![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael" wrote in message om... "Chip Jones" wrote Safety first and above all, right? No, not right. If safety was first and above all, we would all ground ourselves and fly the airlines. No matter what we do, we won't ever be able to match the airline safety record - our equipment, training, and experienec are simply not up to it. So the very fact that we fly these little airplanes demonstrates that safety is NOT the most important thing, and that we are willing to trade off safety for what appear to us to be good and sufficient reasons - be they cost, fun, or convenience. I was referring to the controller. Controllers aren't flying those "little airplanes". They're operating an air traffic system where safety is the most important goal, even above efficiency. You pay him to be correct 100% of the time, every time. Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Nobody is correct 100% of the time. I never said anyone was correct 100% of the time. I said the controller is paid to be correct 100% of the time- that is the air safety goal of the FAA, zero errors. Not saying it's achievable, but that is the goal and that is part of why the controller is drawing a salary funded by your tax dollars. Mistakes are going to be made. Any system that depends on human reliability is unreliable. I strongly disagree. Human ATC is not unreliable at all, nor is it inherintly error prone. Further, the more complex you make the system, the more mistakes will be made. If you need consistently correct execution of a complex set of rules some of which are used only rarely, you need a computer, not a human. LOL! What is so complex about issuing a legal Visual Approach Clearance? I think this controller is breaking regs because he doesn't know any better. I agree. The important question to ask is WHY doesn't he know any better? He's not an isolated example. Maybe this controller is the product of the Clinton-era "Train to Succeed" program, in which FAA management deemed that any human being, especially female and minority human beings, could succeed as a full performance level controllers, if only given enough training time, regardless of failing benchmark checkrides. The result is that now we have some weak controllers whom we can't fire because we don't have a replacement pipe-line. In my facility, we don't even have time to do recurrent training anymore. Try asking for an IFR climb while providing own obstacle clearance sometime. What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day. In my opinion, the rules are overly complex. The complexity is the result of accidents that have occurred - an attempt is made to have the rules cover every possible situation. First, that's impossible anyway. Second, this results in a complex set of rules some of which are applicable only rarely. This is a situation that encourages an increase in human error. I think at some point you have to simplify the rules, even if this makes them less comprehensive, because the reduction in human error will more than offset the systematic error in rare cases. Interesting points, but I don't see the rules governing cruise clearances and visual approaches to be overly complex. Chip, ZTL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
Night over water | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 43 | March 4th 04 01:13 AM |
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 45 | November 20th 03 05:20 AM |
Visual Appr. | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 08:36 PM |