My wife getting scared
Paul Tomblin
Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument tickets
died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a few times at flying club
dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.
Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be careful.
Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so on.
I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
little club is pretty scary for her.
At one time, I thought when the kids were finished college I'd finally
have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
plane.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
...I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply
suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an
interpreter. -- Nick Petreley
Dudley Henriques
> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for 10.
> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument tickets
> died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a few times at flying club
> dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
> also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
> a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
> member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.
>
> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be careful.
> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so on.
>
> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
> little club is pretty scary for her.
>
> At one time, I thought when the kids were finished college I'd finally
> have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
> adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
> plane.
>
During the fifty odd years I've been involved in professional aviation;
most of that teaching in and flying high performance airplanes I've
buried 32 of my friends and associates. My wife was with me through
forty of those years and knew many of these people personally.
I've dealt with this issue both in my own home and as an adviser to others.
I can tell you this in all sincerity and honesty.
I realize you might not be involved in high risk aviation so what I am
about to say to you might even be easier for you in your personal
situation as a pleasure pilot.
I believe I have looked at this issue from enough directions and have
enough experience with it that you might want to give serious
consideration to my advice.
When it comes to handling something like this with a loved one, you can
of course attempt to convince your wife you will be safe based on the
favorable statistics you can go dig up that say general aviation is a
safe pastime.
But my advice is to use this approach but with a caveat.
Forget using the statistics alone without additional input from you as
that road to convince a loved one is filled with pot holes.
In order to reach your wife, don't down play the dangers involved with
flying, as she is already convinced of a potential danger and has seen
what can happen when things go wrong.
The best way to handle these issues is to start immediately to convince
her that rather than denying any danger exists, you are completely aware
of the potential for danger in flying and are capable of avoiding that
danger by the way you approach the issue of flying.
In other words, what you want to accomplish here is to convince your
wife that YOU PERSONALLY are an aware pilot with a professional attitude
that is highly tuned in to the avoidance of areas of danger when you fly.
What you want to do is steer your wife into thinking of you as a pilot
separated from other pilots. You need to have her consider you
INDIVIDUALLY as competent and professional instead of viewing you as
just another pilot among many. It's the thinking about a large group
where some get hurt or killed that frightens loved ones. Once she looks
at you individually, she will realize that you PERSONALLY are aware of
danger and competent enough to stay away from it.
She will feel better knowing that.
All this having been said, there is nothing cast in stone that will
solve these kinds of issues. Accidents happen and pilots get killed once
in a while. What it boils down to is that YOU are the only one who can
address this issue with a loved one. It takes tact and it takes
understanding, but most of all it means recognizing her fears as
legitimate instead of down playing them with safety statistics.
Bring her into your world as a pilot more than you have and let her know
that above all else, you are aware....and you are a SAFE pilot.
Hope this advice has been of some help.
DH
--
Dudley Henriques
BT
to speed to remain safe
- get on the faa mailing list and attend local pilot safety meetings
- attend AOPA safety meetings.. take their on line courses
- take a weather course..
- add that next rating.. a commercial rating is the simplest to add.. a new
rating means "additional training received".
- don't wait for a sunny day and decide to go flying.. pick a day two to
three weeks out.. and then if the weather is bad or something "just is not
right"... make the decision not to go and let her know why you decided that
it was not a good day to fly.. maybe it was just because you had a "bad day"
at the office the day before.. and "your mind was not in the game"..
remember and practice IMSAFE
BT
"Paul Tomblin" <ptomblin...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:fdpnnq$lg5$1...@xen1.xcski.com...
Le Chaud Lapin
> During the fifty odd years I've been involved in professional aviation;
> most of that teaching in and flying high performance airplanes I've
> buried 32 of my friends and associates. My wife was with me through
> forty of those years and knew many of these people personally.
> I've dealt with this issue both in my own home and as an adviser to others.
> I can tell you this in all sincerity and honesty.
Hi,
I'm a student pilot, and I am very curious to know what percentage of
that 32 can be attributed to pilot error.
Also, I agree.
When I get my certificate, I plan to use same discipline that I use on
my bike. I (very ocassionally) get up to 150 mph on my VFR-800, and
this freaks people out, especially my sister, who worries and asks me
if it is dangerous, and I tell the truth. But the danger is not on a
straightaway. Danger happens during momentarily lapses of self-
discipline at 30mph. On a recent 440 mile round-trip to family
gathering, on the way home, it was 3:00 A.M, with about 8 miles to go,
my legs were cramping up so bad that none of the "stick-leg-out-while"
tricks would work. I started musing about all the bad things that
could happen, because of simple leg cramps. "What if there is a
mattress in road, not able to rake because legs won't move..what if I
pass out..." Then, in an epiphanous moment, I thought, "Darwinism
might be in action, at this very moment. Pull over." I calmly pulled
my bike over to side of road, turned it off, parked it, and waited, in
total darkness, for 15 minutes until my circulation got right again.
My legs were so cramped, I could barely dismount without falling over.
I have no idea whether I would have wrecked if I had tried to hold out
those last 8 miles. But that's the point. I did not, because I made
sure. I managed my risk.
I told this story to my family and it helped them relax. Maybe you
could tell a similar story to your wife.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
Bertie the Bunyip
the airport.
Bertie
James Sleeman
> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for 10.
Stupid question, but does your wife fly with you? Do you actively
involve her in your flying, or is she completely dis-interested.
Sometimes, it's kinda like air-sickness, if your passenger is quezey,
get them on the stick for a bit - perhaps if you could get your wife
more involved, you could both enjoy it.
AIDS (Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrome) is a fairly common affliction
unfortunatly, you may need to take some preventative action sooner
rather than later.
Paul Tomblin
>In other words, what you want to accomplish here is to convince your
>wife that YOU PERSONALLY are an aware pilot with a professional attitude
> that is highly tuned in to the avoidance of areas of danger when you fly.
The problem with that approach is that after the DE guy died, that worked
because Rochester aviation's dirty little secret was that he was a known
corner-cutter and risk taker. But when the other two died, I had to admit
that I've flown with one of them a couple of times and I couldn't fault
anything he did. He seemed to me careful and methodical and professional.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Paul Tomblin
>On Oct 1, 3:58 pm, ptomblin+netn...@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for 10.
>
>Stupid question, but does your wife fly with you? Do you actively
>involve her in your flying, or is she completely dis-interested.
She flies with me if we're going somewhere she wants to go. But 90% of
the time if I'm just going for the sake of flying, she doesn't want to go.
I used to drag her along, and she'd read a book or fall asleep.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
"I've gone through over-stressed to physical exhaustion -- what's next?"
"Tuesday."
-- Simon Burr and Kyle Hearn
Dudley Henriques
> In a previous article, Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@rcn.com> said:
>> In other words, what you want to accomplish here is to convince your
>> wife that YOU PERSONALLY are an aware pilot with a professional attitude
>> that is highly tuned in to the avoidance of areas of danger when you fly.
>
> The problem with that approach is that after the DE guy died, that worked
> because Rochester aviation's dirty little secret was that he was a known
> corner-cutter and risk taker. But when the other two died, I had to admit
> that I've flown with one of them a couple of times and I couldn't fault
> anything he did. He seemed to me careful and methodical and professional.
>
>
Several of the 32 I have buried were Blue Angels and Thunderbirds.
Others were air show display pilots, test pilots, and military pilots.
These people represented the top of the heap and the best of the best.
My wife knew them all, but these people were not me.
How you convince your wife you are safe will be unique to your own
personal situation and how good you are at presenting that situation to
her.
Best of luck to you.
DH
--
Dudley Henriques
Jay Honeck
> the time if I'm just going for the sake of flying, she doesn't want to go.
> I used to drag her along, and she'd read a book or fall asleep.
Hey, that's the highest compliment a passenger can pay you.
(They can't sleep if they're terrified... ;-)
I have dealt with this fear from many angles. In fact, now it is ME
who is scared, when my only son goes up for a lesson, so the shoe is
truly on the other foot.
With my wife, Mary, the best thing I could have done was to get her
interested in flying. Once SHE had "the bug", there was no way she
could sit on the ground and worry -- she was right there with me.
This, of course, doesn't solve the very real problem of risk and risk
avoidance that comes with flying -- but it makes our marriage more
comfortable.
Our families have always been worried about us flying, especially when
we fly while our kids are in school. I must admit that Mary and I had
long, involved discussions over the wisdom of this practice (required
because our "weekends" are Wed/Thu, so if we want to fly it's going to
be during their school day), and it's not always been easy to
discuss.
Our "worst case scenario" is imagining what would happen to our kids
if we simply went up on a Wednesday and didn't come back. None of
our family lives in Iowa, so the kids would be on their own throughout
the ordeal that would inevitably follow an accident -- and this is
simply not something any parent would wish on their kids.
This fear has faded somewhat, now that our kids are teenagers. When
they were in elementary school, Mary was VERY uncomfortable flying
without them (for some reason it's okay WITH them, which is pretty
odd, if you analyze it too much), because of the awful prospect of
them waiting a day or two for relatives to arrive.
On the plus side, this fear has made us VERY meticulous and careful
pilots. Preflights are NEVER omitted, fuel tanks are ALWAYS filled,
gas is ALWAYS tested, maintenance is ALWAYS done. Still, we all know
that "shit happens", and we could become statistics at some point.
I always fall back on two facts that comfort me:
1. You can either live, or wait to die. It's up to you.
2. Mary and I could be killed driving on the highway any day of the
week.
Life is a terminal condition. No one is getting off of this planet
alive. It's up to each of us to make the best of our time here, and
-- in my world -- that means flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Thomas Borchert
> because Rochester aviation's dirty little secret was that he was a known
> corner-cutter and risk taker.
>
As an aside, we as in "the GA community" should stop keeping those
secrets. I for one, have vowed to myself to speak up when I see dangerous
behaviour be "esteemed" peers.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Shirl
> This fear has faded somewhat, now that our kids are teenagers. When
> they were in elementary school, Mary was VERY uncomfortable flying
> without them (for some reason it's okay WITH them, which is pretty
> odd, if you analyze it too much), because of the awful prospect of
> them waiting a day or two for relatives to arrive.
I don't think that's odd, Jay. No parent wants anything bad to happen to
their kids, and most would give their own lives to save their children;
but there's also a purely gut instinct that if anything's going to
happen, you hope you're all together, especially when they're
elementary-school age and completely dependent on you. That's both
caring and selfish -- caring in that you KNOW what the aftermath is like
for those left behind (esp kids that age), and selfish in that you don't
want to go and leave them behind to have lives that you won't experience
with them. The redeeming thing is that once they're older and you KNOW
they'd be able to understand, care for themselves (with help) and be
okay if anything happened to you, you can be more okay with them moving
forward in your absence.
