altitude the engines can't propel it to. That doesn't seem logical.
121 regs are highly conservative? No not really. 121 regs are written in blood. Someone screws up THEN the FAA goes out and changes a rule. We have to police ourselves sometimes. I called fatigue after a 14 hour duty day. Legally, I could have gone to 16, according to these 'conservative, rigid, 121 regs' you talk about, but I was dead tired and couldn't see straight much less fly straight.
The risks and rewards are the same my friend. To get the plane and people in the plane back on the ground safely.
First, I never said *every* 121 reg was conservative. Duty times could definitely use some improvement.
Take the requirement for accelerate-stop distances as an example of a conservative reg. My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that 135 and 121 carriers can't use a runway unless it meets their accelerate-stop distance charts.
I consider accelerate-stop distances to be extremely useful for situational awareness, but not necessarily a "no-go" criteria if the distance isn't met in Part 91 flying. The pilot just has to know what he's getting in to.
Would you consider a Part 91 pilot reckless for departing a runway shorter than his accelerate-stop distance? It happens (and IMO, safely) every day.
Why can't you set standards at the part 91 level and not have the flexibility you speak of? I sure did. I limited myself when flying to 3000 foot runways with singles and 4000 foot runways with twins. Really didn't hurt flexibilty of flying around or enjoying what General Aviation has to offer. I had weather minimums as well.
That's fine that you set those limits for yourself. You probably did make yourself slightly safer. But yes, those limits certainly do affect the flexibility of flying.
If I'd set those limits during all my travels in light planes I would've gotten stuck numerous times. What if I said I'd never use a special VFR clearance? What if I said I'd never operate off a runway less than 60 feet wide? What if I said I'd never fly a plane with less than a 500 fpm rate of climb on takeoff? Heck...my 140 would be grounded every day except in the dead of winter!
A person can set up all sorts of arbitrary rules that would prohibit perfectly safe operations, depending on other factors. A pilot has to look at the big picture. How current am I? How much wind is there? Is the weather forecast to go up or down? What options do I have if Plan A doesn't work? What have I done similar to this before?
A pilot using good judgement can analyze a situation and be just as safe as a pilot who uses a bunch of hard rules.
Knowing your limits are the ops specs of general aviation.
Couldn't "knowing your limits" equate to "using good judgement" as a pilot? And isn't judgement a dynamic, changing characteristic? Op specs don't change, they just are what they are, across the board.
No it should be "no person ever gets hurt, no violations are committed and no metal ever gets bend."
You're right, I should have included that the first time around.
