Blackpool 3/2/07
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we talking about pre-flight planning and the legal requirement not to depart unless the pre-flight planning shows that the planned VFR flight can be completed safely or are we talking about in-flight decisions to change the original plan?
it is illegal (and stupid) to depart on a VFR flight from A to B when you have determined by reference to a combination of actual and forecast weather information available to you that IMC conditions will or are likely to exist along the planned route.
At the departure point, you must have a suitable destination to land at if you do not then how do you know how much fuel you need to have?
In case the flight can not be completed as planned - an in-flight decision.
The commander of an aircraft shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
(a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned;
The requirement is that a flight can be "safely made" - it does not say that the alternative course of action may only result from unforseen in-flight circumstances and it does not say that planning of a VFR flight may not be based on contingencies (eg. from A to B if weather permits, otherwise C,D or back to A).
There seems be be misunderstanding regarding the difference between;
a) Ensuring that a flight can be made safely; and
b) Ensuring that a flight is being made safely.
a) Ensuring that a flight can be made safely; and
b) Ensuring that a flight is being made safely.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supersport,
Your Scenario and your question do not match.
Your Scenario is that you are departing on a VFR flight to Barton and have ensured that is a safe course of action. During the flight, you may change the plan and route to Blackpool if the weather changes but by your own admission you do not expect that.
Thus your destination at the time of departure is Barton and that will only change if there is some unexpected change in the weather.
If you are the type of pilot that always plans a suitable altenate for your intended destination then will you have a suitable alternate for Barton?
Nothing illegal with departing for Barton at all provided that in your aircraft the 4 hours of fuel is suficient to fly the proposed route plus contingency and arive at Barton with sufficient reserve fuel.
Unfortunately in this real case, the pilots departed for Blackpool despite the weather saying that there was no chance of landing at Blackpool, they only had suficient fuel for that flight and thus they illegally failed to carry out the required pre-flight planning.
Some here think that simply becuse Exeter and many other places were VMC then the pre-flight planning was perfectly legal. I do not.
---------------
Horray. Someone has seen the light.
No. I never said preferred route, I said intended route.
-------------
Shytorque,
Nothing wrong with Y or Z flights or even I - V - I or V-I-V flights at all.
However, you are expected to plan appropriately and in your case the ops manual will make appropriate provision.
Don't forget that your VMC is IMC for fixed wing flyers.
----------
Seems that there will still be people taking off and flying into mountains while IMC - those mountains clearly covered in cloud visible from the apron at the departure aerodrome and the intended route clearly passing through an area unsuitable for VFR flight.
They had lots of fuel on board and there were several airports and routes that were VMC
Some say that there is nothing wrong with drawing the line along the map through an area with elevations above 3000ft and ceilings less than 2000ft and intending to fly that route.
Until pilots sit up and comply with the legal requirements for VFR flights to plan correctly and clearly show that the intended route does not intend to be in IMC we are going to regularly see people killed.
Regards,
DFC
Your Scenario and your question do not match.
Your Scenario is that you are departing on a VFR flight to Barton and have ensured that is a safe course of action. During the flight, you may change the plan and route to Blackpool if the weather changes but by your own admission you do not expect that.
Thus your destination at the time of departure is Barton and that will only change if there is some unexpected change in the weather.
If you are the type of pilot that always plans a suitable altenate for your intended destination then will you have a suitable alternate for Barton?
Nothing illegal with departing for Barton at all provided that in your aircraft the 4 hours of fuel is suficient to fly the proposed route plus contingency and arive at Barton with sufficient reserve fuel.
Unfortunately in this real case, the pilots departed for Blackpool despite the weather saying that there was no chance of landing at Blackpool, they only had suficient fuel for that flight and thus they illegally failed to carry out the required pre-flight planning.
Some here think that simply becuse Exeter and many other places were VMC then the pre-flight planning was perfectly legal. I do not.
---------------
Clealry a flight may not depart if it can't be completed safely.