Not only is that a possibility if you fly (or fill in the blank with any
other activity), it's also a medical possibility, and we have way less
control over that, assuming we take reasonably good care of ourselves,
than we do over safety in activities. Don't we all know of someone who
was WAY too young when a terminal illness struck without warning and
took them?
> On the plus side, this fear has made us VERY meticulous and careful
> pilots. Preflights are NEVER omitted, fuel tanks are ALWAYS filled,
> gas is ALWAYS tested, maintenance is ALWAYS done. Still, we all know
> that "shit happens", and we could become statistics at some point.
Yep. I've been teased that my preflights are like 100-hr inspections. I
do everything you listed above, and it didn't stop the oil cooler from
failing.
Question: how often do you practice simulated engine failures over
places you aren't used to flying patterns? We'd done a simulated engine
failure approach *and landing* on a dirt strip two weeks prior to our
accident. Just having thought about and actually flown the procedure and
then critiqued it later (it went very well but there's always something
you may have done differently/better) may have saved a few precious
seconds in thinking/reacting in the actual emergency. We continue to
practice engine-outs frequently, and not over airports that we're
comfortable flying in and out of -- but it's surprising how many pilots
only do them during BFRs or when getting checked-out in a rental
aircraft.
> I always fall back on two facts that comfort me:
>
> 1. You can either live, or wait to die. It's up to you.
>
> 2. Mary and I could be killed driving on the highway any day of the
> week.
Although true, #2 doesn't usually do much to comfort anyone who is
worried about a loved one that flies.
My daughter flies, too. I didn't find out she was soloing until after
the fact, and I appreciate that she spared me -- there was also a method
to her madness as she knew that if I'd known, I'd have been there taking
pictures! But I understood. She's a CFI now and also just became an ATC.
We've flown together some, and I'm comfortable that she's a safe,
competent pilot (and a good CFI) ... but I admit that it's still easier
to hear about her flights after rather than before the fact!
> Life is a terminal condition. No one is getting off of this planet
> alive. It's up to each of us to make the best of our time here, and
> -- in my world -- that means flying.
;-) -- a sentiment most of us agree with. The afternoon of our
accident, when we were driving back to the airport (plane was totaled),
we asked each other if we would fly again, and we both said "I don't
know." That feeling (sadness and uncertainty) lasted for two days. On
the third day, I awoke ANGRY and wanted to complete the flight that we'd
begun the day of the accident.
I'd be interested to know, of those who survive engine failures or other
occurrences that bring airplanes down, what percentage give up flying.
Shirl
Paul Tomblin
>2. Mary and I could be killed driving on the highway any day of the
>week.
Statistically, that's true. In human terms, though, my wife knows maybe
25 pilots, and 2 of them have died in airplanes in the last couple of
years. She knows hundreds of drivers, and none of them have died in car
crashes recently. (Ok, one of them was kidnapped, raped and killed by a
guy impersonating a police officer who stopped her driving, but that's
another fear of hers regarding our four teenage and early twenties
daughters.)
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
There are two ways to write error-free programs. Only the third one works.
news.verizon.net
as I could. It was a little bit easier for me as I had no memory of the
accident.
John
"Shirl" <Xmnus...@aol.communicate> wrote in message
news:Xmnushal8y-269BB...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
Jay Honeck
> places you aren't used to flying patterns?
Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine has far
outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There is simply nothing
you can do to your engine (in normal use) that is worse than simulated
engine-out landings, so we do them very rarely.
We used to practice them regularly in rental birds...
;-)
> My daughter flies, too. I didn't find out she was soloing until after
> the fact, and I appreciate that she spared me -- there was also a method
> to her madness as she knew that if I'd known, I'd have been there taking
> pictures!
Hee hee! I even created a webpage for our son's solo flight, much to
his dismay. (Although I think he appreciates it now...)
> I'd be interested to know, of those who survive engine failures or other
> occurrences that bring airplanes down, what percentage give up flying.
Well, my mentor experienced an engine-out landing in a corn field. He
did it expertly, neither damaging himself nor the plane. He flew a
few times after that incident, perhaps to prove to himself that he
could (?), but to my knowledge (he lives in Texas now, so we've lost
touch) he's never flown again.
I think his wife -- an adamant anti-flyer -- had a lot to do with
that.
dea...@msn.com
> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be careful.
> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so on.
>
> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
> little club is pretty scary for her.
Paul,
Sounds pretty familiar... my wife is on the same page as your wife. I
had two co-workers die in a plane crash in 2002, and my boss barely
survived it.
The sad truth is that too many people die in GA accidents, many of
them unnecessarily (bad choices, bad luck, or all of the above).
The best you can do is to be as safe a pilot as you can, demonstrate
to her that you are doing everything you can to stay safe, and resign
yourself to the fact that she probably won't fly much with you. Solo
is how you will do most of your flying unless you have other pilot
friends to go up with.
Dean
Jay Honeck
> 25 pilots, and 2 of them have died in airplanes in the last couple of
> years. She knows hundreds of drivers, and none of them have died in car
> crashes recently. (Ok, one of them was kidnapped, raped and killed by a
> guy impersonating a police officer who stopped her driving, but that's
> another fear of hers regarding our four teenage and early twenties
> daughters.)
Fear can paralyze people. If you read the papers, you'd never leave
your home, for fear of catastrophe at every step.
We've lost 3 friends to two flying accidents this year. One was
probably fuel exhaustion, the other was probably flying VFR into
IMC. These are the kinds of accidents it is easy to explain away
("That will never happen to me!") but in both cases the pilots were
known to be meticulous, skilled operators. So what can you do?
The kinds of crashes that REALLY scare me are the ones where a control
surface fails, or a wing comes off in flight. There was a Cherokee
235 that crashed last year after the wings departed the fuselage, thus
far for reasons unknown. Did the pilot yank the yoke back in his lap
at redline? Or was it just metal fatigue in our old fleet, like the
Grumman seaplane in Florida?
Second scariest (to me) are mid-airs, but that's not too worrisome out
here in the wide-open spaces of Iowa. Still, it happens, and it's (of
course) the one you DON'T see is the one that gets ya.
We'd all like to believe that we are superior pilots, possessing
superior judgement and skills. In fact, as private "hobby" pilots,
we're probably at the bottom of the skill heap, simply because we
don't fly often enough to get/stay really good. Once I accepted this
fact, not long after obtaining my ticket, I found myself becoming a
much more conservative (some might say "boring") pilot.
Conservative seems to be the best approach to longevity. It's the
strategy I'm planning to use so that I'm still around to fly with my
grandkids...
dea...@msn.com
> Conservative seems to be the best approach to longevity. It's the
> strategy I'm planning to use so that I'm still around to fly with my
> grandkids...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
Jay,
I for one am sold on the idea of a BRS. Lots of pilots poo poo the
idea, but I have seen lots of fatals that could have benefited from a
BRS, especially mid-airs that take off wings and tails but leave the
fuselage intact. The BRS is a last resort option for things that
might happen outside your control as a pilot.
Being conservative as a pilot is the best thing you can do, and I am
firmly in that camp. There is still a lot of fun to be had as a
conservative pilot.
Dean
Mxsmanic
> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for 10.
> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument tickets
> died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a few times at flying club
> dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
> also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
> a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
> member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.
>
> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be careful.
> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so on.
She's right.
> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her?
Follow her advice, and come back alive.
> The pilot community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
> little club is pretty scary for her.
I don't blame her. That's a lot of death, and it doesn't speak very well of
general aviation.
You can tell her that general aviation is safe when done correctly, which is
true. And you can prove it by flying aircraft that are properly maintained,
and flying in a safe way.
Overall, flying a small aircraft is about as dangerous as riding on a
motorcycle with someone. However, you can reduce the danger dramatically as a
pilot by safe flying practices and by flying only aircraft that are in good
condition and well maintained.
Mxsmanic
> I'm a student pilot, and I am very curious to know what percentage of
> that 32 can be attributed to pilot error.
Most such accidents are due to pilot error. Many of the rest are due to poor
maintenance.
A safe pilot in a well maintained aircraft isn't at much risk. Unfortunately,
there are lots of stupid pilots around flying poorly maintained aircraft, and
that makes the overall statistics rather grim.
> Then, in an epiphanous moment, I thought, "Darwinism
> might be in action, at this very moment. Pull over." I calmly pulled
> my bike over to side of road, turned it off, parked it, and waited, in
> total darkness, for 15 minutes until my circulation got right again.
> My legs were so cramped, I could barely dismount without falling over.
> I have no idea whether I would have wrecked if I had tried to hold out
> those last 8 miles. But that's the point. I did not, because I made
> sure. I managed my risk.
Well done.
Mxsmanic
> The problem with that approach is that after the DE guy died, that worked
> because Rochester aviation's dirty little secret was that he was a known
> corner-cutter and risk taker. But when the other two died, I had to admit
> that I've flown with one of them a couple of times and I couldn't fault
> anything he did. He seemed to me careful and methodical and professional.
What was the actual cause of his accident?
Mxsmanic
> On the plus side, this fear has made us VERY meticulous and careful
> pilots. Preflights are NEVER omitted, fuel tanks are ALWAYS filled,
> gas is ALWAYS tested, maintenance is ALWAYS done. Still, we all know
> that "shit happens", and we could become statistics at some point.
If you are indeed that conscientious, the risk is very small. Perhaps "shit
happens," but not nearly as often as people who prefer to avoid or deny
responsibility would like to believe.
Mxsmanic
> Yep. I've been teased that my preflights are like 100-hr inspections. I
> do everything you listed above, and it didn't stop the oil cooler from
> failing.
Was it your own aircraft?
Dudley Henriques
Every time somebody drills a hole in the ground the "fear factor" can
and many times goes up for the families of some GA pilots.
It's a fact of life if you choose to fly. Wives especially are subject
to this fear factor and the basic reason for it sometimes escapes their
pilot husbands.
Wives can justify traffic dangers for example, where cars pass each
other going in opposite directions at closing speeds of up to 100mph a
scant 3 feet apart and at the same time worry themselves sick over a
husband getting killed in the airplane he flies for pleasure.
One of the reasons for this is that wives have a tendency to accept what
MUST be done as normal to everyday life, but flying on the other hand is
an optional endeavor and therefore a choice that not only adds to the
danger factor of life, but could have been avoided by the husband.
