Recommended Posts

Now the Canadian pilots are fighting with each other! Whats next, the Swiss pilots? Our last hope of civility in this world is disappearing!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

34 minutes ago, alex said:

At least the argument is aviation related and NOT politics, but just as entertaining.

It's the same crap as over at AOPA forums, part of why I haven't visited there in over a year . . .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, yvesg said:

Steve, 

I am not sure who you are talking to in your message above? Looks like it is adressed to Clarence but my name is at the top. Please re-phrase and put destinary.

Yves

Hi Yves 

The following was quoted directly Clarence 's post however it's missing now. Not sure how it wound up in yours 

"Thanks Yves 

you can post that now"

i had no intention of drawing you in to this. 

Thanks for pointing out the CARs regulation 

Steve 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the Swiss have declared independence. I just spoke to my mate Daniel from  Lausanne. :)  

To all my Canadian Cousins, can i ask wholeheartedly that you go and meet up, shake hands and apologise to each other, REGARDLESS who is at fault, or whose CAR, CAP, or whatever is correct. 

We are ALL friends on here, we have all helped each other in the past and will continue to do so again.   Please dont fall out over a stupid piece of government legislation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hyett6420 said:

Apparently the Swiss have declared independence. I just spoke to my mate Daniel from  Lausanne. :)  

To all my Canadian Cousins, can i ask wholeheartedly that you go and meet up, shake hands and apologise to each other, REGARDLESS who is at fault, or whose CAR, CAP, or whatever is correct. 

We are ALL friends on here, we have all helped each other in the past and will continue to do so again.   Please dont fall out over a stupid piece of government legislation. 

Funny.  Both Ha Ha and Strange.  "All friends here" says the guy that got me banned and blocked me.  For what?  Having a little fun and calling out exaggeration of airspeed that we Mooney Pilots do with regularity...

Pleeze......

Calling a spade a spade since old enough to know better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just happy my mooney is certified under CAR :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap, what the hell is going on here? Come on folks, let's put the nastiness behind us and get back to civil discourse.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This little charade has me wondering.I fly to Canada quite often and frequently IFR...does these Regs mean I have to get a night ifr rating that I do not think is available in the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thinwing said:

This little charade has me wondering.I fly to Canada quite often and frequently IFR...does these Regs mean I have to get a night ifr rating that I do not think is available in the US?

Of course not, at least not as long as you are flying a N registered Aircraft up there you have the same privileges their you have here. But you couldn't be PIC of C registered aircraft until you became certificated under their rules with a Canadian certificate or got a temporary Canadian Pilot Authorization with your FAA cert's (if they do that like many countries do).

Also we're really not that different in our pilot certificates for night. Its just that our standard certificate includes night privileges while canadian certs apparently do not. But anyone can get a FAA US cert without night privileges - it just becomes a limitation that night is not allowed (I don't recall the exact verbiage) on the cert. I have yet to meet anyone though that didn't complete the night training requirements here in the US to get their cert without night limitations.

Edited by kortopates
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had occasion to fly to Long Island several times in the past few months.  Taking off at night from an airport close to the shore, on certain dark nights with poor reference to the horizon, required reference to instruments on climb out, particularly while close to the ground.  You can never have enough training and experience.  We are taught that as soon as you do not have a horizon you are to be on instruments.  This can happen in a number of different scenarios.  There is simply insufficient training as part of the PPL to give a new pilot enough experience to get him/herself out of trouble on instruments alone.  He/she may not even recognize that trouble is at the doorstep.   I am an advocate that everyone seeking to fly at night or in other than solid VFR conditions be IFR rated.  VFR flight on a flight plan in busy regions (Boston, NYC, Chicago etc...) also provides separation which is beneficial even with TCAD.

John Breda  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Paul has pointed out, your FAA licence grants you night privileges as well as instrument privileges.  There are however subtle differences in Canadian and FAA IFR minima and approach limits.

A Northwest crew departing here were violated for departing in less than Canadian mins.  They mistakenly used their FAA limits here.

Clarence

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, thinwing said:

This little charade has me wondering.I fly to Canada quite often and frequently IFR...does these Regs mean I have to get a night ifr rating that I do not think is available in the US?

Are non-night Canadians prohibited from night VFR in US?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are non-night Canadians prohibited from night VFR in US?

Yes

We (US) are all members of the ICAO. Each ICAO country allows foreign pilots to exercise the privileges granted by their country's CAA when operating aircraft registered by their country. A few country's go a step further. For example Germany will allow a German licensed pilot to fly an N registered aircraft in Germany - but this is not the norm. Although the ICAO was an attempt to harmonize rules internationally we all know each country has differences which can further restrict us. For example generic ICAO rules forbid night time VFR. So no, a US pilot can not fly VFR at night in such a foreign country like Mexico since their rules prohibit it.

