Fuel contamination and other basic survival instincts

Question:

depend on how empty your tanks were? I’m guessing no – I’m guessing this type of problem – any serious fuel contamination problem – would show up within minutes. Anyone really know this. Anyone here learn this the hard way?

I know of a Seneca that was fuel with Jet fuel.  Both engines failed within 1/2 mile of the airport on takeoff.  I don’t know how much avgas was in the tanks when the jet fuel was put in.  I had a problem on takeoff with water in the fuel on a ‘57 182.  I had been flying the airplane all day, I had fueled several times (all from the same source) and the problem occured on the last flight of the day. Another question : I read an official accident report (not a newspaper report) in which ground personnel refilled a small plane’s oxygen tanks with compressed air before a mountain crossing. The pilot died in the ensuing accident, but miraculously the single passenger survived to confirm the oxygen-related unconciousness of the pilot as the cause of the crash. What could this pilot have done to defend against this "rare but not impossible" event?

SCUBA divers use a test device to determine the amount of O2 in the tank when using mixed gas so I would have to say it is possible to test the O2 content of your a/c system. — Dale L. Falk There is nothing – absolutely nothing – half so much worth doing as simply messing around with airplanes. http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Response:

This is purely theoretical – it is not something I am planning for next Saturday : If you are to fly over an expanse of water or other inhospitible getting at – how useful a survival instinct would it be to fly, say 20 minutes, up the Icelandic coast, then double back before setting out across the great void?

If you are flying from Florida to the Bahamas, you can circle up to 10,000 feet and follow the line of boats as you descend to the islands. Stephen F. Pearce Foley, Alabama

Response:

If you are to fly over an expanse of water or other inhospitible terrain, for a distance long enough to require re-fueling immediately prior (US-Europe ferry, for example) – You watch to see that they put the right fuel in your plane, but you can really only see what’s stenciled on the side of the truck, not what’s inside (call me paranoid – what if the line guy is someone I owe money to). How long do you have to fly before a fuel contamination problem manifests itself? Does this depend on how empty your tanks were? I’m guessing no – I’m guessing this type of problem – any serious fuel contamination problem – would show up within minutes. Anyone really know this. Anyone here learn this the hard way?

No way to know.  It takes awhile for water to settle in avgas; it could manifest itself immediately, or a few minutes after takeoff.  Factors such as fuel system layout, amount of water, and effectiveness of fuel filters would all play a role. I wasn’t particularly thrilled about taking on fuel for a Hughes 500 I delivered from Florida to San Juan, Puerto Rico, in a number of, ah, "isolated" spots.  I was least pleased about taking fuel in Providenciales and the Dominican Republic.  However, your risk of contamination (due to water, anyway) in Jet-A is lower than avgas, because Jet-A (and turbine engines) are more tolerant of water than pistons.  In any case, I did a little 500 ft. traffic pattern after departing my first fuel stop in the DR, Puerto Plata, then headed east over the mountains. I’ve also noted, though far less certain, a number of vacuum or AI failures take place within the first minutes of flight, not to mention engines throwing rods etc. You can see what I’m getting at – how useful a survival instinct would it be to fly, say 20 minutes, up the Icelandic coast, then double back before setting out across the great void? (Obviously you’ve already taken the other measures, and you are wearing your survival gear etc).

Sure, that’s useful.  Prove out the equipment before you commit. Hopefully you’ve already had some trials or other proving runs so you have a big-picture idea of what you’re dealing with; the last test run, just prior to flight, will be to catch any last-minute gotchas. Another question : I read an official accident report (not a newspaper report) in which ground personnel refilled a small plane’s oxygen tanks with compressed air before a mountain crossing. The pilot died in the ensuing accident, but miraculously the single passenger survived to confirm the oxygen-related unconciousness of the pilot as the cause of the crash. What could this pilot have done to defend against this "rare but not impossible" event?

Realistically?  Nothing.  We could probably make some guesses and theorize about ways to prevent that from happening, but in the real world, we trust that an O2 fill is an O2 fill.  Supervise the recharging of the tanks, is all I could say. We assume that in aviation – unlike on the road – we may kill ourselves by our own mistakes, but the likliehood of being killed by the mistakes of others is very far removed. This is certainly justified, however very far removed does not mean impossible, and our preventive measures should try to preclude suce events if we can.

Absolutely.  I’ve "prevented" problems by supervising the refueling of the Hawker 700 which I fly.  It’s possible, via a refueling control panel, for the fueler to put fuel where it doesn’t belong, i.e. ventral and dorsal tanks when all I asked for was the wings to be topped.  Since T/O with partial fuel in those tanks is not allowed, I’d have a real problem if the fueler accidentally fueled those tanks.  Even worse is when the fueler tries to fill tanks that are already full and the airplane starts discharging fuel onto the ramp via a surge overflow vent.  The EPA comes runnin’!  My policy is to always be present when the aircraft is fueled. Good thoughts, Greg. -Ryan

Response:

Actually, it will take a lot longer for all the water to settle to the bottom. Tiny droplets of water setlle at an extremely slow rate, and even a small agitation will disturb them back into the fuel. The basic idea of the sump drain is not just to remove water, but to indicate that there is a problem with the fuel. Once you detect water in the sumps, it’s going to take a lot longer than 5 minutes to get going. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – An Instructor once told me that it takes 5 minutes per inch of fuel in the tank for all the water (if any) to show up in the sumps.  Don’t know where he got that from, but I thought I’d pass it on.

Response:

Regarding your AirVenture trip… email me: eroodatrrohio.com (make the appropriate substitutions)

Response:

Take whatever steps you think necessary. I will say this. In 2200 hours of flying all over the US, Canada and Alaska, I’ve never seen fuel contamination with water nor have I had debris in my fuel filter. The only problem I’ve ever had is the fueler NOT topping it off completely, which if you are counting on flying close to your max range with full tanks can be bad news. There are lots of accidents where pilots run out of fuel. Do everything you can not to do that. Take whatever steps you think is necessary. I try and watch the fueler or fill the tanks myself. I check the gas caps (never had anyone put them on wrong though).

Response:

You can’t check all possible scenarios, but water and jet fuel are   heavier than 100LL, and will sink to the bottom of the tank. It should show up in the sump drain, so there is no excuse for overlooking it. I suppose a contamination ligher than 100LL may not show up until later. You are correct that low probability does not mean impossible. However, we can’t live life that way. There is a finite probability that you will win the lottery, but you can plan your life around that. @biggoron.nerim.net: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is purely theoretical – it is not something I am planning for next Saturday : If you are to fly over an expanse of water or other inhospitible terrain, for a distance long enough to require re-fueling immediately prior (US-Europe ferry, for example) – You watch to see that they put the right fuel in your plane, but you can really only see what’s stenciled on the side of the truck, not what’s inside (call me paranoid – what if the line guy is someone I owe money to). How long do you have to fly before a fuel contamination problem manifests itself? Does this depend on how empty your tanks were? I’m guessing no – I’m guessing this type of problem – any serious fuel contamination problem – would show up within minutes. Anyone really know this. Anyone here learn this the hard way? I’ve also noted, though far less certain, a number of vacuum or AI failures take place within the first minutes of flight, not to mention engines throwing rods etc. You can see what I’m getting at – how useful a survival instinct would it be to fly, say 20 minutes, up the Icelandic coast, then double back before setting out across the great void? (Obviously you’ve already taken the other measures, and you are wearing your survival gear etc). Another question : I read an official accident report (not a newspaper report) in which ground personnel refilled a small plane’s oxygen tanks with compressed air before a mountain crossing. The pilot died in the ensuing accident, but miraculously the single passenger survived to confirm the oxygen-related unconciousness of the pilot as the cause of the crash. What could this pilot have done to defend against this "rare but not impossible" event? We assume that in aviation – unlike on the road – we may kill ourselves by our own mistakes, but the likliehood of being killed by the mistakes of others is very far removed. This is certainly justified, however very far removed does not mean impossible, and our preventive measures should try to preclude suce events if we can. G Faris

Response:

at the big FBOs sometimes unless you’re leaving right away you can’t get them to do it at a time you can be there to watch.

I was at Signature in BAL recently.  I was staying a couple of days and left an order to top off.  The person at the desk asked when I wanted that done, and I replied, "Any time before Tuesday morning would be fine".  She volunteered that today was Sunday and they give a $0.50/gal discount on weekends, would I mind if they did it today?  I wish all decisions in aviation were that easy!

Response:

She volunteered that today was Sunday and they give a $0.50/gal discount on weekends, would I mind if they did it today?  I wish all decisions in aviation were that easy!

You did decline, right? <g — Jim in NC

Response:

Posters have been advocating the practice of watching the line service person fuel the airplane. I take this a step further.  If not at a self-service facility (which always saves $$$), I request the line person to bring the truck around and then I fuel the airplane.  I sniff the first fuel out of the hose and rub a few drops between my fingers and thumb (jet fuel smells different and feels different).  I then add the amount I want, and I am able to avoid damage to the bladder and to the float mechanism that sends info to the fuel quantity guage. Yeah, the FBO people sometimes think I’m weird, but in the end, anything and everything on the subsequent flight is my responsibility, both legally and morally, and I’m not going to bypass a simple step like direct control of something that could ruin my whole day.  Been doing it that way for over forty years, and I’ll continue, until the day I stop flying.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sounds like a good argument to check the sumps on your takes as part of your preflight.  My instructor told me explicitly not to trust the fuel truck, as PIC it’s my responsibillity to make sure he didn’t ‘fill me up with water’ (was one way he put it). He taught me to sump the tanks, then verify the color of the fuel against a white surface.  I know that it can take a few minutes for contamination or wrong fuel to settle to the sumps, but if I _don’t_ check, then I lose an opportunity to abort the flight I might have otherwise had.  Basically, it’s not a 100% guarentee I’ll catch a problem, but it’s certainly better then if I just go on ‘faith’ (a poor trait to have in the cockpit, it seems). First time I fueled at a nice FBO, I felt kinda funny when I sumped and checked the tank, like the look the fuel guy was giving me was sorta funny, but I remembered my responsibillity and finished the check. It’s my butt on the line, not his.

First time I fueled at a "nice FBO" (Signature at IAD) i said fill it to the tabs and they even wrote that on the fuel ticket, so I went about my business that day.  The fueler topped the tanks while I wasn’t there, I returned to find them topped and they had to drain fuel, a lot of hassle for them and delay for me.  I think in that case they would have preferred that I had watched over them, but at the big FBOs sometimes unless you’re leaving right away you can’t get them to do it at a time you can be there to watch.

Response:

An Instructor once told me that it takes 5 minutes per inch of fuel in the tank for all the water (if any) to show up in the sumps.  Don’t know where he got that from, but I thought I’d pass it on.

Response:

An Instructor once told me that it takes 5 minutes per inch of fuel in the tank for all the water (if any) to show up in the sumps.  Don’t know where he got that from, but I thought I’d pass it on.

CRC Chemistry. I believe the settling rate of water in 100LL is 1" per minute.   Figure your tanks are 9" deep… check after 9 minutes. Adjust for the depth of your tanks. Best regards, Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard — Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer’at’frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/ C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 228 Young Eagles!

Response:

The odds of someone filling your O2 tanks with air instead of O2 is just as deadly and just as likley to happen as someone putting Drain-O on your sandwitch instead of mustard at a Subway restraunt. Well, maybe not as likley, but you get the idea. Some things in life you just have to risk. Thats not to say fuel sumps need not be checked, or simple inspections shouldn’t be made, but there exists a line which seperates reasonable precautions and insanity.

I’m aware of a story similar to what the original poster mentioned regarding filling an 02 tank with regular compressed air.  It was a C-337 on a photography mission. The passenger (who was in the back, ready to shoot photos) passed out at ~20k ft, and the pilot lost consciousness somewhat higher. The airplane departed from controlled flight, and came apart on the way down.  The wings, tail, etc. came down miles from the fuselage. The fuselage came down in a tree, killing the pilot. When the fire department came to pull the body out of the aircraft, the passenger woke up and climbed down the ladder with the firemen with minor injuries. True story.  I have met the NTSB guy who was the lead investigator.  He indicated that the FBO had been filling O2 tanks with regular compressed air for a lengthy time. They had to notify the FBO’s recent O2 customers on an emergency basis to let them know that their oxygen tanks needed to be purged and re-filled. A very interesting tale which goes to show that there are many, many ways to die quickly in an airplane. Some of them unforseen. KB

Response:

The odds of someone filling your O2 tanks with air instead of O2 is just as deadly and just as likley to happen as someone putting Drain-O on your sandwitch instead of mustard at a Subway restraunt. Well, maybe not as likley, but you get the idea. Some things in life you just have to risk. Thats not to say fuel sumps need not be checked, or simple inspections shouldn’t be made, but there exists a line which seperates reasonable precautions and insanity.

