Most risky flying decisions.

[Liquid Charlie]

To use the buzz words "risk assessment" - everything we do has risk (as does crossing the street), the secret is to minimize the risk and have that back door or escape plan. The situation changes with type of equipment. Heavy jets, ice is very rarely an issue but runway conditions are. The same with thunderstorms 350 is very different from 6, 10 0r 180.

Directing this to low and slow group ice always can be interesting. I have actually let down and landed from clear sky to the ground knowing that missing and popping one there would be no go around and even with a missed the ability to climb on top loaded would be a struggle since tops were above 110 but again assessment of wx and landing conditions were acceptable and missing and dropping an engine became a small percentage of the over all situation. Unfortunately making decisions to go or not to go and accept a certain level of risk comes with experience and possibly putting your "top gun" mindset aside and listen to the old guy or at least ask questions. I never venture advise to the know it alls. They are on their own.

Landed in YK one night and friction index was like about .12 - basically glare ice. It was the silly season and were had been hauling full loads to glare ice strips all day (could not stand up getting out of the aircraft. We were M/T and landed without incident. Every other flight was in Hay River. 2 engines for breaking and 2 for steering, works good lasts a long time. The risk was managing reverse, a pitch lock would have had us pirouettes but risk level was acceptable.

It's all about risk and if you can't live with that you are in the wrong business. 

[Colonel]

Slippery runways are a weird topic.

I understand that guys from down south, that have never even driven on
a slippery surface (ice, snow, etc) are at a disadvantage.  I know that basic
stick and rudder skills are obsolete, but everyone in the motorcycle community
knows that if you start riding on the dirt, you are a FAR better rider than someone
whom has only ridden on dry pavement.  As an ex-dirt rider, when you hit a
patch of dirt or gravel or ice or whatever and you slip a bit, it's not the end of
the world.  Kind of nostalgic, actually.  I rode the Hayabusa in the rain a few
days ago, and it was a hoot.  Back tire was slipping all over when I cranked
my wrist.  Nostalgia.

Heck, car drivers here panic when it rains.  I am not making this up.

Similarly, pilots that have never been sideways in a car before, are at a real
disadvantage, the first time they get sideways ni an airplane on ice with a stiff
crosswind after landing.  It freaks them out that they aren't pointed in the direction
that they are travelling.  Some pilots get over it and learn, and some don't.  Their
parents really fucked them up, by not allowing them to learn when they were
growing up, so they have a lot of catching up to do.

When I was a 16 year old kid, I loved it when it snowed, and I would borrow
one of my parent's cars, and find a deserted parking lot and exercise the
parking brake and get sideways.  I got pretty good at a handbrake 180 in
the snow, then the wet, then the dry, both front wheel drive and rear wheel
drive.

I know that acquisition of knowledge and skill makes me a BAD PERSON in
Canada, where "not crashing" isn't a very high priority, and I'm ok with that.

This reminds me of the Canadian FTU craziness.  Instructors take a student
that can barely land normally, and immediately get them practicing all sorts
of advanced (short/soft/obstacle) takeoffs and landings.  The FTU's couldn't
give a shit about the basic, fundamental takeoff and landing skills under
normal and crosswind conditions - hiliariously, they respond with a 5k x/w
limit instead of developing skills - and instead spend all this time and money
on advanced takeoff and landing techniques, to be used for non-certified
runways.

Then - ready for the irony? - at the end of it, after wasting all this time and
money on advanced landing techniques, the newly minted PPL's and CPL's
are incapable of landing on a non-certified grass/gravel runway with less
than perfect surface conditions and obstacle clearance ... and as a kicker,
they have neglected the development of basic and crosswind takeoff and
landing techniques.

This train wreck is precisely what TC, with their micro-management of
flight training in Canada, wants.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

[quote]
This train wreck is precisely what TC, with their micro-management of
flight training in Canada, wants.[/quote]

Exactly.

T.C. operates by using fear to maintain their power.

When I owned a flight school the fear that the flight instructors had of the drones from T.C. was simply unbelievable.

[Rookie Pilot]

Really, Chuck

CYSN's flight school don't seem to have any fear, regardless of "training flights" to the US,  where students end up dead.

See the Avc thread where they want to string me up for suggesting illegal flights by novice class 4's into convective night IMC with 2 kids along, isn't a great idea.

TC does nothing. 

[Trey Kule]

I had to reread the OP again. 
Liquid C I was referring only to weather I dont like.

After decades and decades flying I just wish I was as confident as you seem to be in assessing risk...the weather I operated in had the annoying habit of not being as forecast and changing for the worst.When you are 1000 miles from pretty much anywhere, sometimes the options are relatively limited.  And flt lvl 350 doesnt always get you above the Cbs in the middle latitudes.
And the problem with better anti/de ice capability is you fly in worse weather..

