Hit vs. Press

ATN_Pilot said:
Incorrect verbiage is the cause (or even a contributing factor) to the 3701 crash? Is that really what someone just said? Probably the most ridiculous thing that anyone has ever said on an internet message board. And that's really saying something.

Like I said, anyone who thinks the difference between "hit" and "push" is important, needs to get laid, and probably shouldn't be in a training department. People make this job far more difficult than it needs to be. Lighten up.
Click to expand...

Dangit!

I was going to try to go the entire weekend without an "Oscar from 'The Office'" line of "Well, actually..."

Well actually, we have have some situations in which a contributing factor has been incorrect or unclear verbiage.

Notice how we don't use "Takeoff power"? :). Is it take OFF power or takeoff power?
 
Hit the button vs. push the button? Not such a big deal. Pull power vs. full power? Hard landing (true story, from a friend of mine)!
For anything that requires a callout in a multi crew cockpit, I would guess that standardization of phraseology is critical.
If, on the other hand, you are reciting memory items and someone is having a conniption about "flipping the igniter switch on" vs. "turning the ignition switch to the on position", then, well....yeah.
 
As aviators, one of our most valuable skills is judgment. It's our ability to evaluate the factors in a situation, assess their relative importance, and apply a solution/actions to the situation based on the assessment of those factors.

Judgment is the diametric opposite of "zero tolerance", "binary", "black-and-white", etc.

To say, flat out, that in-cockpit terminology is all of equal importance is entirely misplaced. They are not all equally important. Aircrew have the ability to determine that some pieces of terminology, comm, verbiage, etc, are more important to the safe and successful operation of the aircraft than others. Thus, it's not ALWAYS important/vital/critical to have standardized terminology, or use the "correct" verbiage. The skill is being able to differentiate what is and what is not. When pilots have low experience and judgment and airmanship, then teachers need to make it simple by establishing somewhat black-and-white guidance. As airmen gain experience and judgment, they can assess the relative importance and make smart decisions.

If a pilot is in a position where he places equal weight and importance to it all, then I suggest that his own airmanship and judgment needs further development.
 
I got DPA connected with a friend of mine in Orlando last weekend. I told him "you'll probably end up at a strip club." The next morning, he asked me how I knew they would. He's DPA for goodness sake. Why WOULDN'T they?
 
15570538.jpg
 
If you're talking about a beaver with a R-985, everything gets hit. It works with turbines also. I couldnt get a PT6 to fire up one time, so the mechanic told me to grab a wheel chock and hit the ignitor box. Worked like a charm. When in doubt, just hit it.
 
I didn't bring any back. We got there around 1 and they shockingly closed at 2. Every flash of the strobe and you could see this hair on one of their....

Nevermind.
 
I would say hit the lights, but the lights have been uhhhh "MEL'd" in half the planes ive flown with an annunciator panel.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Dangit!

I was going to try to go the entire weekend without an "Oscar from 'The Office'" line of "Well, actually..."

Well actually, we have have some situations in which a contributing factor has been incorrect or unclear verbiage.

Notice how we don't use "Takeoff power"? :). Is it take OFF power or takeoff power?
Click to expand...

Actually, we do use "takeoff power." Our callout on takeoff is "autoflight, set takeoff power." But then again, our training department doesn't get its panties in a bunch over little things like "push" or "hit." Because, you know, our instructors can actually get laid occasionally.

But that wasn't really my point. Sure, there are cases were some kind of verbiage may matter (although "push" or "hit" isn't one of them), but Typhoon specifically mentioned Pinnacle flight 3701. That accident had absolutely nothing to do with verbiage. His claim was absurd.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Actually, we do use "takeoff power." Our callout on takeoff is "autoflight, set takeoff power." But then again, our training department doesn't get its panties in a bunch over little things like "push" or "hit." Because, you know, our instructors can actually get laid occasionally.

But that wasn't really my point. Sure, there are cases were some kind of verbiage may matter (although "push" or "hit" isn't one of them), but Typhoon specifically mentioned Pinnacle flight 3701. That accident had absolutely nothing to do with verbiage. His claim was absurd.
Click to expand...

Here's the angle.

There was an accident where a person called for "takeoff power", in flight, and it was misinterpreted as "Take OFF power" because they were in a windshear situation.

Verbiage IS important for these reasons, solely in my opinion:

a. Perhaps your training department calls for it. It doesn't matter how you feel, they stand between you and (re-) qualification. Jump through their hoops or find an airline that does not have them. At this point, it doesn't matter how you feel or what the internet peanut gallery says, it's between you and an evaluator.

b. "Takeoff power" on takeoff, sure, if you're trained when to expect to hear that and specifically which modes of flight to expect that in, absolutely. One size does not fit all and you know this.

For example, I thought the necessity for me to say "engagement of girt bar with door seal must be verified prior to takeoff or landing when passengers are carried" VERBATIM was completely retarded during my type-ride on the 767 because it was a limitation.