But you are saying that the presence of forecast IMC on the preferred route of a VFR flight (ie. to B) means that, by definition, it can not be completed safely and that it may not legally depart
-------------
Shytorque,
Nothing wrong with Y or Z flights or even I - V - I or V-I-V flights at all.
However, you are expected to plan appropriately and in your case the ops manual will make appropriate provision.
Don't forget that your VMC is IMC for fixed wing flyers.
----------
Seems that there will still be people taking off and flying into mountains while IMC - those mountains clearly covered in cloud visible from the apron at the departure aerodrome and the intended route clearly passing through an area unsuitable for VFR flight.
They had lots of fuel on board and there were several airports and routes that were VMC
Some say that there is nothing wrong with drawing the line along the map through an area with elevations above 3000ft and ceilings less than 2000ft and intending to fly that route.
Until pilots sit up and comply with the legal requirements for VFR flights to plan correctly and clearly show that the intended route does not intend to be in IMC we are going to regularly see people killed.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC said:
Supersport,
Your Scenario and your question do not match.
Your Scenario is that you are departing on a VFR flight to Barton and have ensured that is a safe course of action. During the flight, you may change the plan and route to Blackpool if the weather changes but by your own admission you do not expect that.
Thus your destination at the time of departure is Barton and that will only change if there is some unexpected change in the weather.
If you are the type of pilot that always plans a suitable altenate for your intended destination then will you have a suitable alternate for Barton?
Nothing illegal with departing for Barton at all provided that in your aircraft the 4 hours of fuel is suficient to fly the proposed route plus contingency and arive at Barton with sufficient reserve fuel.
Supersport,
Your Scenario and your question do not match.
Your Scenario is that you are departing on a VFR flight to Barton and have ensured that is a safe course of action. During the flight, you may change the plan and route to Blackpool if the weather changes but by your own admission you do not expect that.
Thus your destination at the time of departure is Barton and that will only change if there is some unexpected change in the weather.
If you are the type of pilot that always plans a suitable altenate for your intended destination then will you have a suitable alternate for Barton?
Nothing illegal with departing for Barton at all provided that in your aircraft the 4 hours of fuel is suficient to fly the proposed route plus contingency and arive at Barton with sufficient reserve fuel.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,587
Received 443 Likes
on
235 Posts
However, you are expected to plan appropriately and in your case the ops manual will make appropriate provision.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. I never said preferred route, I said intended route.
"I am departing VFR from A to B. The current forecast for B indicates that a VFR arrival will not be possible, but C and D nearby are forecasting VMC. There is also an enroute forecast that suggests I may have to turn back to A. I have enough fuel to maintain VMC and land safely in any of these outcomes, and I am willing to depart to see whether conditions turn out to be better than forecast"
Thus, my intention is to fly from A to B along my intended route if the weather turns out to be better than forecast, otherwise I will adopt a plan of action that, in accordance with forecast weather, allows me to maintain VMC and safe fuel reserves. (Note the use of underline to emphasise the conditionality in intentions)
Until pilots sit up and comply with the legal requirements for VFR flights to plan correctly and clearly show that the intended route does not intend to be in IMC we are going to regularly see people killed
You use "legal requirement" and "clearly show that the intended route does not intend to be in IMC" when the legal requirement does not say that. It has been posted several times before, but I will keep posting it in case it eventually sinks in.
The commander of an aircraft shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
(a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned;
There is nothing complex or confusing about this clearly worded paragraph.
Can a flight from A to B with forecast IMC enroute or at B be "safely made" if VMC is forecast to allow VFR back to A or to land at C or D and sufficient fuel is carried? Clearly it can. Has the "latest information" been taken into account? It has. Is there "any alternative course of action"? There is.
Clarity in understanding the legal requirements is important to aviation safety. Confusing people with your own legal inventions does not help. Fortunately, in this case, the ANO is clearly worded enough that I would be surprised if any pilot found it confusing.
