About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:37:32 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:

I have subsequently flown 22 years professionally without a catastrophic
failure of anything, without ever having to declare an emergency.

Next time you are at your airport, be sure to thank your A&P.

All the good piloting is only as good as the reliability of the equipment
you fly.....

Allen

A Lieberman wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:41:03 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

You have alternates in mind that are still VFR and use them if needed.
Flying on top of a solid overcast into weather that is by your own
admission worse than forecast (and you have no way of knowing how much
worse it may get) without an instrument rating, isn't a very wise thing
to do.


Yes, I agree now (where I learned from my own experiences) that VFR over
the top is inheritantly risky without a IFR rating or WITHOUT an alternate.
It was center that got me what I needed for my alternate, so I used every
available tool out there.

That was my point entirely.


I think the key point I am trying to make, is by looking at the surface of
my situation I described, I followed the VFR rules to a tee when the wheels
went up. But somebody not in my situation would say, how in the world can
someone get stuck over the top.

Following the rules to the letter doesn't make one a good pilot. I'd
say it actually is a great indication of a bad pilot. Good piloting
requires constant situation assessment, judgement and decision making.
Blindly following the rules and regulations is a recipe for disaster.
Most rules are written based on the last accident, not the next one. My
goal is to not be the reason that the next regulation is written and
following the current regulations is grossly insufficient to ensure that.


I would not consider the situation I encountered a bad piloting decision
with the information I had in hand from startup to 50 miles out.

I would. Flying over a solid layer such that you can't easily know what
is happening below or even knowing if you can find a hole to descend
through shows bad judgement and is bad piloting in my opinion, unless
there is a really compelling reason to take this significant risk.
There are situations that warrant that, but you didn't give any
information as to any circumstance that would warrant this level of risk
taking by a non-instrument rated pilot.


If I would have pressed on to my destination without regard to the weather,
that would have been a bad piloting decision. I did not do that.

That would have been another bad piloting decision. :-)


Matt

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

I would not consider the situation I encountered a bad piloting decision
with the information I had in hand from startup to 50 miles out.

I would. Flying over a solid layer such that you can't easily know what
is happening below or even knowing if you can find a hole to descend
through shows bad judgement and is bad piloting in my opinion,

Everybody is naturally entitled to their opinion :-)

unless
there is a really compelling reason to take this significant risk.
There are situations that warrant that, but you didn't give any
information as to any circumstance that would warrant this level of risk
taking by a non-instrument rated pilot.

What situation would warrant you to waiver from what you are telling me is
an unsafe decision?

If it's unsafe based on your opinion, then it is unsafe for any reason, no
matter how compelling and one should drive instead.

Allen

"Bad pilot", "good pilot"... Who cares?

It's all just pointless namecalling. It's human nature to want to feel
better than someone else. It's tempting for me to say to someone else
"That was a bad descision you made. You are such a bad pilot. If I was
in that situation I'd do something completely different because I am
such a better pilot than you. You deserve to get your liscense taken
away because of your reckless attitude, and you should be banned from
coming within 50 miles of any airplane or airport. You should try to be
more like me, perfect in every facet of flying." But what would that
accomplish? I have seriously witnessed people in this group say things
like the above.

A Lieberman wrote:

unless
there is a really compelling reason to take this significant risk.
There are situations that warrant that, but you didn't give any
information as to any circumstance that would warrant this level of risk
taking by a non-instrument rated pilot.


What situation would warrant you to waiver from what you are telling me is
an unsafe decision?

If it's unsafe based on your opinion, then it is unsafe for any reason, no
matter how compelling and one should drive instead.

If one of my kids was in need of a transplant and had 24 hours to live
and flying to pick up the organ was the only option, then I'd take that
risk in a heartbeat. I would fly alone given the risk, but I'd do it
without hesitation.

However, such situations are extremely rare and thus don't factor into
normal decision making.


Matt

Many people die in plane crashes on the way to hospitals,
weddings and funerals. Several friends of mine died in just
that way and for those reasons, "Got to be there for the
_______." There are people who have airplanes and pilots
who can fly in bad weather, they're called charter
operators. In critical need cases they even sometimes offer
discounts or even free services. But if you are not
qualified to safely complete a trip to delivery the organs,
medicine or what ever, the trip isn't likely to be
successful and everyone dies, in the plane and as a result
of the pilot's over estimation of the skill and equipment
needed.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.



