The International Cessna^® 170 Association

I have found, over the years, it is very important to understand who you are flying with, his/her background and experience, and to make inquires regarding how much they have planned for the particular flight. Generally, I arrive with the flight planned for myself. I have learned to arrive under the assumption and equipped for the fact that the pilot has not prepared and is not equipped - including simple charts, etc. My knee board carries everything I might need for the flight and possible alternatives. I do not rely on the other pilot to arrive prepared and have come to assume he/she will not. A review of NTSB rulings suggests they rule against the most experienced pilot in the aircraft, especially if he/she is in a pilot seat. I set basic rules with the pilot I am flying with and make sure my role in the airplane is fully understood - otherwise we don't fly together. I have had my share of "I will never do that again" events and don't want anymore.

This is why it is always a good idea for a quick preflight brief, in addition to the required passenger safety brief, covering a few safety of flight issues and general attitude of the flight. One thing that is a common crew concept is the "NO" vote, one "NO" overules in an abnormal situation, meaning the most conservative and safest action should be followed. You can also prebrief parameters such as airspeed deviations, ball deviations, altitude deviations, etc. An adequate brief can be given in less than two minutes. I would be willing to bet that most accidents involving more than one pilot did not have any sort of safety brief.
I for one don't like flying with people that I don't know very well, or am suspect about their abilities and attitude. A few years ago I was admiring a Lake 200 amphibian at my airport and the owner volunteered to take me for a flight. I have always thought that they were really cool airplanes so I jumped at the chance. We took off and flew to a nearby lake and the first thing he did was drop down to 10-20 feet. I thought that he was setting up for a landing but instead he was basically buzzing the entire lake. I was more than a little nervous because I had no idea whether he knew better than to not bank hard (and dig a wing) or whether he could handle any sort of emergency at that altitude. I poised my hands to pull up if he decided to do anything crazier than what he was doing. Thankfully it was a short flight, I vowed to never get in an airplane with him again. There is no doubt that I should have immediately said something, but basically we went from what I thought was an approach to land, to a transition to buzzing then we were done. A few months later he crashed the Lake and killed himself and another passenger on Lake Tahoe. I am not certain what happened but I can only imagine.
A hangar neighbor has a Mooney he has been offering to take me up in, he isn't very experienced and I just can't muster up the interest in flying with him unless I am in some sort of control.
David

dacker wrote: One thing that is a common crew concept is the "NO" vote, one "NO" overules in an abnormal situation, meaning the most conservative and safest action should be followed.

This is exactly what I discuss with a new-to-me pilot before I ride with them. As you can imagine it's much more difficult to push this policy if you are the less experienced pilot as I often am, but if a more senior pilot won't consider my input and respect this simple agreement, then I have no need to be in an aircraft with someone who values pride before safety.

I always thought the "moose hunter's stall" refered to an aircraft loaded out of CG limits and overgross. I can see were one might have this sort of incident whilst circling an object on the ground too. When I flew as a Forward Air Controller in the USAF, we would fly a figure eight pattern, but not directly over the target, rather offset to on side. The turns at the ends of the eight were always toward the target, with a short straight away angling away from it. This allowed us to keep the target in sight through the whole manuever and get some straight and level flight to make notes or use binocluars while waiting for the fighters to check in. I think it would work on a moose too.

JeffHinkle wrote:When I flew as a Forward Air Controller in the USAF,... This allowed us to keep the target in sight ... while waiting for the fighters to check in. I think it would work on a moose too.

Yes.... a Phantom with napalm definitely works well. Two Phantoms is very-well done.

Moose don't shoot back.

Green Bean wrote:Moose don't shoot back.

Right...they justs stand there and suck you out of the sky.

[quote][/quote]Right...they justs stand there and suck you out of the sky.

Spoken by a man of experience, Just think if you were using an AOA indicator you wouldn't have to generate so much information.