Why The Hell... (random rant)

Regarding the magnetic compass, note that its usefulness is not limited to
those "catastrophic blackout" emergency-landing scenarios that some of the
posts here suggest. It may be simpler events such as an in-flight restart
of
the FMS, or a handheld GPS falling on the floor in a small aircraft. In
such
cases the magnetic compass helps against straying off course until the
problem is fixed.


Hi Snowbird,

I realize that, in placing this comment here, I am indeed preaching to the
choir; but feel compelled, for the benefit of any newbies reading still
this, to add that the most common use of the magnetic compass in more fully
equipped aircraft is to correct the DG as is precesses or to verify that a
slaved DG or HSI is properly correcting for precession. I was taught to
perform this task as part of the cruise checklist at 15 minute intervals.

Best regards, and thanks for an interesting and iformative series of posts.

Peter

On Apr 7, 4:14 pm, wrote:
On Apr 7, 5:49 pm, "K Baum" wrote:


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.

True, I was refering mostly to MV and PV. That is all done in the sim.
The first time you take the controls of an actual plane is during OE
with sheep in the back. The captains job is not that dificult to
learn. Lets see, show up at the last minute, take regular naps, and
plenty of reading material, oh yea, and pick up the bar tab .

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.

Sorry, between all the back and forth with this MX individual, I must
have got confused. Airlines are the primary users of MELs, and maybe
this is what caused me to think this.

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

I have never seen any form of partial panel done since the old
turboprop days. I can only guess that they have not found this to be a
very effective use of sim time.The only thing I can remember anything
close to partial panel was about 6 years ago when I was ask to fly a
raw data approach. You do have standby instruments of course, but I
have never seen anyone have to demonstrate flight by reference to
these, and it is not in the training curriculum or even the FCM. Sorry
I cant be more helpful, but my guess is that with the redundancy built
into a modern airliner, it just isnt necesary. Another thing to
consider is that with a glass cockpit, all of the flight info is on
one instrument anyways so partial panel isnt really valid.

writes:

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.

But he is not learning to fly, not even the aircraft in question. His
"training" is company procedures and policies.

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

More specifically, the number of hours spent in the simulator is dwarfed by
the time spent in the right seat. However, the simulator time is pure
training. The right-seat time is just work, and getting used to aspects of
the job unrelated to flight per se.

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

In article ,
says...
Snowbird writes:

I see no reference to jet airliners in the OP's post.

It was in the posts preceding mine.

Your opinion again. That airliner captain would have training and experience
in using a magnetic compass, so it certainly would be better than nothing to
him.

It's better than nothing in the sense that hitting dirt is better than hitting
concrete.

There are such things as proficiency check flights, where the examiner may
choose to test the pilot's knowledge on that subject. Pilots obviously want
to pass the checkride. Anyway, it's not a particularly difficult skill.

Okay, how many private pilots are compelled to demonstrate flying with just a
compass alone for proficiency check flights? And how realistic is such a
demonstration; that is, how often are pilots actually in this type of
situation in real life?

About 100% (certainly here in NZ). Not *always* covered in BFR's no
doubt, but certainly in the PPL curriculum - compass turns onto North,
South, East, West and some in betweens too.

It's essential stuff - in any plane.

--
Duncan

In rec.aviation.student K Baum wrote:
these, and it is not in the training curriculum or even the FCM. Sorry
I cant be more helpful, but my guess is that with the redundancy built
into a modern airliner, it just isnt necesary. Another thing to
consider is that with a glass cockpit, all of the flight info is on
one instrument anyways so partial panel isnt really valid.

Yikes! What if that one instrument goes tango uniform? It's a good thing
there's always a compass to fall back on, then! :-)

What if the failure isn't in the instrument, but in a sensor? Would that
warrant practice analogous to partial panel, or are there enough redundant
sensors that it wouldn't be worth it?

(For those who aren't paying close attention, we've switched mid-paragraph
from redundant airline cockpits to small GA planes with glass panels.)

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

Alan Gerber writes:

Yikes! What if that one instrument goes tango uniform? It's a good thing
there's always a compass to fall back on, then! :-)

Large airliners have a great deal of redundancy, and that helps. Contrast
this with things like a G1000 in a small plane, which has no redundancy at
all.

What if the failure isn't in the instrument, but in a sensor? Would that
warrant practice analogous to partial panel, or are there enough redundant
sensors that it wouldn't be worth it?

Airliners often do have redundant sensors as well.

For those who aren't paying close attention, we've switched mid-paragraph
from redundant airline cockpits to small GA planes with glass panels.

The latter are much riskier than the former.

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

The only thing I can remember anything
close to partial panel was about 6 years ago when I was ask to fly a
raw data approach.

What is a raw data approach?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
CJ writes:

Uh, no. What Ron Natalie said was:

"The engine in just about every airplane out there runs just freaking
fine
without any electrical power consumed nor delivered to the rest of the
aircraft."

