M20J down, California

[Bob_Belville]

10 hours ago, flyboy0681 said:

Unless it's the $5k policy available through AOPA, it will state in very large bold letters that benefits won't be paid out for private pilots who die while behind the controls.

Nonsense.

[thinwing]

11 hours ago, Piloto said:

For my 65 birthday my wife gave me a life insurance enrollment.

José

Smart Woman Piloto.....she knows all about your antiice formula...

[Shadrach]

11 hours ago, MHemperly said:

But there is visibility.... 

Legal visibility has nothing to do with whether rain splattering on a windshield at 180mph makes it difficult to see. 

[cnoe]

The pure PLBs such as an Artex ResQLink transmits a 406 signal, a GPS location, AND a 121.5 signal. Your position can be narrowed to a ~2.5 mile radius with the 406 beacon alone; with the GPS data and 121.5 signal you WILL be found. These are not for maintaining contact with loved ones or for tracking a flight. They are for emergency location use only but perform that function very well with NO subscription costs. Having both would be great but if I had to choose one, personally I'd opt for the true PLB. I carry one at all times in a "crash bag" along with several other survival items (in addition to the fixed-mount 406 ELT in the empennage). It makes me feel a bit safer, especially on my flights through New Mexico and Colorado. Here's a link that describes how the rescue process works using these units: https://www.acrartex.com/info/search-and-rescue/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MHemperly]

49 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Legal visibility has nothing to do with whether rain splattering on a windshield at 180mph makes it difficult to see. 

Sure it does. The FAA doesn't care if you are flying through a cloud or heavy rain. Visibility is visibility to them. In that kind of situation they expect you to make good judgement and pick up an IFR clearance... "If visibility has been reduced to below that for VFR flight" If you are instrument rated and you and the aircraft you are flying are "legal" for IFR flight.

There aren't any grey areas in the FAR's when it comes to instrument flight. In fact they are pretty ingenious. If you are a VFR pilot that inadvertently flies into IMC, and declare an emergency or "crash" and live to talk about it. They will get you my friend....

Mike

Edited January 20, 2017 by MHemperly

[Bennett]

The pure PLBs such as an Artex ResQLink transmits a 406 signal, a GPS location, AND a 121.5 signal. Your position can be narrowed to a ~2.5 mile radius with the 406 beacon alone; with the GPS data and 121.5 signal you WILL be found. These are not for maintaining contact with loved ones or for tracking a flight. They are for emergency location use only but perform that function very well with NO subscription costs. Having both would be great but if I had to choose one, personally I'd opt for the true PLB. I carry one at all times in a "crash bag" along with several other survival items (in addition to the fixed-mount 406 ELT in the empennage). It makes me feel a bit safer, especially on my flights through New Mexico and iCal kit G. Here's a link that describes how the in MTVecc rescue process works using these units: [https://www.acrartex.com/info/search-and-resc/]https://www.acrartex.com/info/search-and-rescue/[/url]
Proof


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I do the same. The aircraft is equipped with an Emerging Technologies 406 ELT, with built in GPS, and panel mount controls. I keep the PLB in my small survival kit I keep on my back seat where it is easy to reach. When flying over water for any distance I keep the PLB on my ditch bag (floating), that also has both marine and aviation transceivers in waterproof pouches.

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Legal visibility has nothing to do with whether rain splattering on a windshield at 180mph makes it difficult to see. 

I've honestly never found that to be the case. I've never noticed visibility issues related to heavy rain on the windscreen. I suspect the prop disperses it. Seems to be much more of an issue during taxi. 

Some of the heaviest ran can be in cavu 

-Robert

[Bennett]

I do the same. The aircraft is equipped with an Emerging Technologies 406 ELT, with built in GPS, and panel mount controls. I keep the PLB in my small survival kit I keep on my back seat where it is easy to reach. When flying over water for any distance I keep the PLB on my ditch bag (floating), that also has both marine and aviation transceivers in waterproof pouches.

Strange to quote myself, but I wanted to add that for overwater flights (including coastal flights), I keep an AIS (McCurdo 520) beacon with the PLB. These AIS units are used normally for Man Overboard situations, and many vessels have receivers that provide information as to azimuth and to some degree, distance to the MOB person. We carry these (in a pouch attached to the inflatable life vest) for offshore sailboat races. They are required equipment for the Pacific Cup - San Francisco to Hawaii race. For coastal flights I keep (manual inflating) life vests on the back seat with the small survival bag which has its own floatation. It is very hard to spot someone in ocean waters, and the AIS beacon can be a real life saver. We tested these units before the last Pacific Cup race, and the combination of the crew's individual units, and the graphical display onboard the sailboat made it easy to locate the MOB person, even a mile away.

