Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:36:54 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp813.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.170.83] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b2) with SMTP id 3193382 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:27:52 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO corbel) (rfreilich@sbcglobal.net@65.68.77.26 with login) by smtp813.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Apr 2004 15:27:52 -0000 From: "rfreilich" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: N511WD X-Original-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:27:38 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <00da01c42c6c$2febd010$8a00a8c0@corbel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00DB_01C42C42.4715C810" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00DB_01C42C42.4715C810 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks all for the posts. According to NTSB, Wendell was on an IFR = flight plan with an airplane that was NOT IFR equipped. 511WD was heavily and exceptionally outfitted on the NAV/AP side but questionable on basic = primary instruments even for VFR sunny bunnies. =20 Yes, I agree that WORX or similar would have been beneficial. Yes, we = can fly the entire flight plan and profile automatically today with only a = few minutes on the stick for take-off and landing. Yes, it is generally = safer, more accurate and greatly reduces pilot work load. But there is a frightening trend to place too much reliance on these marvels. =20 None of this high-end IFR NAV/AP equipment is worth a lick when one has = to resort to flying basic stick and rudder using primary flight instruments = in severe IFR or equipment failure conditions. They are two different = systems (integration arguments aside) because it isn't about navigation; it's primarily about flying the airplane.=20 =20 90% of successful thunderstorm penetration and exit is in the hands of = God. The remaining 10% is the pilot's basic flying skills to keep the wings level, stay at or below maneuvering speed and blue (or whatever) side = up. There is no seat of the pants flying here. We only have a few seconds = and primary flight instruments (in whatever form) to rely on to successfully accomplish our 10%. =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00DB_01C42C42.4715C810 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks = all for the posts. According to NTSB, Wendell was on an IFR flight plan = with an airplane that was NOT IFR equipped. 511WD was heavily and = exceptionally outfitted on the NAV/AP side but questionable on basic primary instruments even = for VFR sunny bunnies.

Yes, I agree that WORX or similar = would have been beneficial. Yes, we can fly the entire flight plan and profile = automatically today with only a few minutes on the stick for take-off and landing. = Yes, it is generally safer, more accurate and greatly reduces pilot work = load. But there is a frightening trend to place too much reliance on these = marvels.

None of this high-end IFR NAV/AP = equipment is worth a lick when one has to resort to flying basic stick and rudder = using primary flight instruments in severe IFR or equipment failure = conditions. They are two different systems (integration arguments aside) because it = isn’t about navigation; it’s primarily about flying the airplane. =

90% of successful thunderstorm = penetration and exit is in the hands of God. The remaining 10% is the = pilot’s basic flying skills to keep the wings level, stay at or below maneuvering = speed and blue (or whatever) side up. There is no seat of the pants flying = here. We only have a few seconds and primary flight instruments (in whatever = form) to rely on to successfully accomplish our 10%.

------=_NextPart_000_00DB_01C42C42.4715C810--