Response:

First time I fueled at a nice FBO, I felt kinda funny when I sumped and checked the tank, like the look the fuel guy was giving me was sorta funny, but I remembered my responsibillity and finished the check.

Remember, you’re checking for a few things: 1) Is the fuel the right grade (as indicated by the color)? 2) Is there water in the fuel? 3) Is there other contamination? There’s no reason for the fuel guy to interpret your check as criticism or suspicion of his actions.  An error in the fuel grade could be introduced by somebody else (e.g., whoever filled the truck, whoever filled your tanks the previous time), and the other problems could have other causes (e.g., maybe your previous fill had water in it, but it didn’t have time to settle out and be visible before you took off). It’s my butt on the line, not his.

Very true.  Don’t let funny looks deter you.  (Not to mention that the funny look might not even be related to what you’re doing.) … Alan — Alan Gerber gerber AT panix DOT com

Response:

Sounds like a good argument to check the sumps on your takes as part of your preflight.  My instructor told me explicitly not to trust the fuel truck, as PIC it’s my responsibillity to make sure he didn’t ‘fill me up with water’ (was one way he put it). He taught me to sump the tanks, then verify the color of the fuel against a white surface.  I know that it can take a few minutes for contamination or wrong fuel to settle to the sumps, but if I _don’t_ check, then I lose an opportunity to abort the flight I might have otherwise had.  Basically, it’s not a 100% guarentee I’ll catch a problem, but it’s certainly better then if I just go on ‘faith’ (a poor trait to have in the cockpit, it seems). First time I fueled at a nice FBO, I felt kinda funny when I sumped and checked the tank, like the look the fuel guy was giving me was sorta funny, but I remembered my responsibillity and finished the check. It’s my butt on the line, not his. I’ve read stories of turbo normalized planes getting Jet-A because the fuel truck saw ‘Turbo’ and read ‘Turboprop’. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Response:

This is purely theoretical – it is not something I am planning for next Saturday : If you are to fly over an expanse of water or other inhospitible terrain, for a distance long enough to require re-fueling immediately prior (US-Europe ferry, for example) – You watch to see that they put the right fuel in your plane, but you can really only see what’s stenciled on the side of the truck, not what’s inside (call me paranoid – what if the line guy is someone I owe money to). How long do you have to fly before a fuel contamination problem manifests itself? Does this depend on how empty your tanks were? I’m guessing no – I’m guessing this type of problem – any serious fuel contamination problem – would show up within minutes. Anyone really know this. Anyone here learn this the hard way? I’ve also noted, though far less certain, a number of vacuum or AI failures take place within the first minutes of flight, not to mention engines throwing rods etc. You can see what I’m getting at – how useful a survival instinct would it be to fly, say 20 minutes, up the Icelandic coast, then double back before setting out across the great void? (Obviously you’ve already taken the other measures, and you are wearing your survival gear etc). Another question : I read an official accident report (not a newspaper report) in which ground personnel refilled a small plane’s oxygen tanks with compressed air before a mountain crossing. The pilot died in the ensuing accident, but miraculously the single passenger survived to confirm the oxygen-related unconciousness of the pilot as the cause of the crash. What could this pilot have done to defend against this "rare but not impossible" event? We assume that in aviation – unlike on the road – we may kill ourselves by our own mistakes, but the likliehood of being killed by the mistakes of others is very far removed. This is certainly justified, however very far removed does not mean impossible, and our preventive measures should try to preclude suce events if we can. G Faris

Response:

There can be no greater terror……

Question:

Speculation is one thing.   Getting up the ribs of a dead person by assuming they’re guilty BEFORE an investigation is entirely unreasonable, in my opinion.

I’m not assuming guilt or anything RT. I had the task of consoling one of the first on the scene. The description is verbatim as watched with growing unease by 2 experienced in aviation. I was, still am, just so frustrated by this event. I take kids flying all the time. I take them out in G airspace, show them the cardinal out the window markers for straight and level. I show them how to turn. Then I give them a fly and guide them through a turn or two. I let them fly for 15-20-30 minutes. when they begin to tire from the effort we return, often they fly us back, and then I land. not one of the kids has ever been less than totally stoked by the experience. ok the pax had a licence, take him out up to 3,000 or so and do a barrell roll, maybe a loop, let him fly. he’d remember and treasure the experience. the guys option was dumb beyond belief. Stealth Pilot

Response:

Stealth, I reckon there is at least  a 50% prob (IMO) your original post was spot on – as you should have realised by reading between the lines of my follow-up. BUT, you don’t know.   So DON’T crucify the dead pilot  irrewardless of his family until there has been a proper investigate.   Nobody is disputing what you know/saw.   *I* am disputing the conclusions you have drawn from visual-only evidence.   If you’re not sure what I’m alluding to, go and have a discuss with some ambos re the likely effects of a heart attack. Now let it be until the investigation is done.   It’s very sad, but enuff already. <sigh   I suppose it is sort of on-topic.   Another 17 year-old I knew (when I was 15)  was school dux, school captain, captain of the football team, captain of the cricket team, head prefect and a mighty bloke.   Died from a brain tumor before he finished his final year.   The school has a memorial garden to him.  Shit happens.

Response:

Absolutely Horrific and I could not begin to comprehend what his Mother went through and is going through. However, Despite your attack on the pilot that may in the end turn out to be justified, we really should give him the benefit of the doubt until the inquiry is over. We do not know who was at the controls at the time, or if it was mechanical failure or if in fact the Pilot had a seizure or anything.  that’s 3 out of 4 scenario’s that I can think of that puts the pilot at only 25 % possibilty of fault.

If there is any up side to this lot at all it is that his mother saw "only" her son killed – not her husband *as well* as happened recently with the structural failure of the ?  (SkyFox/LightWing?) Seems like wives and mothers should stay away from aerodromes…   (Mine always have  - unless they were going with me

Response:

So the passenger was a nice young bloke etc etc.    Makes no difference. Nice young blokes get killed in all sorts of ways – cars being the main tool.  He’s no more nor less dead for being killed in an aircraft accident than a car accident.  But if it was a car accident would the dead driver be crucified in a newsgroup before any sort of investigation?   (Yeah, I know the car investigations are often a bit ordinary).

Yes, a nice young bloke who’s mother and sister witnessed the whole incident, I hope they don’t read this news group looking for sympathy, you are a fucking jerk RT. Ric

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – a) There has been recent discussion on this group re speculation re accidents.    I support technical speculation for the reasons outlined the 2nd last time the topic came up. b)  There are some pilots I point blank (politely) refuse to fly with. Speculation is one thing.   Getting up the ribs of a dead person by assuming they’re guilty BEFORE an investigation is entirely unreasonable, in my opinion. Bit risky as well – unless you LIKE humble pie. It’s quite possible Stealth is spot-on with his original assessment. And it’s quite possible he’s not. For example, taking off in a quartering tailwind with a taildragger is the first point that’s mentioned.    Why?   The a/c flew away so obviously both the pilot and a/c were capable of handling the conditions….. So the passenger was a nice young bloke etc etc.    Makes no difference. Nice young blokes get killed in all sorts of ways – cars being the main tool.  He’s no more nor less dead for being killed in an aircraft accident than a car accident.  But if it was a car accident would the dead driver be crucified in a newsgroup before any sort of investigation?   (Yeah, I know the car investigations are often a bit ordinary).

Indeed he was. What I wrote was a brief eulogy about someone I knew, and condolences to his family. I’m sorry if I offended your, or anyone else’s sensibilities. Regards Stephen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -So settle down and back orf a bit, maybe. If you’re bored consider the effect a conventional heart attack could have had on the PIC. Enuff already.  (And it’s rare for me to say that in a newsgroup!

Response:

I’m sorry if I offended your, or anyone else’s sensibilities.

You didn’t. I held off responding for a while to see what transpired.   As a result and prolly aided by my carelessness in following-up, you may have thort I was getting up your ribs.   I wasn’t. Strictly, I wasn’t getting up *anyone’s* ribs – just urging moderation and patience before attributing *personal* blame before any investigation has occurred. Arguably, the attributes necessary to be able to do just that might easily be described as requirements for professional pilots You do get that  :-)

Response:

Why, someone who is willing to wit for the facts before making assumptions.  Hmmmmm Then again if his mother came in here and saw what sort of twat you were, she would not be too happy either. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, a nice young bloke who’s mother and sister witnessed the whole incident, I hope they don’t read this news group looking for sympathy, you are a fucking jerk RT. Ric

Response:

CASA’s laws are largely unenforceable …because those who break them usually die …but there is so little space on stone tablets these days. all aircraft must takeoff into wind. all aircraft must track out straight until 500ft altitude is reached. aerobatic manouvers must be commenced so that pull out is effected before 3,000 ft unless you are endorsed for low level work. you must not carry passengers during dangerous manouvers.

Of course there are exceptions…… I think you may have forgotten ag (and some other) operations.  ;-) Cheers.

Response:

a) There has been recent discussion on this group re speculation re accidents.     I support technical speculation for the reasons outlined the 2nd last time the topic came up. b)  There are some pilots I point blank (politely) refuse to fly with. Speculation is one thing.   Getting up the ribs of a dead person by assuming they’re guilty BEFORE an investigation is entirely unreasonable, in my opinion. Bit risky as well – unless you LIKE humble pie. It’s quite possible Stealth is spot-on with his original assessment. And it’s quite possible he’s not. For example, taking off in a quartering tailwind with a taildragger is the first point that’s mentioned.    Why?   The a/c flew away so obviously both the pilot and a/c were capable of handling the conditions….. So the passenger was a nice young bloke etc etc.    Makes no difference. Nice young blokes get killed in all sorts of ways – cars being the main tool.  He’s no more nor less dead for being killed in an aircraft accident than a car accident.  But if it was a car accident would the dead driver be crucified in a newsgroup before any sort of investigation?   (Yeah, I know the car investigations are often a bit ordinary). So settle down and back orf a bit, maybe. If you’re bored consider the effect a conventional heart attack could have had on the PIC. Enuff already.  (And it’s rare for me to say that in a newsgroup!

Response:

Absolutely Horrific and I could not begin to comprehend what his Mother went through and is going through. However, Despite your attack on the pilot that may in the end turn out to be justified, we really should give him the benefit of the doubt until the inquiry is over. We do not know who was at the controls at the time, or if it was mechanical failure or if in fact the Pilot had a seizure or anything.  that’s 3 out of 4 scenario’s that I can think of that puts the pilot at only 25 % possibilty of fault. Glenn – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There can be no greater terror than to have a mother stand and watch utterly helpless as a 40 year veteran pilot takes her son up for a flight then makes a series of decisions that leads to both of them dying. The utter contempt that I feel for that veteran pilot is almost indescribable. The air has no respect. We pilots are trained to handle a world of bizarre non linear accelerations as though there was nothing much to it. but there is a lot to it. I suppose some of us learn the lessons from our own perceptions and add to these the documentaries and autopsies of the many fatal crashes that have occurred during aviations century of existence, and we end up as old pilots. others spend a lifetime in industry and while they should have come to the same conclusions as us oldies, end up with the belief that they have total mastery of the dynamics. some even come to believe that they are in control. Is there not a person here who could not see the stupidity in these actions? takeoff in a taildragger aircraft with a quartering tailwind. pull up immediately after liftoff into a steep climb. kick in full rudder and execute a wingover. pull out and then have a wing stall. collide at speed with the planet we are standing on. CASA’s laws are largely unenforceable …because those who break them usually die …but there is so little space on stone tablets these days. all aircraft must takeoff into wind. all aircraft must track out straight until 500ft altitude is reached. aerobatic manouvers must be commenced so that pull out is effected before 3,000 ft unless you are endorsed for low level work. you must not carry passengers during dangerous manouvers. now I, a mere pleb, have always seen these concepts as self evident truths. one wonders why a 40 year commercial veteran could not learn them as well. For the South Australian mother and sister I can only offer my humblest sorrow that you have been exposed to such inconsolable grief. words are inadequate in these circumstances. For the young 17 year old enthusiast pilot I have the deepest rage at your senseless removal from the fraternity of pilots. you showed such promise. For the 40 year veteran pilot I have only the deepest contempt. I have such sadness that two of my friends should have had the powerless frustration to have witnessed such stupidity from such close range. aviation is not so difficult that it cannot be mastered, but like the sea it is unrelentingly unforgiving of human stupidity. Stealth (there are old pilots and …)Pilot

