What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Bending your own rules

scsmith

Well Known Member
Doug's safety missive stirred a lot of good discussion on a variety of topics. Paul suggested starting individual threads, so I thought I would add one on a topic not mentioned yet.

First, we all have some level of flying safety judgment. The idea of writing down where our personal boundaries lie is a great one - like a line in the sand, it puts the boundaries where you can see them, make decisions based on them, and, as Doug pointed out, make rational decisions about when to bend them.

A couple of 'rules' mentioned resonated with me. Flying single engine airplanes at night, and over water are both outside my personal normal op's rules.

I extend this to crossing rough, unlandable terrain when I can avoid it. Of course that one would be very limiting if I really stuck to it. Here's where some rational judgment makes you evaluate. The probability of something going wrong during any particular 15-minute period of cruising flight is pretty darn small, but not zero. This is part of the risk-level that we choose to accept. But if I can detour 5 minutes out of my way to follow a path that has some meadow, or clearcut, or big highway, rather than fly a route that takes me diagonally across a longer stretch of unlandable terrain, I will do it.
It just improves the odds. Why not improve the odds when we can?
So the point here is that some of my 'safety rules' are very gray rather than black and white, and I use judgment to weigh the benefits and mitigate risk when I'm in the gray band.

So this brings me to the main idea of my post. When, and how do we decide to bend our own rules? One classic 'bad' way to decide is the 'spur of the moment' impulse to do something, preceded by "hey, watch this". Another one that has killed a lot of pilots and passengers is "Get-home-itis".
This one is insidious because it also has a wide gray band. Judgment of how bad the conditions actually are is based on limited information, and how important it really is to get to the destination depends on circumstances.

Here is an example of a go/no-go decision I had to make recently. I had promised to take a colleague from work over to Fresno from San Jose to give a seminar presentation. 45 minutes flying time instead of a 3-hr drive. The day before the flight, the forecast for Saturday was for 50% chance of light rain and 2000-ft cloudbase. In Oregon, this might be considered a nice day! I am not instrument rated.
Those familiar with the south SF bay area know there are two highway routes out to the central valley with summits of about 1000--1200 ft. through the coastal mountains (the Diablo range) with ridges up to 4000 ft.

So here are the key points that factored into my decision:

1. If we stick to the plan and try to fly, there is some chance that the weather would be bad enough at some point on the route that we couldn't get through without stretching beyond my normal comfort threshold, and my colleague would not be able to keep her commitment to give the presentation. This would create pressure to bend my 'rules'.
2. As a high-time glider pilot, I'm more comfortable close to terrain than many, and I understand how to fly safely in the mountains. I am familiar with the terrain in this area, I'm 100% confident that I can fly through the 1200 ft pass with a 2000 ft or even 1750 ft cloudbase (meaning 500+ ft overcast)
3. As a low-time VFR-only power pilot, I am less comfortable around nasty weather than many. This is an odd thing really - I sometimes feel reluctant to fly my RV-8 where I would have no problem flying my glider.
4. There is no imperative reason to make this flight. I am just saving my colleague a 3-hr drive. If we make the decision early enough, she will be able to drive there. If we defer the decision to wait to see how the weather is in the morning, there is insufficient time to drive there and then we will have to fly, or she will miss her commitment.

So, this turned out to be an easy decision. I cancelled Friday night, and my colleague drove to Fresno Saturday morning. It turned out that it rained most of the day, and the cloud base did stay about 2000 ft all day. I am confident that if I HAD TO, I could have made that flight safely. But it made me examine my decision process and think about what circumstances MIGHT have made me decide differently. What if a friend or relative was injured or needed help urgently? What if I had promised to meet someone and flying was the only way to be on time? What if the cloudbase was 1500 ft instead of 2000 ft? What if the weather was 3500 scattered, but I needed to go at night? What if I found a small fuel leak while pre-flighting? What if weather was forecast to deteriorate further, so if I don't go now, I may not get home for days?