You, quite freely, advised other pilots to undertake training etc, earlier in this thread. If, in the same spirit, I may advise you: do consider your approach to interpreting regulations and requirements carefully. You seem prone to misunderstanding them and absolutely unswerving in your conviction, no matter what points are made to you, or what evidence is presented. This behaviour pattern can be an aviation safety risk factor, I refer you to the usual HPL sources.
rgds
421C
Last edited by 421C; 1st May 2008 at 23:17.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421C,
You have totally missed the simple fact that in order to determine that a flight can be made safely in terms of weather, fuel and everything else, at the planning stage there must be a point at which based on the information available you know you will safely terminate the flight (the destination)..............otherwise, the flight has no defined end and thus actual fuel requirements and weather requirements can not be determined.
An alternative course of action will often be planned and one may even find that during the flight that it is required.
You said;
Horray. At last someone who agrees.
This ignores two very important aspects;
1. You must make your decision based on actual and forecast weather; and
2. You as pilot in command have to not simply use the met forecaster as the person who decides if it is safe but you alone must interpret the information provided and decide that based on the information available that it is safe to proceed on the intended route..........which you clearly can't do VFR if the intended route is IMC.
-----------
So you depart from Exeter to Blackpool eventhough Blackpool is IMC, and will be so for longer than your endurance. Your alternate is Barton. As you are within 20nm of Barton, you find that the airfield is closed due to an accident. Your alternative plan of action now that the flight can not be copmpleted as planned is?
In this case, you departed on the alternative course of action i.e. you were diverting from the moment you departed. You planned to do this and consequently, you departed without havign an alternative course of action to what you planned to actually do.
The answer is clearly No you can not depart intending to fly from A to B. Because you have determined that there is IMC enroute. You have made that decision. You have decided that the flight can not be made VFR. The fact that everywhere else in the world is VMC has no bearing on that very important decision.
Perhaps we have people who can not make decisions that the weather is unsuitable and that the flight can not be made. They simply rely on having a look see, taking far more fuel than is necessary and hoping that all the airfields in the country are available.
----------
Leaving the legal aside, I would hate to be a passenger on one of your flights from Exeter to Blackpool.
"Now here we are at 3000ft on our way to Blackpool, the weather says that we can't get there and I knew that before we departed, I know you want to go to Blackpool, I do also. I will push it as much as I can but never mind we will probably end up in the North of England somewhere or perhaps even back where we started."
Passenger response - "Take me back to Exeter you idiot".
Passenger thinks - 'I'm never going to fly with this idiot again'
421C,
Everthing in your posts says to me that you are unwilling or unable to make a go/no-go decision - the very go/no-go decision that the law requires. You are simply surviving because ther are a multitude of fields in the country and your luck so far has not left you stranded.
Regards,
DFC
You have totally missed the simple fact that in order to determine that a flight can be made safely in terms of weather, fuel and everything else, at the planning stage there must be a point at which based on the information available you know you will safely terminate the flight (the destination)..............otherwise, the flight has no defined end and thus actual fuel requirements and weather requirements can not be determined.
An alternative course of action will often be planned and one may even find that during the flight that it is required.
You said;
Clealry a flight may not depart if it can't be completed safely
Thus, my intention is to fly from A to B along my intended route if the weather turns out to be better than forecast,
1. You must make your decision based on actual and forecast weather; and
2. You as pilot in command have to not simply use the met forecaster as the person who decides if it is safe but you alone must interpret the information provided and decide that based on the information available that it is safe to proceed on the intended route..........which you clearly can't do VFR if the intended route is IMC.
-----------
So you depart from Exeter to Blackpool eventhough Blackpool is IMC, and will be so for longer than your endurance. Your alternate is Barton. As you are within 20nm of Barton, you find that the airfield is closed due to an accident. Your alternative plan of action now that the flight can not be copmpleted as planned is?
In this case, you departed on the alternative course of action i.e. you were diverting from the moment you departed. You planned to do this and consequently, you departed without havign an alternative course of action to what you planned to actually do.
Can a flight from A to B with forecast IMC enroute or at B be "safely made" if VMC is forecast to allow VFR back to A or to land at C or D and sufficient fuel is carried?
Perhaps we have people who can not make decisions that the weather is unsuitable and that the flight can not be made. They simply rely on having a look see, taking far more fuel than is necessary and hoping that all the airfields in the country are available.