"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
|A Lieberman wrote:
|
| unless
| there is a really compelling reason to take this
significant risk.
| There are situations that warrant that, but you didn't
give any
| information as to any circumstance that would warrant
this level of risk
| taking by a non-instrument rated pilot.
|
|
| What situation would warrant you to waiver from what you
are telling me is
| an unsafe decision?
|
| If it's unsafe based on your opinion, then it is unsafe
for any reason, no
| matter how compelling and one should drive instead.
|
| If one of my kids was in need of a transplant and had 24
hours to live
| and flying to pick up the organ was the only option, then
I'd take that
| risk in a heartbeat. I would fly alone given the risk,
but I'd do it
| without hesitation.
|
| However, such situations are extremely rare and thus don't
factor into
| normal decision making.
|
|
| Matt

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:28:18 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

If one of my kids was in need of a transplant and had 24 hours to live
and flying to pick up the organ was the only option, then I'd take that
risk in a heartbeat. I would fly alone given the risk, but I'd do it
without hesitation.

However, such situations are extremely rare and thus don't factor into
normal decision making.

Excuse me?

What you describe above is the worst possible pilot decision one could
make.

With what you describe above, your mind will be far from the safety of
flying. I am sure get there itis would kill you and those on the ground
after you bought the farm.

And here I stay within the confines of the rules and regulations, you
accuse me of making bad piloting decisions for flying VFR over the top, and
you want exceptions to break the rules and regulations that are suppose to
keep the airways safe. What exactly is wrong with this picture???

What you described above sure ain't safe or a good pilot decision in my
opinion.

Allen

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:28:18 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

If one of my kids was in need of a transplant and had 24 hours to live
and flying to pick up the organ was the only option, then I'd take that
risk in a heartbeat. I would fly alone given the risk, but I'd do it
without hesitation.

However, such situations are extremely rare and thus don't factor into
normal decision making.

Excuse me?

What you describe above is the worst possible pilot decision one could
make.

Hardly. It's true that the fatality risk is enormous--perhaps even on the
order of 1% or more. But in the (very unlikely) hypothetical situation Matt
describes--that the flight is the only way to save one of his kids--a 1%
fatality risk is well worth it. So Matt's risk-benefit analysis is
completely reasonable.

--Gary

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:39:48 -0500, Gary Drescher wrote:

Hardly. It's true that the fatality risk is enormous--perhaps even on the
order of 1% or more. But in the (very unlikely) hypothetical situation Matt
describes--that the flight is the only way to save one of his kids--a 1%
fatality risk is well worth it. So Matt's risk-benefit analysis is
completely reasonable.

Do you have anything to back up your statement?

On Matt's situation, you are talking about a pilot who's mind is now
severely distracted by an emergency, not trained to fly a plane under
duress of get there itis. Talk about missing checklist items by rushing
through things to get there.

Matt was saying my flying over the top with a VFR licence was a bad
piloting decision. Would you say that was a bad decision or a good
decision?

I question the decision to launch under conditions he describe as a "good
piloting" decision. AS you say yourself, the risk factor is enormous, so
much more then my decision to fly VFR over the top.

I would think that no matter how bad a medical condition is, there are many
other means to accomplish getting there other then having a very distracted
pilot with get there itis.

Allen

I disagree, to save the child the flight must be successful
and on time. A professional flight, in a professional class
airplane is the only sure thing to save the child. The
personal involvement of the concerned pilot raises the risks
and reduces the chances of success.

The FAA has changed VFR rules for over the top and night
flights to try a regulatory means to preempt the choice of a
less safe option. If you're out just for fun, solo and you
kill yourself, aside from the bad PR and destruction of the
airplane, that is your choice. But an unsafe emergency
flight is risking more than your life.

I have run into a burning building and put the fire out
while it was still just in the electrical panel (it was a
motel and my wife and son were in the room less 50 feet from
the fire. I know what is involved in accepting a risk. I
had told my family to get dressed and outside while I was
grabbing the extinguisher.

If I needed a flight for a sick family member, I'd call a
detached professional.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
| "A Lieberman" wrote in message
| .. .
| On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:28:18 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
|
| If one of my kids was in need of a transplant and had
24 hours to live
| and flying to pick up the organ was the only option,
then I'd take that
| risk in a heartbeat. I would fly alone given the risk,
but I'd do it
| without hesitation.
|
| However, such situations are extremely rare and thus
don't factor into
| normal decision making.
|
| Excuse me?
|
| What you describe above is the worst possible pilot
decision one could
| make.
|
| Hardly. It's true that the fatality risk is
enormous--perhaps even on the
| order of 1% or more. But in the (very unlikely)
hypothetical situation Matt
| describes--that the flight is the only way to save one of
his kids--a 1%
| fatality risk is well worth it. So Matt's risk-benefit
analysis is
| completely reasonable.
|
| --Gary
|
|
|