CNN Video: Safety Rule Could Create Pilot Shortage
- Thread starter ClearedToThe
- Start date
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
The use of double negatives may be an exception to this rule.
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
How a person defines the grey area is going to depend on experience and their own "soft skills"(personality, hazardous attitudes, ect..). Would you agree? A low experience pilot is going to find certain things extraordinarily hazardous when perhaps it isn't.
What comes to mind to me is when my professor for CFII ground school put up a metar that was at minimums and asked the class if they would fly in that. 33 of 34 in the class said they wouldn't fly in that(myself included). He promptly told us we should all be handing in our instrument certificates. LOVED the more old school CFIs and professors there. They put things into perspective as to what you WILL be doing when you start flying for a living.
I'll add this to the thread.
One example I have of where a low experience FO is hazardous in the 121 world is my friend who did a flight with captain who basically had a "fuggit" attitude for everything. They were ending their day an hour and a half before timing out. The flight was an hour. The information they had available to them indicated that they didn't have enough fuel to land with reserves. To add more fuel added the possibility that they would time out and the flight would be delayed. Captain said "we should just go and request direct, do you agree?" and my friend sheepishly nodded and went along for the ride. They requested direct and ended up landing with ~12 minutes above the hour reserve requirement. Now, it ended fine, but suppose they couldn't get direct? I don't know what the repercussions are for landing below reserves, but my point is, my friend had ZERO input to offer over something so simple. Suppose something really serious happens and he's again paired with a reckless captain, or a captain that is unaware of certain information that someone with no experience will be able to provide?
This isn't the only example I have. EVERY SINGLE person I keep in contact with that's left UND has had a similar learning experience like this in the 121 world, and it's because of this I don't think a CFI belongs in that seat(at least not a pilot factory CFI, or even more specific, a UND CFI).
As someone else said, you WILL scare yourself in an airplane and it shouldn't be while you're a crew member with the flying public in back.
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm being obnoxiously outspoken, or maybe I'm just bitter that the turbine freight dogs of the world are shown the door at the major/national carriers because of lack of FMS/Glass/crew/jet time. When in reality land, I think these guys are the most experienced and qualified guys out there, and not ALL of them are loners with zero people skills to operate in a crew environment.
I equate it to race car drivers. The BEST race car drivers had their start driving an inferior machine, but still manage to drive it quickly and avoid accidents despite it's poor handling, low power, and horrible brakes. The freight dog is the guy at the local auto-cross destroying guys in WRXs and Miatas while driving a Lincoln Town Car with blown shocks and the rear brakes not working. Put him in the WRX or Miata and the world would end at the sight of sheer driving perfection.
No one except Boris will agree with this non-sense, but whatever...
I equate it to race car drivers. The BEST race car drivers had their start driving an inferior machine, but still manage to drive it quickly and avoid accidents despite it's poor handling, low power, and horrible brakes. The freight dog is the guy at the local auto-cross destroying guys in WRXs and Miatas while driving a Lincoln Town Car with blown shocks and the rear brakes not working. Put him in the WRX or Miata and the world would end at the sight of sheer driving perfection.
No one except Boris will agree with this non-sense, but whatever...
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
There are none. As long as you're legal when you take off, you're legal to dip into the reserve fuel. That's the whole purpose of reserve fuel. It's up to the judgment of the PIC to decide when he needs to divert. The real question is whether they were legal to depart. If they don't have projected burn plus alternate fuel plus reserve fuel when they apply takeoff power, then they're not legal.
Personally, I never argued with the dispatcher about fuel loading. As long as it was legal, I would go. But I didn't hesitate to divert, either. I figured the company would get the picture on being cheap with fuel after they'd wasted more money on diverts than if they had just fueled it up properly in the first place.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Well, I agree with SOME of that nonsense, anyway. 
Flying a jet is different from flying even a high performance turboprop. And I'd imagine (although I wouldn't know) that flying a large, transport category jet is different from flying a small business jet. The Perfect Pilot (tm) would have flown everything that has ever been made for 10,000 hours, and be a brilliant aeronautical engineer, and have razor-sharp reflexes, and be unable to be distracted by having an "actual life", etc etc etc.
None of us are the Greatest Pilot Ever (or, well, maybe I just don't want to unmask myself...I AM THE MESSIAH!). Because of course the truth is that guy (or girl) doesn't exist. ALL of us lack some sort of experience, whatever it might be. But I would argue that in a weird way, that's sort of the point. If all it took to be good at this flying stuff was passing a battery of aptitude tests, airliners would be crashing left and right because none of the guys pressing the buttons had actually ever FLOWN anything. But by the same token, if all it took was having big brass ones and having flown an ultralight around the world on a wing and a prayer, they'd also be crashing because Orville and Wilbur don't know how to work an FMS or what "coffin corner" means.
