Why The Hell... (random rant)

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
...

When it comes to BS, I think you have reached your weekly high point. That
had to be at least a triple flutter blast.

Nothing is too easy for the person that will never have to actually do it.

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..
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.

It's explained in the next paragraph.

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.

In my experience, some pilot students do not have the right attitude when
they start. That concerns especially those who have a lot of MS flight sim
time and consider themselves already very proficient.

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.

So therefore risk areas are demonstrated during training, so they can be
percieved and avoided in the future.

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.´

I doubt a motorcycle safety expert would agree bikers don't see the risks of
not wearing a helmet. Seeing risks is different from taking risks.


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.

Those precautions include training to improve the perception of non-obvious
risks.


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.


The problem is that the simulator can not ruin the day.


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.

Simulators, especially simple one-screen variants, tend to make the risk
perception even more remote, so they are not a general solution.

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


Safety is a part of most every subject of pilot training, it's not limited
to flight training. You have to pass all subjects to get the license.

Snowbird writes:

In my experience, some pilot students do not have the right attitude when
they start. That concerns especially those who have a lot of MS flight sim
time and consider themselves already very proficient.

What's wrong with their attitude?

So therefore risk areas are demonstrated during training, so they can be
percieved and avoided in the future.

Anyone who has studied carefully, even on the ground, already knows what most
of the risks are. And a prudent person will be trying to avoid those risks
even at the start of instruction. Indeed, some students might have to be
convinced that the risks are not so great as they believe, just to get them to
fly.

There are other people who are excited by risk. Pointing the risks out to
them only excites them more, and makes them more determined to push the
envelope in order to feel the thrill of risk. These people make bad pilots.
I imagine an instructor can recognize the type. However, it's perfectly
possible for an instructor to have this problem himself, in which case he may
be a danger to himself and his students.

I doubt a motorcycle safety expert would agree bikers don't see the risks of
not wearing a helmet. Seeing risks is different from taking risks.

Some people truly do not see risks. They are unable to see long-term
consequences to their actions. They perceive and act upon only immediate,
obvious risks. Part of this is personality; a lot of it is correlated with
general intelligence (that is, stupid people take more risks). Also,
testosterone encourages this type of behavior, which is why it is more common
among men than women.

Riders who don't wear helmets may be fully aware of the risks and yet willing
to take them ... but in most cases they think the risks magically do not apply
to them, or they vastly underestimate the risk because it isn't constantly
staring them in the face. These riders often select themselves out of the
gene pool, but not before they've reproduced, unfortunately.

Those precautions include training to improve the perception of non-obvious
risks.

That can make some pilots more cautious; and it may induce others to seek
greater thrills. Not everyone reacts to a perception of risk with precaution.

You might teach one pilot about spins and spin recovery, and he will forever
thereafter be extraordinarily prudent, carefully avoiding any situation that
might lead to a spin, even if he knows that it might be recoverable. He's
that way because of natural caution and risk avoidance. But another pilot
might be a thrillseeker: he might be more excited by the immediate and obvious
risk of spins than by the safety appeal of avoiding them. And so he will
continue to take risks, and perhaps even increase his risk out of a conscious
or unconscious thrillseeking element in his personality.

Some people are happier when they are safe; others are happier when they are
in danger. The second type shouldn't be flying outside of the military.

The problem is that the simulator can not ruin the day.

That's not a problem for people who are already cautious and good at avoiding
risk. It is sufficient to point out a risk to them, and they will avoid it.
They may enjoy simulator work precisely because of the lower risk.

Those who consider simulators boring and long for the thrill of risk in a real
aircraft are the ones to watch carefully. There are many attractions to
aviation, but when risk is the foremost among them, there's a problem.

Simulators, especially simple one-screen variants, tend to make the risk
perception even more remote, so they are not a general solution.

The perception of risk depends on the person, not the environment. Some
people will perceive and avoid risks entirely on their own. Others will not
perceive risks even when they confront them directly. Still others perceive
the risks and seek them out. The actual environment you use to teach them
really doesn't matter much.

Safety is a part of most every subject of pilot training, it's not limited
to flight training. You have to pass all subjects to get the license.

Getting the license and being a safe pilot are two entirely different things.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote


What's wrong with their attitude?

Typically they have not only simulated the destruction of a number of
aircraft, but are completely unaware of the aspects of aviation that occur
before takeoff and after landing. It takes time and effort to get them
understand neither is an option in real aviation.

There are other people who are excited by risk.

This seems to be a favorite theme of yours. In my experience, such people
tend to favor more extreme activities such as parachuting or mountain
climbing, over flying They tend to be discouraged by what they call
"restrictive rules" of aviation. For most pilots, in my experience, the
fascination of flying is something quite remote from the thrill-seeking
behavior you describe.

But I recall that this theme has been discussed at length here recently, so
obviously it would be a waste of time for me to continue repeating what
other aviators have already said. Have a nice day.

Snowbird writes:

Typically they have not only simulated the destruction of a number of
aircraft, but are completely unaware of the aspects of aviation that occur
before takeoff and after landing. It takes time and effort to get them
understand neither is an option in real aviation.

Some people use simulators precisely because they are aware of all the useless
overhead in real aviation and prefer to avoid it. I know that's the key
reason for me.

I rather doubt that any intelligent person would question the utility of
avoiding a crash in real aviation.

This seems to be a favorite theme of yours.

It's a favorite theme of the FAA, too, one of a group of characteristics that
one finds frequently among pilots who have accidents.

The FAA isn't the only organization to notice this, however.

In my experience, such people
tend to favor more extreme activities such as parachuting or mountain
climbing, over flying They tend to be discouraged by what they call
"restrictive rules" of aviation.

But some of them do become pilots, behaving long enough to get the license,
and then they ignore the rules and take serious risks. Additionally, this
character defect exists in degrees, and so it might be mild enough not to
interfere with getting a license, but severe enough to encourage a pilot to
take risks that will eventually get him killed.

For most pilots, in my experience, the
fascination of flying is something quite remote from the thrill-seeking
behavior you describe.

It's a question of personality. Note that people who are fascinated by
physical sensations are only one step away from the thrillseekers.

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