Downright Scary...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:JTnGc.31291$7t3.22798@attbi_s51...
Later in the conversation, however, I did go into my usual spiel about
spatial disorientation, how my old primary instructor demonstrated it to
me
(at night, over Lake Michigan, with my panel covered), and how dangerous
it
is. Hopefully he/she got the message that they were in grave danger.

If his instrument-flying skills are good (and it sounds like they are),
spatial disorientation may have been the least of his worries. CFIT and
extreme turbulence may have been the more serious risks.

Our attitude and obtuse comments, in combination with his wife's
instinctive
fear, may have done the job of quietly kicking him in the pants for
subjecting his wife to such an ordeal.

Or maybe not. It's hard to tell.

Yup. Since the passenger's reaction was to keep her eyes closed, it sounds
more like she judged her fear to be irrational, and was just protecting
herself from the fearful stimulus (much the way some passengers close their
eyes if the plane banks thirty degrees). If she'd really understood the
danger, she'd probably have taken a more purposeful action instead, like
asking for a course reversal or a divorce.

--Gary

True, but it wouldn't have been lecturing to inform the non-pilot of the
reckless and illegal risk her husband was subjecting her to. She surely has
a right to know, so she can make an informed decision whether to fly with
him again.


There are two possiblilties.

1: The pilot can learn from his mistake. In this case, taking the above
action would probably ensure that the wife will never fly with him again, and
will forever be scared of airplanes and distrustful of her husband's abilities.
It may even end his flying career right there, and thus his ability to make
use of what he learned (or will learn). Remember that just because the pilot
learns something doesn't mean that the passenger will learn that the pilot
learned something.

2: The pilot canNOT learn from his mistake. In this case, Darwin will have
his due, and taking the above action may save a life. But maybe not (his wife
may figure this out soon enough, or may not be on the fatal trip).

You don't know which of these two possibilities it is. Have you never made a
stupid mistake you learned from, even if the learning took place some time
later, especially as a newly minted pilot? Would you like your passengers to
be let in on it so they can see what a dangerous jerk you were in the air?

I'd say that a word to the pilot (not a lecture, but a two-way side
conversation about flight conditions and consequences and luck) might be
appropriate. Calling an Aviation Safety Counselor might also be a good idea.
But I would under no (conceivable) circumstances berate the pilot to his wife,
the passenger. That will likely backfire.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

True, but it wouldn't have been lecturing to inform the non-pilot of the
reckless and illegal risk her husband was subjecting her to. She surely
has
a right to know, so she can make an informed decision whether to fly with
him again.


There are two possiblilties.

1: The pilot can learn from his mistake. In this case, taking the above
action would probably ensure that the wife will never fly with him again,
and
will forever be scared of airplanes and distrustful of her husband's
abilities.
It may even end his flying career right there, and thus his ability to
make
use of what he learned (or will learn). Remember that just because the
pilot
learns something doesn't mean that the passenger will learn that the pilot
learned something.

2: The pilot canNOT learn from his mistake. In this case, Darwin will
have
his due, and taking the above action may save a life. But maybe not (his
wife
may figure this out soon enough, or may not be on the fatal trip).

You don't know which of these two possibilities it is.

So it's best to err on the side of the possibility that might well kill an
unsuspecting person?

Have you never made a
stupid mistake you learned from, even if the learning took place some time
later, especially as a newly minted pilot?

I wouldn't characterize it as a mere "mistake" to deliberately continue VFR
in IMC, and to deliberately continue into thunderstorms (and to do so with
an unsuspecting, non-pilot passenger, no less).

Would you like your passengers to
be let in on it so they can see what a dangerous jerk you were in the air?

If my passengers had been in serious danger, I would certainly want them to
know about it. I might hope they'd have confidence in my potential to
improve, but it would never occur to me to deny them the right to make their
own informed choice. I would never try to trick them into continuing to fly
with me by witholding such critical information from them; I'd consider that
a profound violation of their trust.

I'd say that a word to the pilot (not a lecture, but a two-way side
conversation about flight conditions and consequences and luck) might be
appropriate. Calling an Aviation Safety Counselor might also be a good
idea.
But I would under no (conceivable) circumstances berate the pilot to his
wife,
the passenger. That will likely backfire.

Whatever choice she would make if she knew what had almost happened to her,
it's her right to decide--not her husband's, and not yours or mine.

--Gary

I'd also wonder about the CFI that apparently did not impress upon
this newbie PPL about the dangers of Tstorms.