Make no mistake about it; at least part of what wives fear isn't fear at
all but rather a suppressed feeling that the dangers involved in flying
can be easily avoided if the husband didn't fly. Add children to this
equation and wives can begin to show a real concern for "any" risk they
deem to be an unnecessary risk taken by their husbands.
You can beat the psychology of all this to death, but the bottom line
for people who are individually involved in flying and have families, is
that for some of these individuals, this is an issue that might very
well come up and have to be dealt with.
How each pilot deals with this has to be based on individual situations
and no pat answer is available.
The bottom line is that if you choose to fly and have a family, the
chances are (with rare exceptions) that this decision to fly has been
made by YOU as an individual. To a wife, this can very well mean that
although she has gone along with you on this decision, that she has
suppressed fears and negative thoughts about the risks to HER FAMILY
that you making your decision to fly might not have considered as
seriously as you might have considered the issue.
As I have said previously, there's no set way to handle this situation
that fits everybody. If you make a decision to fly and you have a
family, it's up to YOU to consider the peripheral aspects of this
decision and how it might effect your family.
What works for one pilot won't work with another.
What worked for me was to seriously bring my wife into my world. I
listened to her fears and took them seriously and made damn sure she
KNEW I was taking them seriously. The end result in our case was that my
wife accepted the fact that I was working in a higher than normal risk
area and that I was not only aware of that but capable of dealing with
it on a constant basis. When she realized that the odds were in her
favor on my personal survival in this business, she relaxed and became
an active part of my flying rather than a bystander.
I should add here as well that there are indeed some wives out there who
will never lose their fear when it comes to flying. This is the exact
reason that I have encouraged EVERY student I have ever taught to fly
who had a family to sit down early and involve the family in the decision.
Informed wives are better prepared to handle aviation than uninformed wives.
--
Dudley Henriques
Shirl
> > Question: how often do you practice simulated engine failures over
> > places you aren't used to flying patterns?
Jay:
> Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine has far
> outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There is simply nothing
> you can do to your engine (in normal use) that is worse than simulated
> engine-out landings, so we do them very rarely.
I just had a major engine overhaul done (Lycoming O-320) by a reputable
place. We're still in the break-in phase (15 hours to first oil change,
25 hours with no unusual airwork or touch-n-goes). I'm going to call and
ask the engine shop what their thoughts are about simulated engine
failures harming a healthy engine.
> We used to practice them regularly in rental birds...
I used to work at a flight school. It's amazing what people do in rental
birds that they wouldn't THINK of doing in their own! That said, those
airplanes are doing slow flight, stalls, engine-out practices and even
spin training (in some), and they keep faithfully building hours. Yes,
they are inspected every 100 hours and maintained reasonably well --
i.e., if it's necessary, yes; if it's optional, no -- but flight
school/rental airplanes aren't babied like privately-owned airplanes,
and in fact, they do all the things people say are "the worst thing you
can do to an engine" on a regular basis, yet most of them just keep on
ticking. Most get FLOWN a lot more often than privately-owned aircraft,
but doesn't seem that alone would make up for all the time they spend
doing "the worst possible things".
Will let you know what they say.
Shirl
> > Yep. I've been teased that my preflights are like 100-hr inspections. I
> > do everything you listed above, and it didn't stop the oil cooler from
> > failing.
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was it your own aircraft?
Yes. It's a rare occurrence. When something like this happens, you then
hear accounts from the few who knew of something similar. One such
account was of a NEW oil cooler that failed in its first 3 hours. No way
to predict it. Flushing/Pressure testing at suggested intervals may help
prevent it (I've heard a huge variance in what that suggested interval
should be -- there doesn't appear to be a black-and-white regulation).
Bob Fry
DH> The best way to handle these issues is to start immediately to
DH> convince her that rather than denying any danger exists, you
DH> are completely aware of the potential for danger in flying and
DH> are capable of avoiding that danger by the way you approach
DH> the issue of flying.
And this (saying you are are a safe pilot) is easier if you are a safe
person.
Do you speed on the highway? Zip between lanes?
Reckless with money or other areas of life that give her cause to
doubt?
My wife and I have an understanding, mostly unspoken but very real: I
don't twist her arm to go flying with me, she doesn't nag me to
stop. I don't take stupid risks, she doesn't stupidly question why I
like to fly. Maybe that's where you'll have to arrive.
--
It takes a big man to cry. It takes an even bigger man to laugh
at that man.
- Jack Handey
dea...@msn.com
He crashed.
Dallas
> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument tickets
> died in a stupid accident.
Sorry, but you've peaked my curiosity a bit. I'm wondering how a DE, who
should in theory be very familiar with aviation safety, could died in a
stupid accident.
Can you tell us what happened?
--
Dallas
Dudley Henriques
Happens frequently. I'm working with an accident right now that involves
a highly experienced demonstration pilot who suddenly and for no
apparent reason began a Split S at an altitude below that required for a
recovery.
Any pilot, no matter how experienced, can suffer a "brain fart" for lack
of a better term. The study on how to prevent this from happening both
to myself and to others has occupied a great of my time for the last
fifty years or so.
--
Dudley Henriques
Brian
Are you conservative in that you limit the size of the box of aviation
activities and behaviors that you expose yourself to?
This is the normal definition that most pilots apply to
being conservative. The down side is that it can also limit your
abilities as a pilot. So the box of abilities that you carry with you
as a pilot can deteriorate down to size of the box of activities you
limit yourself to. I don't think this is being as conservative as most
people think it is.
How long should a conservative pilot go without doing any of the
following?
Stalls
Spin Recoveries
Slow Flight
Short Field Landings
Simulated Engine Failures
Simulated Control Failures
Flight by reference to the Instruments
An Instrument Approach
Reviewing specific aircraft emergency procedures.
The truly conservative pilot won't do these with passengers aboard or
maybe even by himself. He may insist on having an experienced
instructor with him while he practices these kinds of procedures
frequently. But if a pilot only does these things once every two
years for his flight review is he really being conservative? Is he
even safe if he hasn't done any of this for nearly two years? He may
be safe as long as nothing bad happens that puts him outside of his
"conservative" box.
To really be conservative you would be expanding your piloting
abilities rather than limiting them. The challenge here is to expand
you abilities without creating undue hazard doing so. So go get that
Instrument, Commercial or tail wheel rating. Go get a good instructor
and practice emergency procedures every few months. You don't need to
expand the box of activities you do normally, but you will be ensuring
that your abilities stay larger than the box you normally fly in.
This way when you are forced to inadvertently fly outside normal
personal limitations, there is a fair chance you will have the
abilities to deal with it.
Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
you carry with you as a pilot can deterioate down to size of the box
of activities you limit youself to.
dea...@msn.com
> My wife and I have an understanding, mostly unspoken but very real: I
> don't twist her arm to go flying with me, she doesn't nag me to
> stop. I don't take stupid risks, she doesn't stupidly question why I
> like to fly. Maybe that's where you'll have to arrive.
> --
Yep, pretty much where I am (but she does make a remark on flying from
time to time).
Dean
Paul Riley
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:v-OdnV6T18qw9p3a...@rcn.net...
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for
>> 10.
>> tickets
>> club
>> dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
>> also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
>> a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
>> member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.
>>
>> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
>> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be
>> careful.
>> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so
>> on.
>>
>> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
>> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
>> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
>> little club is pretty scary for her.
>>
>> have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
>> adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
>> plane.
>>
>
> During the fifty odd years I've been involved in professional aviation;
> most of that teaching in and flying high performance airplanes I've buried
> 32 of my friends and associates. My wife was with me through forty of
> those years and knew many of these people personally.
> I've dealt with this issue both in my own home and as an adviser to
> others.
> I can tell you this in all sincerity and honesty.
> I realize you might not be involved in high risk aviation so what I am
> about to say to you might even be easier for you in your personal
> situation as a pleasure pilot.
> I believe I have looked at this issue from enough directions and have
> enough experience with it that you might want to give serious
> consideration to my advice.
> When it comes to handling something like this with a loved one, you can of
> course attempt to convince your wife you will be safe based on the
> favorable statistics you can go dig up that say general aviation is a safe
> pastime.
> But my advice is to use this approach but with a caveat.
> Forget using the statistics alone without additional input from you as
> that road to convince a loved one is filled with pot holes.
>
>
> In order to reach your wife, don't down play the dangers involved with
> flying, as she is already convinced of a potential danger and has seen
> what can happen when things go wrong.
>
> The best way to handle these issues is to start immediately to convince
> her that rather than denying any danger exists, you are completely aware
> of the potential for danger in flying and are capable of avoiding that
> danger by the way you approach the issue of flying.
>
> In other words, what you want to accomplish here is to convince your wife
> that YOU PERSONALLY are an aware pilot with a professional attitude that
> is highly tuned in to the avoidance of areas of danger when you fly.
> separated from other pilots. You need to have her consider you
> INDIVIDUALLY as competent and professional instead of viewing you as just
> another pilot among many. It's the thinking about a large group where some
> get hurt or killed that frightens loved ones. Once she looks at you
> individually, she will realize that you PERSONALLY are aware of danger and
> competent enough to stay away from it.
> She will feel better knowing that.
>
> All this having been said, there is nothing cast in stone that will solve
> these kinds of issues. Accidents happen and pilots get killed once in a
> while. What it boils down to is that YOU are the only one who can address
> this issue with a loved one. It takes tact and it takes understanding, but
> most of all it means recognizing her fears as legitimate instead of down
> playing them with safety statistics.
> Bring her into your world as a pilot more than you have and let her know
> that above all else, you are aware....and you are a SAFE pilot.
> Hope this advice has been of some help.
> DH
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques
Hello to all,
If you don't mind, Dudley, I would like to add my 2 cents worth to what you
said, and with which I totally agree.
I am a retired US Army Master Aviator. I have a wife, and two children. We
have been married for 51 years. I started flying in 1959, Fixed Wing, and
Rotary Wing. Spent two years of my Army career in Vietnam, flying gunships
and slicks.
My wife and I talked about my going to flight school at great length. She
understood the risks, and how much I wanted this, and stood by my decision
to go.
While she worried while I was deployed, she kept the home fires burning. She
supported me , and understood while there was danger, there was also danger
in driving a car on the highway and getting hit by some drunk driver. She
also put up with two tours (unaccompanied) in Korea during this time. What
can I say--she was an Army wife, God Bless them all.
