Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
#1819879
BoeingBoy

As some may know. I take these matters and my personal responsibility to others very seriously. I’ve also spent my entire career making rule based decisions, (we may do the same job?) unless I could stand in a court of law, and explain in great and highly considered detail to a hostile barrister precisely why I could justify a personal variation in unusual circumstances. The ‘grey’ areas.

I am in a virtually identical situation to you. The aircraft I own, that nobody else touches, is located at a totally deserted airfield a 15 minute drive from home. In recent days, and for the first time in a month, I started the engine and flew in my (very) local area. I will not attend the airfield again now until a suitable day in the middle of next month.

I know precisely how to justify that. I suspect you can do the same.

However.

Would I consider flying my aircraft to a business at another airfield, then take public transport home? Presumably doing the same journey in reverse at some later date? Not a chance.

Will I fly more frequently than once a month purely because I enjoy it? No.

As for flying purely for reasons of mental health. Seriously?? :shock: (This comment not aimed at you! I have agonised too!)

As has been said, “ Every unnecessary interaction you have could be the link in a chain of transmission which has a vulnerable person at the end.”

Looking around, I suspect the vast majority of GA pilots are doing their bit. (As are many non pilots who are making considerable sacrifices.) Though from some of the arguments employed here, an ‘outsider’ reading this forum might easily gain a different idea? :roll:
Last edited by A4 Pacific on Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
kanga, ADIRU777 liked this
#1819880
@BoeingBoy given it is impossible to define 'the right thing' the balance surely has to lie with flying. :wink:

A4Pacific wrote:...and explain in great and highly considered detail to a hostile barrister precisely why I could justify a personal variation in unusual circumstances.

I can identify with that thought process, however its weakness is that there is no way of knowing how said barrister would view your justification. His acceptance remaining your opinion. :wink:
#1819932
Miscellaneous wrote:@BoeingBoy given it is impossible to define 'the right thing' the balance surely has to lie with flying. :wink:

A4Pacific wrote:...and explain in great and highly considered detail to a hostile barrister precisely why I could justify a personal variation in unusual circumstances.

I can identify with that thought process, however its weakness is that there is no way of knowing how said barrister would view your justification. His acceptance remaining your opinion. :wink:


It ain't the barrister you need to convince, it's the judge.

My inclination is to fly it once a decent bit of weather appears, with all of the well aired C-19 caveats.

You just need to make sure, when somebody says 'why did you do that', the answers sounds good when it ends with "... xyz, Your Honour".
#1819995
BoeingBoy wrote:I see that there are a handful of engine health flights taking place and my own dilema is whether to sacrifice this months and go to sixty days non ops in the hope that things might be looser in a months time or join those who feel that their Lycoming won't be so forgiving. The aircraft is hangared but close to the coast.


Not quite the same thing, but I know that my 22 year old motorcycle carb engine wont start if left anywhere near 60 days whilst parked in a garage 50 miles from the coast with occasional battery charging. I am not a mechanic and I was relieved it started this week, but only just. Normally I would run the engine every few weeks over a winter, but this winter I dont remember doing it in December. My preference is to keep it in working order as parts supply is an issue for some parts.

BoeingBoy wrote:I shelled out £10k for four new cylinders two years two years ago due to corrosion caused by a three month lay up and don't want to do that again.


If a lot of engines are corroded up there will be a queue for the Approved maintenance facilities and more flying skill fade.

I recently made a comment that if they dont allow engine maintenance flights then a grant for the price of a factory new engine and labour would be appreciated.

BoeingBoy wrote:That said, it's more the safety aspect that worries me. I can access my aircraft safely without human contact whilst risking a minimal chance of carrying or contracting the virus. Or I can 'do the right thing' and stay at home whilst risking a far more significant chance of dying in an accident in a few months time.


They reckon the virus lives upto 72 hours on hard plastic and metal surfaces. So if nobody touches the aircraft for 3 days before you or after you then nobody can pass it on or catch through contact with the aircraft.
#1820013
Kemble Pitts wrote:It ain't the barrister you need to convince, it's the judge.

You just need to make sure, when somebody says 'why did you do that', the answers sounds good when it ends with "... xyz, Your Honour".

Indeed, however the principle is exactly the same. The whole purpose of, let's call it the court, is to sit on judgment on the answers one believes convincing, not simply to verify them.

Being comfortable within one's self is no guarantee.

As I see it @BoeingBoy's scenario is a personal judgement call involving weighing practicality against his desire to do a non definable 'right thing'. Let's call that his integrity.

One decision satisfies a purely mental need, the other has greater practical implications.

Always difficult when there is no black and white, right or wrong answer.
#1820142
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:
They reckon the virus lives upto 72 hours on hard plastic and metal surfaces. So if nobody touches the aircraft for 3 days before you or after you then nobody can pass it on or catch through contact with the aircraft.


Virus particles may be detected at 72 hours but it is highly unlikely that the virus is living (detection tests are very sensitive).

Viral load is the important factor in disease acquisition.

Although sensible, I wouldn’t be too concerned with avoiding surface contact for 72 hours.
PeteSpencer liked this
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8