Cobalt wrote:
250m is just about the length of the take of roll for many SEPs.
Another caveat, but the issue isnt being framed in specific terms, I think Timothy is seeking a blanket limitation, SEPs, MEPs, turbines and piston, 6, 8 and more passengers and crew.
Cobalt wrote:
Otherwise, kindly provide the safety case for driving to work every day.
Just imagine, every day in 150m viz., two, three and four passengers to a car and a few thinking they can drive more than sedately. On a serious note, thank goodness other drivers slow down everyone else, and speed limits are set on motorways. The accidents are bad enough as it is.
I remain personally more interested in the issue of whether such takeoffs are a good idea rather than should they be illegal.
Cobalt wrote:
And, Dave, You have it the wrong way round. I don’t need to put a safety case for doing something. Somebody – anybody – who wants to take away freedoms better have a good one that justifies taking a freedom away from me.
I don’t have it the wrong way round. That is the law, plain and simple.
One trend I notice in the GA fraternity is a lack of acceptance regarding unintended consequences and third party risk. I previously mentioned Shoreham and make no apologies for bringing-up the subject, again. I’ll also include the A109 crash near Vauxhaul Bridge. These two events (which firmly sit within GA) have the potential of completely changing the way we go about our business/hobby. In both, we killed uninvolved third parties. The spotlight is on us; it would be worthwhile identifying the battles worth fighting rather than banging-on about Freedom and the ‘right’ to do something that, in the eyes of many peers, is just daft.
We are about to set off on a pleasure flight. You haven’t paid for the flight and the flight will most likely end where it started today (assuming that most flights are for a days outing somewhere and back). There is actually no need we fly other than I hope it will be an enjoyable days outing.
As you can see we are fogged in. Although the forecast suggests the fog should clear, there is a risk it will not because fog forecasts are notoriously unreliable. In that event if we depart we may need to divert and will need to get a taxi back to collect our cars.
I haven’t received any specific training to depart in these conditions.
I should make you aware that in the event of an engine failure, fire or other serious fault before we are clear of fog beneath us the outcome is likely to be fatal. The nearest airport at which we could land is about 20 minutes away, because although I am trained to land in poor visibility, I cannot land back at the same airport in these conditions.
I should also make you aware that various scenarios could arise during the take off roll, which will be more challenging to deal with in these conditions. We are placing ourselves at a greater risk than flying in an aircraft with two engines and two pilots who regularly train to operate in ground fog.
Of course we could wait and see if the fog clears, or we could postpone and wait for a better day.
It is really up to you. I am happy to take you, but I do need you to understand that because of this fog there is a greater degree of risk associated with this flight than were the conditions better. I assess the added risk as small because mechanical or other problems seldom occur, but of course I cannot guarantee they will not, and if they do, I could find myself without any realistic options. I am happy for you to decide whether you would like me to take you up, or whether you would prefer to leave it for another day.
Is that reasonable and honest briefing for a typical flight with friends in such conditions given we are discussing that we are discussing flying in these conditions, with passengers, for pleasure flights and we are not just discussing a pilot flying for his own business, or to set off on a weeks trip.
Of course it is possible that with or without that spoken assessment the pilot knows there is no ban on him going, feels fine and able to accept the risk, and it will impress his friends as well so lets just do it.
I recall many a time in a days gone the French approach where the airport was closed to all but IFR arrivals and departures. The fact it was, made the Brit contingency very wary of leaving because they realised it would be a position difficult to defend. The point is I think its great allowing intelligent people to intelligently assess this type of decision making but setting some go no go limits also stops some people pressing those limits too far.
I am therefore suggesting that most GA pilots would not set off with 150m ground viz., perhaps not least becasue in most cases they would have no need to do so, and most passnegers would be reluctant to accompany them if properly briefed, so you are left with a few who would do so with the minimium of risk and a few who would let bravado get the better of them. It seems resonable to place limits on the brave few and allow the remainder to demonstrate competance and receive an exemption.
Well, allowing uncontrolled traffic, without flight plans or radar is daft too. Did you know that people can do it from their own grass fields, without radioing ahead and getting permission? What if two of them collided over a school? Utterly daft. Let’s ban it all.
We must also be careful not to question the law. That should be banned. I blame it on democracy. Bring back the Colonels, I say.
Peter wrote:
As before, off topic postings will be moved to the “off topic/political” thread…
Not sure I understand Peter. A specific issue here is what about doing it with passengers. The argument that was made is that passengers in light GA consent to the risk.
JasonC wrote:
Peter wrote:
As before, off topic postings will be moved to the “off topic/political” thread…Not sure I understand Peter. A specific issue here is what about doing it with passengers. The argument that was made is that passengers in light GA consent to the risk.
Briefing passenger on GA risk in general – I agree a seperate topic, briefing passengers on this specific risk I would respectfully suggest should be left here.
I would love to see Fuji’s passenger briefing for a flight in an old Archer, with no traffic and no GPS, from Le Touquet to Biggin on a clear bright summer’s early evening.
In my view that would be considerably more hazardous than taking off from Biggin in 250m (where Southend is above minima) and flying in a 500’ cloudbase to Le Touquet in a capable twin, or SET. It would certainly scare me more, and I have been around the block a couple of times.
We are trying to play the ball here, yes?
PS. This is a really good read.