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There can be no greater terror than to have a mother stand and watch utterly helpless as a 40 year veteran pilot takes her son up for a flight then makes a series of decisions that leads to both of them dying. The utter contempt that I feel for that veteran pilot is almost indescribable. The air has no respect. We pilots are trained to handle a world of bizarre non linear accelerations as though there was nothing much to it. but there is a lot to it. I suppose some of us learn the lessons from our own perceptions and add to these the documentaries and autopsies of the many fatal crashes that have occurred during aviations century of existence, and we end up as old pilots. others spend a lifetime in industry and while they should have come to the same conclusions as us oldies, end up with the belief that they have total mastery of the dynamics. some even come to believe that they are in control. Is there not a person here who could not see the stupidity in these actions? takeoff in a taildragger aircraft with a quartering tailwind. pull up immediately after liftoff into a steep climb. kick in full rudder and execute a wingover. pull out and then have a wing stall. collide at speed with the planet we are standing on. CASA’s laws are largely unenforceable …because those who break them usually die …but there is so little space on stone tablets these days. all aircraft must takeoff into wind. all aircraft must track out straight until 500ft altitude is reached. aerobatic manouvers must be commenced so that pull out is effected before 3,000 ft unless you are endorsed for low level work. you must not carry passengers during dangerous manouvers. now I, a mere pleb, have always seen these concepts as self evident truths. one wonders why a 40 year commercial veteran could not learn them as well. For the South Australian mother and sister I can only offer my humblest sorrow that you have been exposed to such inconsolable grief. words are inadequate in these circumstances. For the young 17 year old enthusiast pilot I have the deepest rage at your senseless removal from the fraternity of pilots. you showed such promise. For the 40 year veteran pilot I have only the deepest contempt. I have such sadness that two of my friends should have had the powerless frustration to have witnessed such stupidity from such close range. aviation is not so difficult that it cannot be mastered, but like the sea it is unrelentingly unforgiving of human stupidity. Stealth (there are old pilots and …)Pilot

A real tragedy. I was unaware of the circumstances of the accident. What a waste of two lives. Are you sure of the events leading up to the impact? I guess we have to feel sorry for the older pilot’s family but for him…..? I flew with Matthew only a few months ago in his Dad’s Super Cub at Aldinga. A fine young man and a skilled and safety conscious pilot who will be sorely missed. This is a family devoted to aviation, a Dad who owns several aircraft, a sister who has recently achieved her CPL and a Mum who supports them all. Our most heartfelt condolences to Matthew’s family, especially his Mum, Dad and sister. Sadly Stephen & Jarrad …..but no old bold pilots

Response:

There can be no greater terror than to have a mother stand and watch utterly helpless as a 40 year veteran pilot takes her son up for a flight then makes a series of decisions that leads to both of them dying. The utter contempt that I feel for that veteran pilot is almost indescribable.

<large snip Stealth (there are old pilots and …)Pilot

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=561 /viz

Response:

There can be no greater terror than to have a mother stand and watch utterly helpless as a 40 year veteran pilot takes her son up for a flight then makes a series of decisions that leads to both of them dying. The utter contempt that I feel for that veteran pilot is almost indescribable. The air has no respect. We pilots are trained to handle a world of bizarre non linear accelerations as though there was nothing much to it. but there is a lot to it. I suppose some of us learn the lessons from our own perceptions and add to these the documentaries and autopsies of the many fatal crashes that have occurred during aviations century of existence, and we end up as old pilots. others spend a lifetime in industry and while they should have come to the same conclusions as us oldies, end up with the belief that they have total mastery of the dynamics. some even come to believe that they are in control. Is there not a person here who could not see the stupidity in these actions? takeoff in a taildragger aircraft with a quartering tailwind. pull up immediately after liftoff into a steep climb. kick in full rudder and execute a wingover. pull out and then have a wing stall. collide at speed with the planet we are standing on. CASA’s laws are largely unenforceable …because those who break them usually die …but there is so little space on stone tablets these days. all aircraft must takeoff into wind. all aircraft must track out straight until 500ft altitude is reached. aerobatic manouvers must be commenced so that pull out is effected before 3,000 ft unless you are endorsed for low level work. you must not carry passengers during dangerous manouvers. now I, a mere pleb, have always seen these concepts as self evident truths. one wonders why a 40 year commercial veteran could not learn them as well. For the South Australian mother and sister I can only offer my humblest sorrow that you have been exposed to such inconsolable grief. words are inadequate in these circumstances. For the young 17 year old enthusiast pilot I have the deepest rage at your senseless removal from the fraternity of pilots. you showed such promise. For the 40 year veteran pilot I have only the deepest contempt. I have such sadness that two of my friends should have had the powerless frustration to have witnessed such stupidity from such close range. aviation is not so difficult that it cannot be mastered, but like the sea it is unrelentingly unforgiving of human stupidity. Stealth (there are old pilots and …)Pilot

Response:

Air crash on 7 this wekk etc.

Question:

Transcript or audio available on the ABC website. Worth listening to. Reason has the ability to express dfficult concepts simply. Sign of true knowledge, in my opinion.

that appraisal is bang on the button. if you cant explain the concept in plain unadorned english then you most certainly dont understand the concept. Stealth Pilot

Response:

Ah yes I think the repeat was originally shown just after the Blue Healers Ch 7 power outage that saw the first 10 minutes of the epsiode get cut. Also noticed that Seconds from disaster was put on an hour early, which added to the confusion. IIRC?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     Fatty The program guide had this weeks show to be the Concorde.     Fatty From what I saw it looked like a repeat of a show that was     Fatty on a few weeks ago where the pilot was almost sucked out of     Fatty the winshield and the cabin crew and co-pilot were trying     Fatty to pull him back in. I think they had a repeat of that show Tuesday. Wasn’t this the show that was interrupted by the TV station not transmitting for 15 minutes at the start? Maybe they received so many complaints that they decided to repeat the episode. Concorde was on Wednesday, at 7:30 (IIRC). Seconds from disaster (tunnel accident) was suppose to be on at 10:30 according the TV Guide I used (I thought I cross checked this with ninemsn.com.au but might be mistaken), but I only saw the last 11 minutes. It seems like it started at 9:30. —

Response:

Investigations of accidents on the roads, in the workplace etc, are only done when they produced serious injury or death, and thus become evidence for prosecutions by police, regulatory authorities, the coroner, and sometimes, civil actions, as applicable, and are thus legal privelige information.  If you are not a "party to the matter" you have no right to know, irrespective of the common sense need to prevent similar incidents in future.

(snip) So true.  A friend’s son was killed in a bizarre road accident, and the police investigation/report were not available to the parents of the deceased 16yo. They had to wait for a coronial inquiry before getting anything other than hearsay information.

Response:

Investigations of accidents on the roads, in the workplace etc, are only done when they produced serious injury or death, and thus become evidence for prosecutions by police, regulatory authorities, the coroner, and sometimes, civil actions, as applicable, and are thus legal privelige information.  If you are not a "party to the matter" you have no right to know, irrespective of the common sense need to prevent similar incidents in future.  The only good that may come out of them is through the legal and political process of creating more rules and regulations to comply with, but rarely are the great unwashed ever appraised of the "why".  The only investigations ever published as such, ASAIK, are those legally protected from being evidence, ie, only ATSB investigations.

Response:

    budgie The "blame the dead pilot – it must have been pilot error"     budgie culture was clearly in error, just as all fires in     budgie buildings are NOT caused by electrical faults. It still seems to be the culture with road accidents. "Blame the driver who broke the letter of the law and (if possible) fine him". As if the accident wasn’t enough punishment already. Rather then investigate the issues that prevented the driver from avoiding the accident. Just as it isn’t always as easy as saying "Pilot Error", I don’t think it is as easy as saying "Driver Error". A failure to give way at a give way sign could be because the other driver was driving in thick fog without its headlights on for instance. It isn’t as clear cut as "driver error". (In fact there once was a letter to the editor in the RACV magazine from somebody who stated they found it didn’t help improve visibility driving with their lights on, so they now drive with them off. IIRC there was a note from the editor that this was the last letter they would accept on the topic, and they completely failed to mention the point of turning your headlights on is so *other* cars can see you). Nor is there any provision for investigating scary incidents that don’t become accidents. Even when an accident is investigated, the results (AFAIK) are never published in a public forum. So other drivers can’t learn from the mistakes others have made. Obviously this gets confused when some drivers deliberately and knowingly disobey the law either because they feel they are immune or because it isn’t convenient. It also gets confused when governments invent arbitrary laws and apply them everywhere, including places that don’t always make sense, and possibly for political or revenue making reasons as opposed to safety reasons. —

Response:

http://www.aviation.unsw.edu.au/about/articles/swisscheese.html is definitely worth a read.   Explains the theory and the holes in it

I am particularly unimpressed with Issue 3.  This is an industry where "99.99% safe" would result in a massive toll in both human and material terms.  The truth of the assertion that .. "An organisation can identify its systemic weaknesses with or without an accident" infers that aviation organisations all have such systemic weaknesses awaiting detection.  I am not arguing with that. But in the face of that, I find this editorial stance incredible in downplaying the contribution of such weaknesses. It was such a weakness that caused the BAC111 incident recently aired on teev. If they can find them, it is overdue for them all to be committed to start looking, and keep looking until they are convinced that none remain that present any finite risk to aviation safety. The "blame the dead pilot – it must have been pilot error" culture was clearly in error, just as all fires in buildings are NOT caused by electrical faults. Just my 2.2c worth from the pov of a systems failure investigator.

Response:

    Fatty The program guide had this weeks show to be the Concorde.     Fatty From what I saw it looked like a repeat of a show that was     Fatty on a few weeks ago where the pilot was almost sucked out of     Fatty the winshield and the cabin crew and co-pilot were trying     Fatty to pull him back in. I think they had a repeat of that show Tuesday. Wasn’t this the show that was interrupted by the TV station not transmitting for 15 minutes at the start? Maybe they received so many complaints that they decided to repeat the episode. Concorde was on Wednesday, at 7:30 (IIRC). Seconds from disaster (tunnel accident) was suppose to be on at 10:30 according the TV Guide I used (I thought I cross checked this with ninemsn.com.au but might be mistaken), but I only saw the last 11 minutes. It seems like it started at 9:30. —

Response:

om.au: From what I saw it looked like a repeat of a show that was on a few weeks ago where the pilot was almost sucked out of the winshield and the cabin crew and co-pilot were trying to pull him back in. Alo note that http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/microsites/aircrash/ has only 6 episodes listed – and I could not find this episode in that list. Confusing?

I think a couple of episodes in the ‘air crash investigation’ series that 7 has shown has been repackaged/rebadged/stolen from the ’seconds from disaster’ series.

Response:

http://www.aviation.unsw.edu.au/about/articles/swisscheese.html is definitely worth a read.   Explains the theory and the holes in it

Response:

The program guide had this weeks show to be the Concorde. From what I saw it looked like a repeat of a show that was on a few weeks ago where the pilot was almost sucked out of the winshield and the cabin crew and co-pilot were trying to pull him back in. Alo note that http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/microsites/aircrash/ has only 6 episodes listed – and I could not find this episode in that list. Confusing?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This week it is Concorde acording to the shorts I saw. You may be interested as well to grab audio or transcripts of this week Heath Report on ABC RN. It has a very good section on disasters etc witha Prof from Manchester uni. Includes medical, Tenerife, Siox City and others. — Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd., +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.                                              West Australia 6076 comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it’s all half baked. EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Response:

Yep, for those interested, it was Prof James Reason, he of the "swiss cheese" model for accidents. Transcript or audio available on the ABC website. Worth listening to. Reason has the ability to express dfficult concepts simply. Sign of true knowledge, in my opinion.

So he’s the guy responsible for the "Swiss Cheese" model?… It’s the analogy that Qantas have used with human factors training (at least for the maintenance people)… Actually some of the more interesting training we’ve done… Regards, BB.

Response:

This week it is Concorde acording to the shorts I saw. You may be interested as well to grab audio or transcripts of this week Heath Report on ABC RN. It has a very good section on disasters etc witha Prof from Manchester uni. Includes medical, Tenerife, Siox City and others.