I retired from the Army in 1978. I have not flown since. Not because she
wanted me to stop, my decision. Financial, with 2 kids in college, and then,
after final retirement, our desire to travel, flying was not economically
something I wanted to do that might prevent OUR enjoying retirement
activities
She is now an invalid, and I am her caregiver, a task I take on willingly
out of love. I can never repay her for the support she has given me all
these years, but I try.
My point with all this. As Dudley says, if you get your wife on board, all
will be well, If not, then I know many of my fellow Army aviators that have
gone through some bad times related to their flying and career choices.
Best wishes to you.
Paul
Dudley Henriques
--
Dudley Henriques
Shirl
>"Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine
>has far outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There
>is simply nothing you can do to your engine (in normal use)
>that is worse than simulated engine-out landings, so we do
>them very rarely."
I called the overhaul shop that just did a major engine overhaul on my
Lycoming O-320. First, these guys have been there for years and came
highly recommended by several independent sources in my search for a
reputable place to take the engine. I posed the question -- "How harmful
to a healthy engine is simulated engine failure practice?" I told him
that it was said that simulated engine-out practice is the worst thing
you can do to your engine.
He said he disagrees and assumed your concern was probably about shock
cooling, but said that while everyone needs to be aware of that, it is
of much greater concern with high-performance, turbo-charged engines
where people chop power and dive for the ground. With the 0-320, he said
in colder areas (I'm in AZ), you would use carb heat, and of course he
recommended what all CFIs I've ever flown with have done -- "clear" the
engine by adding some power for a few seconds one or two times during
the power-off glide/descent. Yes, that takes a little of the "reality"
out of the drill, but it is, in fact, practice/simulated.
He went on to say that if it were THAT easy to damage the engine by
pulling the power back to idle, how about when you pull the power abeam
the numbers and the hot engine is at idle through the rest of the
approach, landing and taxi and then is shut down completely (standard
practice every time for some)? He commented that it would be tricky to
just shut down a hot engine without damaging it if pulling power back to
idle is all it would take to do so.
You may not agree, and maybe your mechanic doesn't agree ... but as said
in an earlier post, if you think about all the airplanes in flight
schools that are doing simulated engine failures far more frequently
than we would (some much more powerful than an 0-320 ... I can't
remember what engine you have), there would be many more engine problems
in rental/school airplanes than there are if there's nothing worse for
an engine than simulated engine-outs.
I'm just the messenger on this one, not a mechanic, and being a girl, I
did not grow up tinkering with engines. But I dealt regularly with the
mechanics when I worked at the flight school, and I never heard them or
any that have worked on my airplane(s) say anything about simulated
engine failures being potentially dangerous to the engines.
Shirl
Dan Luke
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
> I should add here as well that there are indeed some wives out there who
> will never lose their fear when it comes to flying.
And why should they? GA flying is quite dangerous compared to driving. Their
fear is only rational.
> This is the exact reason that I have encouraged EVERY student I have ever
> taught to fly who had a family to sit down early and involve the family in
> the decision.
Good advice.
> Informed wives are better prepared to handle aviation than uninformed wives.
Indeed. Alas, many are misinformed, deliberately or otherwise. They may be
told that the drive to the airport is more dangerous than the flight. True
for driving vs. scheduled airline travel; profoundly untrue for driving vs.
private flying.
--
Dan
T-182T at BFM
Dan Luke
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
> Any pilot, no matter how experienced, can suffer a "brain fart" for lack of
> a better term.
Quite so. And the consequences of a pilot's BF are much more likely to be
fatal than a driver's.
Yet we often see posts in these groups from pilots who imagine that their
superior judgent and skill have made them sufficiently immune from these
lapses that they are safer flying than driving. This rather juvenile illusion
of superiority contributes to the distressing fatal accident rate of private
GA flying, I believe.
Dan Luke
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> There is simply nothing
> you can do to your engine (in normal use) that is worse than simulated
> engine-out landings,
How so?
Dudley Henriques
Pilots have to learn early on that there is a difference between
confidence and over confidence. They also have to learn that being a so
called "conservative" pilot doesn't mean that when aggressive action is
required NOW that they will have the option of thinking out the problem.
Flying is not unlike many other endeavors where preparation, practice,
training, and the ability to think on your feet are absolute essentials
to survival.
Pilots who concentrate on only one of the many aspects required of the
flying venue are the ones prone to accidents.
It's fine to have superior skill. In fact, for a pilot, it's a
requirement. Where the problem arises isn't in thinking you have
superior skill. The problem arises when you think you have superior
skill and actually don't have it. :-)
--
Dudley Henriques
Matt Whiting
>> Question: how often do you practice simulated engine failures over
>> places you aren't used to flying patterns?
>
> Sadly, I have to admit that our fear of harming our engine has far
> outweighed our fear of an engine-out landing. There is simply nothing
> you can do to your engine (in normal use) that is worse than simulated
> engine-out landings, so we do them very rarely.
I personally think that is a myth. I've read about shock cooling until
I'm blue in the face and I simply don't buy it. However, the main
reason is that my primary flight instructor, who is also an A&P and was
an airport manager for many years, always flew all of his airplanes on
power-off gliding approaches. He operated 2 C-150s, 1 C-172 and 2 C-182
for probably two decades and several other airplanes for the two
decades prior to when I met him.
He operated N38 for something like 45 years and flew scenic tours over
the PA Grand Canyon in his 182s and 172. These flights lasted 10-15
minutes and he glided power-off from pattern altitude to landing and
shut-down between runs. His airplanes were started, stopped and "shock
cooled" literally dozens of times every Saturday and Sunday. His 150s
trained students to also fly the way he flew (I'm one of them).
He never had a engine failure in these airplanes to my knowledge and
they routinely ran to TBO. He often groused how the FAA made him
rebuild a perfectly good engine just because he was a commercial operator!
So, I've seen scads of real-life experience that says that shock cooling
is just not real. The real part is people who don't practice engine-out
landings and then crumple an airplane botching the real thing.
Let the games begin! :-)
Matt
Matt Whiting
Your mechanic is a wise man (or woman!).
Matt
Matt Whiting
What are your preliminary conclusions as to how to prevent this?
Obviously, ruling out the "stupid acts" is fairly easy, but I also
wonder about the pilots who really and truly seem very careful and
meticulous yet someone succumb to an apparent moment of weakness.
Matt
Union Thug
>
> She flies with me if we're going somewhere she wants to go. But 90% of
> the time if I'm just going for the sake of flying, she doesn't want to go.
> I used to drag her along, and she'd read a book or fall asleep.
Paul,
I have a similar situation after two local plane wrecks in two
consecutive weekends. My wife met both of the pilots a few weeks
prior. I liken General aviation to driving a sports car or riding a
motorcycle, we do what we can to mitigate the risks, but in the end we
accept certain inherent risks because of the reward (To us anyways).
This does not hold true for our families ! I would sugest that if your
wife doesnt enjoy flying you should not drag her along but find a
pastime the two of you enjoy and just go flying on your own time. The
reason that I bring this up is because I have met two women over the
course of my flying career who lost their families (Spouse and kids)
to GA accidents. Hope this helps ,
K Baum
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin <ptomb...@xcski.com>http://blog.xcski.com/
> "I've gone through over-stressed to physical exhaustion -- what's next?"
> "Tuesday."
> -- Simon Burr and Kyle Hearn
Paul Tomblin
Failure to maintain separation from the ground.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
Frankly, your argument wouldn't float were the sea composed of
mercury.
-- Biff
Paul Tomblin
>Can you tell us what happened?
A Piper Navajo has a very complex fuel system, and you're not supposed to
take off or land on the outer tanks, nor are you supposed to use them in
maneuvering flight if they're less than half full. His plane was at a
nearby airport for service on one of the engines. The mechanic who worked
on the plane noted that the fuel selector on the plane was set to the
outer tanks, and the fuel gauges were reading empty.
After the service, both the mechanic and the line guy offered to call the
fuel truck, but the pilot said he was in a hurry because he wanted to get
out on his boat.
On the flight back to his home base, he reported that an engine had failed
(the one that had just been worked on) and he was returning to the airport
he'd just departed. A few minutes later he reported that the other engine
had failed as well, and he was going to try to land at a near-by airport,
then he reported he wasn't going to make that airport and he was going to
try for a field.
The plane crashed, he died, and one side burned. The other side had
nearly full inner and middle tanks. The fuel selectors in the plane were
still set to the outer tanks.
As far as anybody can speculate, he must have thought the first engine
failure was due to problems with the new engine, not a fuel problem, but
nobody can explain why he didn't switch tanks when the second one failed.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
Ahhh, the permie offer. The "Please sign up with us clueless fsckwits
so you can spend all your time digging us out at a pittance" offer.
-- Dan Holdsworth
Crash Lander
news:fds402$rok$2...@xen1.xcski.com...
> As far as anybody can speculate, he must have thought the first engine
> failure was due to problems with the new engine, not a fuel problem, but
> nobody can explain why he didn't switch tanks when the second one failed.
A very sad story.
I'm only a new pilot, but I reakon that the first thing my eye would go to
if I had an engine failure would be the fuel gauges. It just seems like
common sense or instinct to me. Maybe when you're faced with an engine
failure, common sense can sometimes go out the window in the panic.
Crash Lander
--
Straight and Level Down Under.
http://www.straightandleveldownunder.net/
Paul Tomblin
>common sense or instinct to me. Maybe when you're faced with an engine
>failure, common sense can sometimes go out the window in the panic.
That's why as a student pilot you're drilled on the emergency checklist
until you know it without thinking. I don't know about the plane you fly,
but on mine it's
1. FLY THE PLANE
2. Pick a landing spot
3. FLY THE PLANE
4. Everything forward (throttle, prop, mixture)
5. FLY THE PLANE
6. Everything up (flaps, gear)
7. FLY THE PLANE
8. Fuel pump on. Switch tanks.
9. FLY THE PLANE
10. Carb heat or alternate air
11. FLY THE PLANE
12. Make emergency radio calls
13. FLY THE PLANE
14. Prepare to land.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
God is real, unless declared as an integer.
Morgans
>>He crashed.
>
> Failure to maintain separation from the ground.
C'mon, guys. Don't respond to the bozo, even with glib remarks. Everyone
has been doing pretty good on refraining, lately.
--
Jim in NC
Margy Natalie
> little club is pretty scary for her.
>
> At one time, I thought when the kids were finished college I'd finally
> have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
> adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
> plane.
>
You're right honey, those rentals can be dangerous, we'd better buy our
own plane :-).
