uh huh.Now spell "far fetched"
I think some people need to spend a lot more
time in the cockpit, than worrying about how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Or, as I like to put it, "All chalk, no stick".
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore
uh huh.Now spell "far fetched"
Why do you wear a hood?Who can act as a safety pilot while I'm under the hood doing simulated IMC flying and approaches in VMC?
I love that.Colonel Sanders wrote:... "Big Hat, No Cattle" ...
I suspect that many people wish to have practice flying wearing their "vision limiting device" for purposes of simulating their flight test conditions. Given that there are a great many people out there holding instrument ratings, or are training towards said rating, who might have never flown in cloud to have their vision limited as such, and practice they've done has all been strictly VFR. They want extra practice with vision limited, since they don't trust that they can just pretend they're in IFR conditions.. . wrote:Why do you wear a hood?Who can act as a safety pilot while I'm under the hood doing simulated IMC flying and approaches in VMC?
Negligence. Since it is now a standard practice for aviation regulators to produce some rule like the model presented in Annex 2 I would say the regulator in Canada is not fulfilling its duty of care in this case. What possible reasonable grounds can the regulator advance in support of its failure to exercise its discretionary power in a manner which is well established in many other countries?What is the tort, here?
You can't draw the inference that if a rule had existed the accident wouldn't have occurred; meanwhile you're trying to shift the responsibility from the pilot onto the regulator because they didn't specifically forbid something.
Any guidance or direction from the regulator which authorises solo simulated IF is open to serious scrutiny. If a person following that guidance collided with another aircraft, or caused injury to persons or property on the ground, then I think the regulator will have opened the door to being sued for negligence, notwithstanding the negligence attributable to a pilot foolish enough to abandon basic airmanship in following the guidance.Do keep in mind that a very senior flight instructor here
has repeatedly stated that TC in his region has told people
to go fly solo under the hood - no lookout required.
If you really think this is the biggest problemI would say the regulator in Canada is not fulfilling its duty of care
Why would FSS be able to help you in class E? Wouldn't monitoring the relevant traffic advisory frequency or ATC frequency (if in RADAR airspace) be more helpful?- I fly in class E airspace in contact with FSS.
If you're head on towards another small aircraft, your closing speed could be 240 knots, or better. Taking your eyes of the sky for ten seconds means you need to guarantee to see anyone conflicting before they're closer than 2/3 of a mile. Further, if you want time to take evasive action. Something to think about.- I still look for traffic every 10 seconds or so.