About Good Pilots and Bad Pilots

A Lieberman wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:31:38 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:


Yes, I was intentionally contriving a high risk operation, but giving a
good reason for doing it. You conducted a high risk operation with no
good reason. That is exactly what is wrong with your picture.


Sorry, don't buy it.

You don't have to.


You are getting behind an airplane not entirely focused on flying which
makes you much more dangerous then me VFR over the top.

I'm a very focused person when flying.


In my opinion, if you get behind a yoke for your stated reasons, that you
have get home itis to get to your destination, you are making the ultimate
poorest pilot decision to fly where as in my situation, I didn't have get
home itis, and have alternatives when I flew VFR over the top.

What would be the difference with your situation and had I pressed on for
an ILS at 800 foot ceilings if the outcome is the POTENTIALLY the same
given the same weather conditions and piloting skills.?

The difference is I'd have a good reason for taking the risk.


My risk factor would be much lower as I had choices then your stated
reasons.

Risk factors are higher in your situation since you are not completely
focused on flying, but getting there.

The risk factors are probably higher, that was the point of the
scenario. The difference is that the reward was also MUCH higher. Risk
isn't an absolute, it is about cost vs. benefit. My scenario has a very
high benefit/cost, whereas yours had almost none.


Get home itis will kill you if you are not mentally prepared to fly an
airplane.

No, get home itis never killed anyone. A poor decision, or more likely
a series of poor decisions, is the killer. Every time I fly I want to
get to my destination. If I didn't want to get there, I wouldn't be
going in the first place!

Matt

Jose wrote:

Sorry, don't buy it.


The point he's making, I think, is that the risk=reward equation depends
on the reward as well as the risk. "Get-home-itis" has little reward
(getting home), but in his scenario, the reward (his son's life) is much
greater. For purposes of this discussion, assume that there is no
"other way" (i.e. no charter pilots available, too far by car, etc, so
it's fly or die).

A little different, but also showing that context is important, what
would you think of a pilot who routinely flies below 500 feet, in fact
where there are no buildings he flies at more like fifty feet and makes
steep turns at that altitude? Good pilot for skills? Bad pilot for
decisionmaking? Would it make a difference were he a cropduster?

Certain operations, and operations under certain circumstances, are more
risky than others. Sometimes the added risk is warranted.

Bingo. That is my point entirely.

Matt

Flying goals in order of importance...
1. Get someplace safely.
2. Get where you want to go, safely.
3. Get where you want to go on time, safely.

If you always follow those rules you should be safe.

Remember the USAF has peace time rules and nuclear war
rules.




--
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:
|
| On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:31:38 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
|
|
| Yes, I was intentionally contriving a high risk
operation, but giving a
| good reason for doing it. You conducted a high risk
operation with no
| good reason. That is exactly what is wrong with your
picture.
|
|
| Sorry, don't buy it.
|
| You don't have to.
|
|
| You are getting behind an airplane not entirely focused
on flying which
| makes you much more dangerous then me VFR over the top.
|
| I'm a very focused person when flying.
|
|
| In my opinion, if you get behind a yoke for your stated
reasons, that you
| have get home itis to get to your destination, you are
making the ultimate
| poorest pilot decision to fly where as in my situation,
I didn't have get
| home itis, and have alternatives when I flew VFR over
the top.
|
| What would be the difference with your situation and had
I pressed on for
| an ILS at 800 foot ceilings if the outcome is the
POTENTIALLY the same
| given the same weather conditions and piloting skills.?
|
| The difference is I'd have a good reason for taking the
risk.
|
|
| My risk factor would be much lower as I had choices then
your stated
| reasons.
|
| Risk factors are higher in your situation since you are
not completely
| focused on flying, but getting there.
|
| The risk factors are probably higher, that was the point
of the
| scenario. The difference is that the reward was also MUCH
higher. Risk
| isn't an absolute, it is about cost vs. benefit. My
scenario has a very
| high benefit/cost, whereas yours had almost none.
|
|
| Get home itis will kill you if you are not mentally
prepared to fly an
| airplane.
|
| No, get home itis never killed anyone. A poor decision,
or more likely
| a series of poor decisions, is the killer. Every time I
fly I want to
| get to my destination. If I didn't want to get there, I
wouldn't be
| going in the first place!
|
| Matt

I still don't buy it that there is no other option, maybe in
1903-1928, maybe in the movies, but in the real world, there
is always the option to have the organ flown in rather than
you going to get it [a two way trip, long time] or even you
flying it in one way. You are not the only pilot, there are
at least two airports [or landing sites, roads and fields].
To save the child you have to survive and need a very high
probability of success and on time.

