Why The Hell... (random rant)

Snowbird writes:

Interestingly, over there he was opposed to new technology and
was heavily against the then-new digital cameras, while here he advocates
total reliance on electronic digital systems in aircraft.

No, I do not. If you examine my posts here, you'll find that I'm opposed to
extremes. I'm opposed to relying entirely on systems such as GPS or
computerized glass cockpits, and I'm also opposed to the romantic notion that
somehow a mere compass is going to get you out of trouble if more complex
instrumentation fails.

In other words, moderation is best in all things. You cannot fly safely with
just a compass. You also run a risk of flying unsafely if you rely entirely
on a fancy navigation system that is not proven 100% reliable, such as GPS.

To stay safe, you must recognize that anything can fail--and you must also
recognize that something as crude as a compass is really no more useful than
nothing at all, so you must not assume that having a compass makes you any
safer.

A corollary of this is that you must always verify that everything in your
aircraft is working. If you think you can get by with malfunctioning
equipment, then you don't need that equipment to begin with. If you normally
need it and it is malfunctioning and you choose to fly anyway, you may never
come back.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote
Snowbird writes:

Interestingly, over there he was opposed to new technology and
was heavily against the then-new digital cameras, while here he advocates
total reliance on electronic digital systems in aircraft.

No, I do not. If you examine my posts here, you'll find that I'm opposed
to
extremes. I'm opposed to relying entirely on systems such as GPS or
computerized glass cockpits, and I'm also opposed to the romantic notion
that
somehow a mere compass is going to get you out of trouble if more complex
instrumentation fails.

We obviously disagree on what is "extreme". The proposals regarding autoland
and pure simulator-based training strike me as highly extreme.


In other words, moderation is best in all things. You cannot fly safely
with
just a compass. You also run a risk of flying unsafely if you rely
entirely
on a fancy navigation system that is not proven 100% reliable, such as
GPS.


Your opinion. Aviation authorities accept compass and chart as sufficient
for VFR navigation. They also require it as mandatory.


To stay safe, you must recognize that anything can fail--and you must also
recognize that something as crude as a compass is really no more useful
than
nothing at all, so you must not assume that having a compass makes you any
safer.

The magnetic compass is included in the minimum equipment list of any
aircraft I know, so obviously authorities disagree with that opinion.


A corollary of this is that you must always verify that everything in your
aircraft is working. If you think you can get by with malfunctioning
equipment, then you don't need that equipment to begin with. If you
normally
need it and it is malfunctioning and you choose to fly anyway, you may
never
come back.


The first sentence is incorrect, while I agree with the second and third
sentence. What you must do is check if the equipment required for the
mission at hand is in working order, per the minimum equipment list. You may
take off with some malfunctioning equipment, as long as it does not
jeopardize the safety of the mission.


Regarding the magnetic compass, note that its usefulness is not limited to
those "catastrophic blackout" emergency-landing scenarios that some of the
posts here suggest. It may be simpler events such as an in-flight restart of
the FMS, or a handheld GPS falling on the floor in a small aircraft. In such
cases the magnetic compass helps against straying off course until the
problem is fixed.

Snowbird writes:

We obviously disagree on what is "extreme". The proposals regarding autoland
and pure simulator-based training strike me as highly extreme.

They aren't, though. Most training for airline pilots today takes place in
simulators, so pure simulator-based training is only one small step away from
the current practice. And landing with autoland is much easier than commonly
believed--that's the whole idea. It's certainly easy enough that anyone could
do it by carrying out instructions given by someone else. This is not the
case with hand-flying, which requires a certain amount of practice
irrespective of any instruction provided by others.

Your opinion. Aviation authorities accept compass and chart as sufficient
for VFR navigation. They also require it as mandatory.

I don't judge safety on the basis of what others say. I have a much higher
standard.

The magnetic compass is included in the minimum equipment list of any
aircraft I know, so obviously authorities disagree with that opinion.

Or they simply haven't bothered to change the regulations, and have little
motivation to do so.

The first sentence is incorrect, while I agree with the second and third
sentence. What you must do is check if the equipment required for the
mission at hand is in working order, per the minimum equipment list. You may
take off with some malfunctioning equipment, as long as it does not
jeopardize the safety of the mission.

I suppose if you consider malfunctioning avionics to be acceptable, you can
take off with that. I wouldn't. I know that even airlines are careless in
this way.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote

I don't judge safety on the basis of what others say. I have a much
higher
standard.


Please elaborate what that higher standard is and how you claim to achieve
it. As a minimum, I will expect you never to have broken anything on those
simulated planes you fly.

Snowbird writes:

Please elaborate what that higher standard is and how you claim to achieve
it.

I've already explained it. I want all instruments to work, not just those on
the MEL.

As a minimum, I will expect you never to have broken anything on those
simulated planes you fly.

That minimum is satisfied.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..

As a minimum, I will expect you never to have broken anything on those
simulated planes you fly.

That minimum is satisfied.

Including simulated damage?

Snowbird writes:

Including simulated damage?

No, I've had damage before. I thought you meant instrument failure.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Snowbird writes:

Please elaborate what that higher standard is and how you claim to
achieve
it.

I've already explained it. I want all instruments to work, not just those
on
the MEL.

As a minimum, I will expect you never to have broken anything on those
simulated planes you fly.

That minimum is satisfied.


You haven't satisfied dog crap.

Let's seen you answer the man's question. Or have you just ran yourself off
in to social IMC again, and are now experiencing a lawn dart crash due to
psychological vertigo.

"Mxsmanic" wrote

I've already explained it. I want all instruments to work, not just those
on
the MEL.

We all do, but in real life things fail. When that happens, you owe it to
yourself and your passengers to be able to get back on the ground alive.

BDS

On Apr 7, 9:46 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
They aren't, though. Most training for airline pilots today takes place in
simulators, so pure simulator-based training is only one small step away from
the current practice.

This is incorrect. Most training for airline pilots takes place in
the right seat.

The magnetic compass is included in the minimum equipment list of any
aircraft I know, so obviously authorities disagree with that opinion.

Or they simply haven't bothered to change the regulations, and have little
motivation to do so.

Or there's actually somebody on the planet who's compentent and who
disagrees with you. Did you ever entertain that possibility?

I suppose if you consider malfunctioning avionics to be acceptable, you can
take off with that. I wouldn't.
If you knew anything about flight training or actually flying, you
wouldn't be saying this. I flew with NO instruments as part of my pre-
solo training.

The required avionics are mission dependent. For example, if you're
not going to fly IFR, you don't need any instruments that are only
used for IFR. As long as you don't go below the minimum equipment
list, and as long as you placard any inoperative instruments, you
don't need everything working.