Blanche wrote:

I'd also wonder about the CFI that apparently did not impress upon
this newbie PPL about the dangers of Tstorms.

or about the minimum visibility and cloud clearance requirements for VFR flight.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

So it's best to err on the side of the possibility that might well kill an
unsuspecting person?


Yes.

The freedom to fly is the freedom to put people in danger, the freedom to make
mistakes that can kill, and the freedom to make bad decisions. With this
freedom comes responsibility - the responsibility to minimize the danger so
much as is reasonable under the circumstances, This responsibility belongs to
the Pilot In Command. It is what being the Pilot In Command means. It is not
to be minimized, lest it get minimized on all of us.

I am not arguing to do =nothing= and walk away as if this were an acceptable
decision with an expected outcome. This was (after the fact) clearly an
unacceptable decision with a fortunate outcome. I emphasize "after the fact"
because every one of us has a different level of skill, judgement, experience,
equipment, and risk tolerance, and it is not up to somebody else to make risk
decisions for us. There are too many people who are waiting in the wings to do
just that. Of all people, passengers are not the ones to be trusted with these
kinds of decisions (despite the fact that every now and then the passenger is
right and the pilot is wrong).

What I am advocating is to ensure that any conversations or actions take place
with the pilot, either directly or through channels designed for that (such as
the Aviation Safety Counselor). Putting the passenger in the equation will
only mess things up, as he or she is (generally) not in a position to
understand the nuances of the decisions being made.


I wouldn't characterize it as a mere "mistake" to deliberately continue VFR
in IMC, and to deliberately continue into thunderstorms (and to do so with
an unsuspecting, non-pilot passenger, no less).


It is a mistake. IT is a mistake in judgement. A big one to be sure, but so
are some of the icing issues being discussed in another thread right now.
Flying an airplane that is not icing certified into known or forecast icing
conditions is a huge mistake in judgement, and can cause death to the pilot,
passengers, and people below. At least some will argue that. Some will argue
differently. Should the passengers be told how reckless =that= is?


If my passengers had been in serious danger, I would certainly want them to
know about it.


.... and you would tell them, wouldn't you? (not do do so would be to, as you
say, "trick them into continuing to fly
with me by witholding such critical information from them;")You wouldn't want
other people to tell them what an ass you were in the sky - you'd want your own
opportunity to do so.


Whatever choice she would make if she knew what had almost happened to her,
it's her right to decide--not her husband's, and not yours or mine.


Neither of us is making that choice for her.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
The freedom to fly is the freedom to put people in danger, the freedom to
make
mistakes that can kill, and the freedom to make bad decisions.

Yes, but the passenger's freedom to fly--or to stay on the
ground--includes the freedom to make an informed choice about the risks
involved, and to know what risks they've actually been exposed to.

If my passengers had been in serious danger, I would certainly want them
to
know about it.

... and you would tell them, wouldn't you? (not do do so would be to, as
you
say, "trick them into continuing to fly
with me by witholding such critical information from them;")

Yes, of course. Honesty with passengers about their safety takes precedence
over ego and over any desire to have them fly with me again. If the
positions were reversed and I were the unsuspecting non-pilot passenger (or
if someone I care about were some pilot's unsuspecting passenger), I would
certainly hope to be treated with honesty and with respect for my informed
consent. So that's how I would treat others. What could be more basic?

--Gary

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
What I am advocating is to ensure that any conversations or actions take
place
with the pilot, either directly or through channels designed for that
(such as
the Aviation Safety Counselor). Putting the passenger in the equation
will
only mess things up, as he or she is (generally) not in a position to
understand the nuances of the decisions being made.

With all due respect, Jose, you seem to be advocating a paternalistic
relationship between pilot and passenger, not unlike the paternalistic
doctor/patient relationship that was typical back in the days before the
importance of informed consent was widely recognized. Particularly in the
situation Jay described, the relevant factors are not particularly nuanced;
with ten minutes of study, the passenger would be able to understand the
situation better than the pilot did. No one has a right to keep the
passenger "out of the equation" in deciding whether flying is worth the risk
to the passenger.

--Gary

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:JSmGc.14184$JR4.8572@attbi_s54...
I told them both how lucky they were, and left it at that. After all,
they
were here for a good time, and it wasn't my position as innkeeper to be
lecturing my guests. In fact, I didn't even mention the "Tipton
Towers" --
twin TV transmission towers that reach some 1700 feet into the sky right
near Tipton.

Arghhh... Made me shudder!

I surely hope that the newly minted PP learned something on that flight and
hope that he's makes better decisions in the future.

Thanks for the story, Jay.

(Part of me is dumb with admiration for the pilot!)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org