I know this sounds like overkill, but AIS units are under $300 or so, lightweight waterproof, and easily deployed which turns them on. Hey, I own a risk management consultancy, and mitigating risk is something we do everyday.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

12 hours ago, MHemperly said:

Sure it does. The FAA doesn't care if you are flying through a cloud or heavy rain. Visibility is visibility to them. In that kind of situation they expect you to make good judgement and pick up an IFR clearance... "If visibility has been reduced to below that for VFR flight" If you are instrument rated and you and the aircraft you are flying are "legal" for IFR flight.

There aren't any grey areas in the FAR's when it comes to instrument flight. In fact they are pretty ingenious. If you are a VFR pilot that inadvertently flies into IMC, and declare an emergency or "crash" and live to talk about it. They will get you my friend....

Mike

After reviewing the definition of flight visibility, I see that you are indeed correct.  By the current definition, a pilot that is flying on a severe clear day that turns into the sun and is blinded by glare could be considered by the administrator to be in IMC...there but for the grace of god go I. 

[RobertGary1]

8 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

After reviewing the definition of flight visibility, I see that you are indeed correct.  By the current definition, a pilot that is flying on a severe clear day that turns into the sun and is blinded by glare could be considered by the administrator to be in IMC...there but for the grace of god go I. 

On the flip side you can launch out of Santa Barbara at night over the ocean VFR but its about as "IMC" as it gets with nothing but black out the windscreen.

-Robert

[Shadrach]

11 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

I've honestly never found that to be the case. I've never noticed visibility issues related to heavy rain on the windscreen. I suspect the prop disperses it. Seems to be much more of an issue during taxi. 

Some of the heaviest ran can be in cavu 

-Robert

I agree, with the notion that heavy rain often occurs in otherwise clear air.  However, I have indeed had water hit my windshield in such volumes as to render it obscured enough to limit forward visibility to a point that it is indeterminable.  Under those conditions, if ATC called traffic 12 o'clock and 5 my immediate reply would be "Please suggest heading for spacing, heavy rain inhibiting ability to see traffic".   I would say the same thing if flying into the sun.

[MHemperly]

7 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

After reviewing the definition of flight visibility, I see that you are indeed correct.  By the current definition, a pilot that is flying on a severe clear day that turns into the sun and is blinded by glare could be considered by the administrator to be in IMC...there but for the grace of god go I. 

As I am never one to say I'm right and you are wrong... because it's not about that. In light of this situation, when one of our own dies, it's up to us as pilots to aid and teach one another to protect our passion. It's unfortunate that we aren't immune to making mistakes, we all do. We've just got to be there for each other. God bless this man and his family. It hurts all of us when this happens. Fly humbled, fly safe! 

Mike

[Shadrach]

4 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

On the flip side you can launch out of Santa Barbara at night over the ocean VFR but its about as "IMC" as it gets with nothing but black out the windscreen.

-Robert

A analogue for me would be the Chesapeake at night. However, under the conditions you mention, a boat or plane 5 miles away running with Nav lights would be visible; I think there are scenarios where sun glare or rain would prevent visual contact.

[Shadrach]

18 minutes ago, MHemperly said:

As I am never one to say I'm right and you are wrong... because it's not about that. In light of this situation, when one of our own dies, it's up to us as pilots to aid and teach one another to protect our passion. It's unfortunate that we aren't immune to making mistakes, we all do. We've just got to be there for each other. God bless this man and his family. It hurts all of us when this happens. Fly humbled, fly safe! 

Mike

I was surprised by the definition. It is indeed  another spider web with which a vfr pilot can quickly find him/herself afoul of the definition even on a CAVU day. Turning into the afternoon sun can render you illegal.  When you look at the VFR weather minimums, they are a contradiction.  Below 10,000' in Class E airspace the requirements are 3 miles and .37 miles from clouds. If .37 from clouds, how do you have 3 miles in that direction?.

[RobertGary1]

19 minutes ago, MHemperly said:

As I am never one to say I'm right and you are wrong... because it's not about that. In light of this situation, when one of our own dies, it's up to us as pilots to aid and teach one another to protect our passion. It's unfortunate that we aren't immune to making mistakes, we all do. We've just got to be there for each other. God bless this man and his family. It hurts all of us when this happens. Fly humbled, fly safe! 