Each of these "what-if's", and others, present different risk-benefit trade-offs that would influence a decision of whether or not to bend my rules. A key point, I think, is to anticipate and avoid situations that would force a decision that you wouldn't normally make. If I fly somewhere on a trip, I keep the return schedule open and uncommitted (as best I can) so a weather or mechanical delay can be be accepted without too much stress.

Beyond that, each one of us has to make the risk-benefit decision based on our own judgment. Sadly, sometimes the outcome is bad, and others are left to wonder why someone decided to make their last flight.
 
Last edited:
Bending rules...or modifying them?

This describes much of my early RV experience growth.

http://tinyurl.com/5mphdw

Several years ago I would not fly above clouds. Then a situation occurred where I could fly under a thin cloud layer, over it or a long ways around. I fly high so going under was not a desirable option.

Going around was viable but not a great option either.

Flying over it had never been done so normally that would be eliminated. Then I thought about it. The cloud bases were well above the ground (vague recollection circa 4000' AGL). Thus plenty of time if I had to land after passing through them.

They were thin...200'-500' so I would not have been in them long.

It was summertime so no risk of icing

I had a wing leveler autopilot so using that should prevent aircraft unusual attitudes due to my spatial disorientation.

So with a picture of the extent of the cloud region I departed and flew over it with escape plans and contingency option if I had to descend through them. No problems on that flight or others since then.

My unwritten rule against flying over a cloud region was thus modified with new restrictions for that flight mode.

My rules are unwritten but very conservative. I have made multiple weather layovers. Get-there-itis is not accepted as a factor in my flight decisions.

I have flown to the Bahamas, Caymans, in the Rockies, to Baja Mexico and all over the USA. Sometimes there is a higher risk than flying 4000' over my airport. Such is life. But I mitigate risks where possible. I have no desire to be the subject of an NTSB report; have a dog who needs me and know that there is a woman out there who deserves me. No point in doing something stupid flying.
 
Both!

Certainly our judgment and our personal comfort thresholds change with time and experience. Often, as Ron pointed out, it is the small stretches of the bubble, the careful expansion of our comfort zones that adds to our experience base.

Its how we go about the process of expanding our experience and skill that matters. How we decide how much to stretch, and why.
 
Excellent topic Steve!

"Bending" rules, believe it or not, is something that I do very often in my business. now before everyone jumps out of their chairs in amazement, let me explain. Our rule book is written based on experience and data. Since we are basically doing experimental test flying, there are still a lot of unknowns - so we write the rules conservatively. When we get into a specific situation where we think that a limiting rule might apply, we look at it closely to see if it is truly and fully applicable - this is where RATIONALE for the rule becomes vitally important.

You can write a rule that says "I will not fly single engine at night". OK, that is pretty all encompassing. I would ask you "why?"

"Well", you'd say, "if I lose the engine, I won't be able to see a place to make a forced landing!" Fair enough - good reason. But then, wouldn't your rule be "I won't fly anytime that I can't have a good place for a forced landing?" What if you restrict your night flying to staying in the pattern, close enough to always make the runway? Would that satisfy the real criteria?

So when you write your rules, you need to write down WHY you put a limitation on your flying, and under what conditions those limitations apply. This holds true for every rule you write - tat way, when you find a place where you might want to fudge a little, you figure out if you are really satisfying the root criteria that forced you to write the rule in the first place.

This is really the process that you went through to decide on the Go/No Go for your trip - you looked in to the restrictions that you placed on yourself, and came up with reasons why it might or might not be acceptable to bend them a little, based on your root criteria.

"No low altitude aerobatics" - good restriction!! But how about if you hold a low altitude waiver and am performing at Oshkosh (waivered airspace)? I think that would be an acceptable way to bend the rule (the FAA certainly thinks so...).

So the moral is - if you wish to be able to bend your rules intelligently, then write down the rationale that you used to derive them. We all want to fly, we all want to use our airplanes, and we all want to enjoy them. You'd be surprised how easy it is to do all three if you fully understand the risks, and how you can mitigate them - staying legal and within the "spirit" of the rules - as well as the letter of the law.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Great point!