Yep, for those interested, it was Prof James Reason, he of the "swiss cheese" model for accidents. Transcript or audio available on the ABC website. Worth listening to. Reason has the ability to express dfficult concepts simply. Sign of true knowledge, in my opinion. Coop

Response:

This week it is Concorde acording to the shorts I saw. You may be interested as well to grab audio or transcripts of this week Heath Report on ABC RN. It has a very good section on disasters etc witha Prof from Manchester uni. Includes medical, Tenerife, Siox City and others. — Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd., +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.                                              West Australia 6076 comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it’s all half baked. EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Response:

SWRFI update… Moving again (argghh!!)…

Question:

Dang Bob don’t tell my wife that she’ll MAKE ME GO!!!!!!!;) Patrick

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m not looking at a map but I believe Hondo is WEST of San Antonio but the distance is what you said. And no there is not much there Guess yall will have to party in San Antonio..which ain’t bad, lots of pretty senoritas! Patrick Yes, it is west of San Antonio and I won’t GO since it is also close to KerrVille.  I try to stay as far from Kerrville as possible since every trip I have made to that area has cost me several hundred dollars.  Kerrville is home to James Avery Jewlery manufacturing and my wife just loves the place. Other than that, Kerrville is a nice place to visit.  You are also not far from Fredicksburg and some great antique shops. Bob Reed www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com      (KIS Builders Site) KIS Cruiser in progress…Slow but steady progress…. "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!" (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Response:

It is also the home to Mooney. I say, if she gets to buy the local crafts, so do you! BTW, this wouldn’t work with my wife either, but I couldn’t pass it up.

Glad you added that last statement or I was going to call the men in the white suits to come and take you away. They are coming to take me away…haha, They are coming to take me away – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m not looking at a map but I believe Hondo is WEST of San Antonio but the distance is what you said. And no there is not much there Guess yall will have to party in San Antonio..which ain’t bad, lots of pretty senoritas! Patrick Yes, it is west of San Antonio and I won’t GO since it is also close to KerrVille.  I try to stay as far from Kerrville as possible since every trip I have made to that area has cost me several hundred dollars.  Kerrville is home to James Avery Jewlery manufacturing and my wife just loves the place. Other than that, Kerrville is a nice place to visit.  You are also not far from Fredicksburg and some great antique shops. Bob Reed www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com      (KIS Builders Site) KIS Cruiser in progress…Slow but steady progress…. "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!" (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Bob Reed www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com      (KIS Builders Site) KIS Cruiser in progress…Slow but steady progress…. "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!" (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)    

Response:

It is also the home to Mooney. I say, if she gets to buy the local crafts, so do you! BTW, this wouldn’t work with my wife either, but I couldn’t pass it up.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’m not looking at a map but I believe Hondo is WEST of San Antonio but the distance is what you said. And no there is not much there Guess yall will have to party in San Antonio..which ain’t bad, lots of pretty senoritas! Patrick Yes, it is west of San Antonio and I won’t GO since it is also close to KerrVille.  I try to stay as far from Kerrville as possible since every trip I have made to that area has cost me several hundred dollars.  Kerrville is home to James Avery Jewlery manufacturing and my wife just loves the place. Other than that, Kerrville is a nice place to visit.  You are also not far from Fredicksburg and some great antique shops. Bob Reed www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com      (KIS Builders Site) KIS Cruiser in progress…Slow but steady progress…. "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!" (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Response:

Don’t sweat it, I have been using the GPS too much to! The most embarrassing is when your non-pilot, female passengers, point it out after you make a mistake on the radio.  OUCH!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m not looking at a map but I believe Hondo is WEST of San Antonio but the distance is what you said. And no there is not much there Guess yall will have to party in San Antonio..which ain’t bad, lots of pretty senoritas! Patrick I’m gonna flunk navigation….. ET

Response:

That doesn’t sound like there will be much reason to be there except the show. Get your hotel early, or plan on flying in and out, I guess.

Or plan on camping on the field. Hondo is way the heck out in the middle of no-where. It’s relatively flat and un-scenic for central Texas, unlike the rest of the hill country. Right now it’s used a lot for T6-A training missions out of Randolph AFB. I flew there once about a year ago, and it seemed desolate and deserted except for a few grasshoppers and a lizard running across the ramp.

Response:

I’m not looking at a map but I believe Hondo is WEST of San Antonio but the distance is what you said. And no there is not much there Guess yall will have to party in San Antonio..which ain’t bad, lots of pretty senoritas! Patrick

I’m gonna flunk navigation….. ET

Response:

New Braunfels is a great town, but I have never been to Hondo.  Is there much there?

Response:

That doesn’t sound like there will be much reason to be there except the show. Get your hotel early, or plan on flying in and out, I guess.

Response:

Ok… This is kinda catching me by surprise… and I must say that some of this is marginally frustrating.. but I also have to temper that frustration with the recognition that SWRFI (now to be called the "Texas Fly In" is growing and must change to meet that growth. That being said, I fall in the status of an attendee, and wanna be, not a staff member of any kind with SWRFI. After attending my first SWRFI last spring, flying in to New Braunsfels from Houston, I thought that overall the flyin did fairly well considering the weather hurdles that we endured (sustained rains over several days softened the ground substantially). My only other grand aviation experiences were the Wings Over Houston airshow (perenially held in Oct) and my First OSH in 2002. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The following is mail that I recieved as part of a mass-mailout from the organization of SWRFI. Given that this is a public announcement sent to the persons who have an interest in the organization or have corresponded with it, I am going to take the liberty of reposting it here and unedited (well.. other than the topic comments). I will make my own comments in a reply to this original post. <PASTE The South West Regional Fly In wants to thank you for your part in the 2004 fly-in and to let you know your SWRFI Board has made two major changes relating to SWRFI, and we wanted to tell you about them and enlist your support.  First, we have streamlined our organizational structure, and second, we are moving the Fly-in. The streamlined structure was approved by representatives of the constituent chapters, and consists of a Board of Directors and its Executive Committee (EC).  The EC is the 7 elected officers (a Chairman was added) and three Directors-at-Large.  Besides the EC, the Board additionally has six Directors elected from the general membership. These two groups manage the business of the Fly-in.  Backing the Board of Directors we will have an Advisory Committee of EAA Members, Fly-in Chairs, and Chapter representatives that will meet twice a year with the board for input and ideas.

Reorganization: No comment. I am not involved in the political end of the organization and only know one of the persons named below personally. The second major change was to move the event to Hondo, Texas in 2005.  This decision was reached with a great deal of regret.  We consider New Braunfels, its public servants and its citizens to be among the best in Texas.  It is a great place to visit.

New Braunsfels is a very popular destination for thousands of tourists every year. Booming "aquatic based" and "historic town based" economy. I have gone there frequently (annually) for over a decade to camp, raft the river and shop. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In planning for the 2005 Fly-In, your Board members took a careful look at our potential for future growth and what that growth would require in terms of facilities and safety, especially safety.   After the last Fly-In, there were many comments fed back to the Board regarding the activity on the taxiway at New Braunfels, and the interactions between vehicles, people and the aircraft on display. In addition, the consensus was that we needed parallel runways; one for high speed and heavy traffic and one for lower speed aircraft, as well as a good venue for ultra light, powered parachutes and rotorcraft. Further, our experience in 2004 showed us what a disaster a rainstorm could be.  We had to reorient the entire fly-in and we could not have survived had more aircraft shown up.  We know that the New Braunfels has near and long-term plans to correct drainage, but that alone would not result in enough dry space during heavy rains. We have another problem looming on the horizon were we to remain in New Braunfels.  The airport is undertaking a multi-year growth effort to include lengthening runways, developing an industrial park and bringing in more industry.  All of these endeavors will be great for the city, but disruptive to a developing fly-in.

Ok.. here is where I have to say something in the context of the past 3 paragraphs.. This was the first year back in New Braunsfels after a number of years in Abilene. A lot of these issues that are being raised are concerning to me, because these issues surely predated the move back to New Braunsfels. The runway config has been static for a LONG time at BAZ/New Braunsfels. Texas has been known for having sustained rains before, given our proximity to the Gulf Coast and the habit of frontal systems stalling over the central texas region mingling with moisture flowing in from the Gulf. The very fact that the fly in organizers were able to pull off a re-arrangement in the face of having most of the turf rendered unuseable is a testament to their flexibility. I agree that the active taxiway right up the middle of the displays on either side of the main ramp was a difficult factor to deal with, and aircraft movements required significant marshalling involvement. Any time you have active aircraft mingling with lay public, you are increasing the risk of an accident occuring. No contest on that point. I guess my point is.. New Braunsfel’s future airport expansion plans are not a secret. These issues should have been known and considered BEFORE moving there, rather than after. Unfortunately I do not have the experience of having attended Abilene, so I am unable to comment on what New Braunsfels was/is in relation to the event there. In our final analysis, the mixture of vehicles, aircraft and people dictated by the New Braunfels layout is an accident about to happen, and an intolerable circumstance.  With these considerations in mind, the Board decided it was time to move on. Our emphasis here was the airport facility itself and how it could safely meet our needs.  This was foremost in our thinking and overshadowed other concerns.

Safety is clearly an overriding concern. But.. if the overall arrangement was unsafe after the fact, it should have been foreseable before the fact. Either that, or perhaps I am just not grasping the scale of how much re-arranging was done after the storms softened the grounds. Hondo is ideal for an event.  It not only has parallel runways but also several others that we can utilize if needed.  It has more ramp space than most airports in Texas.  Everyone—people, planes, and vendors will be on concrete.  The city of Hondo is supportive beyond belief.  We really have a recipe for success and future growth.  We can envision an event with 5,000 aircraft conveniently handled and tied down.  Our air show line will offer good viewing and the performers will be flying over open land.  There is plenty of camping and lots of facilities available.

Ok.. room for 5000 aircraft. However, geography and populace need to be considered. Hondo is about 25 miles from Central San Antonio, however it is somewhat more "isolated" than New Braunsfels is (which is about 15-20 miles NE of San Antonio). The airport is on the edge of the small town of Hondo, and then its a significant drive to get anywhere. One of the web links I found says there are 1000 hotel rooms within 30 miles of the airport… most of those are at least 20 miles away and centered around Fiesta Texas/Sea World and University of Texas San Antonio. New Braunsfels had hundreds of hotel rooms within 5 miles of the airport and also worth considering…they had PLENTY of non-aviation attractions within a very short drive of the airport.. 10 miles had "Old Town Gruene", downtown New B, restaurants, some river venues and the Outlet Mall up at San Marcos, as well as all the events/locales along the I-35 corridor. Part of the appeal of taking a friend and his wife to SWRFI at BAZ was grabbing a car, lunching off site, and she dropped us back off and went shopping (her plan all along). What I am seeing is a migration from Abilene (a Class C airport town, and college town with an Air Force Base).. to New Braunsfels.. smaller, but with lots of infrastructure nearby.. to what I am percieving as a small town in the sticks… but hey.. its got a big airport. I’m sorry… but this smacks of poor planning and lack of foresight, feeling the need to move twice in two years. This sort of instability can cause the loss of attendance and vendors. Keep in mind, in the larger towns, some of the attendance was local folk who heard about the event coming up and went to check it out.. that will be lacking in smaller town venues. We are somewhat more distant than before and there are fewer motels in the immediate area.  We have solutions to these concerns.  Again, first and foremost, we needed an airport to stage a safe, comfortable fly-in.  Hondo fills that need better than any other facility in central Texas. So, for 2005 it

Ballarat prang

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    Alan Yes, I’ve seen a controller stood down previously for    Alan something that happened OCTA.  In the Benalla incident, it    Alan is alleged that the aircraft was off track in CTA. Thanks both Stephen and Alan for your explanations. Hmmm… I thought navigating the aircraft was solely the pilots responsibility (unless the aircraft is being radar vectored). This might be an interesting topic to discuss after ATSB release their final report. Questions like: how much is ATC expected to intervene when an aircraft is noticed off-course even though no immediately obvious threat to aircraft safety exists? — In Control Area (in radar coverage) ATC have a responsibility to monitor pilot nav and advise of deviations outside nav tolerances (these are the tolerances we use for working out lateral separation). The TAAATS equipment has an alarm (RAM) which sort of helps. It’s basically a corridor (7.5 NM, if I remember correctly) either side of track. The width does vary at dep, dest and at turning points. The allowed tolerance for GPS is 14NM (I think – I work approach, not enroute) So the RAM alarm goes off at 8NM off track, but the aircraft is still within the allowed nav tolerance, so there is no requirement to advise the pilot, as yet. Unfortunately, this is beyond the grasp of the media and they beat it up as the controller not notifying the pilot of being off track. Alan Does "no requirement" mean you don’t? These days with most people using GPS wouldn’t a track error that large raise your suspicions? I would advise the pilot, but I’m working on a screen that covers 40NM radius and it is easy to see nav errors. Enroute controllers can be working on screens hundreds of miles radius and an error of 8NM looks like he’s still on track. Alan

Fair enuff. Does the data display show track error? Coop — To reply, remove the nose wheel…..

