About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:31:38 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

Yes, I was intentionally contriving a high risk operation, but giving a
good reason for doing it. You conducted a high risk operation with no
good reason. That is exactly what is wrong with your picture.

Sorry, don't buy it.

You are getting behind an airplane not entirely focused on flying which
makes you much more dangerous then me VFR over the top.

In my opinion, if you get behind a yoke for your stated reasons, that you
have get home itis to get to your destination, you are making the ultimate
poorest pilot decision to fly where as in my situation, I didn't have get
home itis, and have alternatives when I flew VFR over the top.

What would be the difference with your situation and had I pressed on for
an ILS at 800 foot ceilings if the outcome is the POTENTIALLY the same
given the same weather conditions and piloting skills.?

My risk factor would be much lower as I had choices then your stated
reasons.

Risk factors are higher in your situation since you are not completely
focused on flying, but getting there.

Get home itis will kill you if you are not mentally prepared to fly an
airplane.

Allen

So, I take it your experience has nothing to do with Part 121, to which I
was referring.

Sorry, don't buy it.

The point he's making, I think, is that the risk=reward equation depends
on the reward as well as the risk. "Get-home-itis" has little reward
(getting home), but in his scenario, the reward (his son's life) is much
greater. For purposes of this discussion, assume that there is no
"other way" (i.e. no charter pilots available, too far by car, etc, so
it's fly or die).

A little different, but also showing that context is important, what
would you think of a pilot who routinely flies below 500 feet, in fact
where there are no buildings he flies at more like fifty feet and makes
steep turns at that altitude? Good pilot for skills? Bad pilot for
decisionmaking? Would it make a difference were he a cropduster?

Certain operations, and operations under certain circumstances, are more
risky than others. Sometimes the added risk is warranted.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
I again still respectfully disagree. I am VMC on top. How would I know
that the weather is worsening BELOW the overcast???

ATIS. It's an error. Granted, it's one borne of inexperience, but
experience is how we become better pilots - it goes without saying that
prior to experience, we were worse pilots.

All true, but I think there's also a training deficiency in evidence here.
Prior to the first solo XC, a student should be familiar with the use of
ATIS/AWOS/ASOS, HIWAS, FSS, and EFAS (Flight Watch) to obtain in-flight
weather updates, and should have practiced using those resources during dual
training flights. A pilot shouldn't have to learn this stuff for the first
time while flying alone in deteriorating weather.

--Gary

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:P%RJf.97654$4l5.90774@dukeread05...
If I needed a flight for a sick family member, I'd call a
detached professional.

Of course, but Matt contrived (for the sake of illustration) a hypothetical
situation in which making the flight himself was the only possible way to
get need help. His point was just *in those circumstances*, making the
flight is by far the better option.

--Gary

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
.. .
I would think that no matter how bad a medical condition is, there are
many
other means to accomplish getting there other then having a very
distracted
pilot with get there itis.

There may or may not be other means available. Matt was describing a
situation in which there aren't; *different* kinds of situations have no
bearing on the point he was making about *that* situation.

Just how much more likely do you suppose a fatality is when a pilot is
highly distracted and flying VFR over the top? More than, say, 100 times
more likely than usual? A typical few-hour GA flight has less than one
chance in 20,000 of resulting in a fatality (see the Nall Report), so a
hundred-fold increase in risk would still mean less than a half-percent
chance of death. Or even a *thousand-fold* increase would still mean less
than a five percent chance--still far preferable to the alternative in the
hypothetical situation Matt described. Is there any reason to believe that
Matt's hypothetical situation increases the risk of fatal accident by much
more than a factor of 1,000?

Matt was saying my flying over the top with a VFR licence was a bad
piloting decision. Would you say that was a bad decision or a good
decision?

I'd say it was a bad decision unless you had reason to be confident that
clearer weather was within your flight range, and unless you continued to
monitor the weather using the available en route resources (it would be an
error on a pilot's part--perhaps reflecting a gap in training--to embark on
an XC flight without being prepared to use those resources if needed).

