Why The Hell... (random rant)

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..
Snowbird writes:

That's your opinion then. I can speak from my own experience, I've been
in
that situation a few times and the magnetic compass has been a great
help.

In a jet airliner? (That was the aircraft being discussed.)


I see no reference to jet airliners in the OP's post. On the contrary, since
he referred to his own flightplanning, that likely implies he flies a light
aircraft. An airliner pilot would presumably have the airline's planning
department do these chores for him.


I'll grant that it would be okay in a tiny aircraft with just you as
passenger. It would be as bad as nothing at all in the case of a large
airliner with hundreds of people aboard.


Your opinion again. That airliner captain would have training and experience
in using a magnetic compass, so it certainly would be better than nothing to
him.


Of course without training and practical experience in using the magnetic
compass, its value is limited. But using it happens to be included in the
pilot's license curriculum, and for a reason.

How often do pilots practice flying with just a compass once they've
obtained
their licenses?


There are such things as proficiency check flights, where the examiner may
choose to test the pilot's knowledge on that subject. Pilots obviously want
to pass the checkride. Anyway, it's not a particularly difficult skill.

Snowbird writes:

I see no reference to jet airliners in the OP's post.

It was in the posts preceding mine.

Your opinion again. That airliner captain would have training and experience
in using a magnetic compass, so it certainly would be better than nothing to
him.

It's better than nothing in the sense that hitting dirt is better than hitting
concrete.

There are such things as proficiency check flights, where the examiner may
choose to test the pilot's knowledge on that subject. Pilots obviously want
to pass the checkride. Anyway, it's not a particularly difficult skill.

Okay, how many private pilots are compelled to demonstrate flying with just a
compass alone for proficiency check flights? And how realistic is such a
demonstration; that is, how often are pilots actually in this type of
situation in real life?

--
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.

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..

Your opinion again. That airliner captain would have training and
experience
in using a magnetic compass, so it certainly would be better than nothing
to
him.

It's better than nothing

Good, we're making some progress.

in the sense that hitting dirt is better than hitting
concrete.


I don't find that comparison universally valid, so I have to disregard it.
For example, if you have to make a gear-up landing, you are advised to do it
on concrete rather than grass (or dirt). That's what the literature says
anyway.

Snowbird writes:

I don't find that comparison universally valid, so I have to disregard it.
For example, if you have to make a gear-up landing, you are advised to do it
on concrete rather than grass (or dirt). That's what the literature says
anyway.

But both are considered accidents, as opposed to a normal landing with gear,
which is not an accident. Thus, while a landing on one surface may do less
damage than a landing on another surface, that is not a huge consolation to
the pilot who has to land without gear.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote

Okay, how many private pilots are compelled to demonstrate flying with
just a
compass alone for proficiency check flights? And how realistic is such a
demonstration; that is, how often are pilots actually in this type of
situation in real life?

Just about any decent instrument BFR or IPC is going to involve a loss of
the DG or HSI in IMC.

BDS

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.

BDS writes:

Just about any decent instrument BFR or IPC is going to involve a loss of
the DG or HSI in IMC.

But those are only a few of many instruments.

--
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.