Education and experience. Both are necessary, both are good. The problem, as I see it, is that the argument is being made that education can replace experience. And it can't. If it could, the planes would already be piloted by extremely well-programmed computers, totally, binarily aware of exactly what the checklist says, and capable of doing it way faster than any of us mere fleshbags can. But that's not the case (and it shouldn't be). Because we are parallel processors, which we haven't managed to "invent" just yet. And that's where experience comes in. The ability to make metaphor based on what one has seen before, to use intuition (best word we have for it) to see similarities a computer (or a freshfaced Perdoosh...) well, whoever, can't see because they don't have the Experience.
It's not all one or the other. Interestingly, I don't think anyone on the "Experience Side" of this retarded non-argument is claiming that it IS just one or the other.
Flying a jet is different from flying even a high performance turboprop. And I'd imagine (although I wouldn't know) that flying a large, transport category jet is different from flying a small business jet. The Perfect Pilot (tm) would have flown everything that has ever been made for 10,000 hours, and be a brilliant aeronautical engineer, and have razor-sharp reflexes, and be unable to be distracted by having an "actual life", etc etc etc.None of us are the Greatest Pilot Ever (or, well, maybe I just don't want to unmask myself...I AM THE MESSIAH!). Because of course the truth is that guy (or girl) doesn't exist. ALL of us lack some sort of experience, whatever it might be. But I would argue that in a weird way, that's sort of the point. If all it took to be good at this flying stuff was passing a battery of aptitude tests, airliners would be crashing left and right because none of the guys pressing the buttons had actually ever FLOWN anything. But by the same token, if all it took was having big brass ones and having flown an ultralight around the world on a wing and a prayer, they'd also be crashing because Orville and Wilbur don't know how to work an FMS or what "coffin corner" means.
Education and experience. Both are necessary, both are good. The problem, as I see it, is that the argument is being made that education can replace experience. And it can't. If it could, the planes would already be piloted by extremely well-programmed computers, totally, binarily aware of exactly what the checklist says, and capable of doing it way faster than any of us mere fleshbags can. But that's not the case (and it shouldn't be). Because we are parallel processors, which we haven't managed to "invent" just yet. And that's where experience comes in. The ability to make metaphor based on what one has seen before, to use intuition (best word we have for it) to see similarities a computer (or a freshfaced Perdoosh...) well, whoever, can't see because they don't have the Experience.
It's not all one or the other. Interestingly, I don't think anyone on the "Experience Side" of this retarded non-argument is claiming that it IS just one or the other.
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I have no idea on that part, I was just taken back by my friend just saying "yes" and going along for the ride. Someone who I always thought was way over conservative. He was the CFI every student would hate. The guy that canceled if there was a mouse fart of wind or a thunderstorm 2 hours away.
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Well, I agree with SOME of that nonsense, anyway.
None of us are the Greatest Pilot Ever (or, well, maybe I just don't want to unmask myself...I AM THE MESSIAH!). Because of course the truth is that guy (or girl) doesn't exist. ALL of us lack some sort of experience, whatever it might be. But I would argue that in a weird way, that's sort of the point. If all it took to be good at this flying stuff was passing a battery of aptitude tests, airliners would be crashing left and right because none of the guys pressing the buttons had actually ever FLOWN anything. But by the same token, if all it took was having big brass ones and having flown an ultralight around the world on a wing and a prayer, they'd also be crashing because Orville and Wilbur don't know how to work an FMS or what "coffin corner" means.
Education and experience. Both are necessary, both are good. The problem, as I see it, is that the argument is being made that education can replace experience. And it can't. If it could, the planes would already be piloted by extremely well-programmed computers, totally, binarily aware of exactly what the checklist says, and capable of doing it way faster than any of us mere fleshbags can. But that's not the case (and it shouldn't be). Because we are parallel processors, which we haven't managed to "invent" just yet. And that's where experience comes in. The ability to make metaphor based on what one has seen before, to use intuition (best word we have for it) to see similarities a computer (or a freshfaced Perdoosh...) well, whoever, can't see because they don't have the Experience.
It's not all one or the other. Interestingly, I don't think anyone on the "Experience Side" of this retarded non-argument is claiming that it IS just one or the other.
Sure sure. Hell, a seminole and aztec don't fly like a baron at all, and a C172, 182 and 150 fly absolutely nothing like a 210, but the ADM transfers directly.
