View Single Post
  #17  
Old April 3rd 04, 03:34 PM
Richard Kaplan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Capt. Wild Bill Kelso, USAAC" wrote in message
...

I can tell you that if you were given that problem on a checkride, sim or
airplane, you prob. wouldn't have passed. Procedures were developed and

tested

In my sim he would have passed with flying colors --- he did not blindly
follow a generic checklist or rush to a pre-programmed course of action, but
instead he used his knowledge of airplane systems to develop a reasoned
response to his particular situation. A+ in my book for that

by manufacturers. Yes, as PIC you have the authority to decide NOT to

follow
Emergency Procedures, but you will have to explain that to the Check
Airman/Examiner/Fed. In the airlines, we follow the QRH(Quick Reference


Particularly in general aviation airplanes, there are lots of situations not
covered in the POH or at least lots of nuances not covered in the POH.

For example, the POH for most single-engine piston airplanes says to land as
quickly as practical after an engine failure. But what should you do if you
have a partial engine faillure? The correct response as far as I am
concerned in my simulator is to immediately climb regardless of any prior
ATC clearance or instructions and I would venture to believe that most
pilots would agree with this, even though I am aware of no POH which
includes this in the published procedure.

Consider that airlines have a LOT more established emergency procedures and
a lot more equipment redundancy, so whereas you might be correct that in an
airline situation there is a proper checklist for almost every situation, in
piston general aviation the pilot may need to do more independent thinking
to solve a problem. And even in the airline world, there is a Capt. Haynes
who made a landing in South Dakota a number of years ago who probably agrees
as well that independent thinking by an airline pilot is a good thing.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com