When your copilot's brain is as flat as terrain
Dear Rod,
I am a commercial pilot with CFI, instrument, and multiengine ratings. I don't have access to an instrument airplane at this time, so I am strictly VFR. A few days ago a private pilot friend of mine and I, along with two passengers, had a trip planned from Pittsburgh, Kansas, to Oshkosh, Wisconsin. When we arrived at the airport we found ceilings at 700 feet and visibility at four miles.
I had left the trip planning up to him. When I asked him what the weather briefer had said, he said he didn't like weather briefers, and his two eyes were the best weather briefers that he had. I had greatly overestimated this guy. I then called the weather briefer at the flight service station and was told that VFR was not recommended, and ceilings were from 700 to 900 feet all the way into Iowa with reduced visibilities. The situation was not expected to improve until noon.
I suggested that we either forget the whole thing or wait until noon and see if it made sense then to blast off. My friend said that in Class G airspace, one mile and clear of clouds is legal, and you are cheating yourself if you don't go when it is legal to do so.
I have never seen such a case of gotta-go-itis. There was a gorgeous girl in Oshkosh that he wanted to see. I went home, but my persuasive friend and two passengers blasted off into the muck. I am certain that FAR 91.103, 91.119, 91.155 - or perhaps all three - were violated. I guess they made it. I know I had a moral obligation to stop this foolishness, and I tried. But did I have a legal obligation to stop this foolish foray into instrument meteorological conditions by a noninstrument-rated pilot? Or was he perhaps not all that foolish? What would you have done?
Thank you,
Frank
Greetings Frank:
Based on what you wrote in your e-mail, you certainly did the right thing. Your friend sounds impulsive, foolish, and a slave to his temptations. It's flat in Kansas and Iowa, but not that flat. I'd guess your friend hasn't seen too many thousand-foot obstructions, and that's precisely the problem. When flying low at 100-plus mph in reduced visibility conditions, he won't see them until the last minute.
Legal isn't always prudent. Just because it's legal to fly with one mile's visibility in Class G airspace doesn't make it a high-probability bet. Apparently your friend has never stopped to consider that many instrument approaches have visibility minimums of one mile, and you need an instrument rating to fly those approaches. Long-distance low-altitude flying has many additional risks: an increased chance of bird strikes and less time to respond in an emergency as well as greater likelihood of getting lost, to name a few. Not to mention the fact that a 700-foot ceiling and four miles' visibility at the airport can become something a lot worse a mile or two or 10 away.
I wouldn't have done anything differently myself except to tell the passengers that I didn't think the flight was a safe one to make. The fact that you didn't go certainly should have communicated this. Legally, your friend is a private pilot and is free to make his own choices. Let's hope Mother Nature will extend him some credit the day she comes to collect on his foolishness.
Big-bird touch and goes
Dear Rod:
I encountered a new situation today at my home airport. While performing the runup of my Cessna Skyhawk, I noticed a Boeing 737 in the pattern, a rare sight at our normally quiet airport, doing touch and goes.
I received the normal caution from the tower controller about wake turbulence, but I was confused about how to adjust for a jet performing both landings and takeoffs. There was scarcely enough time between its circuits for the wake turbulence to dissipate. I took off without incident, but I have been puzzling over this and have not been able to find any discussion in my flying books about this specific circumstance. The authors discuss what to do when encountering landing aircraft and what to do when encountering departing aircraft, but they never mention large aircraft doing touch and goes. Could you clarify the correct procedure for avoiding trouble should I encounter this again?
Thanks,
Robby
Greetings Robby:
Everything you've already learned about wake turbulence avoidance applies. The only difference is that you must plan your pattern to stay out from underneath the jet's descending wake. This becomes especially critical considering that larger airplanes typically have a pattern altitude of 1,500 feet agl. This could place you 500 feet or less below its wake. This is completely unacceptable in my book. My preference would be to keep the traffic pattern tighter by flying the downwind leg closer to the runway. This would keep you away from its descending turbulence.
When the 737 lands, plan to remain above its glidepath and touch down beyond its landing point. You must also lift off before the 737 does and turn to avoid flying into the descending wake. This means letting the tower know that you'll make an immediate turn after liftoff.
Can parents change plans?
Greetings Rod
A friend of mine endorsed his student for a specific cross-country trip. When the instructor saw the student at the next lesson, he asked the student how the trip went. The parent of the student changed the trip plan and had the student go to three totally different airports! This was all done without an appropriate endorsement. I found out later that this parent tended to meddle quite a bit. How do you suggest handling parents/ guardians who disregard CFI instructions?
Thanks for your time,
Curtis
Greetings Curtis:
Parents of a minor have a right to ensure that their child is receiving capable and competent instruction. They step over the line when they make the kinds of changes you described without consulting the CFI.
The CFI is the one who is responsible for teaching and legally responsible, too. If the parents don't like what the CFI is doing, they can talk with him or her about it. What they can't be allowed to do is alter the CFI's instructions.
If I were the CFI, the parent's actions would have made me pro-nuclear. I might have even started eating red meat again. I most definitely would have attained and sustained my target heart rate that day. I'd put a stop to this immediately - no, not my heart, I mean the parents' meddling. After all, the CFI's ticket is on the line here.
Rod Machado is a flight instructor, author, educator, and speaker. A pilot for 32 years and a CFI for 28, he has flown more than 8,000 hours and owns a Beech A36 Bonanza. Visit his Web site.
Related Articles