Maybe I'm making too many generalizations, but I do know that in every other field, the person that masters their craft with less, is that much better when given more resources than the person that had those resources available from the get go.
A monkey can fly any airplane under the sun. It's the ADM and judgement that I'm most concerned with, but some of the flying is part of ADM, so, I got nothin...
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
I disagree. I think you have quite a bit. I just think it's important to make it clear that the choices aren't just "Barnstorming Devil-May-Care Cowboys" and "Rote-Memorization-Flight-Team Nerds".
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
There's a reason that many airlines are moving more towards situational based interviews. Because being an airline pilot is very little about the mechanics of flying, and a whole lot about knowing how to make decisions, being able to do it under pressure, and being able to properly manage your crew and all of the other resources. Frankly, I've seen guys with 300 hours who can do this better than freight dogs or airline pilots who have 5,000 hours. Some of it you're either born with or you're not. Some people will always be horrible under pressure, no matter how many raw data NDB approaches in icing conditions that they get in a Baron. Other people will get better with experience. And others are just plain born with it and can handle a complex emergency in a new airplane from the day they start flying it. Those people are few and far between, but they do exist.
In the end, hours don't tell a whole lot. They give a little bit of the picture, but not much. Setting a minimum number is really just dealing with the lowest common denominator. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. I support it, in fact. I just object to assertions that this is going to correct the recent problems, or that it's truly necessary for everyone.
In the end, hours don't tell a whole lot. They give a little bit of the picture, but not much. Setting a minimum number is really just dealing with the lowest common denominator. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. I support it, in fact. I just object to assertions that this is going to correct the recent problems, or that it's truly necessary for everyone.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Heh. When was the last time you did a raw data NDB approach (is there another kind) in icing? You wouldn't call that "under pressure"?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I don't know that I've ever done one in icing. Used to do NDB crap all the time in the 1900 (you can't even get to Cuba without tracking an NDB bearing), but there isn't much icing in the islands.
As far as there being another kind, oh yeah. The CRJ would do NDB approaches, but it was all done via FMS. You were required to bring up the needles on the MFD just for legalities, but for all intents and purposes, it was no different than flying an RNAV approach. The FMS and autopilot took care of everything, including any procedure turn. We don't even have ADFs installed on the 717s, so no NDB approaches for me anymore.
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Oh yes, I mean you can't make decisions regarding weather if you don't know anything about weather. You can't go blazing up to 51k in a Citation X at .92 if you don't know anything about high speed aerodynamics and the what conditions don't allow this, even though perhaps the performance data would tell you before hand. Just sayin
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
I like when you pop out on one of those and have to circle and all you can really see clearly is the beacon until you turn down the cockpit lights even more and smash your eyeballs against the window! Good times! I'll light up for that.
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
I don't know that I've ever done one in icing. Used to do NDB crap all the time in the 1900 (you can't even get to Cuba without tracking an NDB bearing), but there isn't much icing in the islands.
As far as there being another kind, oh yeah. The CRJ would do NDB approaches, but it was all done via FMS. You were required to bring up the needles on the MFD just for legalities, but for all intents and purposes, it was no different than flying an RNAV approach. The FMS and autopilot took care of everything, including any procedure turn. We don't even have ADFs installed on the 717s, so no NDB approaches for me anymore.
You could go work for United! I hear they do NDB approaches in the 777 in asia. Sounds ridiculous! ALL that tech, and they're shooting an NDB approach, love it!
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yeah, but you have to understand, the 777 flying an NDB approach isn't like you flying an NDB approach. The autopilot takes care of all of it. It just tracks the magenta line. It even creates a VNAV path that it treats like a glideslope. Put it in LNAV/VNAV, and the only thing you need to worry about are airplane configuration changes. The 717 can do the same thing. We just aren't legal for it because we deactivated the ADFs to keep maintenance and training costs down.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Yeah, we have overlays, too. Or, well, I do now, anyway. What happens when you're neck deep in poop and the magic isn't working (or more likely, isn't programmed correctly) and the wings are icing up because something is MEL'd and the guy next to you is looking at the PFD like it's an Atari 2600 and he just lost at Frogger? You so much as admit yourself that such a guy isn't much use in a serious situation, you just seem to think that's somehow OK. I don't.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Your situation is exceedingly unlikely to actually occur. An emergency (such as an engine failure or whatever), combined with a failure of the avionics, combined with icing conditions, combined with de/anti-icing equipment MEL'd, combined with a low-time copilot freezing under pressure? I would put the odds at something under 0.0001%. Let's be realistic here.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
I heard about a guy who won't try heavy weight landings with even a slight tailwind anymore. Or "waive the wake" in a heavy plane, even with an early turn.