If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:37:32 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:
I have subsequently flown 22 years professionally without a catastrophic failure of anything, without ever having to declare an emergency. Next time you are at your airport, be sure to thank your A&P. All the good piloting is only as good as the reliability of the equipment you fly..... Allen |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots
A Lieberman wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:41:03 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote: You have alternates in mind that are still VFR and use them if needed. Flying on top of a solid overcast into weather that is by your own admission worse than forecast (and you have no way of knowing how much worse it may get) without an instrument rating, isn't a very wise thing to do. Yes, I agree now (where I learned from my own experiences) that VFR over the top is inheritantly risky without a IFR rating or WITHOUT an alternate. It was center that got me what I needed for my alternate, so I used every available tool out there. That was my point entirely. I think the key point I am trying to make, is by looking at the surface of my situation I described, I followed the VFR rules to a tee when the wheels went up. But somebody not in my situation would say, how in the world can someone get stuck over the top. Following the rules to the letter doesn't make one a good pilot. I'd say it actually is a great indication of a bad pilot. Good piloting requires constant situation assessment, judgement and decision making. Blindly following the rules and regulations is a recipe for disaster. Most rules are written based on the last accident, not the next one. My goal is to not be the reason that the next regulation is written and following the current regulations is grossly insufficient to ensure that. I would not consider the situation I encountered a bad piloting decision with the information I had in hand from startup to 50 miles out. I would. Flying over a solid layer such that you can't easily know what is happening below or even knowing if you can find a hole to descend through shows bad judgement and is bad piloting in my opinion, 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. If I would have pressed on to my destination without regard to the weather, that would have been a bad piloting decision. I did not do that. That would have been another bad piloting decision. :-) Matt |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
I would not consider the situation I encountered a bad piloting decision with the information I had in hand from startup to 50 miles out. I would. Flying over a solid layer such that you can't easily know what is happening below or even knowing if you can find a hole to descend through shows bad judgement and is bad piloting in my opinion, Everybody is naturally entitled to their opinion :-) 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. Allen |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots
"Bad pilot", "good pilot"... Who cares?
It's all just pointless namecalling. It's human nature to want to feel better than someone else. It's tempting for me to say to someone else "That was a bad descision you made. You are such a bad pilot. If I was in that situation I'd do something completely different because I am such a better pilot than you. You deserve to get your liscense taken away because of your reckless attitude, and you should be banned from coming within 50 miles of any airplane or airport. You should try to be more like me, perfect in every facet of flying." But what would that accomplish? I have seriously witnessed people in this group say things like the above. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots
"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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots
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 | | | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|