Knee Jerks

We're getting closer the thing is history shows that doing one bad thing
does not lead to an accident it is a sum of a number of bad things. Hence
any pilot who does a number of bad things is a bad pilot.

Well, no. "Is a bad pilot" is a statement about a person which is
relatively independent of time, like "is an engineer", "is a poor judge
of character" and "is tall".

A flight, notably one with an unfortuante outcome, occurs in a
relatively tiny slice of time, like "did a calculation", "went on a
horrible date", and "bumped his head on the doorway".

It is in that sense that I count the bad piloting which led to an
unfortunate outcome as a statistic of one, even if several errors were
committed that day.

A "bad pilot" is one I would certainly not want to fly with, because I
believe that it is likely that he will engage in bad piloting. However
I would certainly fly with a "good pilot who had a bad day" because one
bad day does not make a pilot a bad pilot (although it can certainly
make him a dead pilot). I will not draw a conclusion of likelyhood
based on one bad flight, although I will look more closely at his other
flights (and my other flights for that matter) when presented with that.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Well as defined by whom?

As defined by whoever will be applying the definition.

We can legitimately disagree thusly on whether or not this or that pilot
is "good" based on our own evaluation of "well". But my point is that
the point is not "how good..." but rather, "how consistently good". To
be a "good pilot" (a term with predictive value) one must be
consistently (though not perfectly) good, and to be a "bad pilot" one
must be consistently (though not perfectly) bad.

Who defines good judgement?

Ditto

But if a bad pilot by your definition flies without incident for 50 years, is he/she still a bad pilot?

Yes. He's damned lucky, but I still wouldn't fly with him.

I'd rather fly with the "bad" pilot who has never had a crash than the "good" pilot who averages a crash a year. :-)

Well, a crash a year due to bad piloting (or perhaps consistently bad
choice of aircraft) is no longer the "statistic of one" to which I
object. But a test pilot who flies all sorts of different wierd
homebrew designs all the time for a living, and =only= crashes once a
year, is proabably a damned good pilot.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
This all said, I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought here. By
saying "s*it happens" are you implying that I survived these challenges
through luck?

Minimizing the risk through good training is great. And there certainly are
some idiots out there that I don't want to share the sky with. However, I'm
not so quick to categorize all non-mechanical, non-medical accidents to
pilots being idiots. I don't judge a pilot until I have all the facts.
Sometimes circumstances are beyond the control of the best pilots. I also
don't believe NTSB accident reports to be gospel.

In my younger days, I was quick to judge other pilots. I was 10 years old
the first time I saw a crashed airplane. It was a C-150 with 2 bodies still
in it. They were the victims of a mid-air collision. I wondered how they
could have let that happen. What was wrong with them? In the years since
then, I've had some close calls of my own. I quit judging others quickly.

I check that my landing gear is down and green 3 times before landing. Want
to guess why I am so paranoid about it? I haven't yet, but I've come close.
If I do land with the gear up one day, would that make me a bad pilot? Some
of my friends with over 10,000 hours each have landed with the gear too
short. Does that make them bad pilots?

In 2 cases mechanical discrepencies were discovered after the investigation
was
over. One of those helped spawned an AD concerning Mooney's electric gear.
People sure were quick to judge that pilot before the switches were found to
be at fault. None of them apologized afterwards.

Here's another angle. Last fall, I went into the Mexican desert, put some
air in the tires of Navajo, put some gas in the tanks, and flew it to
Florida. It was a drug confiscation that had set there for 16 years. The
instrument panel had nothing but bullet holes. One wing leading edge had a
dent nearly back to the spar. The paint and interior was long gone. The
airplane looked like crap. The risk of me needing to fill out an NTSB report
was somewhat higher than when you fly Atlas. Does that make me a bad pilot?

Some may think so, and I have been labeled a cowboy. And yet I have 10 years
of airline management and the Administrator's blessing to give checkrides on
3 families of aircraft. Who's right about me?

One other lesson that took me many, many years to learn is to not hold
others to my standards. Most won't be able to meet my standards, including
some airline pilots I have flown with. I have to respect the ideal that even
the idiots have a right to fly, and a right to crash.

D.

