DC pilots (update)

Good example of "eating our own."

We don't stick together, we assume the worst of each other, and (for people
who really are in the main mostly annoyed at the governments ever-greater
restrictions on us) believe whatever the investigators and/or the media says
about this incident.

My guess is, the most critical people here have the least amount of time in
an AC and have no clue what flying was like in the 50's and 60's, as I and
many more here do.


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Gary,

It's quite unwarranted to hold a student-pilot passenger partly
responsible
for errors by the PIC involving skills that may be beyond the passenger's
current training


While that may be so, I think it is still within the realm of the
warranted to
call both guys idiots.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Funny, and I really did laugh at that.

However, I am in my 70's and I have been flying since 1958. I don't get off
course, I know where I am whenever I fly, and I live near DC. But the
difference is, I don't immediately attack and call pilots who make mistakes,
even one as severe as this, idiots or some of the other names bantered about
here.

I guess that is because I have made some real doozy mistakes flying from
time to time.

I really wonder if you guys are that good, I mean, to never have made a huge
mistake, alone these lines?

If not, I guarantee one day you will. We all do.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
The PIC was in his 70's. I imagine he's done either way.

Gary,

Well, to be fair to Thomas, he's not claiming the passenger had any legal
obligation. He's just saying the passenger was an idiot.

Actually, I was just taking sides with someone who said that originally, IIRC.
But I have to say you're right: There is a chance he didn't do anything because
he couldn't yet, because of the level of his training.

And Thomas has
yet to explain how he even concluded that the passenger did *not* correctly
advise the PIC.


Again, I think that possibility is simply ruled out by the fact that the plane
penetrated the ADIZ.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

John,

If not, I guarantee one day you will. We all do.


You are, of course, right. However, there are huge mistakes, and then
there are HUGE mistakes. What makes this mistake REALLY HUGE and what
makes many pilots here get very excited about it, is the fact that it
is highly likely the flying all of us do will suffer from that one
mistake of one pilot. That is the difference. It's big, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
But I have to say you're right: There is a chance he didn't do anything
because
he couldn't yet, because of the level of his training.

Good, I'm glad we agree on that!

And Thomas has
yet to explain how he even concluded that the passenger did *not*
correctly
advise the PIC.

Again, I think that possibility is simply ruled out by the fact that the
plane
penetrated the ADIZ.

Thomas, I don't mean to be obtuse here, but you keep repeating that claim
without answering my question as to *why* you believe it. That is: *why* do
you believe that the plane's penetration of the ADIZ rules out the
possibility that the passenger gave correct navigational advice that the PIC
was unconvinced by and didn't heed? (Passenger: "Look, we were at XYZ and
flew heading 210 at 95 knots for 30 minutes, so that would put us here
inside the ADIZ." PIC: "No, no, we're over here to the west of the ADIZ.
Look, there's the lake next to the highway.")

A *competent* PIC would likely have been persuaded by sound guidance from
the passenger; but we already know this PIC was massively incompetent.

--Gary

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
We don't stick together, we assume the worst of each other, and (for
people who really are in the main mostly annoyed at the governments
ever-greater restrictions on us) believe whatever the investigators and/or
the media says about this incident.

You're invoking a stereotype that doesn't fit this situation at all. The
news media has been quoting investigators as *praising* the student-pilot
passenger. Those pilots who've been unjustifiably condemning the passenger
have been *disregarding* what investigators and the media have been pointing
out about the incident.

--Gary

Gary,

That is: *why* do
you believe that the plane's penetration of the ADIZ rules out the
possibility that the passenger gave correct navigational advice that the PIC
was unconvinced by and didn't heed?


That is a possibility, although I don't really know how someone couldn't react
to "That's the Capitol over there, and the Washington Monument, see?".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas wrote:

Because he didn't intervene earlier. Seems obvious...

Isn't there a well-documented cockpit phenomenon that occurs when
coupling a very green pilot with a very experienced pilot, something
about the inexperienced one being afraid to point out the mistakes of
the experienced one?


--
Peter

John wrote:

My guess is, the most critical people here have the least amount of
time in
an AC and have no clue what flying was like in the 50's and 60's, as
I and
many more here do.

Please elaborate. How is aviation in the 50's and 60's relevent to
this incident?

--
Peter

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
That is: *why* do
you believe that the plane's penetration of the ADIZ rules out the
possibility that the passenger gave correct navigational advice that the
PIC
was unconvinced by and didn't heed?

That is a possibility,

Good, we agree on that now too!

although I don't really know how someone couldn't react
to "That's the Capitol over there, and the Washington Monument, see?".

C'mon, do you really think the PIC *saw* the Capitol and *still* didn't know
where he was at that point? There's no evidence of that. (Though according
to the reports, he may have been too panicked by then to react properly,
which is why he soon ceded control to the non-pilot passenger.)

--Gary