Another very interesting distinction that many would think is backwards for US pilots is that here in the US our pilot privileges are granted by a certificate whereas pretty much the rest of the world pilots are granted licenses. There is an important distinction between them. Although recently I read here in comments that someone thought they are exercising their god given rights in the US but the truth is far from it. Legally a certificate can be revoked by the administrative action (I.e. The FAA) whereas licensing requires judiciary action to revoke. So for such a free country, our pilot privileges are perhaps the easiest to be revoked.

Sorry for getting off topic but I've always found it interesting how the rules vary between country's.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 201er said:

Are non-night Canadians prohibited from night VFR in US?

My FAA pilot certificate is based on the validity of my Transport Canada Licence and carries any restrictions of my Canadian licence.  For example when I got the FAA one I did not hold a Canadian night rating.

Clarence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You Canadians are so cute when you get angry.......Good day Eh !!!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original discussion, whether one is IFR qualified, VFR only or night qualified, you have to evaluate the conditions of the individual flight relative to your qualifications.  I am IFR rated and have flown approaches to minimums in actual in JAX before, but I scrubbed a flight today because JAX was forecast to be LIFR with rain and low clouds.  Could I have flown it, sure.  Did I need to, no.  I delayed the flight to tomorrow when its forecast to be severe clear.  I would rather delay a day than end up being a discussion topic on MS because I crashed.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always good to judge the weather and anticipate the possibility of an IMC like condition. Even though we can only speculate, in looking at the reports from this tragedy, it appeared the the weather in both destination and departure airport was marginal VFR or better. Its all of the weather in between, which even if not classic IMC flying inside of clouds, I think losing both above you and below you references at night is just as dangerous as IMC if you're flying VFR.

In my example I gave, predicted night weather by all sources I checked was completely VFR/ CAVU, but like JFK jr had, I had a long period of losing both references which was a terrifying experience for me when I was VFR only with only a minimum of instrument training for my private license which thank heavens I was paying attention to. But now that Im IFR, have lots of times day and night, where weather at both airports is VFR or near VFR, but getting to those airports is the problem. I have an approach video on here where that was exactly the case, technically marginal VFR both airports, but clearly an instrument requiring approach due to all of the weather in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made summer flights in clear VFR conditions, nary a cloud to be seen, cruising happily in cool, clear air above the haze layer. But I logged Actual IMC on descent, as coming into the haze layer I may as well have been inside a cloud. Descending over the mountains of central WV, all I could see was white. About 3000 msl, I began to see mountain tops poking up, and by 2500 msl I could see the ground; at 2000 msl, the air was again crystal clear. Thankfully I was was in an IFR flight plan and was given descents that were safe; more thankfully, I was very familiar with the area and knew I was safe there.

Check the radar, read the METARs, look at whatever forecasts you want--what you see out the window is what you have to deal with. Weather forecasts are wrong to often to trust, but are correct too often to ignore . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FAA database shows a VFR Private pilot since 2014 in a partnership on the C182P. Going through the report I wondered why the pilot's flight went as far south west as it did, but then it also looks like he was reversing his flight out from noon earlier that also had weather in the area. His initial climb to 2800' suggested he didn't realize the weather ahead and made me wonder if he was able to check weather or see a nexrad image at the time of departure. 

Very sad to see these VFR into IMC accidents so common; especially when they take out so many innocent young family members. We had another very similar one a few days later Jan 2, that was a daytime VFR into IMC accident. A VFR pilot, since 2010, in a C210 hit the Mogollon Rim just North of Payson on their way to Telluride.  This one took out a family of 4, also with 2 young children. Weather was good at the departure and destination but not enroute.  Still waiting on the preliminary with very little info thus far but there was an ADS-B flight track on Flightaware but that's gone now. There was no flight plan or flight-following eitrher: 

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/01/cessna-210-centurion-fatal-accident.html

Last year about this time we had a very egregious VFR into IMC that took out a family of 5 when a VFR private pilot with less than 300 hrs (IIRC) actually accepted a pop up IFR flight plan to continue his flight. The pilot had recently started instrument training with 2 flights logged for a total of 0.8 hrs in actual: 

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2015/12/piper-pa-32rt-300t-turbo-lance-ii.html 

My personal feeling is that VFR into IMC are so deadly because there really is no way out once trapped.  One minute you think you can get around one way or another, the next minute you are totally trapped with barely a minute or two left to live.  

