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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum fuel
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
... Don't let your SO talk you into breaking rules. Lie if you have to. There's no need to lie. Just assume your authority as PIC, and do what's right. That ignores the larger picture. Personally, I'd be incredibly disappointed if I found that I had to lie to my spouse in order to get her to be comfortable with my decisions with respect to maintaining the safety of a flight. However, from many discussions with other people, including many close friends, I recognize that, unfortunately, my situation is uncommon. Many people are in relationships, and quite happily so, where they rely on deception at times in order to keep things going smoothly. When you write "there's no need to lie", you are no longer talking about aviation. You are making a statement about the person's relationship with his SO, one that may or may not be true depending on the actual nature of the relationship (an aspect of the issue that I doubt you have personal knowledge of, unless you are their couple's counselor, or a very close friend, or something like that). I would say that your statement is more accurate when talking about passengers generally. There is less risk in simply making an outright "no" statement when not dealing with an intimate relationship. But when dealing with a spouse or similar, things are more complicated and lying may be the only way to ensure the safety of the flight *and* the integrity (such as it may be in such situations) of the relationship. All that said, I would also say that there is generally no need to educate one's passengers, spouse or otherwise, on the finer details of the regulations or of the flight planning details. If they don't know that 30 minutes during the daytime is the legal minimum, or if they don't know the precise fuel load and fuel burn, it's easy enough to truthfully say, simply, "we can't make this distance safely without stopping for fuel along the way". How often this will work obviously depends on the individual passenger, how much interest they take in the flight planning and execution, and how willing they are to accept the pilot's definition of "safely". I have also found that, even if the passenger does wind up taking an interest and looking into the details later, it still allows me to execute the flight as I see fit, delaying arguments until such time when they are rendered moot. After the fact, if there are still questions, I am more easily able to address them without getting bogged down in "but I really want to make this flight!" emotional issues. Using this method, I have yet to have a single passenger get upset with me regarding any decision I've made with respect to flying. Or at least, as far as I know. And that includes flights that were simply cancelled, as well as having to leave one person on the ground while I took two others sightseeing, due to balance considerations (granted, in that case, the guy was an unexpected tag-along, invited by my passengers and not me). All of my passengers have recognized my authority as pilot in command and while they may ask questions regarding why I make decisions the way I do, they have never complained about my right to make those decisions, or about the outcome of such decisions. Perhaps most of my passengers would be just as cooperative if I filled them in on all the little details, but some of them may not have been. I've found it's simpler, and easier to stick to my standards, when the passengers are volunteered information only on a "need to know" basis. I encourage interest, and do answer questions truthfully when asked, but I don't go out of my way to explain every little detail, and that includes not going out of my way to differentiate between issues that are regulatory in nature and issues that are my own personal safety requirements. (Of course, with the responsibility to ensure the safety of the flight, the pilot's own personal standards could be considered regulatory as well, I suppose ). Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!! | Eliot Coweye | Home Built | 237 | February 13th 06 03:55 AM |
Is Your Airplane Susceptible To Mis Fu eling? A Simple Test For Fuel Contamination. | Nathan Young | Piloting | 4 | June 14th 04 06:13 PM |
faith in the fuel delivery infrastructure | Chris Hoffmann | Piloting | 12 | April 3rd 04 01:55 AM |
Yo! Fuel Tank! | Veeduber | Home Built | 15 | October 25th 03 02:57 AM |
Hot weather and autogas? | Rich S. | Home Built | 33 | July 30th 03 11:25 PM |