Response:

I would advise the pilot, but I’m working on a screen that covers 40NM radius and it is easy to see nav errors. Enroute controllers can be working on screens hundreds of miles radius and an error of 8NM looks like he’s still on track. Alan Fair enuff. Does the data display show track error? Coop

No. You can display the planned track (with estimates at turning/reporting points), a velocity vector (where the acft will be with no change of track in 1 or 2, or…10 minutes) and  a flight plan trajectory (where the acft will be allowing for planned change of track in units of time or distance). You can also measure bearing and distance between any two points, any two aircraft and between an aircraft and a point. (The last one also gives you the ETA at that point if the pilot tracks direct that point, continuously updated with change of groundspeed). So, you can measure how far off track an aircraft is and you can also measure how many degrees right or left the current heading is taking the pilot off track. On Approach, I would provide nav assistance to at least one pilot per shift – normally just advice such as "your current heading is taking you 15

MiG-29 crash on take off

Question:

Doug, Ok, let me try to be friendly to you two: Please stop making total morons of yourselves in public. Jeeze… — Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Response:

Doug, Ok, let me try to be friendly to you two: Please stop making total morons of yourselves in public. Jeeze…

Tommy…Please kiss me squarely between the hind-quarters.  But do brush first.

Response:

We don’t speak frog here pal (but I thought German was the language of france?). Cheers Paul – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do you know what happens to pilots who try to impress the camera crew, waiting half way the runway for a spectacular take-off shot ?  Well, look for yourself at http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm. Don’t worry about any blood stains or casualties, there is only going to be material damage and a pilot with a severely brused ego. For those who are interested, we are collecting aviation mishap, accident and crash video footage for personal use. If you have another video clip for us, or if you can point us in the right direction on where to find it, we Aviation minded greetings, Iwan euh il n’aurait pas rentre ces trains un peu … tot ?

 Unless otherwise stated all references to location refer to Western Australia

Response:

Do you know what happens to pilots who try to impress the camera crew, waiting half way the runway for a spectacular take-off shot

Not really. For those who are interested, we are collecting aviation mishap, accident and crash video footage for personal use.

I bet you are (NOT).

Response:

euh il n’aurait pas rentre ces trains un peu … tot ?

euh it would not have returns these trains a little… early According to Dictionary.com tranlator

Response:

We don’t speak frog here pal (but I thought German was the language of france?).

No france is just the german summer get away location.  and every few years they like to stay and take over… next time I say let the krauts stay and leave it to Frances real friends (Hamas, Saddam and Arafat) to push them out for a third time.

Response:

No france is just the german summer get away location.  

nope.  it is actually Mallorca although Lago di Garda is not too far off. and every few years   they like to stay and take over…

when I lived in Munich and a friend in Paris, he told me, "Maybe I’ll come over some weekend.  It’s only a tank ride away." Why there so many trees on the Champs Elisye? (spelling is horrible, I should know better).  Because the Germans hate marching in the sun. despite what I wrote, I’m going to miss Wies’n this year. Gerald Sylvester

Response:

To be honest, up until the Rainbow Warrior bombing I had no opinion good or bad of the french. Politics and greenpeace aside, thousands of New Zealand soldiers in two world wars died fighting for france and how does france repay that sacrifice?  They send secret agents to perform an act of terroism on New Zealand soil. By that act France pissed on the grave of every Kiwi soldier who died fighting for their country and showed themselves to be a nation completely without morality, honour or courage. Cheers Paul We don’t speak frog here pal (but I thought German was the language of france?). No france is just the german summer get away location.  and every few years they like to stay and take over… next time I say let the krauts stay and leave it to Frances real friends (Hamas, Saddam and Arafat) to push them out for a third time.

 Unless otherwise stated all references to location refer to Western Australia

Response:

Do you know what happens to pilots who try to impress the camera crew, waiting half way the runway for a spectacular take-off shot ?  Well, look for yourself at http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm. Don’t worry about any blood stains or casualties, there is only going to be material damage and a pilot with a severely brused ego. For those who are interested, we are collecting aviation mishap, accident and crash video footage for personal use. If you have another video clip for us, or if you can point us in the right direction on where to find it, we Aviation minded greetings, Iwan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do you know what happens to pilots who try to impress the camera crew, waiting half way the runway for a spectacular take-off shot ?  Well, look for yourself at http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm. Don’t worry about any blood stains or casualties, there is only going to be material damage and a pilot with a severely brused ego. For those who are interested, we are collecting aviation mishap, accident and crash video footage for personal use. If you have another video clip for us, or if you can point us in the right direction on where to find it, we Aviation minded greetings, Iwan

euh il n’aurait pas rentre ces trains un peu … tot ?

Response:

MiG-29 crash on take off

Question:

To be honest, up until the Rainbow Warrior bombing I had no opinion good or bad of the french. Politics and greenpeace aside, thousands of New Zealand soldiers in two world wars died fighting for france and how does france repay that sacrifice?  They send secret agents to perform an act of terroism on New Zealand soil. By that act France pissed on the grave of every Kiwi soldier who died fighting for their country and showed themselves to be a nation completely without morality, honour or courage. Cheers Paul We don’t speak frog here pal (but I thought German was the language of france?). No france is just the german summer get away location.  and every few years they like to stay and take over… next time I say let the krauts stay and leave it to Frances real friends (Hamas, Saddam and Arafat) to push them out for a third time.

 Unless otherwise stated all references to location refer to Western Australia

Response:

Doug, Ok, let me try to be friendly to you two: Please stop making total morons of yourselves in public. Jeeze… — Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Response:

Doug, Ok, let me try to be friendly to you two: Please stop making total morons of yourselves in public. Jeeze…

Tommy…Please kiss me squarely between the hind-quarters.  But do brush first.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do you know what happens to pilots who try to impress the camera crew, waiting half way the runway for a spectacular take-off shot ?  Well, look for yourself at http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm. Don’t worry about any blood stains or casualties, there is only going to be material damage and a pilot with a severely brused ego. For those who are interested, we are collecting aviation mishap, accident and crash video footage for personal use. If you have another video clip for us, or if you can point us in the right direction on where to find it, we Aviation minded greetings, Iwan

euh il n’aurait pas rentre ces trains un peu … tot ?

Response:

We don’t speak frog here pal (but I thought German was the language of france?). Cheers Paul – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do you know what happens to pilots who try to impress the camera crew, waiting half way the runway for a spectacular take-off shot ?  Well, look for yourself at http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm. Don’t worry about any blood stains or casualties, there is only going to be material damage and a pilot with a severely brused ego. For those who are interested, we are collecting aviation mishap, accident and crash video footage for personal use. If you have another video clip for us, or if you can point us in the right direction on where to find it, we Aviation minded greetings, Iwan euh il n’aurait pas rentre ces trains un peu … tot ?

 Unless otherwise stated all references to location refer to Western Australia

Response:

euh il n’aurait pas rentre ces trains un peu … tot ?

euh it would not have returns these trains a little… early According to Dictionary.com tranlator

Response:

We don’t speak frog here pal (but I thought German was the language of france?).

No france is just the german summer get away location.  and every few years they like to stay and take over… next time I say let the krauts stay and leave it to Frances real friends (Hamas, Saddam and Arafat) to push them out for a third time.

Response:

No france is just the german summer get away location.  

nope.  it is actually Mallorca although Lago di Garda is not too far off. and every few years   they like to stay and take over…

when I lived in Munich and a friend in Paris, he told me, "Maybe I’ll come over some weekend.  It’s only a tank ride away." Why there so many trees on the Champs Elisye? (spelling is horrible, I should know better).  Because the Germans hate marching in the sun. despite what I wrote, I’m going to miss Wies’n this year. Gerald Sylvester

Response:

Do you know what happens to pilots who try to impress the camera crew, waiting half way the runway for a spectacular take-off shot ?  Well, look for yourself at http://www.dappa.nl/crash.htm. Don’t worry about any blood stains or casualties, there is only going to be material damage and a pilot with a severely brused ego. For those who are interested, we are collecting aviation mishap, accident and crash video footage for personal use. If you have another video clip for us, or if you can point us in the right direction on where to find it, we Aviation minded greetings, Iwan

Response:

Scud running fatal in Maine

Question:

This accident was up our way and I followed the progress of the search.  On the basis of the weather on the day the plane disappeared, I expected to find that it was a new pilot in over her head.  Just goes to show that lots of experience and type ratings don’t make scud running a good idea.  14,500 hour big iron driver with 20 years in float planes who could have filed and executed an IFR flight plan in her sleep hits a hill in 700 foot ceilings. Another high time Mainer who could have been IFR up above the hills did the same thing a few years back and set a great example for the Air Explorers Troop he founded.  They are naming a new Boy Scout center near PWM after him. http://www2.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040818X01248&key=1 — Roger Long

Response:

[A] 14,500 hour big iron driver with 20 years in float planes who could have filed and executed an IFR flight plan in her sleep hits a hill in 700 foot ceilings.

I didn’t know they have instrument approaches to lakes. George Patterson      If you want to know God’s opinion of money, just look at the people      he gives it to.

Response:

I didn’t know they have instrument approaches to lakes.

If I recall correctly the Seattle area has some (a couple).  Not sure if its on the US or Canadian side though. z

Response:

What drives a pilot with her skills to be so…assaholic?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This accident was up our way and I followed the progress of the search. On the basis of the weather on the day the plane disappeared, I expected to find that it was a new pilot in over her head.  Just goes to show that lots of experience and type ratings don’t make scud running a good idea. 14,500 hour big iron driver with 20 years in float planes who could have filed and executed an IFR flight plan in her sleep hits a hill in 700 foot ceilings. Another high time Mainer who could have been IFR up above the hills did the same thing a few years back and set a great example for the Air Explorers Troop he founded.  They are naming a new Boy Scout center near PWM after him. http://www2.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040818X01248&key=1 — Roger Long

Response:

I didn’t know they have instrument approaches to lakes. If I recall correctly the Seattle area has some (a couple).  Not sure if its on the US or Canadian side though.

Sort of.  There are no instrument approaches to waterways per se, but we have several seaplane bases close enough to airports with instrument approaches that for all intents and purposes, they might as well have instrument approaches. Non-precision, of course, but that’s almost always good enough. One is at Renton, WA where seaplanes can taxi right up to the airport and get a dolly out of the water.  Another is at Lake Union…an instrument approach into Boeing Field will get you down low enough to "circle to land" on Lake Union (which is adjacent to the north end of the Seattle downtown area). Heck, a really determined pilot could fly the approach to Renton, and then taxi the entire length of the lake all the way up to Kenmore.  I forget what the width of the under-bridge passage is, so maybe they’d have to fly 100′ off the water, but that’d be no big deal in a seaplane. Similar things apply in the Victoria and Vancouver area, as well as many other major seaplane destinations in the PNW. Same thing probably applies at at least one airport near a landable waterway in the general vicinity of the reported accident in Maine. Coincidentally, we just had a scud-running accident here in the Northwest, not too far from Vancouver, WA (across the river from Portland).  Amazingly enough, three out of four survived. Pete

Response:

Heck, a really determined pilot could fly the approach to Renton, and then taxi the entire length of the lake all the way up to Kenmore.  I forget what the width of the under-bridge passage is, so maybe they’d have to fly 100′ off the water, but that’d be no big deal in a seaplane.

100′ over a bridge? Any idea how the FAA/UK CAA define "while taking off or landing"? If you’re in the process of landing, just making a very shallow approach, could you still be prosecuted for low flying?! Paul

Response:

They don’t in Maine.  I was just pointing out that all that IFR skill doesn’t change the low level VFR in IMC equation. Her option would have been to wait for better weather or climb and file pop up for diversion to an airport with an approach if things were lower than she thought. Of course, that could have meant revealing that she set off on a less than legal VFR flight which might have had repercussions for her employment.  Perhaps she was subject to pressures a non-professional pilot wouldn’t have been. The other Maine scud runner was on a flight from an approach to an approach. He hit a treeless, snow covered hill that probably looked just like the mist he was flying under. — Roger Long – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [A] 14,500 hour big iron driver with 20 years in float planes who could have filed and executed an IFR flight plan in her sleep hits a hill in 700 foot ceilings. I didn’t know they have instrument approaches to lakes. George Patterson      If you want to know God’s opinion of money, just look at the people      he gives it to.

