CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
Sorry, but a situation like this is just common sense.
Sorry, but a situation like this is just common sense.
NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over gross
- Thread starter TallFlyer
- Start date
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
It's always been deeply disappointing to hear the stuff that will fall out of a Salespersons mouth. Never believe a salesperson.
It's always been deeply disappointing to hear the stuff that will fall out of a Salespersons mouth. Never believe a salesperson.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
If you've never been there, you just don't know. When you fly in the same airplane 1000-1400hrs per year and you end up with an extra passenger (who's your friend and has been flying long enough to understand the risks) or the company asks you to carry a little extra and you're going to the same places where performance may or may not be a problem, suddenly (or more aptly-when drawn out over a long time) it becomes less "common sense." Down here, where there is essentially no pressure, loads (at least in the freight planes I see) usually bulk out before they weigh out (except Amflight's navajos) and there's no personal and human component to the flying its pretty easy. Up north, the temptation to push weather and weight to help your company and the passengers or be the best "bush rat" is high.
Also, be advised that there's almost no reliable weather reporting in some places, and a lot of ground stations may or may not lie about the weather to get you to try it. So you're always trying to carry extra fuel so you don't run out. Then when the company says you have to take X amount of weight or they'll find someone who will (by the way you could be paid by the hour in this predicament and its the winter, and your rent's come due, and and and) so your choice could be "tanker up with some safety fuel, or don't make the trip." This is very common. Then there are other guys who are just lazy. I knew a guy in <redacted> who used to tanker up with full fuel in the morning so he wouldn't have refuel until lunch time and could make quicker turns - never mind the fact that full fuel and 1000lbs on his first flight put him about 400lbs over gross.
In short, it isn't just "common sense" its a cultural problem among the aviators of the "northland," and also a problem (and this is the big one) in the operators that allow it. If we had operators that took this sort of thing seriously up north, and didn't just turn a blind eye when someone blasts off overgross, or in weather that's essentially IMC when they're VFR, then this problem wouldn't exist. There have been some efforts to change the culture, but its deeper than just the BS classes at the Medallion Foundation (which LAB got numerous awards for) - no there needs to be an overhaul of how people in general think about flying in Alaska. There needs to be more support for ADS-B and Phase 2 Capstone (though that's over now) by the FAA. Every airplane flying around up there needs to be given the option of filing IFR, and the feds need to come up with more IFR routes for GPS airplanes - especially ones that are low enough so that your average 207/Cherokee 6 can fly them. There needs to be a federal presence that gives a damn about the operators, rather than merely shucking all the blame off onto the pilots, and those operators that bend the rules (and virtually everyone knows who they are) need to be put under a microscope. Its not "common sense," you just don't know until you've experienced it.
If you've never been there, you just don't know. When you fly in the same airplane 1000-1400hrs per year and you end up with an extra passenger (who's your friend and has been flying long enough to understand the risks) or the company asks you to carry a little extra and you're going to the same places where performance may or may not be a problem, suddenly (or more aptly-when drawn out over a long time) it becomes less "common sense." Down here, where there is essentially no pressure, loads (at least in the freight planes I see) usually bulk out before they weigh out (except Amflight's navajos) and there's no personal and human component to the flying its pretty easy. Up north, the temptation to push weather and weight to help your company and the passengers or be the best "bush rat" is high.
Also, be advised that there's almost no reliable weather reporting in some places, and a lot of ground stations may or may not lie about the weather to get you to try it. So you're always trying to carry extra fuel so you don't run out. Then when the company says you have to take X amount of weight or they'll find someone who will (by the way you could be paid by the hour in this predicament and its the winter, and your rent's come due, and and and) so your choice could be "tanker up with some safety fuel, or don't make the trip." This is very common. Then there are other guys who are just lazy. I knew a guy in <redacted> who used to tanker up with full fuel in the morning so he wouldn't have refuel until lunch time and could make quicker turns - never mind the fact that full fuel and 1000lbs on his first flight put him about 400lbs over gross.
