Who would you prefer to fly with?

Aren't you going to law school? Did you stop? Take recall? Doing both? I feel left out of the inner circle here. Rightfully so.
 
No. It affects my sanity. I don't know why or how. I was merely calling you out, about absolutely nothing. Hence the /Hijack comment.
 
No experience in large airplanes...but.

Kind of goes into the paranoid category...

#1 thing that drives me crazy is the guy with similar experience, who is NOT a CFI, yet feels the need to be a "backseat" pilot..tells you when to put the gear down, flaps, how to fly your pattern, when to make turns exc., when to start your circle... you get the picture.

Then they fly and it's a complete mess... I'm all for someone letting me know if something unsafe is about to happen, blowing through headings, altitudes, or even if they have a good point or two about flying...but when someone feels the need to tell you you're too high on a visual (even when on glide-referenced by an ILS, PAPI or the like) then on their leg almost drag the gear across the fence, going four red, and insisting nothing is wrong on his approach. I had the same guy start yelling, "glideslope, glideslope, glideslope" about 50ft agl on a visual approach referencing the ILS...
 
subpilot said:
Hands down... Option 1.
Click to expand...

The type of flying I do, nothing is really predictable. I'd go with option 1.

Being "by the book" is great, but you need to realize when the book is no longer the first priority. If it covered every possible situation, we would have trained monkeys and not need pilots.

And there is the obvious safety issue with #2. Reading between the lines, pilot #2 is going to annoy me, and when I'm annoyed, I am not as alert as I should be. At least with #1 I'm paying attention.

This is a really great question, as I'm sure there are shades of #1 and #2 in all of us.
 
Jtrain has it figured out.

Yes, option 2 can be annoying, but option one can get you violated or killed. Statistics STRONGLY support this. The actual procedures are vetted. Option 1 types feel that they are better than that, above the procedures or that the violations are inconsequential or insignificant. They fall under the "at risk" or "reckless" category. Get a violation and don't even bother filing ASAP - it won't be accepted.

I do agree that the second type can be very annoying to fly with, but if you cannot handle that, maybe YOU are wound too tight? Relax a bit, the stuff is annoying but won't get you killed or violated.

I find it significant that people are voting and stating what they are here, however. It is indicative of a major problem in cultural attitudes that WILL impact safety of flight.


jtrain609 said:
I've flown with option 1. He threw his own gear, raised his own flaps and even though he was always the same type of non standard, I felt like I was three steps behind him because he didn't do things properly.

I've flown with option 2. He's annoying, as somebody said misses important thing because of inconsequential issues and generally goes overboard when it's completely unnecessary.

That being said, I'll take option 2 if I have to fly with one or the other. If annoying guy is at least standard, then at least I can keep up with him and maybe think ahead of his paranoia and see what he's going to do next. Non-standard guy might do things the same way every time, but it still throws me off each and every time because when A happens, I'm expecting him to do B and instead he does Q. Relearning how to operate an aircraft is more distracting to me than paranoia.
Click to expand...
 
Of course "the book" does not cover every possible situation. That misses the point. The option 1 person is directly not following book procedures. That is different than the book not covering every situation. You can, of course, deviate from the book to meet an emergency, but in the scenario presented, there was no emergency. If the book procedure CANNOT be followed, or creates other problems so people are doing it a different way 'in the real world", then, first, the book needs to be changed, and, second, it won't just be one rogue individual not following it. As the clear indication in this question is that it is a rogue individual, and that most people have no problems following the book, you are looking at a person that is willfully non-compliant. Big flag in any safety investigation.



drunkenbeagle said:
The type of flying I do, nothing is really predictable. I'd go with option 1.

Being "by the book" is great, but you need to realize when the book is no longer the first priority. If it covered every possible situation, we would have trained monkeys and not need pilots.

And there is the obvious safety issue with #2. Reading between the lines, pilot #2 is going to annoy me, and when I'm annoyed, I am not as alert as I should be. At least with #1 I'm paying attention.

This is a really great question, as I'm sure there are shades of #1 and #2 in all of us.
Click to expand...
 
Boris Badenov said:
Who would I prefer to fly with?

[yt]F5qqfsQGYus[/yt]

That guy.
Click to expand...

I'd fly with slim any day of the week.

Kind of off topic, but he's doing TV commercials for a ford dealership in Dallas now. Still looks exactly the same as he did in blazing saddles.
 
Yep, I'd go with #2 every day; seagull put it better than I could. That type of captain is annoying to fly with, but at least I know what he's going to do next.
 
seagull said:
Of course "the book" does not cover every possible situation. That misses the point. The option 1 person is directly not following book procedures. That is different than the book not covering every situation. You can, of course, deviate from the book to meet an emergency, but in the scenario presented, there was no emergency. If the book procedure CANNOT be followed, or creates other problems so people are doing it a different way 'in the real world", then, first, the book needs to be changed, and, second, it won't just be one rogue individual not following it. As the clear indication in this question is that it is a rogue individual, and that most people have no problems following the book, you are looking at a person that is willfully non-compliant. Big flag in any safety investigation.
Click to expand...