Response:

Of course, that could have meant revealing that she set off on a less than legal VFR flight

The flight may have been unwise, but wasn’t the weather (as reported at MLT) legal for daytime VFR in Class G as long as she stayed below the 700′ ceiling? –Gary

Response:

This is the kind of accident that scares me the most. As someone posted earlier, you’d expect a rookie pilot to get sucked into this kind of accident, but not someone with the experience this pilot had. Leaves me wondering if there are weather conditions out there that can be misleading to experienced pilots, which means someone with less experience (like me) wouldn’t stand a chance of recognizing the risk in a timely fashion. Some details on the accident that I’ve picked up through various media. The pilot and her husband owned KT Aviation, a seaplane instruction and charter business in Maine. Both were pilots for airlines when they started the business, but the husband’s airline went out of business allowing him to devote more time to KT Aviation. Reports I’ve read said the fatal flight was enroute to pick up charterers. A magazine article from more than a year ago said the business was trying to expand the charter side of the operation since that revenue source tended to be more reliable than seaplane instruction.

Response:

This is the kind of accident that scares me the most. As someone posted earlier, you’d expect a rookie pilot to get sucked into this kind of accident, but not someone with the experience this pilot had. Leaves me wondering if there are weather conditions out there that can be misleading to experienced pilots

Well said.  I’ve often wondered how pilots get themselves into this sort of thing. Is the problem a gradual lowering of the ceiling as they drone along, oblivious to the growing danger?   Is there a weather phenomenon that I’ve never experienced that can slam the sunroof shut quickly — faster than a pilot can get on the ground?   (I’ve seen fog envelop an airport in minutes, going from CAVU to 1/10th mile visibility almost instantly — but that fog was rolling in off a lake, and could have been easily out-run.) Is it just old-fashioned "get-there-itis," an internal pressure that they "must" get there for some reason?   Or is it that they’ve "seen this a thousand times" and always made it through before, so why should today be any different? I know as my flying hours have built, I’ve grown more comfortable with a wider range of weather conditions.  Is this "experience"?   Or "familiarity"?  Or an insidious, gradual and foolish lowering of my instinctive defenses? Accidents like hers make you sit up and take notice. — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination"

Response:

Oh right, I forgot that she would have been starting off in Class G.  I’m used to thinking about what I need to get out of our Class C. — Roger Long

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Of course, that could have meant revealing that she set off on a less than legal VFR flight The flight may have been unwise, but wasn’t the weather (as reported at MLT) legal for daytime VFR in Class G as long as she stayed below the 700′ ceiling? –Gary

Response:

<snip Coincidentally, we just had a scud-running accident here in the Northwest, not too far from Vancouver, WA (across the river from Portland).  Amazingly enough, three out of four survived. Pete

We headed home to the Seattle area from same fly-in (McMinnville, OR) a couple hours before the accident aircraft.  The front was moving east at 15 knots, so it didn’t take long for the "door to get closed". Several other friends left McMinnville about the same time as the accident aircraft, and they couldn’t get any further north than Scappoose, so they landed, borrowed the airport car and got a hotel. Bela P. Havasreti

Response:

I’ve often wondered, usually while driving over the hills on the Mass turnpike and sort of mentally flying myself through them, if the overcast can fool you into thinking you are looking at the top of the hill when it’s actually in the clouds.  A  pilot might even pull up into the clouds for a little extra clearance and plan to ease down on the other side.  I’ve seen lots of overcast up close in the hills that I could easily see suckering you into a hill top; especially making decisions at twice automotive speed. — Roger Long

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is the kind of accident that scares me the most. As someone posted earlier, you’d expect a rookie pilot to get sucked into this kind of accident, but not someone with the experience this pilot had. Leaves me wondering if there are weather conditions out there that can be misleading to experienced pilots Well said.  I’ve often wondered how pilots get themselves into this sort of thing. Is the problem a gradual lowering of the ceiling as they drone along, oblivious to the growing danger?   Is there a weather phenomenon that I’ve never experienced that can slam the sunroof shut quickly — faster than a pilot can get on the ground?   (I’ve seen fog envelop an airport in minutes, going from CAVU to 1/10th mile visibility almost instantly — but that fog was rolling in off a lake, and could have been easily out-run.) Is it just old-fashioned "get-there-itis," an internal pressure that they "must" get there for some reason?   Or is it that they’ve "seen this a thousand times" and always made it through before, so why should today be any different? I know as my flying hours have built, I’ve grown more comfortable with a wider range of weather conditions.  Is this "experience"?   Or "familiarity"?  Or an insidious, gradual and foolish lowering of my instinctive defenses? Accidents like hers make you sit up and take notice. — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination"

Response:

100′ over a bridge? Any idea how the FAA/UK CAA define "while taking off or landing"? If you’re in the process of landing, just making a very shallow approach, could you still be prosecuted for low flying?!

The part you’d fly over is a floating bridge, probably only 30-40′ off the water.  In any case, even 500′ would be sufficient, if you don’t buy the idea that an airplane transitioning from an instrument approach to its destination is landing. Pete

Response:

I didn’t know they have instrument approaches to lakes. If I recall correctly the Seattle area has some (a couple).  Not sure if its on the US or Canadian side though. Sort of.  There are no instrument approaches to waterways per se, but we have several seaplane bases close enough to airports with instrument approaches that for all intents and purposes, they might as well have instrument approaches. Non-precision, of course, but that’s almost always good enough.

Felts Field in Spokane is designated to have three runways, one of which is 3W/21W. The nonprecision approaches don’t forbid circling, so that says to me this is a waterway with an instrument approach. Hmmm.. however circling is not allowed to the northwest. Is the waterway NW or SE of the hard-top? Don’t know. — David Brooks

Response:

[snip] I know as my flying hours have built, I’ve grown more comfortable with a wider range of weather conditions. Is this "experience"?   Or "familiarity"?  Or an insidious, gradual and foolish lowering of my instinctive defenses?

I’ve noticed the same thing.  The longer I go without getting in real trouble, the less I am bothered by gnarly weather, particularly now that I’ve got a way to keep a distant eye on it in flight. We often read posts from pilots who think GA fatal accident statistics don’t apply to them because they would *never* do some of the "stupid" things described in the NTSB reports.  I bet if we had known a lot of those "stupid" pilots, we’d realize that most were no dumber than the rest of us. — Dan C-172RG at BFM

Response:

This kind of accident seems a little too easy to fall into as soon as you find yourself: – Scud running (pick your definition) – In non-flat terrain (remember manmade obstructions) – in terrain that isn’t as familiar as the back of your hand (catch-22 here) – With a commitment at the other end (see get-home-itis) Float planes sometimes rely on numerous landing areas – makes risky flights even more attractive. This pilot’s experience could be described as mostly flying a/c and missions that most weather can’t stop.  Perhaps a little confusion was experienced vis-a-vis VFR light a/c work. I would submit that IFR is the way to avoid scud running and the terrain. This flight obviously could not be made IFR. But everytime one does a  VFR scud run to a destination that has an approach or can be accessed by an approach, one is taking more risk than they need to. Don’t you think?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve often wondered, usually while driving over the hills on the Mass turnpike and sort of mentally flying myself through them, if the overcast can fool you into thinking you are looking at the top of the hill when it’s actually in the clouds.  A  pilot might even pull up into the clouds for a little extra clearance and plan to ease down on the other side.  I’ve seen lots of overcast up close in the hills that I could easily see suckering you into a hill top; especially making decisions at twice automotive speed. This is the kind of accident that scares me the most. As someone posted earlier, you’d expect a rookie pilot to get sucked into this kind of accident, but not someone with the experience this pilot had. Leaves me wondering if there are weather conditions out there that can be misleading to experienced pilots Well said.  I’ve often wondered how pilots get themselves into this sort of thing. Is the problem a gradual lowering of the ceiling as they drone along, oblivious to the growing danger?   Is there a weather phenomenon that I’ve never experienced that can slam the sunroof shut quickly — faster than a pilot can get on the ground?   (I’ve seen fog envelop an airport in minutes, going from CAVU to 1/10th mile visibility almost instantly — but that fog was rolling in off a lake, and could have been easily out-run.) Is it just old-fashioned "get-there-itis," an internal pressure that they "must" get there for some reason?   Or is it that they’ve "seen this a thousand times" and always made it through before, so why should today be any different? I know as my flying hours have built, I’ve grown more comfortable with a wider range of weather conditions.  Is this "experience"?   Or "familiarity"?  Or an insidious, gradual and foolish lowering of my instinctive defenses? Accidents like hers make you sit up and take notice. — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination"

Response:

Her option would have been to wait for better weather or climb and file pop up for diversion to an airport with an approach if things were lower than she thought.

How would she divert to an airport if she’s got straight floats? There are seaplane bases with approaches in the area? George Patterson      If you want to know God’s opinion of money, just look at the people      he gives it to.

Response:

I’ve noticed the same thing.  The longer I go without getting in real trouble, the less I am bothered by gnarly weather, particularly now that I’ve got a way to keep a distant eye on it in flight.

On the other hand, I find that the longer it’s been since I’ve flown in borderline conditions, the higher my weather standards get. George Patterson      If you want to know God’s opinion of money, just look at the people      he gives it to.

Response:

How would she divert to an airport if she’s got straight floats?

Landing on a hard surface on straight floats sure sounds preferable to what happened… — Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/

Response:

Here’s a good article on the subject. http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182679-1.html — Roger Long

Response:

How would she divert to an airport if she’s got straight floats? Landing on a hard surface on straight floats sure sounds preferable to what happened…

I saw on the news last year that an amphibian had landed wheels up and close the airport briefly until it could be towed away.  I looked at our tiedown neighbor’s floats to see if it had been him but everything looked OK. Turned out that it was him!  The keels on his floats were a quarter inch narrower than they had been before but it was no big deal. — Roger Long

Response:

This is the kind of accident that scares me the most. As someone posted earlier, you’d expect a rookie pilot to get sucked into this kind of accident, but not someone with the experience this pilot had. Leaves me wondering if there are weather conditions out there that can be misleading to experienced pilots, which means someone with less experience (like me) wouldn’t stand a chance of recognizing the risk in a timely fashion.

I flew with Kathy (the pilot who was killed) last year while visiting relatives in Maine.  I was doing brush-up work for my seaplane rating, and treating the relatives to some flight-seeing.  She was an extremely competent and skilled pilot.  There have been numerous articles about the accident in the Bangor Daily News, which my sister has been keeping me abreast of.  Some are available at www.bangordailynews.com but for complete text they ask you to pay. The most recent info is that the engine was generating power at the time of impact. With 12 hours of logged time as a seaplane pilot I hardly qualify as an expert. But to amplify on Ace Pilot’s comments, it doesn’t make sense that a veteran seaplane pilot would plow into a mountainside even in bad weather, considering that emergency landing strips (lakes, rivers) are everywhere in that area.  Speculation, but some of the explanation may lie in the common bush pilot’s ethic that come hell or high water, they *will* be there to pick you up when they said they would (Kathy was on a charter pickup). Kathy’s husband Tim is an equally skilled pilot and decent human being.  He was the examiner when I got my seaplane rating with KT Aviation 2 years ago (the KT is for Kathy and Tim).  We sent him a copy of a video we made during last year’s flight with Kathy.  Don’t know what’s going to happen to KT Aviation, but I’m not optimistic. It was just the 2 of them and maybe a part-time instructor in the summer.  My heart goes out to Tim. Jim Rosinski N3825Q

Response:

I think what this accident shows us is that the highest levels of competence are not sufficient to keep low under the scud from being one of the most dangerous places you can be in an airplane.  Whether the risk is justified is another question that depends on the mission and who is in the airplane. You are right about the bush pilot ethic.  A friend of mine did fishing camp flying in Alaska.  The Microsoft type high rollers would come up from Seattle for a day or two of fishing and the idea that a little weather would send them home without getting their lines wet was never even considered. Many times, he would fall into bed with his clothes on at midnight and lie there shaking from the adrenaline until 4:30 when he would get up and do it all over again.   After a few months, he came back to this world and gave up flying. — Roger Long

Response:

You are right about the bush pilot ethic.

I got my ASES at Alaska Float Ratings on the Kenai peninsula, which also does a moderate amount of part 135 charter ops in the area with 3 floatplanes and 2 landplanes. The owner is a 30+ year bush pilot with 20k hours, most of it on floats up North. Suffice it to say that

while I was there for 4 days, there were probably 2 or 3 charter flights to fishing lodges that either didn’t take off, or turned back on the way, including ones he flew himself. These were familiar routes they flew sometimes a dozen times a day every day of the season for over ten years. "I’ve never lost a plane, and no pilot I’ve trained has ever died up here," he told me. True or not I could see that unless Little Nell was waiting for her medicine on the other side, there were plenty of flights they weren’t going to push their limits to make. -cwk.