In short, it isn't just "common sense" its a cultural problem among the aviators of the "northland," and also a problem (and this is the big one) in the operators that allow it. If we had operators that took this sort of thing seriously up north, and didn't just turn a blind eye when someone blasts off overgross, or in weather that's essentially IMC when they're VFR, then this problem wouldn't exist. There have been some efforts to change the culture, but its deeper than just the BS classes at the Medallion Foundation (which LAB got numerous awards for) - no there needs to be an overhaul of how people in general think about flying in Alaska. There needs to be more support for ADS-B and Phase 2 Capstone (though that's over now) by the FAA. Every airplane flying around up there needs to be given the option of filing IFR, and the feds need to come up with more IFR routes for GPS airplanes - especially ones that are low enough so that your average 207/Cherokee 6 can fly them. There needs to be a federal presence that gives a damn about the operators, rather than merely shucking all the blame off onto the pilots, and those operators that bend the rules (and virtually everyone knows who they are) need to be put under a microscope. Its not "common sense," you just don't know until you've experienced it.
HVYMETALDRVR
Well-Known Member
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
In talking with a possible client about a ferry trip that will be for an extended period overwater the option of a ferry tank came up, specifically the turtlepac collapseable fuel tank. In doing some research we've been told that it is easy to get a ferry permit and the 337 signed off to have a ferry tank installed and have the max ramp weight increased up to 25%. Haven't actually had it done or tried it yet, but supposedly the FAA will grant the ferry permit for this without batting an eye I am told.
In talking with a possible client about a ferry trip that will be for an extended period overwater the option of a ferry tank came up, specifically the turtlepac collapseable fuel tank. In doing some research we've been told that it is easy to get a ferry permit and the 337 signed off to have a ferry tank installed and have the max ramp weight increased up to 25%. Haven't actually had it done or tried it yet, but supposedly the FAA will grant the ferry permit for this without batting an eye I am told.
BajtheJino
I'm looking at you.
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
Being over weight didn't kill the people. The pilot not having a plan and properly planning for an overweight take off is what killed. Its been mentioned before, operators can and do receive approval to operate over manufacture published gross. As long as you don't yank and bank and keep it in CG it will fly if you know what you're doing.
Airplanes don't typically kill people, people kill people.
Being over weight didn't kill the people. The pilot not having a plan and properly planning for an overweight take off is what killed. Its been mentioned before, operators can and do receive approval to operate over manufacture published gross. As long as you don't yank and bank and keep it in CG it will fly if you know what you're doing.
Airplanes don't typically kill people, people kill people.
Romulus
Well-Known Member
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
The 206/207 will haul some serious weight. They really are performing machines. So you fly thing at gross a while and it really does very well. Adding some weight seems like a non-issue. In reality though the FAA might think otherwise. 650lbs is just too much. Add in the warm summer afternoon and there you go.
What ppragman is saying is right on. When you have alot/most operators who will look the other way as long as the passengers or the feds dont say anything you have a group of guys that can and will do anything they want. A guy will get away with flying a few pounds heavy, picking up a little ice in the 207, or plowing through rough weather. Next time it happens he will say I'll fly a few pounds heavier, pick up a little more ice, cruise into rougher weather or what ever because I got away with it last time, right?
The 206/207 will haul some serious weight. They really are performing machines. So you fly thing at gross a while and it really does very well. Adding some weight seems like a non-issue. In reality though the FAA might think otherwise. 650lbs is just too much. Add in the warm summer afternoon and there you go.
What ppragman is saying is right on. When you have alot/most operators who will look the other way as long as the passengers or the feds dont say anything you have a group of guys that can and will do anything they want. A guy will get away with flying a few pounds heavy, picking up a little ice in the 207, or plowing through rough weather. Next time it happens he will say I'll fly a few pounds heavier, pick up a little more ice, cruise into rougher weather or what ever because I got away with it last time, right?
HVYMETALDRVR
Well-Known Member
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
Whats that adage ppragman? old and bold pilots?
Whats that adage ppragman? old and bold pilots?
Bumblebee
Commodore
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
It's interesting that some aircraft are legally able to operate over gross weight in Alaska... 91.323. I always wondered why it is legal to operate over gross in Alaska, and not the rest of the country.
Of course, this particular 206 was apparently loaded beyond the limits allowed in 91.323.
It's interesting that some aircraft are legally able to operate over gross weight in Alaska... 91.323. I always wondered why it is legal to operate over gross in Alaska, and not the rest of the country.