It's an accurate statement - that's probably what confused you.

"Without any electrical power consumed." And before you say it, "nor"
excludes the remainder of the sentence (unlike "or").

Hmm, why does "Pedantic Usenet Ass" leap to mind?

Okay, s_l_o_w_l_y now, "The engine in just about every airplane out there
runs just freaking fine without any electrical power consumed...", is what
Mr. Natalie said. "The assertion was that there was no electricity in some
aircraft" is what you said. "Who asserted no electricity" is what I said.
To anyone but a pedantic usenet ass, Mr. Natalie's statement is clear - the
ENGINE runs fine without any electrical power being consumed - it generates
it's own electricity using a magneto. It does not CONSUME electricity - no
outside source of electricity.

Repeating the question you snipped, who asserted no electricity?

CJ

Has anyone trademarked "pedantic usenet ass" yet? I think I first saw it in
a McNicoll / Honeck thread.

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..
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.

It's explained in the next paragraph.

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.

In my experience, some pilot students do not have the right attitude when
they start. That concerns especially those who have a lot of MS flight sim
time and consider themselves already very proficient.

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.

So therefore risk areas are demonstrated during training, so they can be
percieved and avoided in the future.

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.´

I doubt a motorcycle safety expert would agree bikers don't see the risks of
not wearing a helmet. Seeing risks is different from taking risks.


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.

Those precautions include training to improve the perception of non-obvious
risks.


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.


The problem is that the simulator can not ruin the day.


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.

Simulators, especially simple one-screen variants, tend to make the risk
perception even more remote, so they are not a general solution.

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


Safety is a part of most every subject of pilot training, it's not limited
to flight training. You have to pass all subjects to get the license.

Snowbird writes:

In my experience, some pilot students do not have the right attitude when
they start. That concerns especially those who have a lot of MS flight sim
time and consider themselves already very proficient.

What's wrong with their attitude?

So therefore risk areas are demonstrated during training, so they can be
percieved and avoided in the future.

Anyone who has studied carefully, even on the ground, already knows what most
of the risks are. And a prudent person will be trying to avoid those risks
even at the start of instruction. Indeed, some students might have to be
convinced that the risks are not so great as they believe, just to get them to
fly.

There are other people who are excited by risk. Pointing the risks out to
them only excites them more, and makes them more determined to push the
envelope in order to feel the thrill of risk. These people make bad pilots.
I imagine an instructor can recognize the type. However, it's perfectly
possible for an instructor to have this problem himself, in which case he may
be a danger to himself and his students.

I doubt a motorcycle safety expert would agree bikers don't see the risks of
not wearing a helmet. Seeing risks is different from taking risks.

Some people truly do not see risks. They are unable to see long-term
consequences to their actions. They perceive and act upon only immediate,
obvious risks. Part of this is personality; a lot of it is correlated with
general intelligence (that is, stupid people take more risks). Also,
testosterone encourages this type of behavior, which is why it is more common
among men than women.

Riders who don't wear helmets may be fully aware of the risks and yet willing
to take them ... but in most cases they think the risks magically do not apply
to them, or they vastly underestimate the risk because it isn't constantly
staring them in the face. These riders often select themselves out of the
gene pool, but not before they've reproduced, unfortunately.

Those precautions include training to improve the perception of non-obvious
risks.

That can make some pilots more cautious; and it may induce others to seek
greater thrills. Not everyone reacts to a perception of risk with precaution.

You might teach one pilot about spins and spin recovery, and he will forever
thereafter be extraordinarily prudent, carefully avoiding any situation that
might lead to a spin, even if he knows that it might be recoverable. He's
that way because of natural caution and risk avoidance. But another pilot
might be a thrillseeker: he might be more excited by the immediate and obvious
risk of spins than by the safety appeal of avoiding them. And so he will
continue to take risks, and perhaps even increase his risk out of a conscious
or unconscious thrillseeking element in his personality.

Some people are happier when they are safe; others are happier when they are
in danger. The second type shouldn't be flying outside of the military.

The problem is that the simulator can not ruin the day.

That's not a problem for people who are already cautious and good at avoiding
risk. It is sufficient to point out a risk to them, and they will avoid it.
They may enjoy simulator work precisely because of the lower risk.

Those who consider simulators boring and long for the thrill of risk in a real
aircraft are the ones to watch carefully. There are many attractions to
aviation, but when risk is the foremost among them, there's a problem.

Simulators, especially simple one-screen variants, tend to make the risk
perception even more remote, so they are not a general solution.

The perception of risk depends on the person, not the environment. Some
people will perceive and avoid risks entirely on their own. Others will not
perceive risks even when they confront them directly. Still others perceive
the risks and seek them out. The actual environment you use to teach them
really doesn't matter much.

Safety is a part of most every subject of pilot training, it's not limited
to flight training. You have to pass all subjects to get the license.

Getting the license and being a safe pilot are two entirely different things.

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