I question the decision to launch under conditions he describe as a "good
piloting" decision. AS you say yourself, the risk factor is enormous, so
much more then my decision to fly VFR over the top.

The risk in Matt's situation is indeed much greater than in yours. But
there's no reason to think that greater risk amounts to more than a
few-percent chance of fatality. In a situation where *not* flying has a
*higher* risk than that of resulting in a fatality, it is therefore a good
decision to fly. You always have to look at the benefit side of the equation
as well as the risk side.

--Gary

In the civilized world there are always options.

Whether flying under IFR or VFR, the "competent pilot" will
always be checking the weather, particularly the weather
that can't be seen directly. Still the "outside world
indicator" is the most important instrument in the airplane.
It allows the average pilot to navigate, avoid collisions
with the ground and other airplanes, keep track of changing
weather and it provides most of the joy of flight. Being on
top makes checking the weather more important.

Having an instrument rating makes weather much more
difficult because you will be flying in it. The VFR only
pilot, whether caused by airplane equipment, currency or
just not having the certificate, has a much easier time with
weather if he has the smarts to see that 2,000 and 5 is not
good weather at Aspen.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:P%RJf.97654$4l5.90774@dukeread05...
| If I needed a flight for a sick family member, I'd call
a
| detached professional.
|
| Of course, but Matt contrived (for the sake of
illustration) a hypothetical
| situation in which making the flight himself was the only
possible way to
| get need help. His point was just *in those
circumstances*, making the
| flight is by far the better option.
|
| --Gary
|
|

Gary Drescher wrote:
"A Lieberman" wrote in message
.. .

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:28:18 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:


If one of my kids was in need of a transplant and had 24 hours to live
and flying to pick up the organ was the only option, then I'd take that
risk in a heartbeat. I would fly alone given the risk, but I'd do it
without hesitation.

However, such situations are extremely rare and thus don't factor into
normal decision making.

Excuse me?

What you describe above is the worst possible pilot decision one could
make.


Hardly. It's true that the fatality risk is enormous--perhaps even on the
order of 1% or more. But in the (very unlikely) hypothetical situation Matt
describes--that the flight is the only way to save one of his kids--a 1%
fatality risk is well worth it. So Matt's risk-benefit analysis is
completely reasonable.

It is reasonable to me. It may not be to others, but in cases like
this, we get to make the call. :-)

Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:

I disagree, to save the child the flight must be successful
and on time. A professional flight, in a professional class
airplane is the only sure thing to save the child. The
personal involvement of the concerned pilot raises the risks
and reduces the chances of success.

In my scenario there is no other option. There is no commercial service
available. In my scenario, the ONLY option is to fly yourself in your
GA airplane. Do you still feel the same way?


The FAA has changed VFR rules for over the top and night
flights to try a regulatory means to preempt the choice of a
less safe option. If you're out just for fun, solo and you
kill yourself, aside from the bad PR and destruction of the
airplane, that is your choice. But an unsafe emergency
flight is risking more than your life.

I have run into a burning building and put the fire out
while it was still just in the electrical panel (it was a
motel and my wife and son were in the room less 50 feet from
the fire. I know what is involved in accepting a risk. I
had told my family to get dressed and outside while I was
grabbing the extinguisher.

If I needed a flight for a sick family member, I'd call a
detached professional.

Again, in my scenario this isn't an option. Either YOU make the flight
or your child dies. What is your decision?


Matt

A Lieberman wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 04:21:48 GMT, Jose wrote:


I followed the VFR rules to a tee when the wheels
went up.

Rules aren't sufficient, as you learned.


Yep, you are so right. That flight made me pursue my IFR rating *smile*

Had I had my IFR rating, we wouldn't be discussing it, it would had been a
non eventful ILS approach with 800 foot ceilings, but as you said, we learn
from our experiences.

Absolutely correct!


Every time I step on the ramp, I am in the learning mode....

Yes, as we all should be.

Matt