Of course, this particular 206 was apparently loaded beyond the limits allowed in 91.323.
Chief Captain
Well-Known Member
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
Interesting. I wonder why this is so.
Interesting. I wonder why this is so.
cmill
Cold Ass Honky
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
Total speculation, but it prolly wasnt the first time the guy made a flight like that. Smart money says he didnt even think of the weight. It happens a lot more than people think. The 206 is just one of those planes that has the reputation of load it up and go. I've heard stories of amphib 206's so overloaded that they've started to sink.
Its nice to think that everything happens like by the book like you learn in flight school, but in some places, its just not the case. Interestingly enough, federal wildlife 206's have a waiver that let them fly pretty far over gross, IIRC. They actually wont sell them to anyone because of the liability of selling a plane thats been flown over gross.
Total speculation, but it prolly wasnt the first time the guy made a flight like that. Smart money says he didnt even think of the weight. It happens a lot more than people think. The 206 is just one of those planes that has the reputation of load it up and go. I've heard stories of amphib 206's so overloaded that they've started to sink.
Its nice to think that everything happens like by the book like you learn in flight school, but in some places, its just not the case. Interestingly enough, federal wildlife 206's have a waiver that let them fly pretty far over gross, IIRC. They actually wont sell them to anyone because of the liability of selling a plane thats been flown over gross.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
Is this sort of "go overweight" attitude an attitude that should be worked out of the Alaska system?
I get that the local economies can't operate without the airlift, but doesn't this just breed an attitude that will ignore limitations if it means achieving the mission, even it it may mean killing yourself and your passengers (or burning the cargo...)?
Guess for you Alaska guys, perhaps you yourself don't willingly take an airplane that is overweight into the system up there - but what's the mindset in doing it? (This question is pretty simple, clearly there are waivers for some aircraft / operators, I'm not talking about exceptions here)
Is it really a generational thing? The guys who have been doing this for 20+ years, and haven't died yet - giving the younger guys for not also doing it? Suppose I wonder at what point will the attitude change so that we don't keep saying "It's happened to 100s before, and it'll happen another 100 times...," is it really that tough to fight against this attitude? No where else would it be accepted, which is why it strikes me a bit confusing that it is an attitude that just keeps being perpetuated throughout those who fly up north.
Props for doing it, I guess...but I can't quite say "It's happened 100 times before, no big deal this time either...it'll happen again..."
Just figure eventually it would be a good idea to try to change that mindset from within that community.
Is this sort of "go overweight" attitude an attitude that should be worked out of the Alaska system?
I get that the local economies can't operate without the airlift, but doesn't this just breed an attitude that will ignore limitations if it means achieving the mission, even it it may mean killing yourself and your passengers (or burning the cargo...)?
Guess for you Alaska guys, perhaps you yourself don't willingly take an airplane that is overweight into the system up there - but what's the mindset in doing it? (This question is pretty simple, clearly there are waivers for some aircraft / operators, I'm not talking about exceptions here)
Is it really a generational thing? The guys who have been doing this for 20+ years, and haven't died yet - giving the younger guys for not also doing it? Suppose I wonder at what point will the attitude change so that we don't keep saying "It's happened to 100s before, and it'll happen another 100 times...," is it really that tough to fight against this attitude? No where else would it be accepted, which is why it strikes me a bit confusing that it is an attitude that just keeps being perpetuated throughout those who fly up north.
Props for doing it, I guess...but I can't quite say "It's happened 100 times before, no big deal this time either...it'll happen again..."
Just figure eventually it would be a good idea to try to change that mindset from within that community.
cmill
Cold Ass Honky
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
Well, in defense of the AK guys, its not just an "Alaskan Attitude." I think you can find subsets of this happening anywhere in the lower 48, or in the world for that matter. So this over loading turned into a serious accident, imagine how many times its happened that you've never heard of, or that nothing has ever come of it.
I dont think its so much of the old timers giving the new guys a hard time, i think its more of a "club" type feeling. Its just how it is. I would argue that at least half of the pilots with any significant amount of time on here have taken off over weight. Does it really matter is its 1lb or 100lbs? The "old timers" arent looking for you to take off 1000lbs over gross, they're looking for the right call. No one makes any money with a wadded up airplane, but its also hard to make money when you have a pilot sitting there with a pen, pad, and scale figuring down to the exact pound.
