Downright Scary...

I wonder why the controller agreed to vector a VFR plane 15 miles deeper
into the soup and toward thunderstorms, rather than in the opposite
direction. Does ATC just automatically defer to the pilot in such a
situation?

I wondered that, too.

Perhaps in the situation where a VFR pilot has already blundered into
clouds, they just vector him toward an airport as requested?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

If someone sincerely believes I'm flying dangerously, I don't mind their
telling me and my passengers so.


"me and my passengers" is different from taking your passengers aside to point
out how dangerous you were. Even so, it does put the passenger in the position
of telling the pilot what to do, and this is not a good place to be.

I'm not at all opposed to an educated passenger. I am somewhat against the
attitude that it is up to us to educate other people's passengers "for their
own good". Too much in this world is decided for us "for our own good"
already.

There is a consequence to this. It is the natural consequence of any kind of
freedom.

As to the controller - I didn't hear the entire exchange over the air, but the
controller is there to help the pilot, not to tell the pilot what to do. When
the pilot makes a decision, dumb or not, the controller is there to assist as
best they can. But it's the pilot's job to fly the airplane, not the
controller's.

You see, there's a presumption here that underlies this whole discussion, that
is that WE (you, the controller, the passenger, the guy next door) know better,
and HE (the pilot) needs US to make his decisions for him. But, WE can make
mistakes too, and WE should not be empowered (through the passenger or any
other way) to make mistakes on behalf of the pilot.

In this case, I believe it would not be a mistake to not fly the way he did.
But that's just this case, based on what I read third hand over the internet
newsgroups. But "this case" isn't every case, and this kind of thing comes up
all the time, ranging from outright foolish recklessness to matters of courtesy
for which there is disagreement as to what is appropriate.

I prefer to err on the side of "him who makes the decisions bears the
consequences, and him who bears the consequences gets to make the decisions".
The passenger made the decision to trust the pilot. The consequences are that
the passenger took a risk.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh wrote:

Too much in this world is decided for us "for our own good"
already.

I agree with the sentiment you're expressing. However, I see a very clear
distinction between "decide" and "inform".

In fact, I'd opine that informing (or being informed) is a necessary step
in avoiding having others decide.

- Andrew

Too much in this world is decided for us "for our own good"
already.

I agree with the sentiment you're expressing. However, I see a very clear
distinction between "decide" and "inform".

In fact, I'd opine that informing (or being informed) is a necessary step
in avoiding having others decide.

Others are always deciding. You get on an airliner, somebody else is deciding
the routing and altitude. Most passengers have no clue as to why the chosen
routing is good (or not). Some do. You are one of them. So, you see bad
stuff ahead, and go up to the cockpit, knock on the door, and say "excuse me,
don't you see that weather pattern ahead? Lets turn right about ten degrees
and descend to FL320, shall we?" Airline pilots have made errors too, with
tragic consequences. If only the right passenger had told the pilot what to
do, many lives could have been saved.

Others are always deciding. The question is which others should decide, and
why.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
[...] where "the people" end up
making decisions on behalf of you and I

I hope "Teacherjh" doesn't refer to being an English teacher.

[...]
It is far better IMHO to allow the pilot to come to the realization
himself,
and to learn the lesson himself, and to inform the passenger himself,
rather
than have the pasenger do it for him. In the long run, that would be
dangerous
and destructive too.

I understand what you're getting at. But I have to disagree with the
application in this case. I'll call it the "spanking principle", after our
friends who explained their philosophy on spanking: if a child is doing
something that would hurt them worse than a spanking would, they get a
spanking.

In other words, yes...it's a good idea to try to allow people to come to
their own conclusions, but when it appears that someone is likely to get
killed (either that person, or someone in their care), it's time to take
more overt action.

Pete

I understand what you're getting at. But I have to disagree with the
application in this case. I'll call it the "spanking principle", after our
friends who explained their philosophy on spanking: if a child is doing
something that would hurt them worse than a spanking would, they get a
spanking.

You let the public spank your child if one of them thinks he's doing wrong?

In other words, yes...it's a good idea to try to allow people to come to
their own conclusions, but when it appears that someone is likely to get
killed (either that person, or someone in their care), it's time to take
more overt action.

My issue is just what "overt action" should be taken, and by whom, and when.
There are enough differing strong opinions even on this piloting newsgroup as
to what constitutes foolish life-threatening risk that I'd be loath to abdicate
my responsibility to my passengers to members of this newsgroup.

You don't like the way I fly, you tell ME. You tell an avaition safety
counsellor to tell me. You put a CFI in touch with me. Focus your energies on
the problem at hand - MY flying. But don't go to my passengers and tell them
what an ass I am in the sky in the name of "protecting the innocent
passengers". This kind of thinking is the same as "save the children" - used
to promulgate so many inappropriate restrictions.

Also, going to the passenger just about presupposes that the pilot is a lost
cause. I disagree with that too... especailly as this is a newly minted pilot
who still has a full bag of luck and an empty bag of experience.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Jay Honeck wrote:
I wonder why the controller agreed to vector a VFR plane 15 miles deeper
into the soup and toward thunderstorms, rather than in the opposite
direction. Does ATC just automatically defer to the pilot in such a
situation?
I wondered that, too.
Perhaps in the situation where a VFR pilot has already blundered into
clouds, they just vector him toward an airport as requested?

Did the pilot specifically mention to the controller that he wasn't
instrument rated? Just because he was initially flying VFR doesn't mean
the controller is going to assume that he isn't capable of instrument
flight. In addition, I don't think every radar facility has the ability
to display traffic and weather. Probably most do, now a days. I know
that I use to fly IFR with Patuxent approach (Patuxent Naval Air station)
back and forth to Ocean City, and they use to say that they had no enroute
weather information (which is when I bought my stormscope).

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Yah Jay, I lived and learned. Hope to be able to keep that up.
Someone once said, "I'll take luck over skill any day.".

Bryan "Me too" Chaisone

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:rkxGc.33361$Oq2.17669@attbi_s52...
In retrospect, I should have walked to the farm house and had someone
at Advanced Heli with more experience come get the chopper. I was
real stupid to have flown it again that day. Anything could have been
wrong with it. The bearings could have been shot from the overspeed.
I could have been back in the air when it failed.

Wow -- great story, Bryan.

Scary stuff, too.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
I'd also wonder about the CFI that apparently did not impress
upon this newbie PPL about the dangers of Tstorms.

or about the minimum visibility and cloud clearance requirements
for VFR flight.


Neither of my primary instructors ever said anything to me about
t'storms. The first one reviewed VFR weather requirements with me to be
sure I was ready for the knowledge test, but that was it.

This is my pet peeve about flight instruction as I see it being
practiced: at least around here, it's all about the checkride. The
practical day-to-day business of safe flying, i.e. what pilots really
should and should not do to get where they're going alive, gets left
out.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

quote of Chuck Yeager's that "the secret to my success was that I always
managed to live to fly another day." It's something everyone in aviation
could emulate.

Sort of like a saying I've heard my Dad use (and probably several other
military pilots). Not sure of the origins. "There are old pilots and bold
pilots but no old bold pilots". Personally, I want to be an old pilot.

Congrats on the recent PP-ASEL Joe.

Dudley - as usual, great words of wisdom. Thanks for sharing.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)