Why The Hell... (random rant)

Maxwell writes:

Realy, what happened. Pizza grease on the yoke, spilled milk in the
keyboard?

I've damaged gear before with particularly rough landings. On at least one
occasion I damaged the flap mechanism, which caused one of the flaps to
extende improperly with full flaps, giving the aircraft a strong tendency to
roll. That took me a while to figure out.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..

Including simulated damage?

No, I've had damage before. I thought you meant instrument failure.


Thank you. The reason I press this issue is because aviation safety is
serious business. Claiming to have a high safety standard based on simulator
flying only, is in my opinion close to nonsense.
Why? Because the sim pilot does not run the risk of getting hurt if things
go bad. The objective when training a pilot to be a safe airliner captain is
not only mastering the buttons and switches, but also to achieve those
skills without breaking any airplane parts in the process. Therefore actual
flying training is so good. It teaches the student in the most realistic way
the consequences of not yet having the required skills - with a Flight
Instructor always there to keep the situation safe and coach the student on
how to progress towards his goal to become a pilot. That mental attitude -
grasping the consequences of a pilot failure - is one of the most important
traits of a safe pilot.

Ugh, I've spoken ;-)

Snowbird writes:

Thank you. The reason I press this issue is because aviation safety is
serious business. Claiming to have a high safety standard based on simulator
flying only, is in my opinion close to nonsense.

I don't see why that would make any difference.

Why? Because the sim pilot does not run the risk of getting hurt if things
go bad.

People with a good attitude towards safety don't need to be motivated by the
risk of getting hurt. Indeed, if the only way to make someone conscientious
about safety is to put him into a situation where he is at immediate and
obvious risk, then there is a problem with his attitude.

Most people run into dangerous situations because they behaved in unsafe ways
when there is _not_ any obvious risk of harm. Since they are motivated only
by obvious, immediate risk, any time that they do not perceive such a risk,
they disregard safety.

This is how motorcycle riders crush their skulls by not wearing a helmet.
They don't see an immediate, obvious risk to not wearing a helmet, so they
don't put one on. Then, when the risk actually becomes significant, they are
unprepared. Most people will put on a helmet if they know that they're about
to hit a brick wall. The difficulty is in getting people to put on helmets
even when they aren't in any immediate and obvious danger.

Thus, a pilot who is motivated to be safe only by a risk of accident or injury
is not fundamentally a safe pilot. The safe pilot takes precautions
irrespective of any obvious risk.

It teaches the student in the most realistic way
the consequences of not yet having the required skills - with a Flight
Instructor always there to keep the situation safe and coach the student on
how to progress towards his goal to become a pilot.

If a flight instructor is there, it's not realistic. The risk is not any
greater than in a simulator, since the instructor can save the day. People in
that situation are motivated by a desire for approval from the instructor, not
by any real risk. The problem there is that they may not behave safely when
the instructor is not around to correct them, especially if they've never been
motivated in any other way.

That mental attitude -
grasping the consequences of a pilot failure - is one of the most important
traits of a safe pilot.

Everyone can grasp the consequences when the risk is immediate and obvious.
Many people cannot when the risk is more remote. And this is true even for
trained pilots, which is why so many trained pilots still crash due to a lack
of caution and concern for safety.

In summary, if you only learn about safety when you are threatened with
immediate harmful consequences, you haven't really learned about safety.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Apr 7, 11:10 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
A sim only produces failures if you request them, and I usually don't, unless
I want to practice something specific, such as engine failure. Practicingfailurescenarios is quite academic in a simulator, and doesn't serve much
purpose unless you intend to fly a real aircraft. It can be interesting for
other reasons, though.

This is pretty ironic, don't you think?

One of the prime motivations for using simulators for pilot training
is to be able to practice failure scenarios. (Yes, cost is another
prime motivation.)

Pilot training would be quite simple without having to learn all of
those pesky failure scenarios.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

When it comes to BS, I think you have reached your weekly high point. That
had to be at least a triple flutter blast.

Nothing is too easy for the person that will never have to actually do it.

writes:

This is pretty ironic, don't you think?

Why?

One of the prime motivations for using simulators for pilot training
is to be able to practice failure scenarios. (Yes, cost is another
prime motivation.)

Yes, but that's because they are flying real aircraft, and failure scenarios
are impractical and dangerous to practice in real aircraft. At the same time,
failures cannot be avoided in real aircraft.

Pilot training would be quite simple without having to learn all of
those pesky failure scenarios.

Yes, and that's why a non-pilot can land an airliner in an emergency.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

This is pretty ironic, don't you think?

Why?

One of the prime motivations for using simulators for pilot training
is to be able to practice failure scenarios. (Yes, cost is another
prime motivation.)

Yes, but that's because they are flying real aircraft, and failure
scenarios
are impractical and dangerous to practice in real aircraft. At the same
time,
failures cannot be avoided in real aircraft.

Pilot training would be quite simple without having to learn all of
those pesky failure scenarios.

Yes, and that's why a non-pilot can land an airliner in an emergency.


You're not even entertaining as common troll. Why didn't you post a few
"bait" question before you sprung the big one????

On Apr 7, 7:53 am, wrote:


They aren't, though. Most training for airline pilots today takes place in
simulators, so pure simulator-based training is only one small step away from
the current practice.

This is incorrect. Most training for airline pilots takes place in
the right seat.

Actualy Alpha, you are incorrect. It is against FARs to conduct
training during part 135 or 121 ops. ALL airline training is done in
the sim.


The required avionics are mission dependent. For example, if you're
not going to fly IFR, you don't need any instruments that are only
used for IFR. As long as you don't go below the minimum equipment
list, and as long as you placard any inoperative instruments, you
don't need everything working.

Here again, all airline flights are conducted on an instrument flight
plan. As an interesting note, its been about 10 years since the
airlines have done any partial panel training .

K Baum writes:

Here again, all airline flights are conducted on an instrument flight
plan. As an interesting note, its been about 10 years since the
airlines have done any partial panel training .

Even in sims? Why was it discontinued?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Apr 7, 5:49 pm, "K Baum" wrote:
Actualy Alpha, you are incorrect. It is against FARs to conduct
training during part 135 or 121 ops. ALL airline training is done in
the sim.

I think we're working with different definitions of training. The
first officer, especially in the beginning, is still learning the
job. And training how to do the captain's job takes place largely in
the right seat.

The number of hours spent is the simulator is dwarfed by the time
spent learning while working in the right seat.

The required avionics are mission dependent. For example, if you're
not going to fly IFR, you don't need any instruments that are only
used for IFR. As long as you don't go below the minimum equipment
list, and as long as you placard any inoperative instruments, you
don't need everything working.

Here again, all airline flights are conducted on an instrument flight
plan. As an interesting note, its been about 10 years since the
airlines have done any partial panel training .

And I wasn't talking about airline flights here.

Have all airlines really stopped partial-panel training? Do you have
a citation for this? I'd love to learn more.