All it takes is common sense, and sometimes a good stick. A lot of flying is being factored down to the lowest common denominator, but some of it does actually require something that isnt written in a book.
Well, in defense of the AK guys, its not just an "Alaskan Attitude." I think you can find subsets of this happening anywhere in the lower 48, or in the world for that matter. So this over loading turned into a serious accident, imagine how many times its happened that you've never heard of, or that nothing has ever come of it.
I dont think its so much of the old timers giving the new guys a hard time, i think its more of a "club" type feeling. Its just how it is. I would argue that at least half of the pilots with any significant amount of time on here have taken off over weight. Does it really matter is its 1lb or 100lbs? The "old timers" arent looking for you to take off 1000lbs over gross, they're looking for the right call. No one makes any money with a wadded up airplane, but its also hard to make money when you have a pilot sitting there with a pen, pad, and scale figuring down to the exact pound.
All it takes is common sense, and sometimes a good stick. A lot of flying is being factored down to the lowest common denominator, but some of it does actually require something that isnt written in a book.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
The attitude won't change on its own. Every pilot who's been around the block more than once or twice knows most planes fly just fine over gross weight.
Heck, that applies to most aircraft limitations. There's a margin of error built in to almost every limitation I can think of (Vne, CG range, etc.). The problem is that nobody REALLY knows what will come back to bite them until it's too late. But if you've done something 100 times, it's hard to believe a problem will crop up on the 101st time.
There are two main factors that make the lower 48 different from Alaska:
1) No pressing need to go places. Sure, people and cargo want to move around, but it's not like society stops if planes stop moving. The stakes are higher in Alaska.
2) Lack of enforcement. When was the last time a pilot got violated for flying over gross in Alaska? I've never heard of it.
I see the same thing in the skydiving community. Training standards and operating procedures vary greatly from one operator to another because it's very much on the honor system. Big Brother never comes around and lays down the law, so operators are left to do pretty much whatever they want.
I think if feds actually cracked down on over-gross operations in a meaningful way, operators would fall in line. It needs to be more expensive to break the rules than to keep them.
The attitude won't change on its own. Every pilot who's been around the block more than once or twice knows most planes fly just fine over gross weight.
Heck, that applies to most aircraft limitations. There's a margin of error built in to almost every limitation I can think of (Vne, CG range, etc.). The problem is that nobody REALLY knows what will come back to bite them until it's too late. But if you've done something 100 times, it's hard to believe a problem will crop up on the 101st time.
There are two main factors that make the lower 48 different from Alaska:
1) No pressing need to go places. Sure, people and cargo want to move around, but it's not like society stops if planes stop moving. The stakes are higher in Alaska.
2) Lack of enforcement. When was the last time a pilot got violated for flying over gross in Alaska? I've never heard of it.
I see the same thing in the skydiving community. Training standards and operating procedures vary greatly from one operator to another because it's very much on the honor system. Big Brother never comes around and lays down the law, so operators are left to do pretty much whatever they want.
I think if feds actually cracked down on over-gross operations in a meaningful way, operators would fall in line. It needs to be more expensive to break the rules than to keep them.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
Don't get me wrong, I know a fair number of these guys are doing this to keep food on the table or a roof over their (and their families' heads), so I certainly don't want to just come down on the actual pilot on this one - but you mention the operators as well jrh - but what good is it if you're the next 101st aircraft to fall out of sky cause that poor single engine piston couldn't handle the extra weight, or over it's lifespan - was stressed to it's breaking point. So yeah, operators need to be held accountable - but since the feds (largely) are not gonna do it - when does the professional pilot cadre in AK specifically, say enough is enough.
Or is that an unrealistic expectation of maintaining safety?
Most of us were brought up right, in that you respect the limitations of your aircraft. Just think that a certain element of respecting the realities of our craft can end up saving more lives and doesn't necessarily breed the continuation of said "overweight" mentality. Lofty goal I suppose.
Always a game of numbers, be it from pilots, operators, or the feds. So long as the numbers stay small enough, no one will question it - from either of the previously mentioned interest groups.