Margy
Margy Natalie
...
> We'd all like to believe that we are superior pilots, possessing
> superior judgement and skills. In fact, as private "hobby" pilots,
> we're probably at the bottom of the skill heap, simply because we
> don't fly often enough to get/stay really good. Once I accepted this
> fact, not long after obtaining my ticket, I found myself becoming a
> much more conservative (some might say "boring") pilot.
>
> Conservative seems to be the best approach to longevity. It's the
> strategy I'm planning to use so that I'm still around to fly with my
> grandkids...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
I always say "boring flying is good flying" when it gets exciting it
usually means you did something stupid.
Margy
>
Dudley Henriques
......................oh, I don't know........... :-))
--
Dudley Henriques
Margy Natalie
neighbor's shrubbery soon after) but exciting, sucking in the seat
cushion flying is NOT fun. I'd much rather leave my plane in Richmond
or Lancaster (done both this year) than have an exciting flight home.
Avis loves us. Of course when the duputy director of the museum informs
you that you can "take whatever time you need" to go retrive your plane
it helps. I love having a job where I'd be in more trouble if I scud
run home to get to work on Monday than if I didn't show up :-).
Margy
Margy Natalie
> In a previous article, Jay Honeck <jjho...@mchsi.com> said:
>
>>2. Mary and I could be killed driving on the highway any day of the
>>week.
>
>
> Statistically, that's true. In human terms, though, my wife knows maybe
> 25 pilots, and 2 of them have died in airplanes in the last couple of
> years. She knows hundreds of drivers, and none of them have died in car
> crashes recently. (Ok, one of them was kidnapped, raped and killed by a
> guy impersonating a police officer who stopped her driving, but that's
> another fear of hers regarding our four teenage and early twenties
> daughters.)
>
>
>
I'd rather die in my plane then get kidnapped, etc. For sure!
Peter R.
> I retired from the Army in 1978. I have not flown since. Not because she
> wanted me to stop, my decision. Financial, with 2 kids in college, and
> then, after final retirement, our desire to travel, flying was not
> economically something I wanted to do that might prevent OUR enjoying
> retirement activities
>
> She is now an invalid, and I am her caregiver, a task I take on willingly
> out of love. I can never repay her for the support she has given me all
> these years, but I try.
There are some people, even on Usenet, that just exude class and honor. Paul,
IMO you are one such gentleman.
--
Peter
Dudley Henriques
This just shows that you're a first class pilot Margy. It's like Kenny
Rogers says, "You gotta know when to fold up" :-)
--
Dudley Henriques
Travis Marlatte
years. Flying is dangerous (as is crossing the street). Denying the danger
by citing safety stats is not addressing the inherent risks.
Dudley's advice is right on. Convince her that you are aware of the risks
and dangers and that you work proactively to avoid them. That doesn't mean
that you will fly forever but it does increase the odds. Nothing in life is
risk free. There are many people who have a similar experiences related to
other activites. Entire families that are killed in a car crash. Tornadoes
wipe out entire towns. Etc.
That and, gosh honey, maybe we should spend the money for a twin engine
plane and put in a stormscope and a better autopilot and a ...
--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:v-OdnV6T18qw9p3a...@rcn.net...
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for
>> 10.
>> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument
>> tickets
>> died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a few times at flying
>> club
>> dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
>> also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
>> a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
>> member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.
>>
>> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
>> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
>> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be
>> careful.
>> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so
>> on.
>>
>> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
>> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
>> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
>> little club is pretty scary for her.
>>
>> At one time, I thought when the kids were finished college I'd finally
>> have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
>> adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
>> plane.
>>
>
Travis Marlatte
rest of IMSAFE, she'll have a hard time stopping you. She'll feel so sorry
for all the times you didn't go. For that matter, I may just start planning
to fly every day... Think of the sympathy points!
--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK
"BT" <bNO...@SPAM.cox.net> wrote in message
news:E4_Li.193348$zz2....@newsfe12.phx...
> I'll echo Dudley.. and add .. let her see that you are actively staying up
> to speed to remain safe
> - get on the faa mailing list and attend local pilot safety meetings
> - attend AOPA safety meetings.. take their on line courses
> - take a weather course..
> - add that next rating.. a commercial rating is the simplest to add.. a
> new rating means "additional training received".
> - don't wait for a sunny day and decide to go flying.. pick a day two to
> three weeks out.. and then if the weather is bad or something "just is not
> right"... make the decision not to go and let her know why you decided
> that it was not a good day to fly.. maybe it was just because you had a
> "bad day" at the office the day before.. and "your mind was not in the
> game".. remember and practice IMSAFE
>
> BT
>
>
> "Paul Tomblin" <ptomblin...@xcski.com> wrote in message
> news:fdpnnq$lg5$1...@xen1.xcski.com...
>> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time) for
>> 10.
>> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument
>> tickets
>> died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a few times at flying
>> club
>> dinners and around the airport. A few weeks ago, a club member who she'd
>> also met several times died in his float plane, a plane that I'd flown in
>> a few weeks before that. He died with his best friend, a former club
>> member who I knew a bit but whom my wife didn't.
>>
>> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
>> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own flying.
>> Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk. "Be
>> careful.
>> Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back." Etc. And so
>> on.
>>
>> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
>> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her? The pilot
>> community is pretty small, and losing three people associated with our
>> little club is pretty scary for her.
>>
>> At one time, I thought when the kids were finished college I'd finally
>> have enough money to buy a share in a float plane and we could have some
>> adventures together. Now I'm not even sure she'd come flying in a club
>> plane.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
>> ...I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply
>> suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an
>> interpreter. -- Nick Petreley
>
>
Jay Honeck
> in an earlier post, if you think about all the airplanes in flight
> schools that are doing simulated engine failures far more frequently
> than we would (some much more powerful than an 0-320 ... I can't
> remember what engine you have), there would be many more engine problems
> in rental/school airplanes than there are if there's nothing worse for
> an engine than simulated engine-outs.
My mechanic -- a guy with over 40 years of experience as an IA, A&P,
grand champion home builder, and owner of an engine and prop shop --
says it this way:
The average privately owned GA aircraft is flown AT MOST once a week.
As a result, rust (from inactivity) is the #1 killer of the average,
privately owned GA engine. Many don't make TBO because of
inactivity.
Touch & goes are the #1 worst thing you can do to your engine. Flight
school planes do them all day long, but it's because they are flown
daily, sometimes 8 hours per day, and they therefore NEVER experience
the ravages of inactivity. Therefore, although it's STILL the worst
thing you can do, the engines often make it to TBO simply because they
are flown all day, every day.
Engine out practice is essentially the same engine management
procedure as a touch & go. Long periods of high power, followed by
suddenly low RPM, followed by a sudden application of power at the
end. Bad, bad, bad.
Are the engines designed to take this kind of abuse? Sure. But they
were designed to be run daily, not weekly, too. And when you are
paying something in the range of $20,000 for an overhaul (as we did
for our O-540) we don't generally make a practice of stressing the
engine any more than necessary.
Jay Honeck
> is just not real. The real part is people who don't practice engine-out
> landings and then crumple an airplane botching the real thing.
I don't believe shock cooling exists, either. Or, if it does, it's
fairly insignificant.
But I do believe that repeated and sudden applications of full power
are harder on an engine than steady-state operation. Touch & goes
and engine out practice require this type of engine operation.
Jay Honeck
>
> Yes. It's a rare occurrence. When something like this happens, you then
> hear accounts from the few who knew of something similar. One such
> account was of a NEW oil cooler that failed in its first 3 hours.
Our oil cooler failed last year, too. Luckily it was a relatively
slow leak, and we weren't even aware of it till we landed.
Bertie the Bunyip
anything, fjukkwit.
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
news:e362g354q927at83n...@4ax.com:
> Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> The problem with that approach is that after the DE guy died, that
>> worked because Rochester aviation's dirty little secret was that he
>> was a known corner-cutter and risk taker. But when the other two
>> died, I had to admit that I've flown with one of them a couple of
>> times and I couldn't fault anything he did. He seemed to me careful
>> and methodical and professional.
>
> What was the actual cause of his accident?
>
What's it to you?
You don't fly.
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
news:kb62g3lenv1kai7tk...@4ax.com:
> Shirl writes:
>
>> Yep. I've been teased that my preflights are like 100-hr inspections. I
>> do everything you listed above, and it didn't stop the oil cooler from
>> failing.
>
> Was it your own aircraft?
>
Why, you'll never have an airplane, wannabe boi
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
news:8762g3de6u3c38vcp...@4ax.com:
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> On the plus side, this fear has made us VERY meticulous and careful
>> pilots. Preflights are NEVER omitted, fuel tanks are ALWAYS filled,
>> gas is ALWAYS tested, maintenance is ALWAYS done. Still, we all
>> know that "shit happens", and we could become statistics at some
>> point.
>
> If you are indeed that conscientious, the risk is very small. Perhaps
> "shit happens," but not nearly as often as people who prefer to avoid
> or deny responsibility would like to believe.
>
How would you know?
You don't fly and never will,.
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
news:8n52g3pmtkismmvnl...@4ax.com:
> Paul Tomblin writes:
>
>> I've been a pilot for 12 years now. I've been married (this time)
>> for 10. Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and
>> instrument tickets died in a stupid accident. My wife had met him a
>> few times at flying club dinners and around the airport. A few weeks
>> ago, a club member who she'd also met several times died in his float
>> plane, a plane that I'd flown in a few weeks before that. He died
>> with his best friend, a former club member who I knew a bit but whom
>> my wife didn't.
>>
>> Now that two people she's met have died flying in a relatively short
>> period of time, she's getting less and less secure about my own
>> flying. Every time I head out to the airport, she gives me the talk.
>> "Be careful. Don't die. If you have the slightest doubt, come back."
>> Etc. And so on.
>
> She's right.
>
>> I don't think she'll tell me to stop, because she knows I was a pilot
>> before we married. But what can I do to reassure her?
>
> Follow her advice, and come back alive.
>
>> The pilot community is pretty small, and losing three people
>> associated with our little club is pretty scary for her.
>
> I don't blame her. That's a lot of death, and it doesn't speak very
> well of general aviation.
>
> You can tell her that general aviation is safe when done correctly,
> which is true. And you can prove it by flying aircraft that are
> properly maintained, and flying in a safe way.
>
> Overall, flying a small aircraft is about as dangerous as riding on a
> motorcycle with someone. However, you can reduce the danger
> dramatically as a pilot by safe flying practices and by flying only
> aircraft that are in good condition and well maintained.
