X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:45:58 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from gateway1.stoel.com ([198.36.178.141] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c1) with ESMTP id 686718 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:56:58 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.36.178.141; envelope-from=JJHALLE@stoel.com Received: from PDX-SMTP.stoel.com (unknown [172.16.103.137]) by gateway1.stoel.com (Firewall Mailer Daemon) with ESMTP id 00229E9DCE for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from PDX-MX6.stoel.com ([172.16.103.64]) by PDX-SMTP.stoel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:56:10 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Good risk decisions X-Original-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:56:10 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <17E9FE5945A57A41B4D8C07737DB60721981BF@PDX-MX6.stoel.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: lml Digest #1329 Thread-Index: AcWtSbUbJXV6jyD7S/GCHHDJmEUWKAAL7i+A From: "Halle, John" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Aug 2005 15:56:10.0297 (UTC) FILETIME=[570CDA90:01C5AD7B] Mark Sletten wrote: "The second manual, lets call it our REGS (sorry again), tells us IF we = can operate the aircraft. If the crosswind doesn't exceed 15 kts, if the ceiling is above 1000', if... whatever. Create a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) and put it in your REGS. Set your minima according to an honest evaluation of your capability then, and this is most important, STICK TO = IT! A quick review of the REGS prior to flight can help make safer go/no-go decisions." I think this is a good idea and would add a section that had to do with = when to turn back, once in the air. I think a lot of bad judgments are = made after a reasonable takeoff decision but when it turns out that the = conditions are worse than expected. A couple ideas that help me: 1. I will happily file IFR with at least 500' ceilings and no = significant risk of ice or convective activity. When either either ice = or serious convection are present, I may still go but only if I can = remain VFR. If I can't, I'm on my way back. 2. Whenever I try anything that I am not sure is going to work, I use = the 99% Plan B rule. I am ok with trying to fly a plan that has a 30% = chance of working out as long as I always have a Plan B that is 99% sure = to work. What that plan is (and whether there is one) can change from = minute to minute (for example, always having an airport you know you can = make but the airport keeps changing) but at any point if I think I am = about to lose my 99% Plan B, Plan B becomes Plan A and that is what I = do. I think some weather related accidents occur when unexpected conditions = crop up and the pilot has no process that he/she has thought out in = advance for how to decide what to do about it.