Why The Hell... (random rant)

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:

Including simulated damage?

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


Realy, what happened. Pizza grease on the yoke, spilled milk in the
keyboard?

Maxwell writes:

Realy, what happened. Pizza grease on the yoke, spilled milk in the
keyboard?

I've damaged gear before with particularly rough landings. On at least one
occasion I damaged the flap mechanism, which caused one of the flaps to
extende improperly with full flaps, giving the aircraft a strong tendency to
roll. That took me a while to figure out.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..

Including simulated damage?

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


Thank you. The reason I press this issue is because aviation safety is
serious business. Claiming to have a high safety standard based on simulator
flying only, is in my opinion close to nonsense.
Why? Because the sim pilot does not run the risk of getting hurt if things
go bad. The objective when training a pilot to be a safe airliner captain is
not only mastering the buttons and switches, but also to achieve those
skills without breaking any airplane parts in the process. Therefore actual
flying training is so good. It teaches the student in the most realistic way
the consequences of not yet having the required skills - with a Flight
Instructor always there to keep the situation safe and coach the student on
how to progress towards his goal to become a pilot. That mental attitude -
grasping the consequences of a pilot failure - is one of the most important
traits of a safe pilot.

Ugh, I've spoken ;-)

Snowbird writes:

Thank you. The reason I press this issue is because aviation safety is
serious business. Claiming to have a high safety standard based on simulator
flying only, is in my opinion close to nonsense.

I don't see why that would make any difference.

Why? Because the sim pilot does not run the risk of getting hurt if things
go bad.

People with a good attitude towards safety don't need to be motivated by the
risk of getting hurt. Indeed, if the only way to make someone conscientious
about safety is to put him into a situation where he is at immediate and
obvious risk, then there is a problem with his attitude.

Most people run into dangerous situations because they behaved in unsafe ways
when there is _not_ any obvious risk of harm. Since they are motivated only
by obvious, immediate risk, any time that they do not perceive such a risk,
they disregard safety.

This is how motorcycle riders crush their skulls by not wearing a helmet.
They don't see an immediate, obvious risk to not wearing a helmet, so they
don't put one on. Then, when the risk actually becomes significant, they are
unprepared. Most people will put on a helmet if they know that they're about
to hit a brick wall. The difficulty is in getting people to put on helmets
even when they aren't in any immediate and obvious danger.

Thus, a pilot who is motivated to be safe only by a risk of accident or injury
is not fundamentally a safe pilot. The safe pilot takes precautions
irrespective of any obvious risk.

It teaches the student in the most realistic way
the consequences of not yet having the required skills - with a Flight
Instructor always there to keep the situation safe and coach the student on
how to progress towards his goal to become a pilot.

If a flight instructor is there, it's not realistic. The risk is not any
greater than in a simulator, since the instructor can save the day. People in
that situation are motivated by a desire for approval from the instructor, not
by any real risk. The problem there is that they may not behave safely when
the instructor is not around to correct them, especially if they've never been
motivated in any other way.

That mental attitude -
grasping the consequences of a pilot failure - is one of the most important
traits of a safe pilot.

Everyone can grasp the consequences when the risk is immediate and obvious.
Many people cannot when the risk is more remote. And this is true even for
trained pilots, which is why so many trained pilots still crash due to a lack
of caution and concern for safety.

In summary, if you only learn about safety when you are threatened with
immediate harmful consequences, you haven't really learned about safety.

--
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.