Slippery runways are a fact of life.  Some interesting moments in my career landing on them, but not something I generally consider a huge problem 90% of the time.  Landing on a frozen lake on wheels in a crosswind with a crosswind makes for a much more interesting roll out.

[Rookie Pilot]

This avcan thread is killing me.....

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 8#p1060818

You guys are needed. Badly.

[Colonel]

Night IMC through CB's in the hills in a crappy little FTU single is
pretty goddamned sporty for so-called "PPL training". 

Some might say, suicidal.

The reason I'm still alive, and lots of other people are dead now, is
that people have tried to talk me into doing stupid shit like that, and
I have resisted, regardless of how it affects my popularity.  As Chuck
says, the most difficult pilot skill you need to learn, is how to say no.

Unlike other people, the perfection of the paperwork is less important
to me, than the safety of the operation.  You know, whether or not I
crash and die.  I don't need a pile of paper written by some non-flying
bureaucrat with a big tummy, to tell me if something is safe or not.  Jesus.

Personally, I like the idea of a 1000nm [u]Day VFR[/u] x/c for a CPL - a bit
more than the current 300nm, but still safe.

Apologies for my obsession with safety.  You know, the reason I'm still
alive.

I might qualify the above by mentioning that today, Eric and I were performing
positive and negative G formation aerobatics at low altitude (legally) in waivered
airspace.  Such maneuvering is considered insane by the folk that struggle (and
fail) to fly straight and level from one certified airport, to another.  Odd that I am
still alive after all these years, yet considered dangerous by the straight and level
pilots.

[Colonel]

Here's a character-building maneuver I flew today.  Perhaps not for PPL training.

Fly tight right echelon on your son on a 45 degree positive downline at low
altitude.  Pull through to a 1/2 cuban to the inverted 45 downline.  Hold it for a
second, upside down, aiming at the ground, then push to a 45 inverted upline,
and 1/2 roll upright.  All while in tight echelon.

The visuals are amazing, the negative G close to the ground is a rush, and
oh yes, the effect of bank is reversed.  No one told you that - you had to figure
it out, on your own.

All this to say, I am somewhat puzzled by what some people call risky flying.

[Colonel]

There are certain things that make flying harder.  You might
call them risk factors.  In no particular order, here are some:

1) night
2) wx
3) terrain
4) shitty aircraft/equipment
5) inexperienced pilot

Let's look at the 300nm CPL x/c which is flown by a licensed PPL.

A pilot under 500 hours, IMHO, is only capable of dealing with at
most ONE of the above risk factors.  In fact, he IS the risk factor (#5)
so to avoid getting in over his head, he needs to avoid the other four
risk factors to avoid death.

Specifically, during the 300nm (I prefer 1000nm) x/c for his CPL training,
he needs to be flying ONLY during the day, good weather, over flat terrain
with no high towers, in a functioning/well-equipped aircraft.

This really isn't very hard to understand.

As the pilot gets more experience and knowledge and skill and his judgment
improves, risk factor #5 fades, and he can start to think about safely taking
on ONE other risk factor, like:

night in good wx over flat terrain in a good aircraft, or
day in bad wx over flat terrain in a good aircraft, or
day in good wx through the hills in a good aircraft, or
day in good wx over flat terrain in a sketchy aircraft

Taking on TWO risk factors requires lots of skill and
experience, such as:

night in bad wx over flat terrain in a good aircraft, or
day in bad wx through the hills in a good aircraft, or
day in good wx through the hills in a sketchy aircraft

Taking on THREE risk factors is above the skill level
of most pilots:

night in bad wx through the hills in a good aircraft
day in bad wx through the hills in a sketchy aircraft

FOUR risk factors is generally suicidal, and requires
a little luck to survive:

night in bad wx through the hills in a broken aircraft

This really isn't very hard to understand.  I know this,
even though I am not bright enough to be eligible to
hold a flight instructor rating in Canada, according to TC.

[Colonel]

Another risk factor, which I hold to be self-evident:

6) low altitude maneuvering.

I used to tell students, forget about all the complicated regulations
and bullshit.  Here's what you're going to do:

a) no flying under 1000 AGL over yellow areas on the VNC
b) no flying under 500 AGL unless you are [u]wings level[/u], within 1nm of an airport, on final or departure
c) be very aware of high towers and wires above 500 AGL such as Fat Albert at KEYW

This guy simply tried to turn at low altitude:



Again, skill and knowledge (which result from training
and experience) are required to maneuver safely at
low altitude. 

And again, this really isn't very hard to understand.