Response:

Malibu Midair

Question:

On the other hand, it seems to me that fewer people are speculating in these groups as to the cause of crashes these days. That seems to me to be a good thing.

No, now we spend our time speculating on why we’re not speculating anymore…..we need lives jf

Response:

Have there been a disproportionate number of GA airplanes getting bent lately or is it just a perception?

There was a rash of accidents in TX, possibly caused by several pilot’s lack of attention to high density altitude (it seems several that I looked at news reports may have that as at least one cause). When this is added into the normal "background noise" it might be what you’re thinking of. As a sidenote on the perception of airplane accident frequency here’s something interesting:  I searched news.google.com for "airplane accident" and found 551 total reports.  The first page of the reports have dates ranging from 5 August to 18 hours ago. Searching for ‘car accident" results in 15,500 hits.   The first page reports cover from 12 August to 1 hour ago.  Many more over a much shorter period. Apparently almost all the news reports of car accidents are local only, and usually ignored since they’re more or less expected. Everyone knows someone who’s been in at least one car accident or has been in one themselves.  But airplane accidents are much more likely to be publicized nationwide.  Most people’s lack of familiarity and the wide publicity causes the prevailing "small planes are dangerous" attitude in the general public. I’m familiar with the Nall report and the statistics, and the problems of comparing car miles with airplane hours and the real comparison of safety.  I also know that the above Google search results are statistically wrong since there are many many more cars and drivers than there are planes and pilots.  But, for making a perception in people’s minds it’s relevant. What I do know is that car accidents are more likely to be caused by circumstances external to the driver, like other drivers.  Airplane accidents, omitting midairs like the Malibu case, are more likely to be caused by a pilot’s own issues.  Before I started taking lessons I read around 2 years of NSTB reports for TX and VA.  I decided that around 2/3 of all accidents were either caused or contributed to by one of two things: 1) Attempting to fly without fuel (in a powered aircraft) or with junk & water in the tanks. 2) Not taking weather into consideration, either flying into bad weather or not dealing with density alt. or haze. So, I check my fuel, and do my fuel use calculations.  And I’ve become a student of meterology. -Malcolm Teas

Response:

Have there been a disproportionate number of GA airplanes getting bent lately or is it just a perception?

I am not sure if it is really worse than usual or if it is a function of faster, easier distribution of information amongst interested parties via newsgroups like this one. One way to develop a guess would be to look at the monthly summaries of aviation accidents and incidents at the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB)web-site (www.ntsb.gov).  The data is not perfect, but it should give you a decent feel regarding your question of the apparent increase of airplane bending. As always, my thoughts and prayers to those who have expereinced a loss as the result of this accident. for the rest of us, wishes for smooth air & blue skies . . . John Pelchat

Response:

On the other hand, it seems to me that fewer people are speculating in these groups as to the cause of crashes these days.

I wonder what could cause that?  Perhaps we should do some speculating.         – Andrew

Response:

I wonder what could cause that?  Perhaps we should do some speculating.

If it will result in fewer crashes, I’m all for it.  :-) George Patterson      If you want to know God’s opinion of money, just look at the people      he gives it to.

Response:

Two planes collide in air; 3 dead, one missing Associated Press MALIBU — Two small airplanes collided in midair off a Malibu beach Sunday, and three people were confirmed dead and a fourth was presumed killed, officials said. The two planes collided about 5:30 p. m. roughly 100 yards off El Matador State Beach, said Bruce Nelson, operations manager for the Federal Aviation Administration. "There’ll be no survivors.  One body was washed up on the shores," Mr. Nelson said. One plane was a Thorp T-18, based in Torrance, and the other a Citabria 7ECA, which was kept in Santa Paula, FAA spokesman Donn Walker said.  Each plane carried two people, he said.   Rescue crews found the bodies of two people inside the Thorp, Mr. Walker said.  One body from the Citabria washed ashore, and authorities were still searching for the other body, he said. "It is inconceivable to think there are survivors," Mr. Walker said.

Response:

Have there been a disproportionate number of GA airplanes getting bent lately or is it just a perception?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Two planes collide in air; 3 dead, one missing Associated Press MALIBU — Two small airplanes collided in midair off a Malibu beach Sunday, and three people were confirmed dead and a fourth was presumed killed, officials said. The two planes collided about 5:30 p. m. roughly 100 yards off El Matador State Beach, said Bruce Nelson, operations manager for the Federal Aviation Administration. "There’ll be no survivors.  One body was washed up on the shores," Mr. Nelson said. One plane was a Thorp T-18, based in Torrance, and the other a Citabria 7ECA, which was kept in Santa Paula, FAA spokesman Donn Walker said.  Each plane carried two people, he said. Rescue crews found the bodies of two people inside the Thorp, Mr. Walker said.  One body from the Citabria washed ashore, and authorities were still searching for the other body, he said. "It is inconceivable to think there are survivors," Mr. Walker said.

Response:

Have there been a disproportionate number of GA airplanes getting bent lately or is it just a perception?

Thanks for saying this; I was wondering myself.         – Andrew

Response:

Have there been a disproportionate number of GA airplanes getting bent lately or is it just a perception? Thanks for saying this; I was wondering myself.        - Andrew

Me too.  I guess we have to wait for the end of year stats to know for sure. z

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Have there been a disproportionate number of GA airplanes getting bent lately or is it just a perception? Thanks for saying this; I was wondering myself.        - Andrew Me too.  I guess we have to wait for the end of year stats to know for sure.

The summer weekends are a little crazy, but they were last year, too. I think the NTSB db shows that July actually had fewer accidents and fewer fatalities than last year, and based on the count so far, I don’t think August is going to be any worse than last year, also.

Response:

Have there been a disproportionate number of GA airplanes getting bent lately or is it just a perception?

My guess is that more people are posting news about local incidents. I know that I never used to do this, but have started doing so recently. I suspect it’s just better publicity. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or not. On the other hand, it seems to me that fewer people are speculating in these groups as to the cause of crashes these days. That seems to me to be a good thing. George Patterson      If you want to know God’s opinion of money, just look at the people      he gives it to.

Response:

Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http:\www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons. Some of those comparisons are based on flawed data (airframe life, engine TBO). Actually, the data are not flawed. Let’s see you come up with something that proves it wrong. I did post the link to TCM’s datasheet on the engine, stating a TBO of 2000 hours. The lifetime of the airframe was recently lifted to 12,000 hours.

I’d think this would be something Cirrus would be happy to announce.  So I’m surprised their Aircraft/FAQ page still says "The SR22 airframe was initially certified for 4,350 using data derived from the SR20 test. Cirrus is nearing completion of the same structural tests used to extend limits of the SR20 and anticipates that the SR22 will soon be rated for the 12,000-hour life."

Response:

Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per 100,000 hours 10 times that of average,

Put the average PPL into a Boeing 737, and I bet the accident rate will be even higher. So the 737 is an inherently unsafe plane? Statistics offers the numbers, but they must be interpreted. Stefan

Response:

Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it.

Sigh.  If it makes you feel better, here ya go. http://www.fergworld.com/various/4-96915-SR2212klifelimit.pdf I suspect that in the long run, the composite airframes will outlast the    spam-cans.  You’re really missing the picture by focusing on the composite airframe, chute, and spin-certification factors in your anti-Cirrus campaign.  A few hours flying the SR-22 G2 will clue you in, but until then I think you’re spouting hot air. And yes, I have some real issues with the Cirrus product as it currently stands.  They can be summed up in three words: TCM, network, and MCU. -Ryan ATP, CFI, CSI (Cirrus Standardized Instructor)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours. Nope…CJ was right, it’s 1700 hours (TCM IO-550…normally aspirated). No, CJ is wrong, the IO-550 in the SR22 has a 2000 hour TBO. http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF The IO-550N is on the second page, sixth line from the bottom. Again, I don’t own an SR22 (actually, I own a Skylane) but stating inaccurate data to make a point is not right. Are you implying a lie (ala Joe Wilson) or the fact that they have one model of 550 that has a 2000 hr TBO vs. all their other models with 1700? Oh, good grief. I’m saying that the engine in the SR22, which is the IO-550N, has a TBO of 2000 hours.

"Good grief"  is right. You stated "stating inaccurate data to make a point _is not right._" (emphasis mine) — just what implication are we to make from that statement?

Response:

http:\www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons. Some of those comparisons are based on flawed data (airframe life, engine TBO).

Actually, those are OLD data (as in "revised" since publication), not "flawed " data. You really should work for the DNC :~)

Response:

http:\www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons. Some of those comparisons are based on flawed data (airframe life, engine TBO).

Actually, the data are not flawed. Let’s see you come up with something that proves it wrong.

Response:

Just a few corrections: Max. cruise is 165 at 20000 ft. and 88% power. Range WITH 45 miuntes reserve is 635 nm (88% power) to 970 nm (45% power). Gerd ATP, T182T

Response:

C, for at least $30,000 more. It also burns 3 gph more fuel (but gas mileage is about the same — so much for supposedly more streamlined design of the Diamond) How do you arrive at these figures? First, you can get a G1000-equipped 182 for 280,000? Second, you’re saying the turbo 182 (which, of course, is WAY more expensive than the DA40, not just 30,000) will burn only 13 gph? At what speed? Could you pls elaborate? Thanks!

A G-1000 equipped 182 costs $290,000, while the DA-40 costs $260,000. The 182 is pretty consistent at 13 gph, but the T182 burns more like 15 gph. A T182 costs about $25,000 more than a 182. The Cirrus is beautiful, comfortable, and way over-rated. The airframe life limit is a show-stopper all by itself. Putting that aside, it has about the same payload as a T182, but it is quite a bit faster with a cruise speed of 180 knots. The Avidyne in the Cirrus is nowhere near the panel that the G-1000 is, though. If the Avidyne fails in flight it cannot re-acquire itself until on the ground, which is why examiners and instructors save partial panel stuff for the end of the flight. The side stick is really only half a yoke. Some controls (such as trim) are awkwardly located, especially considering the manufacturer likes to brag about the plane’s ergonomics. The poor safety record is alarming. Maybe they have fixed it; maybe they haven’t. My take on the Cirrus is to give it a little more time. Let the company work out the compromises they made with the FAA on airframe limits, fix the controls, fix the panel, and see if the safety record improves. Until then, it is like a super-model with a bad attitude: everyone who sees one thinks they want one, but it remains distant and likely to bite.

Response:

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours.

Nope…CJ was right, it’s 1700 hours (TCM IO-550…normally aspirated). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Why that? Turbocharging is worth its weight in gold in much of the Western U.S.  I’d rather have that, and the fat Cessna wing, over sleek-and-neat.

Yup!!! Tom —— or == DA 10,000 in June/July/August

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours. Nope…CJ was right, it’s 1700 hours (TCM IO-550…normally aspirated). No, CJ is wrong, the IO-550 in the SR22 has a 2000 hour TBO. http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF The IO-550N is on the second page, sixth line from the bottom. Again, I don’t own an SR22 (actually, I own a Skylane) but stating inaccurate data to make a point is not right.

Are you implying a lie (ala Joe Wilson) or the fact that they have one model of 550 that has a 2000 hr TBO vs. all their other models with 1700?

Response:

a) The TBO on the Cirrus engine is 2000 hours. b) The airframe lifetime on the Cirrus is now 12,000 hours.

Not true, the SR-22 still is 4350 hours until you can show me a type certificate that says otherwise. If the airframe life limit has been extended then Cirrus is sure keeping quiet about it. So, where does that leave your crusade against Cirrus?

Right where I started. I didn’t like the plane when I thought the TBO was 2000 hours. -jav (Skylane owner, trying to offer a balanced view)

A balanced view does not ignore the facts.

Response:

Why that?

Turbocharging is worth its weight in gold in much of the Western U.S.  I’d rather have that, and the fat Cessna wing, over sleek-and-neat.

Response:

Thanks for the great report. When the autopilot was a bit late in turning the corners in NAV mode, did you notice if the displayed XTRK error increased?  If so, the Garmin was computing the turn correctly but the autopilot couldn’t (or wouldn’t) keep up. I’ve found that the Garmin units tend to compute the fly-by maneuver quite well.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks for the great report. When the autopilot was a bit late in turning the corners in NAV mode, did you notice if the displayed XTRK error increased?  If so, the Garmin was computing the turn correctly but the autopilot couldn’t (or wouldn’t) keep up. I’ve found that the Garmin units tend to compute the fly-by maneuver quite well.

Right. I think it is the autopilot.

Response:

C, Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard commenting that says it’s no big deal. I tend to agree. But we’ve been around that particular block before.

