About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots

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

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
.. .
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.

There may or may not be other means available. Matt was describing a
situation in which there aren't; *different* kinds of situations have no
bearing on the point he was making about *that* situation.

Just how much more likely do you suppose a fatality is when a pilot is
highly distracted and flying VFR over the top? More than, say, 100 times
more likely than usual? A typical few-hour GA flight has less than one
chance in 20,000 of resulting in a fatality (see the Nall Report), so a
hundred-fold increase in risk would still mean less than a half-percent
chance of death. Or even a *thousand-fold* increase would still mean less
than a five percent chance--still far preferable to the alternative in the
hypothetical situation Matt described. Is there any reason to believe that
Matt's hypothetical situation increases the risk of fatal accident by much
more than a factor of 1,000?

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'd say it was a bad decision unless you had reason to be confident that
clearer weather was within your flight range, and unless you continued to
monitor the weather using the available en route resources (it would be an
error on a pilot's part--perhaps reflecting a gap in training--to embark on
an XC flight without being prepared to use those resources if needed).

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.

The risk in Matt's situation is indeed much greater than in yours. But
there's no reason to think that greater risk amounts to more than a
few-percent chance of fatality. In a situation where *not* flying has a
*higher* risk than that of resulting in a fatality, it is therefore a good
decision to fly. You always have to look at the benefit side of the equation
as well as the risk side.

--Gary

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
|
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:P%RJf.97654$4l5.90774@dukeread05...
If I needed a flight for a sick family member, I'd call a
detached professional.

Of course, but Matt contrived (for the sake of illustration) a hypothetical
situation in which making the flight himself was the only possible way to
get need help. His point was just *in those circumstances*, making the
flight is by far the better option.

--Gary

In the civilized world there are always options.

Whether flying under IFR or VFR, the "competent pilot" will
always be checking the weather, particularly the weather
that can't be seen directly. Still the "outside world
indicator" is the most important instrument in the airplane.
It allows the average pilot to navigate, avoid collisions
with the ground and other airplanes, keep track of changing
weather and it provides most of the joy of flight. Being on
top makes checking the weather more important.

Having an instrument rating makes weather much more
difficult because you will be flying in it. The VFR only
pilot, whether caused by airplane equipment, currency or
just not having the certificate, has a much easier time with
weather if he has the smarts to see that 2,000 and 5 is not
good weather at Aspen.


--
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
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:P%RJf.97654$4l5.90774@dukeread05...
| If I needed a flight for a sick family member, I'd call
a
| detached professional.
|
| Of course, but Matt contrived (for the sake of
illustration) a hypothetical
| situation in which making the flight himself was the only
possible way to
| get need help. His point was just *in those
circumstances*, making the
| flight is by far the better option.
|
| --Gary
|
|

Jim Macklin wrote:

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.

In my scenario there is no other option. There is no commercial service
available. In my scenario, the ONLY option is to fly yourself in your
GA airplane. Do you still feel the same way?


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.

Again, in my scenario this isn't an option. Either YOU make the flight
or your child dies. What is your decision?


Matt