But if I wanted to pass the evaluation, I had to do it.

As with most things in training, it doesn't matter how you feel about it, if it's the standard to meet, meet the standard or fail.

But to rally the next generation of pilots on things that don't or do matter to YOU, when it's all about what does and does not matter to a specific airline is bad.

Do I care? Nope.

Do you care? Nope.

But what does the evaluator care about? Is that important? Hell freaking yes.

Meet the performance expectations of the person writing your check and you will have a long and prosperous career.

Don't let the internet earn you a check ride failure.
 
And I think I screwed that limitation up, but it's not part of the things that i have to memorize anymore, thank goodness! :)
 
ATN_Pilot said:
But that wasn't really my point. Sure, there are cases were some kind of verbiage may matter (although "push" or "hit" isn't one of them), but Typhoon specifically mentioned Pinnacle flight 3701. That accident had absolutely nothing to do with verbiage. His claim was absurd.
Click to expand...


I said "among other things", so your reading comprehension is a little off. Why did I bring that specific accident up? Well, it goes towards attitude and professionalism, that's why. Of all people, you should be the champion of that. You are an ALPA rep afterall ( or at least were ). If ALPA expects pilots to be treated and paid as professionals then at the very least pilots should act and work like professionals.

What was the training culture at Pinnacle? Did the instructors just sit back and let trainees say hit and mash? I'm guessing they were not as strict as they should have been and they let those two guys down by being so. There are two sets of parents in the USA who lost their kids because the airline failed them and let their kids think that having fun in a jet was okay.

Again, it all goes back to attitude. That attitude is fostered right at the training stage. Use of correct verbiage is one very important starting point to teach pilots discipline. Had those pilots been taught better discipline then maybe they would not have been so reckless.

I'm sure you've read the CVR transcript. Those guys were an embarrassment to the profession. So yes, verbiage was part of the cause.


Some excerpts from the NTSB:

16. The captain’s previous difficulties in checklist management, the situational stress, and
the lack of simulator training involving a double engine failure contributed to the
flight crew’s errors in performing the double engine failure checklist.

17. The pilots’ failure to prepare for an emergency landing in a timely manner, including
communicating with air traffic controllers immediately after the emergency about the
loss of both engines and the availability of landing sites, was a result of their
intentional noncompliance with standard operating procedures, and this failure was
causal to the accident.

18. The pilots’ unprofessional operation of the flight was intentional and causal to this
accident because the pilots’ actions led directly to the upset and their improper
reaction to the resulting in-flight emergency exacerbated the situation to the point that
they were unable to recover the airplane.

24. Providing additional education to pilots on the importance of professionalism could
help reduce the instances of pilots not maintaining cockpit discipline or not adhering
to standard operating procedures.


Recommendations:

Work with pilot associations to develop a specific program of education for
air carrier pilots that addresses professional standards and their role in
ensuring safety of flight. The program should include associated guidance
information and references to recent accidents involving pilots acting
unprofessionally or not following standard operating procedures. (A-07-8)


Typhoonpilot
 
Hacker15e said:
^^^ Wise words. Know your threat and maneuver in relation to it.
Click to expand...

Never agree with the webmaster. Then they'll think you're part of the "conspiracy". :)

I heard that back when I was a CFI student railing about the ridiculousness of teaching chandelles.

"It doesn't matter how YOU feel about it."
 
typhoonpilot said:
What was the training culture at Pinnacle? Did the instructors just sit back and let trainees say hit and mash? I'm guessing they were not as strict as they should have been and they let those two guys down by being so. There are two sets of parents in the USA who lost their kids because the airline failed them and let their kids think that having fun in a jet was okay.
Click to expand...

The training and/or professional culture within an organization is not the only factor which determines if there will be incidents of poor airmanship or violations of flight discipline. Even in the most highly professional flying organizations, with highly defined procedures and standards, and high bars for membership in that organization (ergo, military flying), there are still incidents of "having fun in a jet". That's because ultimately it is up to individual aviators to use judgment and make decisions, and they are only influenced to a limited extent by the culture within which they operate. They are also equally affected by all of their experience previous to it. There's a quote that floats around USAF circles that says:

“We should all bear one thing in mind when we talk about a troop who rode one in. He called upon the sum of his knowledge and made a judgment. He believed in it so strongly that he knowingly bet his life, and I add, or the lives of his crew, on it. The fact that he was mistaken in his judgment is a tragedy, not stupidity. Every supervisor and contemporary who ever spoke to him had an opportunity to influence his judgment. So a little bit of all of us goes in with every troop we lose.”

Although it is certainly less likely that an organization with those traits will have in it pilots who would perform those actions, it is nowhere near the singular root cause. There are rogues everywhere, with all levels of experience in aviation.

It is a serious case of "a butterfly flapping his wings" to derive that the "hit vs press" discussion has any direct link whatsoever with an incident which showcased many actions of poor airmanship on many levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top