Well, there are plenty of aviation experts that agree with me. It is a big deal. Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per 100,000 hours 10 times that of average, the 1700 hour TBO on a normally aspirated engine, higher direct operating costs, lower ceilings, the fact that the plane cannot recover from a spin without deploying the parachute, less stability on approach, longer wings which increase the chance of hangar rash, insurance rates as much as 52% higher, repetitive and costly inspections of the Caps system, and seven times more noise than a T182. The Cirrus may well supplant the Bonanza as the next doctor killer.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – C, for at least $30,000 more. It also burns 3 gph more fuel (but gas mileage is about the same — so much for supposedly more streamlined design of the Diamond) How do you arrive at these figures? First, you can get a G1000-equipped 182 for 280,000? Second, you’re saying the turbo 182 (which, of course, is WAY more expensive than the DA40, not just 30,000) will burn only 13 gph? At what speed? Could you pls elaborate? Thanks! A G-1000 equipped 182 costs $290,000, while the DA-40 costs $260,000. The 182 is pretty consistent at 13 gph, but the T182 burns more like 15 gph. A T182 costs about $25,000 more than a 182. The Cirrus is beautiful, comfortable, and way over-rated. The airframe life limit is a show-stopper all by itself. Putting that aside, it has about the same payload as a T182, but it is quite a bit faster with a cruise speed of 180 knots.

http:\www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons.

Response:

<good review snipped I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down. I have a TR-182, and I’m looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key reasons for your statement?

The cost of amortizing this airframe is about $70 per hour. Maybe Cirrus will get a life extension; they have been promising one for a long time now, but they seem to be concentrating their effort on developing new planes. Actually, the cost is more than that. Suppose the engine does not quite make TBO and needs an overhaul at 3800 hours. Are you willing to spend the money on an overhaul if the airframe has less than 500 hours left on it?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <good review snipped I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down. I have a TR-182, and I’m looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key reasons for your statement? The cost of amortizing this airframe is about $70 per hour. Maybe Cirrus will get a life extension; they have been promising one for a long time now, but they seem to be concentrating their effort on developing new planes. Actually, the cost is more than that. Suppose the engine does not quite make TBO and needs an overhaul at 3800 hours. Are you willing to spend the money on an overhaul if the airframe has less than 500 hours left on it?

Actually, I misspoke. The TBO on the Cirrus is only 1700 hours, not 2000 hours as on the T182. Even if the engine makes TBO both times, at 3400 hours you are left with the choice of overhauling an engine for an airframe that has only 950 hours left on it, or just throwing the whole airplane away. So it is even worse than I thought.

Response:

C, Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard commenting that says it’s no big deal. I tend to agree. But we’ve been around that particular block before. — Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Response:

A G-1000 equipped 182 costs $290,000, while the DA-40 costs $260,000. The 182 is pretty consistent at 13 gph, but the T182 burns more like 15 gph.

Hmm. Sounds amazingly low to me, but you’ve flown it. More power than the old 182 with the O-470, more cubic inches and less fuel consumption? What power level are we talking? What speed? The Cirrus is beautiful, comfortable, and way over-rated. The airframe life limit is a show-stopper all by itself.

I disagree. same payload as a T182, but it is quite a bit faster with a cruise speed of 180 knots. The Avidyne in the Cirrus is nowhere near the panel that the G-1000 is, though. If the Avidyne fails in flight it cannot re-acquire itself until on the ground, which is why examiners and instructors save partial panel stuff for the end of the flight.

That’s about to change with a software update, I have read. The side stick is really only half a yoke. Some controls (such as trim) are awkwardly located, especially considering the manufacturer likes to brag about the plane’s ergonomics. The poor safety record is alarming. Maybe they have fixed it; maybe they haven’t. My take on the Cirrus is to give it a little more time. Let the company work out the compromises they made with the FAA on airframe limits, fix the controls, fix the panel, and see if the safety record improves. Until then, it is like a super-model with a bad attitude: everyone who sees one thinks they want one, but it remains distant and likely to bite.

Except the sales numbers don’t really agree with that view. — Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Response:

C, for at least $30,000 more. It also burns 3 gph more fuel (but gas mileage is about the same — so much for supposedly more streamlined design of the Diamond)

How do you arrive at these figures? First, you can get a G1000-equipped 182 for 280,000? Second, you’re saying the turbo 182 (which, of course, is WAY more expensive than the DA40, not just 30,000) will burn only 13 gph? At what speed? Could you pls elaborate? Thanks! I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.

Why that? — Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Response:

Wow, it beats the Cirrus?  You mean the 20 or 22? Would the 182S have better mileage than the Diamond?  But the range is the same? But the tanks are much bigger? Is there an advatage to the Turbo for mileage? I am confused, did I read you right?  This doesn’t seem possible unless they have done something really fantastic.  It is heavier, and has a bigger engine.  Even if they both had the same drag, this should not be the same mileage. When I checked this out, I looked at the S model, and the mileage was a lot better in the Diamond.  The only advantage the S seemed to have over the Diamond was the size of the front seat, and the capacity.  However, in many sample missions, the useful load after necessary fuel was very similar. My take, pre glass, was that the 182 was more for a serious traveler, who needed the load and the range.  Also, off field/soft field use as well as high density climb ability went to the Cessna.  The diamond seemed to be more for the Accord buyer – better economy, safety, simplicity at the expense of some size and tow ability compared to the mini-SUV like 182. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – OK, I know I said I would not get to fly this plane until tomorrow, but it arrived early and so I took a flight. This is a new turbocharged Cessna T182T. For those that have not seen the 182T (either turbo or normal, introduced last year), you might be a little startled the first time you take a look. It does not look like a 182. All the fairings and cowling have been redesigned and even the windscreen got a speed treatment, so it looks more like a racy little Cardinal on steroids instead of a 182. Useful load has increased by about 50 pounds with the lightweight Nav III package and the additional streamlining increased the cruise speed another four knots to 158 KTAS at 88% power at 12,500 feet. Max cruise is 178 knots. Range at 88% power is about 600 nm, but you could stretch it out to 886 nm at 45% power. Inside is equally different. The seats, panel, and general interior are radically re-arranged. The seats have gone on a diet from the earlier "new" 182s; they are much trimmer and lighter. All interior lighting is now LED. But the big change is the G-1000 panel, which Cessna modeled after its jets. All the knobs, switches, etc., are big and utilitarian and color coded. The G-1000 in this bird has a 30 minute lithium battery backup; you lose power and you still have your full panel for 30 minutes. The master switches have been moved high and to the left with all the other switches grouped under them. Interior light dimmer switches are big gray plastic knobby things mounted to the left of the panel; Cessna no longer makes each pot do double duty. All the circuit breakers for lighting and such are the standard non-pullable white circuit breakers and they are grouped to the left. All the other circuit breakers are now pullable and grouped under the main panel. Below the panels and in the center are backup airspeed, vacuum attitude, and altitude indicators. The KLN 140 autopilot is located awkwardly off somewhat to the right and above these. Overall cabin visibility really bites after riding in the Diamond. The entire panel is metal painted black and gray. The avionics now run off no less than five busses, but the avionics master still only turns on bus 1 and 2. Anyway, in order to lose your panels completely you would probably have to be on fire with an engine failure, alternator failure, and failure of both your primary and backup batteries — and you still would have your backup pitot/static instruments and vacuum attitude indicator (at least until the dual vacuum pumps spun down because of the engine failure). In such circumstances the panels would probably be the least of your worries. You start the engine with the backup battery on so you can see your engine instruments. Otherwise, the start is normal. Once everything is going you turn the backup battery off, flip on the avionics master and go. The controls on this particular airplane were extremely heavy for a 182; I kept looking to see if the control lock is in. If it was my plane it would go into the shop immediately to see if the controls can be loosened up some. The G-1000s work pretty much the same as the Diamond, so this time I wanted to fly a GPS autopilot coupled approach. Garmin has not yet developed an FMS for the G-1000, but one is supposedly coming. Nevertheless, the autopilot tracked and followed the entire approach, though it turned a little late. There was no need to set new courses or heading bugs; the G-1000 handles all that automatically. Setting up the approach took only a few seconds. The KLN-140 autopilot, of course, still does not know when to descend, so you have to tell it. Still, it didn’t do a bad job for what is really a basic autopilot. One thing I did not mention about the G-1000 in my previous report is the fuel circle; the map shows the limits of your remaining fuel with a red circle. I checked on the transponder issue: the G-1000 while on the ground responds to Mode S interrogations for traffic movement, but you can also switch it to mode A or C by pushing a button. The Cessna 182 gives you more speed and payload than the Diamond, but not more range, for at least $30,000 more. It also burns 3 gph more fuel (but gas mileage is about the same — so much for supposedly more streamlined design of the Diamond) and has greatly reduced visibility and it just does not look as cool. I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down. — Christopher J. Campbell World Famous Flight Instructor Port Orchard, WA If you go around beating the Bush, don’t complain if you rile the animals.

Response:

<good review snipped I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down.

I have a TR-182, and I’m looking at used Cirrus SR-22. What are the key reasons for your statement? Michael

Response:

OK, I know I said I would not get to fly this plane until tomorrow, but it arrived early and so I took a flight. This is a new turbocharged Cessna T182T. For those that have not seen the 182T (either turbo or normal, introduced last year), you might be a little startled the first time you take a look. It does not look like a 182. All the fairings and cowling have been redesigned and even the windscreen got a speed treatment, so it looks more like a racy little Cardinal on steroids instead of a 182. Useful load has increased by about 50 pounds with the lightweight Nav III package and the additional streamlining increased the cruise speed another four knots to 158 KTAS at 88% power at 12,500 feet. Max cruise is 178 knots. Range at 88% power is about 600 nm, but you could stretch it out to 886 nm at 45% power. Inside is equally different. The seats, panel, and general interior are radically re-arranged. The seats have gone on a diet from the earlier "new" 182s; they are much trimmer and lighter. All interior lighting is now LED. But the big change is the G-1000 panel, which Cessna modeled after its jets. All the knobs, switches, etc., are big and utilitarian and color coded. The G-1000 in this bird has a 30 minute lithium battery backup; you lose power and you still have your full panel for 30 minutes. The master switches have been moved high and to the left with all the other switches grouped under them. Interior light dimmer switches are big gray plastic knobby things mounted to the left of the panel; Cessna no longer makes each pot do double duty. All the circuit breakers for lighting and such are the standard non-pullable white circuit breakers and they are grouped to the left. All the other circuit breakers are now pullable and grouped under the main panel. Below the panels and in the center are backup airspeed, vacuum attitude, and altitude indicators. The KLN 140 autopilot is located awkwardly off somewhat to the right and above these. Overall cabin visibility really bites after riding in the Diamond. The entire panel is metal painted black and gray. The avionics now run off no less than five busses, but the avionics master still only turns on bus 1 and 2. Anyway, in order to lose your panels completely you would probably have to be on fire with an engine failure, alternator failure, and failure of both your primary and backup batteries — and you still would have your backup pitot/static instruments and vacuum attitude indicator (at least until the dual vacuum pumps spun down because of the engine failure). In such circumstances the panels would probably be the least of your worries. You start the engine with the backup battery on so you can see your engine instruments. Otherwise, the start is normal. Once everything is going you turn the backup battery off, flip on the avionics master and go. The controls on this particular airplane were extremely heavy for a 182; I kept looking to see if the control lock is in. If it was my plane it would go into the shop immediately to see if the controls can be loosened up some. The G-1000s work pretty much the same as the Diamond, so this time I wanted to fly a GPS autopilot coupled approach. Garmin has not yet developed an FMS for the G-1000, but one is supposedly coming. Nevertheless, the autopilot tracked and followed the entire approach, though it turned a little late. There was no need to set new courses or heading bugs; the G-1000 handles all that automatically. Setting up the approach took only a few seconds. The KLN-140 autopilot, of course, still does not know when to descend, so you have to tell it. Still, it didn’t do a bad job for what is really a basic autopilot. One thing I did not mention about the G-1000 in my previous report is the fuel circle; the map shows the limits of your remaining fuel with a red circle. I checked on the transponder issue: the G-1000 while on the ground responds to Mode S interrogations for traffic movement, but you can also switch it to mode A or C by pushing a button. The Cessna 182 gives you more speed and payload than the Diamond, but not more range, for at least $30,000 more. It also burns 3 gph more fuel (but gas mileage is about the same — so much for supposedly more streamlined design of the Diamond) and has greatly reduced visibility and it just does not look as cool. I would say that this airplane still beats the Cirrus hands down. — Christopher J. Campbell World Famous Flight Instructor Port Orchard, WA If you go around beating the Bush, don’t complain if you rile the animals.

Response: