![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 ;-) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RANT! | wise purchaser | Owning | 2 | March 27th 07 10:04 PM |
Random thoughts 2 | Bill Daniels | Soaring | 6 | September 1st 06 05:37 AM |
A Jeppesen rant | Peter R. | Piloting | 4 | January 17th 05 03:54 AM |
Why didn't GWB [insert rant] | Jack | Military Aviation | 1 | July 15th 04 11:30 PM |
Random Hold Generator... | Tina Marie | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | November 5th 03 04:21 PM |