kiessig@sri-unix (08/08/82)
We must remember that a certain amount of well-placed regulation is
important. Case in point: On a recent visit to the northeast, a friend
and I had check rides and rented a Cessna 172 at Norwood airport, southwest
of Boston. We planned on some sightseeing, and then heading up to
Manchester to see some friends. After 20-30 minutes in the air, during
which time we decided the coast was too cloudy, we turned north and headed
directly for Manchester. About 3 miles from Hanscom, at about 3500 feet,
the engine lost 1000+ RPM. Following standard procedures, we attempted
recovery and then called in a Mayday, and landed safely at Hanscom. The
tower requested us to call them after parking, which we did. They asked
for only VERY few details. Who I was, what happened, and where I was when
it happened, and my N-number. That was over a month ago, and I've heard
nothing from them since.
What's interesting about this is what happened afterwards:
a mechanic from the local FBO said he would look at the plane. We
revved it up, the instrument panel shook as to be unreadable,
and a small piece of metal fell out of the exhaust pipe (a piece
of an exhaust valve, as it turned out). This plane was no more
than 3 years old, and had about 700 hours on it. ('Norwood Aviation'
rented the plane to us. I later heard that is worst possible place
in the Boston area to rent planes).
How can we fly safely, when our planes aren't maintained? I know
other pilots, who, even after a thorough and complete preflight, have had
their planes break. Granted, the percentage of accidents from 'mechanical
failure' is small, but I know all too many owners and FBOs who just don't
keep their planes up. Seems to me that THIS is a place where a little
extra regulation of some kind might help - dealing with rented aircraft. I
must admit I'm at a loss as to what would work here, though.
Noise abatement is something I've had to live with here at Palo
Alto airport, and at Santa Monica. In both places, it has been the local
resident's first step in attempting to get rid of the airports all
together. It's a pain proceduraly, but I don't have a problem with it
otherwise. It would be a different story if I were flying high performance
aircraft so noisy that I couldn't land a certain airports soley because of
noise abatement (like jets at SMO). Of course an extra .1 hours/trip at
$70/hr. wouldn't taste real wonderful, either (it's not great even at
$30/hr.).
Most (not all) pilots I've met have reasonable sense when it comes
to regulations and saftey. The biggest problems I've seen are non-pilots
attempting to regulate pilots. Things like the TCA over San Diego (AOPA's
approach was much more reasonable). Allowing the construction of large
buildings at the departure end of SFO. Pilots not doing preflights,
and/or not logging problems they find.
Has anyone considered changing the FAR's slightly to require
stiffer currency requirements for pilots operating in high density traffic
areas? I like the current flexibility of the FAR's, but I have almost been
smashed several times by inexperienced/unskilled pilots, who have enough
trouble making it around the pattern, much less watching for other planes,
using the radio, using anti-collision lights, etc. The thought of students
pilots zooming throught the VFR coridoor over LAX is pretty spine-chilling,
let me tell you.
Rick KiessigPS@MIT-MC@sri-unix (08/08/82)
From: Peter E. Seissler <PS at MIT-MC> Your experience at Norwood Aviation makes a good point about safety. I'll make a bet the that FBO DOES maintain its planes in accordance to the FARs. And yes, the requirements for rental aircraft is stiffer than for private aircraft (remember the 100 hour inspection). However, that's part of the problem. The aircraft 'has met the maintenence requirements of the U.S. Government', as the ad would read. But in my book, that doesn't mean its safe. The private aircraft owners that I know take better care of their aircraft than the FBOs I know (of course, they have an easier job: only 1 or 2 pilots flying the plane). Regulation can be false security. A better rule would be KNOW THY PLANE (i.e. know thy FBO - I wouldn't fly in a Norwood Aviation plane either). Go to Wiggins, more expensive, but MUCH more professional. Pete