How would you know, moron?
Shirl
> My mechanic -- a guy with over 40 years of experience as an IA, A&P,
> grand champion home builder, and owner of an engine and prop shop --
Is he a pilot? airplane owner?
> says it this way:
>
> The average privately owned GA aircraft is flown AT MOST once a week.
> As a result, rust (from inactivity) is the #1 killer of the average,
> privately owned GA engine. Many don't make TBO because of
> inactivity.
>
> Touch & goes are the #1 worst thing you can do to your engine. Flight
> school planes do them all day long, but it's because they are flown
> daily, sometimes 8 hours per day, and they therefore NEVER experience
> the ravages of inactivity. Therefore, although it's STILL the worst
> thing you can do, the engines often make it to TBO simply because they
> are flown all day, every day.
They make it to TBO because they are flown many hours per week, the
numbers add up fast, and they are monitored, inspected and maintained
every 100 hours (which might be every other month) ... not simply
because flying them every day enables the engine to withstand doing the
"worst" possible thing 75% of the time it is in use.
> Engine out practice is essentially the same engine management
> procedure as a touch & go. Long periods of high power, followed by
> suddenly low RPM, followed by a sudden application of power at the
> end.
And you do half of that every time you take off and land. That doesn't
damage your engine, but the one extra application of power during a
touch-n-go or go-around is going to do your engine in?
>Bad, bad, bad.
Plenty of people practice touch-n-goes in their own airplanes ... if
they are THAT damaging to an engine, we'd be hearing of this engine
damage all the time. People with Cubs or other small tailwheels are out
doing touch-n-goes ALL THE TIME...doesn't seem to bother their engines.
I understand and agree about inactivity and that most privately-owned
airplanes aren't flown enough. But you're saying that an engine that
flies for 8 hours/month and does touch-n-goes/engine-out practice during
ONE of those hours is more likely to be damaged than an engine that
flies 80 hours a month and does the damaging maneuvers during 60 of
those hours. If it's THAT bad, subjecting it to 60 hours a month would
still take a heavy toll even it flies every day.
I've heard many owners and mechanics agree that the worst possible thing
you can do to an airplane engine is to NOT FLY IT; I've never heard
anyone say that privately owned airplanes aren't flown enough to do
touch-n-goes or simulated engine failures without risking damage to the
engine. In fact, wasn't part of your training getting so familiar with
the airplane that you know how it acts and reacts to as many different
conditions/configurations as possible? How can you do that if you're
afraid that touch-n-goes or simulated engine failures are going to ruin
the engine?
> Are the engines designed to take this kind of abuse? Sure. But they
> were designed to be run daily, not weekly, too.
I've never seen anything in my engine documentation that says it was
designed to be run every day.
> And when you are
> paying something in the range of $20,000 for an overhaul (as we did
> for our O-540) we don't generally make a practice of stressing the
> engine any more than necessary.
And as an airplane owner, that's your choice and your right.
I just spent at least that much, too, and I'm sure as heck not going to
intentionally abuse the engine. But I'm not going to skip some aspects
of ongoing skill retention drills that I've seen the pay off firsthand
in an emergency because I'm thinking about the $20K I just spent.
Maybe your reactions in a real engine emergency today would be just as
sharp and accurate as they were when you'd been practicing engine-outs
frequently in your private pilot training in school airplanes. I'm not
good enough to maintain that level of competence if I don't continue to
practice it every so often.
In skating, we used to teach students that they could expect to lose up
to 25% of their actual ability/competence during their 4 minute routine
in a competition due to nerves and pressure; so if they wanted to show
the judges 100% of their capabilities, they have to be skating at 125%
in the weeks prior to the competition. I don't know if those numbers
translate to flying, but I think the concept itself does. I would hate
to lose a percentage of my ability in an actual emergency if I was only
at 80% to begin with. YMMV, of course. Everyone's different.
Dan Luke
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
> But I do believe that repeated and sudden applications of full power
> are harder on an engine than steady-state operation.
But *why* do you believe it? Why is it the worst thing you can do to your
engine?
--
Dan
T-182T at BFM
Larry Dighera
<t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote in
<13g48vk...@news.supernews.com>:
And why would a pilot use sudden movements of the controls? Aren't we
taught to be smooth?
Gig 601XL Builder
> Reckless with money or other areas of life that give her cause to
> doubt?
Wreckless with money? Of course he's wreckless with money. He's a GA pilot.
Paul Riley
news:WcydnQGxrv7yMJza...@giganews.com...
Thanks Peter,
I am sure there are many others doing the exact same thing I am. My reason
for posting was to let the OP know that wives do adapt and become helpmates
as well as to confirm, from my own experience, all that Dudley said.
Regards,
Paul
Paul Riley
Paul
brtlmj
> fairly insignificant.
Tell it to a towplane owner/operator :-)
Bartek
Dudley Henriques
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Dallas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 02:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Three years ago, the DE who passed me on my private and instrument
>>>> tickets
>>>> died in a stupid accident.
>>>
>>> who
>>> should in theory be very familiar with aviation safety, could died in a
>>> stupid accident.
>>>
>>> Can you tell us what happened?
>>>
>>
>> Happens frequently. I'm working with an accident right now that
>> involves a highly experienced demonstration pilot who suddenly and for
>> no apparent reason began a Split S at an altitude below that required
>> for a recovery.
>> Any pilot, no matter how experienced, can suffer a "brain fart" for
>> lack of a better term. The study on how to prevent this from happening
>> both to myself and to others has occupied a great of my time for the
>> last fifty years or so.
>>
>
> What are your preliminary conclusions as to how to prevent this?
> Obviously, ruling out the "stupid acts" is fairly easy, but I also
> wonder about the pilots who really and truly seem very careful and
> meticulous yet someone succumb to an apparent moment of weakness.
>
> Matt
Gen Des Barker of the South African Air Force (and ex demonstration and
test pilot) has done an in-depth work on these issues in his book "Zero
Error Margin" where all that has been learned on this subject has been
accumulated in print.
The subject itself is so hefty I wouldn't even try getting into it with
a Usenet post.
Basically what we have discovered in our situation is that although most
display pilots fare well in following set procedures, regulations, and
rules, the breakdown comes at the local level and in many accidents can
be coupled with the psychological circumstances prevailing during an
incident as those circumstances are affecting the individual display pilot.
This is just a pedantic way of saying that what's going on in a pilot's
mental and emotional processes as a display is being flown can under
specific conditions, be a killer.
The fact that we accept these conditions as being present and a danger
doesn't really help us much in solving the issue. The reason for this is
that each pilot will have a specific tolerance for situational
awareness, cockpit over task, and distraction.
In other words, you can take a highly trained professional pilot, fully
checked out on a specific type of aircraft, and with a proven over time
ability to fly a specific demonstration, and that pilot can on a
specific day at a specific instant, make a fatal error.
Again, we realize this can occur, but the actual solution alludes us.
Where we are right now is in making sure we educate the community so
they are collectively aware that this danger lurks out there waiting.
By educating the community to the problem rather than trying to find a
specific "fix" that we believe doesn't exist, we hope to better the
safety record.
Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
given time and place.
It ain't much......but it helps!
--
Dudley Henriques
Mxsmanic
> How would you know?
The principles of risk management and safety are largely indepedent of
aviation and certainly don't require any piloting experience. Most people are
taught many of them in driver education, although many don't absorb what they
are taught.
Thomas Borchert
> The principles of risk management and safety are largely indepedent of
> aviation and certainly don't require any piloting experience.
>
True. However, they require other things you lack.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Big John
----clip----
I'd be interested to know, of those who survive engine failures or
other occurrences that bring airplanes down, what percentage give up
flying.
Shirl
********************************************************
Shirl
I ejected from a fighter type aircraft, in the middle of winter, in
the middle of a snow storm, in the middle of Greenland and after being
picked up by a Danish chopper and my return to the 'Big PX', jumped in
another jet and started flying at regular intervals again.
Not even bad dreams.
Continued to fly GA and instruct, after retirement, until came down
with A-Fib which I felt it was not then safe for me to fly.
Now get my kicks from reading and posting to users groups :o)
Big John
Kingfish
>
> The average privately owned GA aircraft is flown AT MOST once a week.
> As a result, rust (from inactivity) is the #1 killer of the average,
> privately owned GA engine. Many don't make TBO because of
> inactivity.
>
> Touch & goes are the #1 worst thing you can do to your engine. Flight
> school planes do them all day long, but it's because they are flown
> daily, sometimes 8 hours per day, and they therefore NEVER experience
> the ravages of inactivity. Therefore, although it's STILL the worst
> thing you can do, the engines often make it to TBO simply because they
> are flown all day, every day.
>
> were designed to be run daily, not weekly, too. And when you are
> paying something in the range of $20,000 for an overhaul (as we did
> for our O-540) we don't generally make a practice of stressing the
> engine any more than necessary.
> --
Interesting points you bring up here Jay. I've had similar
conversations with the maintenance mgr at the flight school I taught
at a few years back. As the consumate gearhead, I'm always picking up
data points from mechanics & operators/pilots and attempting to
separate real usable advice from the old wives' tales (and outright
BS) which seem to be prevalent in aviation.
Letting a plane sit idle is bad as it invites corrosion & seals drying
out etc. Starting the engine and letting it run for a 10 minutes
(thinking you're helping by circulating oil) and shutting it down is
even worse, as all that does is introduce more moisture into the
engine. You can't get an engine up to operating temp without flying
it, which will evaporate moisture in the crankcase. Flying is the only
way to properly excercise all the plane's systems IMHO.
Touch & go landings are probably harder on an engine than cruise
flight because of the short cycle heat/cool effect from full power/low
airspeed flight followed by reduced/idle power (repeat ad nauseum) I
think this is much less an issue in a low HP engine like the 160/180HP
O-320/O-360 or even the 200hp IO-360. I'd never do T&G with a high HP
plane like a Saratoga/C210/Bonanza because those engines generate more
heat (I'm told) because of their higher power output, and air cooled
engines can only dissipate so much heat effectively. I have talked to
one pilot who did T&G landings somewhat regularly in a Turbo Bonanza,
which made me cringe. I doubt that engine made it to TBO with its
original cylinders. For those planes, full stop & taxi back landings
are preferred. They also eliminate the possibility of grabbing the
gear handle instead of the flaps when cleaning up the plane on the go.
