![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ron Garret" wrote in message ... If an aircraft enters an unusual attitude following an AI failure, most pilots would say that that accident was caused (at least in part) by the AI failure despite the fact that the AI didn't (directly) cause the plane to enter an unusual attitude. I think you're wrong about that. I think most pilots would say that erroneous information provided by a failed AI would be a direct cause of an unusual attitude. Are you a pilot? But OK, have it your way: the pilot drops the GPS. Being a competent pilot he does not attempt to retrieve it. It bounces around in the turbulence and, unbeknownst to the pilot, it gets wedged under one of the rudder pedals. The airplane spins and crashes turning base to final because the now limited travel on the rudder pedal makes it impossible to adequately compensate for adverse yaw (and the pilot doesn't realize it until it's too late). So what you're saying is that loose objects in the cockpit can be hazardous. That may very well be, but that's not the subject of this discussion. Most accidents, including this hypothetical one, are the result of long causal chains of events, all of which are collectively necessary for the accident to occur. It is true that the pilot in my first scenario was incompetent, but in a way that would not have manifested itself but for the need to retrieve the GPS from the floor of the plane. (And this, by the way, is why it matters that it's a GPS that was dropped and not, say, a granola bar. The perceived urgency of retrieving a granola bar would probably be less than that of retrieving the GPS.) Why? The pilot can always ask ATC for navigational assistance, but they can't provide an inflight snack. It's a moot point since I have now provided a scenario involving a competent pilot, but do you have a principled basis for assigning all of the causality to one of many factors in the causal chain, or did you simply choose to make this assignment arbitrarily in order to support your untenable position? My untenable position? It is my position that use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is without hazard. Note that nobody has identified any hazard from such usage. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|