----------
Leaving the legal aside, I would hate to be a passenger on one of your flights from Exeter to Blackpool.
"Now here we are at 3000ft on our way to Blackpool, the weather says that we can't get there and I knew that before we departed, I know you want to go to Blackpool, I do also. I will push it as much as I can but never mind we will probably end up in the North of England somewhere or perhaps even back where we started."
Passenger response - "Take me back to Exeter you idiot".
Passenger thinks - 'I'm never going to fly with this idiot again'
421C,
Everthing in your posts says to me that you are unwilling or unable to make a go/no-go decision - the very go/no-go decision that the law requires. You are simply surviving because ther are a multitude of fields in the country and your luck so far has not left you stranded.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bored...
DFC, you can go on and on and on about the various posters on here decision making / planning skills etc, it doesn't and won't make a difference. Everyone knows it would be a bad decision to to depart Exeter with the intention of going to Blackpool when it is forecast IMC for a prolonged period of time.
The main point which various others are trying to get across to you, which you continue to evade, is that it was/is not illegal to depart Exeter under these circumstances.
Bad decision yes, illegal no.
The extensive diatribe that you keep coming out with is, to be frank, BORING. You have killed what was a healthy discussion on lessons that can be drawn from this terrible incident.
The main point which various others are trying to get across to you, which you continue to evade, is that it was/is not illegal to depart Exeter under these circumstances.
Bad decision yes, illegal no.
The extensive diatribe that you keep coming out with is, to be frank, BORING. You have killed what was a healthy discussion on lessons that can be drawn from this terrible incident.
Last edited by Supersport; 2nd May 2008 at 11:59.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFc, taking you flight to Blackpool with Barton closed due to an accident scenario, are you saying that under almost the same scenario it would be 'legal' to depart to Blackpool if the forecast IMC bit was a TEMPO? if so, there is a high likelihood that you could still end up over/near Blackpool in exactly the same predicament but at least you would be 'legal'.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm intrigued by this fantasy world DFC inhabits. I find myself wondering, if I wanted to follow his advice, how it should work in reality. DFC paints a picture of an experienced aviator, who presumably has put this into practice a few times, so hopefully he'll be able to let me know how it works out in the real world. I personally think he's a troll, but no doubt one day he'll prove me wrong. In the meantime, taking DFC at face value:
For the sake of example, let's say I want to fly VFR from Elstree to Le Touquet to visit the market and have a spot of lunch. As is often the case, the weather in the UK is pleasant VFR, but Meteo France are forecasting lower level cloud cover forecast for the French mainland. However, as many people have experienced, it's quite common for the weather over the sea to be CAVOK with the significant cloud cover starting a few miles inland from the French coast, while Le Touquet itself basks in glorious sunshine.
So according to DFC, to remain legal our plan A is to take off from Elstree, head off towards Le Touquet, with the intention of turning round and coming back to Elstree. Plan B is to divert into Le Touquet if the weather turns out to be good enough to land there despite the adverse forecast for the region.
So, thinking about how this actually works in the real world:
1) What do I put on the flight plan?
Presumably it's got to be departure EGTR, destination EGTR with a route something like DCT LAM DCT DVR DCT LT DCT DVR DCT LAM DCT with an alternate of LFAT. I'll need to put in EETs for the FIR boundary, so do I put in two - one for the outbound leg and one for the inbound one?
2) What happens if the cloud cover is forecast to start before the FIR boundary?
The route I know I can complete is now DCT LAM DCT DVR DCT LAM DCT. I guess I now don't need to bother with the EETs to the FIR boundary. But in the real world, how does this flight plan get addressed to LFFF and LFAT? Does somebody spot that I've got LFAT listed as an alternate and add them as addressees on the offchance, or do I have to manually specify that myself? What do you do DFC?
3) Where exactly do I put LFAT on the flight plan?