(seen this happen a few times with predictable results)
After hearing all the stories and warnings about shock cooling, I've
come to understand it's an issue mainly with turbo'd high HP engines
(Duke, 421, P-Navajo) that operate in the flight levels where the
cooling effect is not great. A "chop n drop" approach without careful
CHT monitoring can cost big $$$ if cylinders cool too fast and warp.
This just isn't a problem in a low HP, non-turbo'd aircraft IMO. It
doesn't mean you can be ham-fisted when operating your engine, just
that there's a bigger margin for error with a lower performance acft.
BTW, did your 540 overhaul only cost $20k? That sounds like a steal!
Will
Jay Honeck
Well, that was 5 years ago now, so figure 20% higher today.
And, the guy is just a gem. He's fair, and incredibly knowledgable...
JGalban via AviationKB.com
>
>I'd be interested to know, of those who survive engine failures or other
>occurrences that bring airplanes down, what percentage give up flying.
>
I had a low altitude engine failure in my first plane (it was totalled). I
never seriously contemplated quitting. Three days after I was released from
the hospital, I joined a flying club and got checked out in one of their
planes. That was 14 yrs. and about 1800 flying hours ago.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com
JGalban via AviationKB.com
> There was a Cherokee
>235 that crashed last year after the wings departed the fuselage, thus
>far for reasons unknown. Did the pilot yank the yoke back in his lap
>at redline? Or was it just metal fatigue in our old fleet, like the
>Grumman seaplane in Florida?
>
I know the final report isn't out on that accident, but the preliminaries
showed obvious signs of overstress failures to both the wings and the tail.
It is not unusual for wings to come off of a GA plane when control is lost
(as seems to be the case in the Cherokee 235) and the recovery is done
improperly ( which is often the case if the pilot has had no aerobatic
training or extensive unusual attitude recovery training).
Morgans
"Longworth" <bdlon...@surfbest.net> wrote
> Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
> instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
> we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
> we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
> machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
> and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number.
Sounds like it would be more fun than the best roller coaster ride!
> I had only
> done it once on my own after the training but plan to do it more
> often. I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
> maneuver can harm my engine. Even if it does shorten the life of my
> engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
> flawlessly all the time. I may never need to use the skill for real
> but knowing that I am ready to do it in any situation boosts my
> confidence tremendously. Besides, it is sheer exhilaration practicing
> the maneuver. Definitely worth the price of the engine overhaul ;-)
It sounds like you do have your priorities in line, with the right
compromises of possible engine life sacrifice (a matter not clearly
established) and skills maintenance.
Doing a chop and drop when your engine isn't as hot as a firecracker should
not be harmful, in the least bit. Considerations of the towplane engine
long life is a good example, and one that is hard to argue with. They are
no doubt pretty hot when they start their rapid descent to pick up another
tow.
If one were to start the rapid drop (engine failure simulations) after
letting the engine cool a bit (by reducing power settings, or richening the
mixture, or both) and stabilize for a few minutes, the amount of additional
cooling from that power level, even in a worst case scenario, should not
cause a measurable increase in wear. It is mainly the hot piston cooling
more slowly than the cylinder bore, cutting down on the clearances, that can
increase wear. The stabilizing should eliminate that problem, all together.
The concern of hitting the throttle for a go around may be a concern,
although it is hard to see why that is any harder on the engine as the
takeoff full power applications. If that go around full power is what
concerns you, (or Jay) don't do a go around, except for the occasional
practice, (or real go-around) then just do the full stop, taxi back and
takeoff after everything is nicely cooled down.
I agree with the people that are saying that the practice of emergency
engine failures would have to be a good thing to practice. Doing it
carefully as to not damage your engine would seem to be prudent. Not doing
them may be not prudent.
--
Jim in NC
Morgans
"Big John" <> wrote
> Continued to fly GA and instruct, after retirement, until came down
> with A-Fib which I felt it was not then safe for me to fly.
>
> Now get my kicks from reading and posting to users groups :o)
Do you ever get the chance (or have the desire) to go up with friends and
knock about a bit?
--
Jim in NC
Paul Riley
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:p_GdnQtc3pq-4Z_a...@rcn.net...
> Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
> constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
> given time and place.
> It ain't much......but it helps!
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques
Dudley,
You are exactly right.
I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in late
1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been relieved
on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in, even the
replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I had an
instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go crash in
the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we
did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45
minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option.
Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew. The
GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. <G>
Goes to show, you CAN handle a bad situation, IF you remember your training.
Regards,
Paul
PS Sorry about the misplaced thanks!!
Dudley Henriques
Reminds me of that great line from Fate Is The Hunter by Ernie Gann.
With engines going out one by one on their DC6 on the GCA into Thule I
think it was, the pilot (Rod Taylor) is happily singing away with "Blue
Moon". It's 0-0 and the co-pilot, realizing that they only will have one
shot at the landing is REALLY getting worried. Finally he can't stand it
any longer and interrupts Taylor's singing;
"How the hell can you be so damn calm?"
"Don't worry" says Taylor, "The runway will be there".
"Suppose we screw up the approach. Suppose the radar is off a degree or
two. Suppose the controller is tired. How the HELL are you so certain
the damn runway will actually be there?"
Taylor stops singing just as the number 3 goes dry on fuel. He looks
over laughing at the Co-Pilot and says quietly with a smile,
"Because it HAS to be there, that's why!".
Then they break out and make the landing.
You have to love this story. Gann could really put a flying yarn
together sitting on that mountaintop home of his.
D
--
Dudley Henriques
Matt Whiting
>> You may not agree, and maybe your mechanic doesn't agree ... but as said
>> in an earlier post, if you think about all the airplanes in flight
>> schools that are doing simulated engine failures far more frequently
>> than we would (some much more powerful than an 0-320 ... I can't
>> remember what engine you have), there would be many more engine problems
>> in rental/school airplanes than there are if there's nothing worse for
>> an engine than simulated engine-outs.
>
> My mechanic -- a guy with over 40 years of experience as an IA, A&P,
> grand champion home builder, and owner of an engine and prop shop --
>
> The average privately owned GA aircraft is flown AT MOST once a week.
> As a result, rust (from inactivity) is the #1 killer of the average,
> privately owned GA engine. Many don't make TBO because of
> inactivity.
>
> Touch & goes are the #1 worst thing you can do to your engine. Flight
> school planes do them all day long, but it's because they are flown
> daily, sometimes 8 hours per day, and they therefore NEVER experience
> the ravages of inactivity. Therefore, although it's STILL the worst
> thing you can do, the engines often make it to TBO simply because they
> are flown all day, every day.
>
> procedure as a touch & go. Long periods of high power, followed by
> suddenly low RPM, followed by a sudden application of power at the
I don't believe the data supports this as being bad, bad, bad.
Matt
Jay Honeck
> > grand champion home builder, and owner of an engine and prop shop --
>
> Is he a pilot? airplane owner?
He's an expert pilot, and a very experienced owner. He has hand-built
several airplanes from scratch -- no "kit planes" for him. (His next
project will be to recreate -- from photos only -- a 1916 aircraft
that flew out of Grinnell, IA.)
> They make it to TBO because they are flown many hours per week, the
> numbers add up fast, and they are monitored, inspected and maintained
> every 100 hours (which might be every other month) ... not simply
> because flying them every day enables the engine to withstand doing the
> "worst" possible thing 75% of the time it is in use.
Correct. That's what I was aiming to say, even it if didn't come out
quite right.
> And you do half of that every time you take off and land. That doesn't
> damage your engine, but the one extra application of power during a
> touch-n-go or go-around is going to do your engine in?
Well, your engine has a limited number of those cycles in it. It's
the same thing I explain to my 17 year old son: Yes, you can floor
the car and spin the rear wheels a certain number of times, without
harming the engine. Sooner or later, though, that kind of treatment
*will* break something.
Airplanes are no different. Cycling from full power to idle is just a
bad thing to do with your engine.
> Plenty of people practice touch-n-goes in their own airplanes ... if
> they are THAT damaging to an engine, we'd be hearing of this engine
> damage all the time. People with Cubs or other small tailwheels are out
> doing touch-n-goes ALL THE TIME...doesn't seem to bother their engines.
Is this damage something you can quantify? When my buddy's engine
crapped out 700 hours before TBO, was it directly attributable to his
doing a zillion touch & goes?
I don't know, but I can safely say that if he had simply let his
engine run at a steady-state 2200 RPM, it would still be running
today. THAT is an indication of the wear and tear inherent with full
power/idle power engine management, versus cruise flight.
> I understand and agree about inactivity and that most privately-owned
> airplanes aren't flown enough. But you're saying that an engine that
> flies for 8 hours/month and does touch-n-goes/engine-out practice during
> ONE of those hours is more likely to be damaged than an engine that
> flies 80 hours a month and does the damaging maneuvers during 60 of
> those hours. If it's THAT bad, subjecting it to 60 hours a month would
> still take a heavy toll even it flies every day.
I would agree with that. Full power/idle power cycles are very hard
on engines -- and that is what you're doing in a touch & go.
> In fact, wasn't part of your training getting so familiar with
> the airplane that you know how it acts and reacts to as many different
> conditions/configurations as possible? How can you do that if you're
> afraid that touch-n-goes or simulated engine failures are going to ruin
> the engine?
Touch & goes aren't necessary to practice after your first 1000 or so
landings, IMHO. If you don't have it down pat by then, a few more
T&Gs isn't gonna help, and the beating your plane takes during the T&G
process is something to be avoided.
That's why airplane ads say stuff like "Never used as a trainer."
Engine out practice IS a good thing to do, however, and is why I do
feel badly about my reluctance to do them. I'm thinking maybe we'll
do some next time we go up, maybe at reduced (not idle) power...
> I've never seen anything in my engine documentation that says it was
> designed to be run every day.
Optimally, in order to run the longest possible number of hours, you
would never shut the engine off. I'll bet a Lycoming could run 10,000
hours easily if all you did was keep it running at 2000 RPM, and keep
adding oil and gas.
But that's not "real world". Looking at trainers at big flight
schools, they usually fly daily, often for many hours per day. And
they usually get some pretty impressive time on their engines that
way. (Hours-wise, not calendar-wise, of course.)
> I just spent at least that much, too, and I'm sure as heck not going to
> intentionally abuse the engine. But I'm not going to skip some aspects
> of ongoing skill retention drills that I've seen the pay off firsthand
> in an emergency because I'm thinking about the $20K I just spent.
Yep, I agree. You're the voice of experience here, which is why I'm
engaged in this thread. I *am* worried about not practicing the
procedures enough, but I just don't want to shorten the lifespan of a
very expensive engine needlessly...