Guess we can always say "they knew what they were signing up for," but I hate to say that that is taking the easy way out instead of trying to fix the problem.
Don't get me wrong, I know a fair number of these guys are doing this to keep food on the table or a roof over their (and their families' heads), so I certainly don't want to just come down on the actual pilot on this one - but you mention the operators as well jrh - but what good is it if you're the next 101st aircraft to fall out of sky cause that poor single engine piston couldn't handle the extra weight, or over it's lifespan - was stressed to it's breaking point. So yeah, operators need to be held accountable - but since the feds (largely) are not gonna do it - when does the professional pilot cadre in AK specifically, say enough is enough.
Or is that an unrealistic expectation of maintaining safety?
Most of us were brought up right, in that you respect the limitations of your aircraft. Just think that a certain element of respecting the realities of our craft can end up saving more lives and doesn't necessarily breed the continuation of said "overweight" mentality. Lofty goal I suppose.
Always a game of numbers, be it from pilots, operators, or the feds. So long as the numbers stay small enough, no one will question it - from either of the previously mentioned interest groups.
Guess we can always say "they knew what they were signing up for," but I hate to say that that is taking the easy way out instead of trying to fix the problem.
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
Attitudes are in fact changing up here (Alaska). There are far few renegade 'bush pilot'
types flying around, compared to years past. But, there obviously is still lots of room for improvement. I consider the FAA attitudes to be part of the problem. A quick review of accident reports will probably show that some 90% or more accidents are attributed to pilot error, yet the FAA will constantly harass repair facilities and obsess over
the most insignificant maintenance issues (even though maintenance issues are rarely the cause of light plane accidents). Their focus needs to shift more towards pilot safety. It's been years since I've been ramp checked, but the last time, the inspector was most interested that I had a registration, and air worthiness certificate, than whether i was a safe pilot. Of course, he found that the compass correction card was missing (vibrated out and onto the floor somewhere), and issued me a verbal warning, but I imagine some pilots get fined for similar things.
When was the last time you needed that compass correction card to fly safely?
Instead, maybe he should have, in a friendly non threatening manner, asked me to show my weight and balance calculations for that particular flight, or have me do a calculation if i hadn't already. The FAA needs to take a more proactive, 'education in the field' role, rather than a punitive role.
Attitudes are in fact changing up here (Alaska). There are far few renegade 'bush pilot'
types flying around, compared to years past. But, there obviously is still lots of room for improvement. I consider the FAA attitudes to be part of the problem. A quick review of accident reports will probably show that some 90% or more accidents are attributed to pilot error, yet the FAA will constantly harass repair facilities and obsess over
the most insignificant maintenance issues (even though maintenance issues are rarely the cause of light plane accidents). Their focus needs to shift more towards pilot safety. It's been years since I've been ramp checked, but the last time, the inspector was most interested that I had a registration, and air worthiness certificate, than whether i was a safe pilot. Of course, he found that the compass correction card was missing (vibrated out and onto the floor somewhere), and issued me a verbal warning, but I imagine some pilots get fined for similar things.
When was the last time you needed that compass correction card to fly safely?
Instead, maybe he should have, in a friendly non threatening manner, asked me to show my weight and balance calculations for that particular flight, or have me do a calculation if i hadn't already. The FAA needs to take a more proactive, 'education in the field' role, rather than a punitive role.
Bumblebee
Commodore
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
do I read "overweight" here?
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
I am down here now aren't I? I had enough after awhile and came down south to try something new. There's lots of pressure to perform. Too much pressure at times in the SE 135 world up north. At some point though, the pilots aren't really the ones that are setting the standard for this sort of thing. Yeah, everybody would like it if we weren't pushed to carry extra or take a flight in dog poo weather, but at some companies any sort of push back is considered being insubordinate, and results in you being persona non-grata in regards to scheduling, pay, upgrade potential, and more.
Part of the problem is that the FAA is willing to blame these things on pilots who accept the flights. They're willing to take a problem that is by and large management's fault, and pushes it onto the pilots. Then, like what empire said, the things that they are concerned about are mostly irrelevant or trivial when they should have been concerned about things like weight, weather, and similar things.