Now, consider this scenario, the only airplane in town, a 15
seat King Air 350 and you have flown a King Air 90. but are
not multiengine rated, let alone type rated in the 350. The
pilot of the 350 was captured by Muslim extremists and his
head was cut off. There are 25 allied troops and you in the
town. The rebels are about to attack.
1. Do you fly the airplane?
2. Do you take only 14 passengers or do you take off with
all 25 people crowded into the airplane. The King Air 350
will be inside the W&B with the mains full and the aux tanks
empty, maybe a little over gross if the troops take their
weapons and ammo.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
Type rated BE300-350, BE400/MU400
--
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
...
| 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

Jim Macklin wrote:

Flying goals in order of importance...
1. Get someplace safely.
2. Get where you want to go, safely.
3. Get where you want to go on time, safely.

If you always follow those rules you should be safe.

Remember the USAF has peace time rules and nuclear war
rules.

I thought the main goal of the USAF was to keep the enemy from getting
anywhere safely. Things sure have changed...


Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:

I still don't buy it that there is no other option, maybe in
1903-1928, maybe in the movies, but in the real world, there
is always the option to have the organ flown in rather than
you going to get it [a two way trip, long time] or even you
flying it in one way. You are not the only pilot, there are
at least two airports [or landing sites, roads and fields].
To save the child you have to survive and need a very high
probability of success and on time.

It is my scenario so I determine the options. I've never seen anyone so
completely miss the point. The point has nothing to do with organs, it
has everything to do with risk being a complex equation involving both
benefit and cost.


Now, consider this scenario, the only airplane in town, a 15
seat King Air 350 and you have flown a King Air 90. but are
not multiengine rated, let alone type rated in the 350. The
pilot of the 350 was captured by Muslim extremists and his
head was cut off. There are 25 allied troops and you in the
town. The rebels are about to attack.
1. Do you fly the airplane?

Well, I'd certainly TRY to fly it. Not sure if I could.


2. Do you take only 14 passengers or do you take off with
all 25 people crowded into the airplane. The King Air 350
will be inside the W&B with the mains full and the aux tanks
empty, maybe a little over gross if the troops take their
weapons and ammo.

Sure, I'd give it a shot unless I knew for certain that putting all 25
onboard would have a near certainty of a crash on takeoff.

What's your point?

Matt

When the Red Phone rings all planes and pilots depart to the
target, zero-zero take-off, no alternate required, in war
time. Peace time rules follow FAA part 121 with some
modifications.

But consider that a VFR pilot on top of an overcast is
depending on the engine, electrical system and all other
elements to work perfectly. The fact that there may be
clear skies 50 miles west does no good unless the engine is
running to get you there. An IFR pilot has the option of a
clearance and approach where the plane is at the time. He
may need to declare an emergency because of the failure, not
because he isn't rated to be in the clouds.

If the weather and other conditions are favorable at the
departure point and you can get to the next airport, depart.
You make the go-no go decision every 5-10-15 minutes. You
may deviate from the planned track, you may fly 500 miles to
do a 350 mile trip, you may land and wait for the bad
weather front to pass and then depart again from behind the
front. 100% safety means you don't fly at all, but you want
to accept only the truly accidental risks. Weather can be
seen, is forecast (forecast means guess) and the pilot in
flight can and should never be fixated on one thing.



--
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
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| Flying goals in order of importance...
| 1. Get someplace safely.
| 2. Get where you want to go, safely.
| 3. Get where you want to go on time, safely.
|
| If you always follow those rules you should be safe.
|
| Remember the USAF has peace time rules and nuclear war
| rules.
|
| I thought the main goal of the USAF was to keep the enemy
from getting
| anywhere safely. Things sure have changed...
|
|
| Matt

My point was that in my scene there was no other option,
your scene presupposes hospitals, airports and a support
system, which means that there are options you choose to
ignore. The problem is that there are people reading this
who will see it as a reason to take the option and not look
for the safer alternative and they may not have your skill.