Mike

But more important its important to understand that we have no idea what happened to this dead brother. We are all just making wild guesses. Its not really productive to us or fair to him to impute him based on a few lines in an unreliable news article. I've been around just long enough that I can no longer count the number of times the NTSB report has disagreed with the already forgone conclusion of pilots in the social media regarding an accident.

 

-Robert

[mooniac15u]

38 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

But more important its important to understand that we have no idea what happened to this dead brother. We are all just making wild guesses. Its not really productive to us or fair to him to impute him based on a few lines in an unreliable news article. I've been around just long enough that I can no longer count the number of times the NTSB report has disagreed with the already forgone conclusion of pilots in the social media regarding an accident.

 

-Robert

This comes up every time someone posts about an accident on MS.  Aside from a couple of speculative comments this thread doesn't really have a tone of accusing anyone of anything.  There was good information presented on ELTs and PLBs and if nobody had brought up the issue of VFR into IMC there would not have been a good discussion of visibility requirements.  There is value in the discussion.

 

[Shadrach]

16 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

But more important its important to understand that we have no idea what happened to this dead brother. We are all just making wild guesses. Its not really productive to us or fair to him to impute him based on a few lines in an unreliable news article. I've been around just long enough that I can no longer count the number of times the NTSB report has disagreed with the already forgone conclusion of pilots in the social media regarding an accident.

 

-Robert

I don't know that he has been imputed in any way at this point.  What I will say is that in the event of a crash or off airport landing, flying single engine (or multi for that matter) over hostile terrain without speaking to ATC or filing a flight plan is a recipe for spending several nights in the woods.  

From the looks of the wreckage, it does not look like it was a controlled, low speed touch down. A J Model with one pilot and half fuel will fly at 50KIAS power off. That is fast enough to kill you for sure in the event of sudden deceleration, but in my opinion that plane looks like it was forced to dissipate some amount of energy considerably beyond a low speed touch down.

RIP

[RobertGary1]

I have absolutely no idea is this was related to vfr into imc as has been suggested. But I thought as long as we were taking guesses I'd add this one...

[thinwing]

Photo of that guy looks like good drugs onboard!

[Bob_Belville]

23 hours ago, Shadrach said:

"Please suggest heading for spacing, heavy rain inhibiting ability to see traffic".  

Pretty verbose. If on an IFR flight plan "3 Romeo Whiskey - IMC" would have conveyed exactly the same message and would have elicited a vector. If "nominally" VFR but flying blind I'd reply "3RW, no joy, requesting heading".

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Bob_Belville said:

Pretty verbose. If on an IFR flight plan "3 Romeo Whiskey - IMC" would have conveyed exactly the same message and would have elicited a vector. If "nominally" VFR but flying blind I'd reply "3RW, no joy, requesting heading".

Do you really use "no joy"? Do you say Talley-ho  upon acquiring your target?

[Bob_Belville]

Yup. As I've been doing for almost 50 years. Might not be PC, but clear and brief.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

Yup. As I've been doing for almost 50 years. Might not be PC, but clear and brief.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 

Ha, I'm the last person to be concerned about someone being PC and don't think qualifies; I just think the No joy/Tally-ho thing is kind of corny.  On second thought, the WWII pilot's that started using the phrases took it from fox hunting, and that's about as un PC as it gets.

As to brevity on the radio, if you're in a deluge so voluminous that it's inhibiting/preventing visual contact with another aircraft, I would think ATC might find that information beneficial.  

[Bob_Belville]

58 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Ha, I'm the last person to be concerned about someone being PC and don't think qualifies; I just think the No joy/Tally-ho thing is kind of corny.  On second thought, the WWII pilot's that started using the phrases took it from fox hunting, and that's about as un PC as it gets.

As to brevity on the radio, if you're in a deluge so voluminous that it's inhibiting/preventing visual contact with another aircraft, I would think ATC might find that information beneficial.  

Do a pirep.  In my experience it's apt to be the other way around - ATC is painting heavy precip that he's been sending folks around and asks me what my flight conditions are. (Since I trust the Stormscope I'm likely to be able to report "smooth ride, moderate to heavy rain for the last 5 minutes".)

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Ha, I'm the last person to be concerned about someone being PC and don't think qualifies; I just think the No joy/Tally-ho thing is kind of corny.  On second thought, the WWII pilot's that started using the phrases took it from fox hunting, and that's about as un PC as it gets.

As to brevity on the radio, if you're in a deluge so voluminous that it's inhibiting/preventing visual contact with another aircraft, I would think ATC might find that information beneficial.  

I use "no joy" when I don't see called traffic; when I do, I say, "traffic in sight." "Tally ho" reminds me of WWII movies with the fighters diving on enemy formations . . .