Edited by kortopates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The preliminary report on the AZ T210K crash with 4 fatals (2 small kids similar to the WA crash the week before) just came out at https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170103X14851&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA  Definetly another VFR into IMC.

My guess is the pilot was being forced down by a ceiling, perhaps between layers and became IMC. The Mogollon Rim rim was reported entirely obscured at the time of the crash when the plane flew right into it. It hardly matters at this point, but I can't help wondering if the plane was IMC merely for a couple seconds before hitting it or if there was any time to have tried that 180 maneuver - i doubt it.

Also in the press was mention that the x-wife had a court order, or perhaps just in the divorce settlement, that their 2 daughters could not fly in the plane unless it was piloted by a commercial pilot and a flight plan was filed. Neither was true in this case.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kortopates said:

The preliminary report on the AZ T210K crash with 4 fatals (2 small kids similar to the WA crash the week before) just came out at https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170103X14851&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA  Definetly another VFR into IMC.

My guess is the pilot was being forced down by a ceiling, perhaps between layers and became IMC. The Mogollon Rim rim was reported entirely obscured at the time of the crash when the plane flew right into it. It hardly matters at this point, but I can't help wondering if the plane was IMC merely for a couple seconds before hitting it or if there was any time to have tried that 180 maneuver - i doubt it.

Also in the press was mention that the x-wife had a court order, or perhaps just in the divorce settlement, that their 2 daughters could not fly in the plane unless it was piloted by a commercial pilot and a flight plan was filed. Neither was true in this case.    

Paul -- There are a number of online articles talking about the plane and the pilot. The pilot had 2 other incidents prior to this accident. One being a gear extension issue and a forced landing due to a powerplant problem. Not that these had anything to do with the accident, but the articles suggested the plane wasn't well maintained. There is quite a bit written on the plane and pilot. 

The ex-wife was probably aware of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Paul -- There are a number of online articles talking about the plane and the pilot. The pilot had 2 other incidents prior to this accident. One being a gear extension issue and a forced landing due to a powerplant problem. Not that these had anything to do with the accident, but the articles suggested the plane wasn't well maintained. There is quite a bit written on the plane and pilot. 

The ex-wife was probably aware of these.

Yes, I read about those. The gear extension problem I recall was at his home base (it had an FAA incident report) and the engine out I recall was at La Paz. But I also saw comments like you probably did that the plane had "inop instruments and gerry rigged backups". It sounded pretty bad. You could be right about the x-wife's assessment of the planes condition. I just assumed she didn't trust her husband as a fairly new pilot which is not unusual unfortunately. I read somewhere he had about 800 hrs.

But now that you bring this up, I didn't really think it might have been descending because of an engine out or the like. Possible though I guess.  The report states " In the remaining two and a half minutes, the airplane maintained a 300 foot per minute descent rate with some intermittent climbs. The final two radar targets showed the airplane ascend about 425 feet in 12 seconds."  The last 2 radar hits indicate a climb of 2125 FPM, so with the little we know it's sure not looking like an engine out. In fact it looking like the pilot just realized he had terrain directly in front of him and was trying to out climb it. Perhaps he saw a GPS terrain warning or saw the Rim when it was too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Yes, I read about those. The gear extension problem I recall was at his home base (it had an FAA incident report) and the engine out I recall was at La Paz. But I also saw comments like you probably did that the plane had "inop instruments and gerry rigged backups". It sounded pretty bad. You could be right about the x-wife's assessment of the planes condition. I just assumed she didn't trust her husband as a fairly new pilot which is not unusual unfortunately. I read somewhere he had about 800 hrs.

But now that you bring this up, I didn't really think it might have been descending because of an engine out or the like. Possible though I guess.  The report states " In the remaining two and a half minutes, the airplane maintained a 300 foot per minute descent rate with some intermittent climbs. The final two radar targets showed the airplane ascend about 425 feet in 12 seconds."  The last 2 radar hits indicate a climb of 2125 FPM, so with the little we know it's sure not looking like an engine out. In fact it looking like the pilot just realized he had terrain directly in front of him and was trying to out climb it. Perhaps he saw a GPS terrain warning or saw the Rim when it was too late.

Hopefully a root cause will be uncovered. My point wasn't that there was a mechanical problem, rather the fact that so much was written about the condition of his plane, it suggests he had a cavalier attitude about his maintaining his plane. Perhaps this translated into a similar attitude towards the risk of flying in and around weather in mountainous terrain. Anyway you look at it, people lost their lives and it certainly appeared avoidable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now