Capt Doug
BRAVO !!! I have often asked some of my students if they would fly an
airplane when they KNEW something was wrong with it.The answer was
always a resounding NOOOOoooo.
Then in their aviation history they are faced with something similar to
the Navajo you describe. I don't know how many aircraft I've been
tasked to fly that were like that.
In my 45 years of professional aviation around the world, and now
pushing 23,000 hours logged, I've had one accident that injured
someone. A student on a dual XC with a C-150 back in 1966. We had
contaminated fuel and junk in the fuel lines. Engine puked at night
over trees. We both got hurt.
I've been called as an expert witness in agricultural aircraft
operation crashes and was appalled at the sloppy field work by whoever
did the investigations...both FAA and NTSB. I got the impression if it
wasn't a major news event with lots of press coverage, the "C" team was
sent to investigate.
Back in my earlier days I too was labeled a cowboy or renegade. That
has morphed into more like..."That old guy knows his sh*& and if you
can get some dual with him take it."
Now I am smart enough to wait to see all the facts before I make a
judgement and even then sometimes I elect to keep my conclusions to
myself. That holds true here as well. I never realized I could strike
such a nerve with my original post and I'm glad I did.
Best Professional Regards
Rocky

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:57:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
1tkIf.798152$xm3.724032@attbi_s21::

Across society, manners have become uncommon.

It starts at the top:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun24.html
"**** yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the
presidency.

As it happens, the exchange occurred on the same day the Senate
passed legislation described as the "Defense of Decency Act" by 99
to 1.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy/
Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton, and Democrats have
suggested that while serving in the Bush administration he helped
win lucrative contracts for his former firm, including a no-bid
contract to rebuild Iraq.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in620517.shtml
Halliburton took in $3.6 billion last year from contracts to serve
U.S. troops and rebuild the oil industry in Iraq. Halliburton
executives say the company is getting about $1 billion a month for
Iraq work this year.

In March, the Pentagon said it plans to withhold about $300
million in payments to the company because of possible
overcharging for meals served to troops in Iraq and Kuwait.

Halliburton's other problems include allegations of a kickback
scheme by two former workers in Kuwait that prompted Halliburton
to reimburse the Pentagon $6.3 million; faulty cost estimates on
the $2.7 billion contract to serve troops in Iraq, including
failing to tell the Pentagon that KBR fired two subcontractors;
and a separate audit that accused KBR of overcharging by $61
million for gasoline delivered to serve the civilian market in
Iraq last year. Halliburton has said the charges were proper.

Halliburton paid $2 million in 2002 to settle charges it inflated
costs on a maintenance contract at now-closed Fort Ord in
California.

Federal authorities also are investigating whether Halliburton
broke the law by using a subsidiary to do business in Iran,
whether the company overcharged for work done for the Pentagon in
the Balkans and whether it was involved in an alleged $180 million
bribery scheme in Nigeria. The company admitted in 2003 that it
improperly paid $2.4 million to a Nigerian tax official.

Previous reports indicate Halliburton studied the possibility of
privatizing Pentagon contracts when Cheney was defense secretary,
then was awarded one of the first private deals. Cheney became CEO
after leaving the Pentagon.

A financial disclosure form obtained by CBSNews.com indicates that
Cheney received deferred income from the firm after becoming vice
president.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:49:11 GMT, "Capt.Doug"
wrote in
::

I also don't believe NTSB accident reports to be gospel.

You've got that right.

Read the NTSB's probable cause of this MAC between an Navy A7 and a
glider: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

PREFLIGHT PLANNING/PREPARATION..IMPROPER.
IN-FLIGHT PLANNING/DECISION..IMPROPER.
CHECKLIST..POOR.

So while the NTSB found the glider pilot (who obviously had the right
of way) to be at fault in this MAC, the truth is, the military pilot's
actions weren't merely improper, they were contrary to _regulations_*,
but the NTSB failed to mention that.

* http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/searc...I11-202&page=2

22 AFI11-202V3 6 JUNE 2003

5.5. Right-of-Way Rules . Usually, right-of-way is given to the
aircraft least able to maneuver, which normally permits that
aircraft to maintain course and speed. However, visibility
permitting, each pilot must take whatever action is necessary to
avoid collision, regardless of who has the right-of-way. When
another aircraft has the right-of-way, the yielding aircraft must
not pass over, under, abeam, or ahead of the other aircraft until
well clear.