In filling in the flight plan, I'm not sure I should really put LFAT in as the alternate. The flight plan forms have 2 spaces for "alternate" aerodromes, but according to the definitions in ICAO Annex 11:
That doesn't really apply in this case. Once I get to Le Touquet, it is neither impossible nor inadvisable to return to Elstree - I just don't want to. So Le Touquet isn't really the alternate. Do you put it in the "alternate" field anyway, DFC, or do you put it somewhere else - as a RMK in field 18 perhaps?
4) In the real world, do you ever get given a hard time by ATC at the surprise destination?
I can imagine when I rock up at Le Touquet the controller being a little confused. To use one of DFC's imaginary conversations:
G-ABCD: Le Touquet Tower, G-ABCD is a Cessna from Elstree to Elstree, we wish to divert in to you.
LFAT: Roger G-CD, do you have a problem?
G-ABCD: Negative. The weather is better than forecast and we now wish to divert in to you. We did make sure you got a copy of the flight plan.
LFAT: Roger G-CD. I have a copy of your flight plan. Your flight plan shows you returning to Elstree without landing. Is there something now preventing you returning to Elstree in accordance with your flight plan?
G-ABCD: Negative. The weather is better than forecast and we now wish to divert in to you.
LFAT: G-CD standby.
Le Touquet are unfailingly helpful (if sometimes a little overworked). However, there are many other destinations where I could imagine a prolonged conversation and the real possibility of being refused permission to land. Is this ever a problem in the real world, DFC?
5) What do you do about SAR?
Obviously the route you actually fly may be very different to the one on the flight plan, which could cause problems for SAR.
Taking another example for a moment - let's say we want to fly from Elstree to Berlin and the weather across Europe is fine, but there's a band of weather approaching from the north. The forecast for Essex and north Kent is for a cloud base around 1,500' which isn't high enough to be above MSA for the early legs. If the bases actually turns out to be above 2,500' then that's plenty to safely make it out to Kent and the better weather.
Now because our plan A is to take off from Elstree and land back at Elstree if the weather is as forecast, the flight plan we must submit in DFC-world is from EGTR to EGTR with a route of something like DCT LAM DCT, a flight time of 30 mins and an alternate of EDDI.
So what happens if you get as far a Dover and the better weather? We're now on our way to Berlin, but if anything untoward happens nobody knows our intended route or our estimated ETA. If the radio goes dead, they won't have the faintest idea where to start looking. Do you put the alternate route in as a RMK? Or ask a "responsible person" to alert everyone if you don't turn up.
As an experience aviator, no doubt you've encountered all these problems with your unusual method before and found a good practical solution to them. Personally, I think anybody trying to do things the DFC way in the real world would soon see that it's ivory tower rubbish.
For the sake of example, let's say I want to fly VFR from Elstree to Le Touquet to visit the market and have a spot of lunch. As is often the case, the weather in the UK is pleasant VFR, but Meteo France are forecasting lower level cloud cover forecast for the French mainland. However, as many people have experienced, it's quite common for the weather over the sea to be CAVOK with the significant cloud cover starting a few miles inland from the French coast, while Le Touquet itself basks in glorious sunshine.
So according to DFC, to remain legal our plan A is to take off from Elstree, head off towards Le Touquet, with the intention of turning round and coming back to Elstree. Plan B is to divert into Le Touquet if the weather turns out to be good enough to land there despite the adverse forecast for the region.
So, thinking about how this actually works in the real world:
1) What do I put on the flight plan?
Presumably it's got to be departure EGTR, destination EGTR with a route something like DCT LAM DCT DVR DCT LT DCT DVR DCT LAM DCT with an alternate of LFAT. I'll need to put in EETs for the FIR boundary, so do I put in two - one for the outbound leg and one for the inbound one?
2) What happens if the cloud cover is forecast to start before the FIR boundary?
The route I know I can complete is now DCT LAM DCT DVR DCT LAM DCT. I guess I now don't need to bother with the EETs to the FIR boundary. But in the real world, how does this flight plan get addressed to LFFF and LFAT? Does somebody spot that I've got LFAT listed as an alternate and add them as addressees on the offchance, or do I have to manually specify that myself? What do you do DFC?
