Hazardous Attitudes Testing (was Slow Flight)

[[email protected]]

I found it here:

http://www.paragonair.com/public/docs/Safety_Pamphlets/P8740-53.html

It's about a third of the way down a long page.

Instructors, especially, should know this stuff. Some of the
rest of us might be interested in doing it anyway.

Dan

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:12:17 -0700, wrote:

> I found it here:
>
>http://www.paragonair.com/public/docs/Safety_Pamphlets/P8740-53.html
>
> It's about a third of the way down a long page.
>
> Instructors, especially, should know this stuff. Some of the
>rest of us might be interested in doing it anyway.

Having gone through the test, I find it very unrealistic.

They make the decision for you and then have you justify their
decision. I could not pick any of the answers as justifiable.

As a pilot you are the one who has to make the decision and then
justify it. If you let some one else make the decision for which you
are responsible you are already in trouble.

Roger (K8RI)


>
> Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:12:17 -0700, wrote:
>
>> I found it here:
>>
>> http://www.paragonair.com/public/docs/Safety_Pamphlets/P8740-53.html
>>
>> It's about a third of the way down a long page.
>>
>> Instructors, especially, should know this stuff. Some of the
>> rest of us might be interested in doing it anyway.
>
> Having gone through the test, I find it very unrealistic.
>
> They make the decision for you and then have you justify their
> decision. I could not pick any of the answers as justifiable.
>
> As a pilot you are the one who has to make the decision and then
> justify it. If you let some one else make the decision for which you
> are responsible you are already in trouble.
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>
>> Dan

I would add to this that as a pilot it's good to have knowledge of all
kinds. Pilots however are well advised NOT to over think problems that
occur at 100mph plus.
:-))
As pilots, we should of course endeavor to learn "theory" on the ground.
In the air however, most of what we do should be deeply rooted in our
ability to use simple common sense paired with our training.
One of the PRIME goals of any CFI should be to steer a new pilot into
thinking and approaching the problems encountered in flight on this
common sense level.
As a pilot, it is VERY easy to over think a problem by making it more
complicated than is necessary to solve it.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:15:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:12:17 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>> I found it here:
>>>
>>> http://www.paragonair.com/public/docs/Safety_Pamphlets/P8740-53.html
>>>
>>> It's about a third of the way down a long page.
>>>
>>> Instructors, especially, should know this stuff. Some of the
>>> rest of us might be interested in doing it anyway.
>>
>> Having gone through the test, I find it very unrealistic.
>>
>> They make the decision for you and then have you justify their
>> decision. I could not pick any of the answers as justifiable.

They really need a test that lets the user make the decision and then
justify it, keeping in mind that what people say on paper is like
asking how many in the room would purchase a new Bonanza if they
lowered the price to $150,000.

>>
>> As a pilot you are the one who has to make the decision and then
>> justify it. If you let some one else make the decision for which you
>> are responsible you are already in trouble.
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>>
>>> Dan
>
>I would add to this that as a pilot it's good to have knowledge of all
>kinds. Pilots however are well advised NOT to over think problems that
>occur at 100mph plus.
>:-))

Or have a 100 MPH mind in a 200 MPH airplane. The surprising thing is
the 200 MPH mind in a 100 MPH airplane can get kinda awkward too.<:-))

>As pilots, we should of course endeavor to learn "theory" on the ground.
>In the air however, most of what we do should be deeply rooted in our
>ability to use simple common sense paired with our training.
>One of the PRIME goals of any CFI should be to steer a new pilot into
>thinking and approaching the problems encountered in flight on this
>common sense level.
>As a pilot, it is VERY easy to over think a problem by making it more
>complicated than is necessary to solve it.

Aint it though! <:-))


Roger (K8RI)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:15:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:

> They really need a test that lets the user make the decision and then
> justify it, keeping in mind that what people say on paper is like
> asking how many in the room would purchase a new Bonanza if they
> lowered the price to $150,000.

>
>
> Roger (K8RI)

Sounds reasonable to me :-))
--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Sep 13, 7:28 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:15:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > > wrote:
> > They really need a test that lets the user make the decision and then
> > justify it, keeping in mind that what people say on paper is like
> > asking how many in the room would purchase a new Bonanza if they
> > lowered the price to $150,000.
>
> > Roger (K8RI)
>
> Sounds reasonable to me :-))
> --
> Dudley Henriques

The test was written by guys who had to attend accident
scenes and try to piece together the causes. This involves research
into the personality of the pilot, his past history, training records,
witnesses to the accident and so on, and the results of such research
usually point to some reasonably accurate picture of the event. They
often find that one or more of these hazardous attitudes contributed
strongly to the decision(s) that led to the accident, so they, in an
effort to encourage the rest of us from letting bad habits kill us,
write this sort of thing to give us a little insight as to what our
weaknesses might be. As an instructor, I often run into students who
display something like an anti-authority attitude, for instance, and
when the test identifies it they disagree with the test. I've been
flying long enough and have lost enough friends to know that if they'd
listened to the gentle (and sometimes not so gentle) hints from other
pilots, they'd still be with us.
A test that would have so many options that we'd find
one that fits perfectly would be cumbersome and would introduce
inaccuracies of some other sort. I prefer to see what this one says
and then watch myself.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Sep 15, 4:04 pm, wrote:
> On Sep 13, 7:28 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:15:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > > > wrote:
> > > They really need a test that lets the user make the decision and then
> > > justify it, keeping in mind that what people say on paper is like
> > > asking how many in the room would purchase a new Bonanza if they
> > > lowered the price to $150,000.
>
> > > Roger (K8RI)
>
> > Sounds reasonable to me :-))
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> The test was written by guys who had to attend accident
> scenes and try to piece together the causes. This involves research
> into the personality of the pilot, his past history, training records,
> witnesses to the accident and so on, and the results of such research
> usually point to some reasonably accurate picture of the event. They
> often find that one or more of these hazardous attitudes contributed
> strongly to the decision(s) that led to the accident, so they, in an
> effort to encourage the rest of us from letting bad habits kill us,
> write this sort of thing to give us a little insight as to what our
> weaknesses might be. As an instructor, I often run into students who
> display something like an anti-authority attitude, for instance, and
> when the test identifies it they disagree with the test. I've been
> flying long enough and have lost enough friends to know that if they'd
> listened to the gentle (and sometimes not so gentle) hints from other
> pilots, they'd still be with us.
> A test that would have so many options that we'd find
> one that fits perfectly would be cumbersome and would introduce
> inaccuracies of some other sort. I prefer to see what this one says
> and then watch myself.
>
> Dan

I should add to that: The test assumes that you made the
mistakes. We all know that we don't fly around making mistakes
constantly, deliberately or otherwise, but occasionally most of us
will do something that we realize afterward was stupid. This test
forces us into situations in which we made hypothetical mistakes, and
asks us why we made them. That's the point: to identify the
attitude that led us to make the erroneous decision. Nobody is
perfect, and all of those attitudes are present in all of us, to some
extent, even if to a very small degree. It's the attitudes that show
up rather high on the scale that should alarm us.

Dan