LeSving wrote:
I wonder what other things you don’t tell about.
Here’s an example:
After getting my EASA license, I flew to a 450m grassfield during 38C conditions in an AC with laminar flow wings.
This wasn’t difficult at all for me, as I’d already been doing that in a Mooney.
I didn’t ask anyone or tell anyone. Didn’t think to.
A year later, I was going to fly to a 500m asphalt runway at 1500m during standard conditions in the same plane.
On my way to it, an old-timer asked me, “where you going?”
I told him.
His answer, “Are you shortfield certified? That field is 500m or less.”
Me, “I’ve landed on a 450m runway in this AC in worse conditions after being type-trained on a more complex AC. Why would I need training?”
Answer, “Club rules. You can’t fly there today, pick somewhere else…”
After that, I became like many other club members… very quite and didn’t talk much about what I was doing or where I was going.
Yes, I have other stories too ;)
I’ve learned something in Europe: Act first, ask later.
Goes completely contrary to the mantra of aviation, but Europe is different. All the red tape here makes a person crazy and they start sweating details they shouldn’t, and suddenly, the important stuff, like understanding how an AC flies and observing weather patterns fades to the background, because the manual says to land at 75kts and the weather forecast was good…
I’d much prefer to be transparent and learn with others. I’ve had incredible instructors in the US and don’t mean to belittle anyone, but good grief, not all pilots are created equal, some are better trained…
alioth wrote:
Someone who shows such poor judgement isn’t going to tell the club “Oh, I’m going to fly into a random field which isn’t an airfield today!”. Instead they’ll lie, or be economical with the truth. So the rule does no good.All these rules do is just act as yet another piece of bureaucracy the majority of pilots have to put up with, and adds a further deterrent to continuing to fly after gaining the PPL.
Exactly. Tried, but couldn’t say it better… ;)
AF wrote:
I’ve learned something in Europe: Act first, ask later.
Goes completely contrary to the mantra of aviation, but Europe is different. All the red tape here makes a person crazy and they start sweating details they shouldn’t
“It’s better to ask for forgiveness than for permission” :-)
But yes – the maddening amount of forms and paperwork which do no good and do nothing to improve safety just don’t sit well with me.
Let’s compare two flights: flying my own aircraft to Barton for a weekend from Andreas, and flying the Cessna 140 I had in the USA on a similar sized trip, for example Houston Gulf to San Antonio for a weekend.
Andreas to Barton:
1. File Special Branch forms for out and return at least 12 hours in advance, despite not knowing that I can actually make those times because the weather might change.
2. Request PPR from Barton. Check website for all the weird local rules.
3. On day of flight, check notams, weather, go to the airfield.
4. Fill out airfield log at Andreas.
5. Fly to Barton.
6. Fill out airfield log at Barton.
7. Fill out aircraft journey log.
8. Fill out personal pilot log.
Return trip:
9. Check notams, weather, go to airfield.
10. Fill out booking out sheet at Barton
11. Fly back to Andreas.
12. Fill out airfield log at Andreas
13. Fill out aircraft journey log.
14. Fill out personal pilot log.
15. Make two entries in airframe log since flights occurred on different days.
16. Make two entries in engine log since flights occurred on different days.
Houston Gulf to San Antonio in owned C140:
1. Check notams, weather, go to airfield.
2. Fly to San Antonio.
3. Fill out personal pilot log.
Return trip:
4. Check notams, weather, go to airfield.
5. Fly back to SPX.
6. Fill out personal pilot log.
None of the additional TEN steps needed on the first trip make any sense, increase safety, or help. You can possibly argue that given that Barton is a grass runway PPR is necessary because you need to find out runway conditions, but that leaves nine completely unnecessary bits of paperwork that have to be dealt with. The absurd number of logbooks that have to be filled in is just…absurd.
“It’s better to ask for forgiveness than for permission” :-)
I have just told my office manageress that one and her comment was: “I bet it was a bloke who said that!” 
None of the additional TEN steps needed on the first trip make any sense, increase safety, or help.
Expanding one’s tasks is natural when paid per hour It’s very hard to prevent. One needs direction from above, and if the person above is a moron trying to do the same then it won’t happen. However Europe has a greater capacity to create spurious jobs than the USA, in activities where you don’t have the protection of a big institution. For example the FAA is full of work creators, who communicate only by fax, no email as yet.
Also in certain positions it is especially hard to counter work creation. Anything to do with “health or safety” needs very strong direction from above to keep in check, and risks the person leaving and going to the media with lurid stories of safety being compromised. That is how aeroclubs can lay down daft rules… nobody is well placed to argue with the President because he is “responsible” to the national CAA.