3) Where exactly do I put LFAT on the flight plan?
In filling in the flight plan, I'm not sure I should really put LFAT in as the alternate. The flight plan forms have 2 spaces for "alternate" aerodromes, but according to the definitions in ICAO Annex 11:
Alternate aerodrome.
An aerodrome to which an aircraft may proceed when it becomes either impossible or inadvisable to proceed to or to land at the aerodrome of intended landing.
An aerodrome to which an aircraft may proceed when it becomes either impossible or inadvisable to proceed to or to land at the aerodrome of intended landing.
4) In the real world, do you ever get given a hard time by ATC at the surprise destination?
I can imagine when I rock up at Le Touquet the controller being a little confused. To use one of DFC's imaginary conversations:
G-ABCD: Le Touquet Tower, G-ABCD is a Cessna from Elstree to Elstree, we wish to divert in to you.
LFAT: Roger G-CD, do you have a problem?
G-ABCD: Negative. The weather is better than forecast and we now wish to divert in to you. We did make sure you got a copy of the flight plan.
LFAT: Roger G-CD. I have a copy of your flight plan. Your flight plan shows you returning to Elstree without landing. Is there something now preventing you returning to Elstree in accordance with your flight plan?
G-ABCD: Negative. The weather is better than forecast and we now wish to divert in to you.
LFAT: G-CD standby.
Le Touquet are unfailingly helpful (if sometimes a little overworked). However, there are many other destinations where I could imagine a prolonged conversation and the real possibility of being refused permission to land. Is this ever a problem in the real world, DFC?
5) What do you do about SAR?
Obviously the route you actually fly may be very different to the one on the flight plan, which could cause problems for SAR.
Taking another example for a moment - let's say we want to fly from Elstree to Berlin and the weather across Europe is fine, but there's a band of weather approaching from the north. The forecast for Essex and north Kent is for a cloud base around 1,500' which isn't high enough to be above MSA for the early legs. If the bases actually turns out to be above 2,500' then that's plenty to safely make it out to Kent and the better weather.
Now because our plan A is to take off from Elstree and land back at Elstree if the weather is as forecast, the flight plan we must submit in DFC-world is from EGTR to EGTR with a route of something like DCT LAM DCT, a flight time of 30 mins and an alternate of EDDI.
So what happens if you get as far a Dover and the better weather? We're now on our way to Berlin, but if anything untoward happens nobody knows our intended route or our estimated ETA. If the radio goes dead, they won't have the faintest idea where to start looking. Do you put the alternate route in as a RMK? Or ask a "responsible person" to alert everyone if you don't turn up.
As an experience aviator, no doubt you've encountered all these problems with your unusual method before and found a good practical solution to them. Personally, I think anybody trying to do things the DFC way in the real world would soon see that it's ivory tower rubbish.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everthing in your posts says to me that you are unwilling or unable to make a go/no-go decision - the very go/no-go decision that the law requires. You are simply surviving because ther are a multitude of fields in the country and your luck so far has not left you stranded.
You never know when to quit do you.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bournemouth
Age: 35
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was an excellent thread for which I feel I have learnt a lot.
Now it seems like a P**ing contest....get a life guys
listen to Supersport.
The extensive diatribe that you keep coming out with is, to be frank, BORING. You have killed what was a healthy discussion on lessons that can be drawn form this terrible incident.
Now it seems like a P**ing contest....get a life guys
listen to Supersport.
The extensive diatribe that you keep coming out with is, to be frank, BORING. You have killed what was a healthy discussion on lessons that can be drawn form this terrible incident.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have totally missed the simple fact that in order to determine that a flight can be made safely in terms of weather, fuel and everything else, at the planning stage there must be a point at which based on the information available you know you will safely terminate the flight (the destination)..............otherwise, the flight has no defined end and thus actual fuel requirements and weather requirements can not be determined.