It's true that if I make a rule for myself, based on well-thought-out rationale, but then I forget the rationale and just remember the rule....I've really sold myself short. The rule becomes arbitrary, and looses its value in the judgment process. One might even argue that an arbitrary rule invites being broken for the wrong reasons, or at the wrong time.

Indeed, it is the rationale and judgment that really matters. Just like in Ron's case of flying VFR on top -- if there is adequate clearance between cloudbase and ground, and the actual time window in the cloud would be so short that the probability of an instrument failure or pilot disorientation is low enough to accept, then one may choose to go over the top, despite a general policy otherwise.
 
Great topic...

...and sometimes you have to decide in an instant!

Last year I was spraying a cotton field fairly early in the humid air and going across the field, ran into a very unexpected fog bank at 140 MPH and 6' altitude and 400 gallons of mixed chemical aboard!

Fortunately, as was planned, my 496 was booted up and running but on the map page. A quick punch of the page button brought me to the 6 pack screen and I gently pulled up, keeping the wings level in the muck and soon topped the fog...whew!! After a deep breath and a re-orientation, I made a 180, knowing that clear skies were a few minutes ahead and they were, so I descended and looked the whole situation over, headed back and landed for 30 minutes, called a resident near the fog bank and all was clear.

The 496 was a wise decision and both the Air Tractor and the -10 have one....with WX subscriptions.

Best,
 
Pierre,

1980 something, younger, dafter, early in my Skydiver flying.

The boss was unsure of the ceiling - we needed 2200' for static line jumps in those days.

He said - take the 206 up, check the height, be quick !

Well, what is a young buck to do ?

120kts at the end of the strip, I pulled up to - oh, 60 degrees.... and went IMC at 600 feet.

Mmmmmmmmm thought I.

Fortunately, I knew the ground sloped away to my right, so with neutral stick, I rolled right and reduced power, came wings level and waited......

At 500 feet, I saw the trees, recovered, circled, landed, paid a quick visit to the John and then said....

No, Boss - too low still !

Safety is - hopefully learned, developed and respected.

Older pilots are not boring, they are more wistful, a little bit thoughtful, but still willing to experiment when the opportunity arises :D
 
Good Discussion

Even though night flights are outside some comfort zones, all new private SEL pilot candidates are required by part 61.109 (2) to complete 3 hours of night flight training in a single-engine airplane. Pilots in many countries must have an instrument rating to fly at night.

Maybe that requirement should be done away with and have a special endorsement for those who desire to fly at night. On second thought, bad idea for those without the training and inadvertently getting caught with diminishing light trying to get home.

Making three takeoffs and landings to a full stop in the same category and class of aircraft within the preceding 90 days at night makes one current, however currency should not be confused with proficiency!
 
Safety minimums evolve

I think personal safety minimums evolve. I don't cureently fly over water. I extect, over time, i will develop techniques that will minimize the risk and flying the same plane rather than a different rental every few weeks will help. As my experience grows, so will the envelop on some of my minimums.

Of course, the opposite hold too. The older I get, the less I relish night flight. I now plan for big well lit runways and a backup if I plan for a night landing.

The restrictive exit on an RV-8 has me re-thinking some of my minimums for carrying a passenger. That was never an issue in an open cockpit plane I guess it's time to sit down with my personal list and have a serious heart to heart.

Thanks for the thread!
 
Night Flight

Night flight is not required. I have a PPL with a "No Night Flight" endorsement. I had an elderly instructor that did not want to stay up late during the summer months to give me the required training for night flying. He told me to go get my PPL with the endosement and come back in the fall when it got darker earlier to get finish up my night training. That was back in 1988. I still am a VFR - Day only pilot.
 
Night Flying

Jeff,

You are correct.

Part 61.110 (2) says
(c) A person who does not meet the night flying requirements in ?61.109 (d)(2), (i)(2), or (j)(2) may be issued a private pilot certificate with the limitation "Night flying prohibited." This limitation may be removed by an examiner if the holder complies with the requirements of ?61.109 (d)(2), (i)(2), or (j)(2), as
appropriate.

I had never seen or heard of anyone doing it unless they were in Alaska.
 
Back
Top