"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension
yields
improved safety, but I believe that to be true.
I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I
probably
assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about
this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved
comprehension yields improved safety.
Good. I did expect you'd think this way, but I tried several
different ways
to confirm this, and never received a direct answer. However, I
suspect I
see one problem with our communication on this topic (see below).
I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face
of
it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adequate to produce
a
safe pilot.
It is adequate to produce a safe pilot. If the Private minimums were
higher, you might just as well get the Commercial :-)
You're treating "safe" as an absolute, at least in your writing. I
don't
believe that this is possible while alive (and I'm not terribly sure
about
death {8^). I see safety as you've described perfection: something
towards
which we strive while aware that the ultimate goal is unattainable.
I can't figure out where you're getting this from. The only "absolute" I
recognize as that word pertains to flight safety is that if a pilot can
meet the "absolute" test standard in the PTS, that pilot can be
considered safe. Absolute in this case simply means the pre-determined
test standard for establishing a demonstration of safe procedures.
After the test has been passed, safety in an airplane is a completely
relative term. It relates directly to continued education and currency
that translates into a continuing gaining of experience that insures a
safe standard will be maintained. Take anything out of this equation and
safety can become an issue fairly fast.
Safety is also involved in a tradeoff. As Michael has pointed out on
a
different thread, if safety were our top priority we'd not being
flying.
We're willing to trade a little safety away for the benefits of
flight.
This is a REAL stretch of how a pilot should be viewing flight safety,
and completely in opposition to anything I have ever taught to pilots
about flight safety. You are taking the obvious, which is that flying by
definition might be an unsafe endeavor and we as pilots accept that when
we choose to fly.....and projecting that into the context of how a pilot
has to view flight safety. This is totally out of line with my thinking
on this subject.
Don't EVER take up low altitude aerobatic demonstration flying with this
attitude or you will be dead in fifteen seconds or less.
If you said this to me during a check flight, I would send you back for
"remedial work"
:-)
That said, given the constraints of our tradeoffs we still try to
maximize
safety. And this takes us to my question about your opinion.
If comprehension improves safety, then is it not reasonable to require
that
comprehension from pilots?
We DO require that comprehension. We just don't require it all at once
at flight test time.
All we require at the test is a demonstrated POINT that defines enough
comprehension for certain privileges to be put on a piece of paper. If
you've heard in once, you've heard it a thousand times from almost every
competent pilot you'll meet in aviation. "The certificate is nothing but
a license to learn".
All flying really is, is an honor system. There is no top end to
competence or comprehension. It's a never ending process. You can
demonstrate continued competence at higher levels if you like. All THAT
does is confirm that you have made the right choices and continued this
never-ending process of learning and gaining experience. Interestingly
enough you can also take no active steps to gain better comprehension
and competency.
Fortunately, just gaining experience alone without this active
involvement will in most cases add up to some increased level of
competence and comprehension.
It's all up to the individual pilot which path to take, but one way or
the other, flying safely demands a constant maintaining of at least the
competency you had exiting the flight test.
I am not suggesting a change to the knowledge
required for a PPL, but I do believe it reasonable to require that
this
knowledge we're already required to have be clearly and
comprehensively
understood.
Remember Andrew, the flight test is only a demonstrated safe competency
level that assumes you will go on gaining what you need to know continue
to be safe over time. Actually, I can think of no greater example of
allocating personal responsibility than when a DE signs you off as a
Private Pilot. The DE is literally entrusting you to continue your
learning process after the door closes behind you and you have left the
examiner's office.
If DEs are not confirming this (as best possible given the limited
time
involved), then there is something wrong. And it would appear, based
upon
Dudley's experience, that at least some DEs are not confirming this.
There are some bad DE's. Most fortunately are quite good.
The system isn't perfect but it works!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
|