"I am departing VFR from A to B. The current forecast for B indicates that a VFR arrival will not be possible, but C and D nearby are forecasting VMC. There is also an enroute forecast that suggests I may have to turn back to A. I have enough fuel to maintain VMC and land safely in any of these outcomes, and I am willing to depart to see whether conditions turn out to be better than forecast"
...the defined end of the flight is contingent upon the weather encountered. Sufficient fuel is carried for these contingencies. The weather forecasts and fuel permit the flight to be "safely made" even if (as may be likely) the IMC at B is as forecast. QED.
Thus, my intention is to fly from A to B along my intended route if the weather turns out to be better than forecast
This ignores two very important aspects;
1. You must make your decision based on actual and forecast weather; and
This ignores two very important aspects;
1. You must make your decision based on actual and forecast weather; and
2. You as pilot in command have to not simply use the met forecaster as the person who decides if it is safe but you alone must interpret the information provided and decide that based on the information available that it is safe to proceed on the intended route..........which you clearly can't do VFR if the intended route is IMC.[/
Everthing in your posts says to me that you are unwilling or unable to make a go/no-go decision - the very go/no-go decision that the law requires. You are simply surviving because ther are a multitude of fields in the country and your luck so far has not left you stranded.
Happyfran - you are right, I am just being weak in replying endlessly. I will try to stop.
Wrongstuff - of course you are right, and innumerable real world examples could expose the absurdity of DFC's claim and illustrate why aviation law isn't written in our universe the way it is in his parallel one. But that won't stop him!
Last edited by 421C; 2nd May 2008 at 13:05.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,587
Received 443 Likes
on
235 Posts
HappyFran said:
I wholeheartedly agree, well put. Certain posters seldom fail to take an opportunity to post their own version of what is written in the rules and regulations, whilst pouring scorn on everyone else's interpretation, experience and abilities.
I'm not sure why, perhaps it stems from some feeling of insecurity, or poor grasp of the english language. (I'm OK, the CAA just told me I'm proficient, so there).
This was an excellent thread for which I feel I have learnt a lot.
Now it seems like a P**ing contest....get a life guys
listen to Supersport.
The extensive diatribe that you keep coming out with is, to be frank, BORING. You have killed what was a healthy discussion on lessons that can be drawn form this terrible incident.
Now it seems like a P**ing contest....get a life guys
listen to Supersport.
The extensive diatribe that you keep coming out with is, to be frank, BORING. You have killed what was a healthy discussion on lessons that can be drawn form this terrible incident.
I'm not sure why, perhaps it stems from some feeling of insecurity, or poor grasp of the english language. (I'm OK, the CAA just told me I'm proficient, so there).
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brighton. UK. (Via Liverpool).
Posts: 5,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now it seems like a P**ing contest....
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRL,
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! Phew. I'd given up posting on here after watching the thread degenerate into ridiculous nit-picking. Maybe now we can get back to discussing something sensible...like real-life aviation.
Along with others, I totally agree with this statement. Let's hope things can now change.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! Phew. I'd given up posting on here after watching the thread degenerate into ridiculous nit-picking. Maybe now we can get back to discussing something sensible...like real-life aviation.
The extensive diatribe that you keep coming out with is, to be frank, BORING. You have killed what was a healthy discussion on lessons that can be drawn from this terrible incident.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Along with others, I totally agree with this statement. Let's hope things can now change.
Wasn't sure whether I'd been somewhat harsh when I posted the comment.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bournemouth
Age: 35
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that drew me into the thread was the very scary ability to identify (from my perception of Andrew Walkers position) with the possible chain of events that lead to this tragedy. Prior to read this thread I would like to think I would have made a different call on the Exeter – Blackpool leg, but I can easily envisage a scenario on the out bound flight were I could have found myself in the same situation as Andrew.
For that matter earlier in the week I was sitting in an atpl theory class, and scanned around my colleagues and would have estimated a good proportion may also make a bad call in those circumstances.
Hopefully I and my colleagues have learnt something and will now always be sure who is PIC and perhaps be a bit more weary of Seniority.
With regard to the latter threads ‘pis..ing contest I do feel that in so many things the law does seem to be the last bastion of the ethically wrong. Using the law in my opinion is no excuse for bad airmanship.