I am down here now aren't I? I had enough after awhile and came down south to try something new. There's lots of pressure to perform. Too much pressure at times in the SE 135 world up north. At some point though, the pilots aren't really the ones that are setting the standard for this sort of thing. Yeah, everybody would like it if we weren't pushed to carry extra or take a flight in dog poo weather, but at some companies any sort of push back is considered being insubordinate, and results in you being persona non-grata in regards to scheduling, pay, upgrade potential, and more.
Part of the problem is that the FAA is willing to blame these things on pilots who accept the flights. They're willing to take a problem that is by and large management's fault, and pushes it onto the pilots. Then, like what empire said, the things that they are concerned about are mostly irrelevant or trivial when they should have been concerned about things like weight, weather, and similar things.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g
Oh, and something else too.
Its really easy to be on your high horse when you start out. The owner/DO/CP/oldschool pilot shows up and says "well son, if you don't take this trip, I will." Whether the trip is loaded too heavy, the weather is too bad, there are clearly drunk passengers, the airplane isn't in the best shape, or you're so fatigued you can barely keep your eyes open, doesn't matter, after missing several trips (read pay) because you've stuck to your guns the temptation will be there to "getterdun."
I'll give you a particular "for instance." When I had a little over 1000hrs, I worked on Kodiak Island for a summer. I remember turning around in very very very thick weather down at 500' AGL and going back to the airport to save my skin, with my only real source of navigation info being the tiny bits of self-similar coastline and my Garmin 295. All of my compatriots making the same flight who departed at the same time made it to their destination. Try explaining that to your boss. Luckily, my boss in ADQ wasn't a ball-buster when it came to that sort of things, he basically said, "well, once you get a little more familiar with the terrain and weather, it'll be easier to make it through."
Now when you're getting paid by the hour (which every place I worked for up there paid) it doesn't take too many trips in the winter when things are slow anyway to start to erode at your ability to "make ends meet."
Let's say you're flying a 207 or a Cherokee 6 (like in southeast AK) for $50/hr (very reasonable rate). This sounds great, especially at 1000hrs per year, but in January, after the Christmas rush is over, all the dividend money is spent, and the weather is markedly colder and crapier, a 30hr month (which has happened to me a couple of times) means a $1500 paycheck. Contrast this to the summer when 120hrs puts 6 grand in your pocket, its a bit of a transition. No, you'll get out and fly as much as humanly possible during the winter. You'll go and "take a look," most companies even encourage going out to burn AvGas and take a look at the weather, because it usually means you'll find it (unless its really bad).
Oh, and something else too.
Its really easy to be on your high horse when you start out. The owner/DO/CP/oldschool pilot shows up and says "well son, if you don't take this trip, I will." Whether the trip is loaded too heavy, the weather is too bad, there are clearly drunk passengers, the airplane isn't in the best shape, or you're so fatigued you can barely keep your eyes open, doesn't matter, after missing several trips (read pay) because you've stuck to your guns the temptation will be there to "getterdun."
I'll give you a particular "for instance." When I had a little over 1000hrs, I worked on Kodiak Island for a summer. I remember turning around in very very very thick weather down at 500' AGL and going back to the airport to save my skin, with my only real source of navigation info being the tiny bits of self-similar coastline and my Garmin 295. All of my compatriots making the same flight who departed at the same time made it to their destination. Try explaining that to your boss. Luckily, my boss in ADQ wasn't a ball-buster when it came to that sort of things, he basically said, "well, once you get a little more familiar with the terrain and weather, it'll be easier to make it through."
Now when you're getting paid by the hour (which every place I worked for up there paid) it doesn't take too many trips in the winter when things are slow anyway to start to erode at your ability to "make ends meet."
Let's say you're flying a 207 or a Cherokee 6 (like in southeast AK) for $50/hr (very reasonable rate). This sounds great, especially at 1000hrs per year, but in January, after the Christmas rush is over, all the dividend money is spent, and the weather is markedly colder and crapier, a 30hr month (which has happened to me a couple of times) means a $1500 paycheck. Contrast this to the summer when 120hrs puts 6 grand in your pocket, its a bit of a transition. No, you'll get out and fly as much as humanly possible during the winter. You'll go and "take a look," most companies even encourage going out to burn AvGas and take a look at the weather, because it usually means you'll find it (unless its really bad).