What if there is no book? Guess you'd be stuck with number one since there is no book for number 2 to follow.
 
dasleben said:
This thread seems to be more oriented toward 121 environments where there is a book. :)
Click to expand...

True, even in 121 though, i would lean towards someone with a little "creativity." I've seen people get so paranoid and fixated that they become dangerous. I think the second type of guy is more likely to freeze up in a stressful situation, or be unable to perform when needed. Even if that werent the case, one just needs to remember Swissair 111. Those guys were complete professionals, and they followed the book until they passed out.

Having one extreme or the other is no good. Even in non standard 121 environments, be it ag or bush, there are still, i wouldnt say set procedures, but "heavily recommended." While no two days will be the same, its almost guaranteed someone has encountered the scenario before, and either screwed up, or pulled it off. If they pulled it off, thats kind of the book. If someone is so brash and egotistical that you cant tell them anything, and they're always going to do something their own way- you dont have to worry about flying with them, they'll make a hole soon enough.

Like anything else it just comes down to balance, with different ops favoring people who might lean to one end of the spectrum or the other.
 
Wes - I used to have respect for you - until this thread. Neither is acceptable and when you encounter an unsatisfactory Captain I suggest you follow Duke Wayne's procedure. CRM is gay. RJ's are gay.

[video=youtube;ZnrTq9Y-uJY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnrTq9Y-uJY[/video]
 
cmill said:
What if there is no book? Guess you'd be stuck with number one since there is no book for number 2 to follow.
Click to expand...

There is always a book. It is called the regulations, the aircraft flight manual, etc. If someone is ignoring those, it is the same thing as what we are talking about here. Standard procedures are just derived from those anyway. You actually summed it up in your other post, that person will eventually be a smoking hole. Is that really who you want to fly with?
 
cmill said:
True, even in 121 though, i would lean towards someone with a little "creativity." I've seen people get so paranoid and fixated that they become dangerous. I think the second type of guy is more likely to freeze up in a stressful situation, or be unable to perform when needed. Even if that werent the case, one just needs to remember Swissair 111. Those guys were complete professionals, and they followed the book until they passed out.

Having one extreme or the other is no good. Even in non standard 121 environments, be it ag or bush, there are still, i wouldnt say set procedures, but "heavily recommended." While no two days will be the same, its almost guaranteed someone has encountered the scenario before, and either screwed up, or pulled it off. If they pulled it off, thats kind of the book. If someone is so brash and egotistical that you cant tell them anything, and they're always going to do something their own way- you dont have to worry about flying with them, they'll make a hole soon enough.

Like anything else it just comes down to balance, with different ops favoring people who might lean to one end of the spectrum or the other.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but being non-standard is hardly being "creative." In fact, all it does is create a single-pilot environment where the guy in the other seat really has no idea what to expect next. That does very little to enhance flight safety, and in fact can quickly create a hazardous environment.

But, we're on two different pages here. I'm talking about procedural standardization as it relates to working together as a crew. That means callouts, flows, and (for the most part) profiles that conform to the company's SOP. Naturally there are some procedures that may have to be made up on the fly because of a situation that doesn't present itself in the QRH, CFM, etc. However, those are few and far between and don't excuse a pilot from being excessively non-standard in everyday line operations. Standardized procedures are there for a reason, and that's because people haven't "pulled it off" in the past and have learned from certain mistakes. Best not to repeat them.
 
Here's the way I look at it: the paranoid guy, I can reassure him that everything's gonna be okay and point to facts (like a weather report) that back up the opinion. Is it annoying? Hell yeah, however, like seagull said, he's less likely to get me violated or killed. If a surprise standards check comes up, I'm gonna have a whole lot fewer headaches with the paranoid FO than I will with the non-standard FO. I've flown with both, and it's a LOT easier for the paranoid guy to calm down than it is for someone that's flown "their way" for years to go back to doing it the right way.
 
#1 because at least you know what to expect. #2 would actually scare me more. Reason being is what if the reason they are so paranoid is because they don't know what the heck they are doing or constantly second guessing themselves. That would be worse than someone IMHO who knows the aircraft well enough that they fly it their own way.
 
mshunter said:
#1 because at least you know what to expect.
Click to expand...

Actually, from personal experience, I had the exact opposite reaction. I wouldn't know what to expect, and that's far worse than dealing with someone who's paranoid. 121 airlines didn't become the safest form of travel in the world because we're all flying how we think the airplane should be flown. It became that way because of standardization of procedures and crew interactions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top