Go? Or No-Go?

Frank Bowlin

Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 05:59 PM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

Pilots of complex aircraft frequently face "grey area" go/no-go decisions for minor equipment failures, requiring careful analysis beyond obvious critical issues.
The decision often hinges on context, with an issue potentially being acceptable for continuing an ongoing trip but a reason to cancel the start of a new one.
Factors considered in these judgments include redundancy, the potential for critical system impact (e.g., de-icing capability), and the ability to mitigate risks through modified procedures.
The author illustrates this with two contrasting examples: declining a new trip for a failed vacuum pump due to potential icing risk, but approving a new trip with a failed electric fuel pump by modifying fuel management.

See a mistake? Contact us.

Although my Twin-Cessna 340 has been amazingly reliable, it is still a complex aircraft with two turbocharged engines, pressurization, and known-ice certification, among other items. So, predictably, it has presented me with some situations that were obvious no-go items, some that clearly were just deal-with-it-later, and some that required some careful analysis.

I tend to be a reasonably conservative pilot. I credit this attitude to far more than my share of stupid pilot tricks that didn’t end disastrously, and the rigorous training and operations of the airline where I flew.