5.5.1. Distress . Aircraft in distress have the right-of-way over
all other air traffic.

5.5.2. Converging. When converging at approximately the same
altitude (except head-on or approximately so), the aircraft to the
other’s right has the right-of-way. Aircraft of different
categories have the right-of-way in the following order of
priority:

5.5.2.1. Balloons.

5.5.2.2. Gliders.

5.5.2.3. Aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft.

5.5.2.4. Airships.

5.5.2.5. Rotary or fixed-wing aircraft.

5.5.3. Approaching Head-On . If aircraft are approaching each
other head-on or approximately so, each shall alter course to the
right.

5.5.4. Overtaking Aircraft . An overtaken aircraft has the
right-of-way. The overtaking aircraft must alter course to the
right.

You've got that MORE than right. I was doubly involved with an aircraft
that was destroyed in an emergency landing in 1989. I was the PIC, but also
the A&P on that aircraft. Neither the FAA nor the NTSB ever asked for
copies of the maintenance logbooks which clearly reflected the overhaul and
service bulletins performed on that aircraft.

The proximate cause of the accident was double ignition failure -- one
magneto failed and leaded up the other set of plugs. After the accident,
one set of plugs (the ones on the failed magneto) were white-clean and the
other set of plugs were loaded with lead. It can be easily shown how this
can happen.

The NTSB (which galls me to this day) laid the cause of the accident to
"improper maintenance". Yet the magneto overhaul times and bulletin times
were complied with to the letter and spirit of the mag company. The plugs
had less than 25 hours since cleaning. THe failure mode (open coil)
couldn't have been detected even with a full-bore overhaul, much less the
service bulletin inspections.

Gospel, my tiny hiney.

Jim



"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:49:11 GMT, "Capt.Doug"
wrote in
::

I also don't believe NTSB accident reports to be gospel.

You've got that right.

Don't recall the dates..1990's..a crop duster pilot in a Grumman Ag
Cat, Palouse area of SE Washington state was returning to base and got
overun by some Navy jets on low level training. He was RUN OVER FROM
THE REAR and the Navy tried to blame him for the accident. When fault
is being discovered, it seems those with the best legal minds are going
to prevail regardless of what happened. OJ Simpson anyone...?

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:26:08 -0800, "RST Engineering"
wrote in
::

You've got that MORE than right.

[Stupid NTSB finding snipped]

I'm beginning to think our federal government is broken to the point
of uselessness. The many personnel among its ranks have no incentive
to perform competently; apparently they are paid the same amount
regardless of their level of performance.

I had occasion to contact FEMA a few days ago. The person to whom I
spoke was so moronic and illiterate, that I was astonished that she
was employed at all, let alone being paid with my tax dollars.

Welcome to the 21st century.

If something is done about our nation's abysmal education system soon,
we're not going to enjoy living in this country in the future.

Jim-RST Enginering
I've had a number of engine or mechanical failures that caused me to
make an unscheduled landing in both airplanes and helicopters. The
problems could not have been found short of a tear-down inspection. The
fact that I got the machine back on the ground without further damage
was how much luck and how much pilot skill? To be sure, in ag
operations the vast majority of pilots fly "cocked and locked" for an
immediate response to an emergency or malfunction. Now, having said
that, with 40 years of crop dusting behind me, and at least 13,000
hours in the lowest reaches of the airspace system, and having had more
scares and frights in a year than most pilots will ever experience in a
lifetime.... I think too many lesser experienced pilots here tend to
limit their views to that narrow range of their experience. Well, that
is to be expected. It is their fault if they don't pick the diamonds of
wisdom to add to their pilot bag of tricks to help them out if the sh*&
hits the fan and they have to react to salvage the ensuing mess.
In 50 years of flying as PIC, I've experienced 18 maydays, have had at
least 5 actual autorotations with mechanical failures or fuel
exhaustion, I've hit 18 wires that were carefully logged, have killed
literally hundreds of birds in mid-air collisions aka bird strikes,
have many times come back in to the base with pine needles or leaves
stuck someplace on the aircraft. Now I ask you, does this put me into
the Bad pilot catagory? Does it put me into the LUCKY pilot catagory?
Is it a combination of lucky, poor/good/bozo?
Doesn't really matter to me since I am still here and able to pass
along my mistakes and observations to those who may one day be faced
with similar problems. Those who choose to slam me are free to do so. I
invite them to fly with me under challenging circumstances and see what
THEY can do to cope. Finger pointing doesn't accomplish much.
Now I'll take a step back with my big stick and see what happens next.
Cheers
Rocky aka Ol Shy & Bashful