The point was understood, I also understand that people make
the wrong choice on a regular basis for all kinds of
reasons, but "wanting" to complete the trip as scheduled is
always a factor. Whether it is organs, funerals, weddings,
football games or a car race, pilots make bad decisions and
kill people. You can do a Google for each of those
situations and find one or more fatal accidents listed.
Google for "aircraft accident+NASCAR" just as an example...
Airplane Crash in Va. Kills 10 (washingtonpost.com) It's not
the first time members of NASCAR's close-knit community have
lost their lives in plane accidents. The sport's 1992
champion, Alan Kulwicki, ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A59212-2004Oct24.html - Similar pages


Celebrity Crashes April 1, 1993: NASCAR driver Alan Kulwicki
(39) died in the crash of the Hooters ... While in flight,
the propeller of his aircraft failed from fatigue, ...
www.check-six.com/lib/Famous_Missing/
Celebrity_Plane_Crashes.htm - 45k - Cached - Similar pages


CNNSI.com - More Sports - Athletes in air-related crashes
.... April 1, 1993 -- Alan Kulwicki, NASCAR's 1992 champion,
in Blountville, Tenn. ... July 13, 1993 -- Davey Allison,
NASCAR driver, the day after a helicopter ...
http://www.cnnsi.com/more/news/1999/...athletes_plane -
28k - Cached - Similar pages


NASCAR.com - King Air 200 Fact Sheet - Oct 25, 2004 When
using accident rates as a measure of aircraft safety, it
must be remembered that the rates are based ... NASCAR.COM
TravelFor your racing travel needs ...
www.nascar.com/2004/news/
headlines/official/10/25/beech200_info/ - 30k - Cached -
Similar pages


NASCAR.COM - Daytona Countdown: '93 - Feb 7, 2005 There
was sad news in NASCAR in 1993, as Alan Kulwicki and Davey
Allison were killed in separate aircraft accidents.
Kulwicki's best finish in seven Daytona ...
http://www.nascar.com/2005/kyn/02/07...993/index.html
- 37k - Cached - Similar pages


Aircraft accidents (Prevention) Business Articles From
AllBusiness.com Subject: Aircraft accidents (Prevention)
SIC: Air Transportation, Scheduled, And Air Courier Services
Product: Federal Aviation Administration. 7. NASCAR's ...
http://www.allbusiness.com/periodica...11766-1-2.html
- 42k - Cached - Similar pages


Wizbang Ten Die in Nascar Team's Plane Crash. Ten Die in
Nascar Team's Plane Crash ... Most aircraft accidents are
due to pilot error rather than mechanical failure ...
wizbangblog.com/archives/004049.php - 68k - Cached -
Similar pages


Local News | News for Charlotte, North Carolina | WCNC.com |
Top ... Insider gives historical perspective on NASCAR
aircraft crashes. 10:58 PM EDT on Sunday, ... There have
been other accidents, although not deadly. ...
www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/
wcnc-102404-al-other_crashes.204411dd.html - 41k - Cached -
Similar pages



--
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
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| I still don't buy it that there is no other option,
maybe in
| 1903-1928, maybe in the movies, but in the real world,
there
| is always the option to have the organ flown in rather
than
| you going to get it [a two way trip, long time] or even
you
| flying it in one way. You are not the only pilot, there
are
| at least two airports [or landing sites, roads and
fields].
| To save the child you have to survive and need a very
high
| probability of success and on time.
|
| It is my scenario so I determine the options. I've never
seen anyone so
| completely miss the point. The point has nothing to do
with organs, it
| has everything to do with risk being a complex equation
involving both
| benefit and cost.
|
|
| Now, consider this scenario, the only airplane in town,
a 15
| seat King Air 350 and you have flown a King Air 90. but
are
| not multiengine rated, let alone type rated in the 350.
The
| pilot of the 350 was captured by Muslim extremists and
his
| head was cut off. There are 25 allied troops and you in
the
| town. The rebels are about to attack.
| 1. Do you fly the airplane?
|
| Well, I'd certainly TRY to fly it. Not sure if I could.
|
|
| 2. Do you take only 14 passengers or do you take off
with
| all 25 people crowded into the airplane. The King Air
350
| will be inside the W&B with the mains full and the aux
tanks
| empty, maybe a little over gross if the troops take
their
| weapons and ammo.
|
| Sure, I'd give it a shot unless I knew for certain that
putting all 25
| onboard would have a near certainty of a crash on takeoff.
|
| What's your point?
|
| Matt

"Jose" wrote in message
...
snip
To err is human, and we must accept that even good pilots err, and that an
occasional mistake does not make them bad pilots

but it may make them dead pilots.

Private wrote:

"Jose" wrote in message
...
snip

To err is human, and we must accept that even good pilots err, and that an
occasional mistake does not make them bad pilots


but it may make them dead pilots.



Which is bad. :-)

Matt