Peter wrote:
I have just told my office manageress that one and her comment was: “I bet it was a bloke who said that!”
alioth wrote:
15. Make two entries in airframe log since flights occurred on different days.
16. Make two entries in engine log since flights occurred on different days.
Why do you have to do that? We never even see these logs. They are held by our maintenance shop and that make any necessary entries during regular service. And I very much doubt that they retroactively make separate entries for each flight.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Why do you have to do that?
I wish I knew. It’s an utterly pointless exercise.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Grace Murray Hopper
Who is kind of a bit of a hero for me (along with Alan Turing, Richard Feynman and a few other famous nerds).
Peter wrote:
That is how aeroclubs can lay down daft rules… nobody is well placed to argue with the President because he is “responsible” to the national CAA
That’s not how it “works” at all. The president (and the board) is only responsible to the club members. There are all kinds of people in a club. Airline captains, military pilots, good PPL pilots, bad PPL pilots, pilots that hate the club and everybody in it, but are too cheap to get their own plane and too lazy to try to get involved in the club, pilots that love the club and everything it represent – and everything in between.
We don’t have many “daft” rules in our club, but I can easily see how they can get in place, as we have had some tendencies. It involves some airline captain or military pilot trying to adopt similar rules and regulations they are used to from professional flying, even if it’s only a tiny taste of it. Mix that with a board that is professional in economy related stuff, economic risk assessment etc, and you have it going. You cannot really argue with that, or them, on a safety or economic risk basis regarding the “daft” rules it may produce, because there is nothing there that doesn’t make sense from that perspective. In addition, lots of club members like to get some more “professionality” into the club also. They easily accept a few “daft” rules, because it also means the club feels more “professional”, more orderly and tidy, not a place for wild cowboys and anarchy. If it were your own plane that you rented out, you would do the same, and then some, if for no other reason than to be reasonably sure the plane would last longer than a year or two. The total risk a club plane feels in a year is many times higher than that a privately owned plane feels. The total risk of a club as a unit, is also many times higher than the risk of one single pilot.
In short, “daft” rules makes sense. And let’s face it, everyone is free to purchase their own plane, if they for some reason cannot live with the “daft” rules of the club. However, my point here is that a club is not a professional company whose main objective is to maximize profit by (in part) minimizing the economic risk. A club is not an airline where each pilot has to adhere to strict rules and safety protocol, or find himself without a job (meaning getting your own plane in a club setting). A club does not become better by becoming more “professional”, which by itself is a concept that is completely lost on many people, and in particular by those who don’t like “clubs” in the first place. A club is simply a bunch of people coming together to fly, sharing the fixed costs. The open and free community (fully democratic etc) is also it’s main safety aspect. People talking together, learning from each others experience, flying together etc. Having professional pilots as members is positive in this respect, considering those professionals are grown ups, which most, but not all, are. “Daft” rules on the other hand, are definitely not, they create an atmosphere of distrust, preventing openness, cooperation and active participation by the individuals. EASA and the national CAAs have more than enough rules we have to stick to, we certainly do not need more, not as private pilots. The club as an entity is a super high risk thing, but each individual pilot is certainly a better pilot and a safer pilot than “loners” with no club affiliation, at least when comparing equal flight hours (as mentioned earlier, there is no contradiction between owning an airplane and being member of a club).
LeSving wrote:
The club as an entity is a super high risk thing, but each individual pilot is certainly a better pilot and a safer pilot than “loners” with no club affiliation, at least when comparing equal flight hours (as mentioned earlier, there is no contradiction between owning an airplane and being member of a club).
I think you may be right here, but having seen “ruts” in the traffic pattern, in an expensive (250 hours minimum requirement) Piper navigation system’s logs, I’m not totally convinced that this is an accurate observation.
In many ways, experience is the underlying factor in pilot competence. # flight hours (unfortunately) does not convey experience. It conveys number of hours spent at the controls.
On my second cross country solo, I landed at 5 airfields. I learned more from that flight than I have on most flights since…
I got lost, I got disoriented, I had to figure out how to find my position and get back to reality!
Experiences like those changed how I perceived flight and aviation, in general. I learned a great deal from my mistakes, and they’ve made me a better pilot.
I just want to point out that flight time is not the real indicator of competence. It is an ok indicator, but the quality of that time is important.
Burning rings around an airport doesn’t give me confidence in a pilot, and my experience with clubs is that they somehow produce ring-burners…
I think I would have more trust for a pilot who owns his own plane than one in a club.
Call me crazy. :)