For that matter earlier in the week I was sitting in an atpl theory class, and scanned around my colleagues and would have estimated a good proportion may also make a bad call in those circumstances.
Hopefully I and my colleagues have learnt something and will now always be sure who is PIC and perhaps be a bit more weary of Seniority.
With regard to the latter threads ‘pis..ing contest I do feel that in so many things the law does seem to be the last bastion of the ethically wrong. Using the law in my opinion is no excuse for bad airmanship.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that drew me into the thread was the very scary ability to identify (from my perception of Andrew Walkers position) with the possible chain of events that lead to this tragedy.
I think a lot of us felt that way. I know I did.
It's all very well to say that someone has a PPL and they're PIC and that's the end of it...but human nature doesn't work that way. You don't go overnight, just because you've passed a Skills Test, from doing exactly what your instructor tells you, to completely ignoring all his/her advice. You don't say "I'm PIC, therefore I will ignore the advice and opinions of pilots with zillions of hours more than me, because it's my decision". You especially don't do this if the instructor/more experienced pilot is a lot older than you. You listen to advice. Most people even suggest that this is a good idea, if you're a low hours pilot. Not listening to anyone is generally perceived as arrogance and over-confidence. Where do you draw the line?
So, leaving the law and who was officially PIC out of it, this is a very scary scenario that many of us can identify with.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bournemouth
Age: 35
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wirlygig,
I guess I am in the fortunate position now of looking to build some hours. I am very low hours so need to gain lots of experience.
For me, I can book an aircraft, if the weather is looking good I can do a bit of cross country. If OK at departure, but some doubt further a field I can do circuits …my PFL has plenty of room for improvement at moment. So no good reason to push any marginal thoughts.
I fly out of Bournemouth and Old Sarum and have a great deal of respect for the instructors and ground staff at both locations, I have a great tendency to seek guidance / discuss with them my flight plans and greatly appreciate there input. There is no way on this earth I would not take there advise if they were to suggest that perhaps my plan was not the best idea. I know I may be PIC but any advise in the negative would be gratefully received and acted upon.
So far the only time I was a bit pissed off , was at ~ 40 hours and doing my cross country solo. Bournemouth – touch and go Cardiff – land Exeter – Bournemouth. Weather looked fine, ~ 10 miles short of Cardiff. bl..dy great cloud bank….it should have been up in Wales …it always rains in Wales not in Bristol Channel. So turned around and came home. Got some solo time but meant I would go over 45 hours to PPL. It was pure ego wanting to do minimum hours and a bit of cost I suppose. But micro warning to me of not to get irritated about something that is not that important.
Most PPL flying should be for fun, should not have intransient deadlines or imaginary targets (particularly with UK WX). So why take any chances at all
I guess I am in the fortunate position now of looking to build some hours. I am very low hours so need to gain lots of experience.
For me, I can book an aircraft, if the weather is looking good I can do a bit of cross country. If OK at departure, but some doubt further a field I can do circuits …my PFL has plenty of room for improvement at moment.
So no good reason to push any marginal thoughts.I fly out of Bournemouth and Old Sarum and have a great deal of respect for the instructors and ground staff at both locations, I have a great tendency to seek guidance / discuss with them my flight plans and greatly appreciate there input. There is no way on this earth I would not take there advise if they were to suggest that perhaps my plan was not the best idea. I know I may be PIC but any advise in the negative would be gratefully received and acted upon.
So far the only time I was a bit pissed off , was at ~ 40 hours and doing my cross country solo. Bournemouth – touch and go Cardiff – land Exeter – Bournemouth. Weather looked fine, ~ 10 miles short of Cardiff. bl..dy great cloud bank….it should have been up in Wales …it always rains in Wales not in Bristol Channel. So turned around and came home. Got some solo time but meant I would go over 45 hours to PPL. It was pure ego wanting to do minimum hours and a bit of cost I suppose. But micro warning to me of not to get irritated about something that is not that important.
Most PPL flying should be for fun, should not have intransient deadlines or imaginary targets (particularly with UK WX). So why take any chances at all