> In skating, we used to teach students that they could expect to lose up
> to 25% of their actual ability/competence during their 4 minute routine
> in a competition due to nerves and pressure; so if they wanted to show
> the judges 100% of their capabilities, they have to be skating at 125%
> in the weeks prior to the competition. I don't know if those numbers
> translate to flying, but I think the concept itself does. I would hate
> to lose a percentage of my ability in an actual emergency if I was only
> at 80% to begin with. YMMV, of course. Everyone's different.
Agree. Staying sharp is your best defense.
Matt Whiting
>> So, I've seen scads of real-life experience that says that shock cooling
>> is just not real. The real part is people who don't practice engine-out
>> landings and then crumple an airplane botching the real thing.
>
> I don't believe shock cooling exists, either. Or, if it does, it's
> fairly insignificant.
>
> and engine out practice require this type of engine operation.
Engines have vibration and resonances that vary with RPM. Running at a
constant RPM for long periods of time causes a certain wear pattern on
certain parts. Varying RPM over time induces different vibration an
part resonances and spreads the wear over different areas. This isn't a
bad, bad, bad thing.
Matt
Matt Whiting
Every little bit helps in the grander scheme of things.
Matt
Matt Whiting
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:p_GdnQtc3pq-4Z_a...@rcn.net...
>> Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
>> constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
>> given time and place.
>> It ain't much......but it helps!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Dudley,
>
> You are exactly right.
>
> I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in late
> 1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been relieved
> on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in, even the
> replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I had an
> instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go crash in
> the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we
> did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45
> minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option.
> Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew. The
> GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. <G>
Let me guess ... this was what was left over from the 6 quarts the crew
started with that night! :-)
I'm glad you made it!
Matt
giris...@gmail.com
> The kinds of crashes that REALLY scare me are the ones where a control
> surface fails, or a wing comes off in flight. There was a Cherokee
> 235 that crashed last year after the wings departed the fuselage, thus
> far for reasons unknown. Did the pilot yank the yoke back in his lap
> at redline? Or was it just metal fatigue in our old fleet, like the
> Grumman seaplane in Florida?
Yeah, structural failure would be the scariest emergency one could
have - something where the "keep flying the airplane" advice could
suddenly become quite hard to follow even for an experienced pilot.
Its a worse situation than engine failure on takeoff but it must be
quite rare. The Killing Zone book's central point was that most
accidents can be attributed to a lack of currency and experience and
the number of deaths are mostly in the 50-150 hr range. Outside of
this range the number of accidents go down quite a bit if I remember
right. I don't remember the statistic on control surface failure
accidents but I am guessing it is quite low. One way to beat it would
be to take some skydiving lessons and always fly with a parachute
strapped on. ;-)
>
> Conservative seems to be the best approach to longevity. It's the
> strategy I'm planning to use so that I'm still around to fly with my
> grandkids...
True, the conservative strategy also makes flying less stressful and
more enjoyable, just the way it was meant to be.
Paul Riley
news:bbBMi.155$2n4....@news1.epix.net...
Nope, we had zero when we started. But when we finished, we did, err, uhhh,
imbibe somewhat--AFTER we changed our shorts. :-))))
Then, we went to our footlockers, got out what we had stashed, gave it to
the GCA guy. He earned it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Paul
Big John
Paul
Welcome to the crowd. There are only a few of us.
I too made ONE zero zero at Hamilton AFB in F-94C.
Finished mission and went RTB and as we approached the field watched
the San Francisco Bay fog roll in before we could land. No fuel for
alternate so continued with a GCA. Hit GCA minimums and no runway.
Told GCA to keep talking and rotated to a landing attitude and
continued decent. Next thing I knew was rolling down runway.
Like you, when you gotta do you gotta do.
Big John
Dudley Henriques
A good GCA final controller, if they are REALLY good, can calm down a
jittery pilot just by the tone of their voice.
It's funny about things like that. Good pilots remember a good final
controller.
--
Dudley Henriques
Shirl
> Engines have vibration and resonances that vary with RPM. Running at a
> constant RPM for long periods of time causes a certain wear pattern on
> certain parts. Varying RPM over time induces different vibration an
> part resonances and spreads the wear over different areas. This isn't a
> bad, bad, bad thing.
My mechanic echoed this also. I was told even in cruise that it's a good
idea to vary the RPMs every 10 minutes or so.
Bertie the Bunyip
news:k015g35r6t9v7s3at...@4ax.com:
Then how come you so consistently get it al wrong?
Bertie
Shirl
> He's an expert pilot, and a very experienced owner. He has hand-built
> several airplanes from scratch -- no "kit planes" for him. (His next
> project will be to recreate -- from photos only -- a 1916 aircraft
> that flew out of Grinnell, IA.)
Cool. Sounds like an interesting, knowledgeable guy.
> Well, your engine has a limited number of those cycles in it. It's
> the same thing I explain to my 17 year old son: Yes, you can floor
> the car and spin the rear wheels a certain number of times, without
> harming the engine. Sooner or later, though, that kind of treatment
> *will* break something.
>
> Airplanes are no different. Cycling from full power to idle is just a
> bad thing to do with your engine.
The engine was designed with the knowledge that in order to fly, the
transition from full power to idle will have to be made at some point
... that in itself is not "a bad thing". If that's ALL you're constantly
doing in every flight, then yes, I would agree with you, but that isn't
what I meant by practicing simulated engine failures more often than
every other year (during BFRs). Certainly a healthy engine can do them
more often than that without being damaged.
> When my buddy's engine crapped out 700 hours before TBO,
> was it directly attributable to his doing a zillion touch & goes?
Maybe, maybe not.
But again, I wasn't talking about doing a zillion touch-n-goes, I was
talking about practicing simulated engine failures often enough that
*IF* the real thing occurs, you don't waste several precious seconds
reacting, trying to remember the drill, or make any mistakes because you
(not you personally) haven't flown enough power-off approaches/landings
in the airplane you always fly.
> I don't know, but I can safely say that if he had simply let his
> engine run at a steady-state 2200 RPM, it would still be running
> today.
No, you can't. Not doing touch-n-goes is not a guarantee that any engine
will make it to TBO or still be running. It's hard to make ANY
guarantees where engines are concerned...we do what the experts we know
and respect recommend, and hope for the best, but even they don't make
guarantees.
> THAT is an indication of the wear and tear inherent with full
> power/idle power engine management, versus cruise flight.
I'm not disagreeing that there is wear and tear involved. But again, I
also was not talking about a plane that ONLY does touch-n-goes. Of
course cruise flight should make up the bulk of the time.
> Touch & goes aren't necessary to practice after your first 1000 or so
> landings, IMHO. If you don't have it down pat by then, a few more
> T&Gs isn't gonna help, and the beating your plane takes during the T&G
> process is something to be avoided.
It isn't a matter of "having it down pat" -- most of us have landings
down fairly pat by the time we get our ticket. But just because a person
has done 1000 landings doesn't mean it's never necessary to practice
touch-n-goes. Is there anyone who flies religiously once- or
twice-a-week *without fail*, FOREVER? If so, they likely don't have to
practice touch-n-goes. But who hasn't had to be off for a month or more
once in a while due to other priorities in life or when a mechanical
issue takes a month or more to resolve? When you get back in the air
after a long period off, are your approaches and landings just as sharp
as ever? If so, kudos to you! I'm not a professional pilot, and mine
aren't always as good as they could be after I've been off for a month
or more, and in those instances, three or four touch-n-goes is usually
just what the doctor ordered. And once again, I'm not suggesting that
EVERY flight should consist of touch-n-goes or include an engine-out
practice.
> That's why airplane ads say stuff like "Never used as a trainer."
That's not the only reason. "Trainers" take a lot more forms of abuse
than just touch-n-goes.
> Engine out practice IS a good thing to do, however, and is why I do
> feel badly about my reluctance to do them. I'm thinking maybe we'll
> do some next time we go up, maybe at reduced (not idle) power...
Good. As a friend, I'm glad to hear that.
> Optimally, in order to run the longest possible number of hours, you
> would never shut the engine off. I'll bet a Lycoming could run 10,000
> hours easily if all you did was keep it running at 2000 RPM, and keep
> adding oil and gas.
My mechanic was at my hangar this morning. I was picking his brain about
this stuff. He said an airplane should be flown *at least* once a week
to keep condensation/corrosion away (and other reasons but that being
most important). He said Lycoming documentation actually states that an
engine should be preserved (pickled) if it isn't going to be flown for
10 days or more, although no one does that. I've heard of pickling in
extreme temps (cold) when not being flown *for an entire season*, but
even then, seems a lot of people just let them sit.
The person in the hangar across the taxiway from me was there for the
first time this morning -- I'd never even seen or met him in the entire
time I've been there. He said he hasn't flown in 2 years, and his C-180
hasn't either. It's having an annual now and he's about to begin flying
again. It was not pickled, and I'll be interested to hear what was done
in this annual, with that in mind. (I didn't ask why he was off for 2
years...guessing it might have been a medical issue.)
> But that's not "real world". Looking at trainers at big flight
> schools, they usually fly daily, often for many hours per day. And
> they usually get some pretty impressive time on their engines that
> way. (Hours-wise, not calendar-wise, of course.)
We had a C-152 at our flight school. It had 13K hours on it when I got
my ticket in it, and while it had its own little quirks, it obviously
had been reliable. It was nearing 14K hours when a customer had an
emergency, landed in the desert, flipped it onto its back and totaled
it. Thankfully, they walked away. It had been a reliable, fun little
bird. I do not know how many overhauls it had or if it went to TBO each
time, but considering how much abuse it took doing T&Gs, spin training,
being khablammed by people learning to land, and who-knows-what else
customers put it through, it served everyone well and did Cessna proud.
> > I just spent at least that much, too, and I'm sure as heck not going to
> > intentionally abuse the engine. But I'm not going to skip some aspects
> > of ongoing skill retention drills that I've seen the pay off firsthand
> > in an emergency because I'm thinking about the $20K I just spent.
>
> Yep, I agree. You're the voice of experience here, which is why I'm
> engaged in this thread. I *am* worried about not practicing the
> procedures enough, but I just don't want to shorten the lifespan of a
> very expensive engine needlessly...
Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out
practice is "needlessly".
Shirl
Matt Whiting
I believe that is a good idea also. Constant RPM is great for engines
that will ALWAYS run at constant RPM (stationary generators, etc.).
However, for engines that must run across a range of RPMs, I believe it
is better to operate them across that full range as often as practical.
Matt