Dugie8
Well-Known Member
I was gonna say something but you fixed your error. Hit is called off, you can start your car safely.
Great CRM: 767 uncontained engine fire/tear drop return with CVR/FDR.
- Thread starter ChasenSFO
- Start date
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Then...there will be PEACE between our families, yes? Leave the gun, take the cannoli.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Is it possible to fly the checklist into the ground?
Yes.
Will the checklist fly you into the ground most of the time?
No.
Repeat after me: We do not live based on outliers. We do not live based on outliers. We do not live based on outliers.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
I'd have thought that it was fairly clear at this point that I already live by your newly-discovered mantra. Been doing it for decades. Just me, the ole brainpan, my instruction, and what I'm confronted with. Not a lie, damned lie, or statistic in sight.
Autothrust Blue
”…trusting ze process…”
We have specific marching orders to disregard a checklist, procedure etc. if the Captain thinks that compliance is a bad idea in an abnormal or emergency situation. I think most of our Captains are comfortable doing that anyway, should the need arise, even without the paragraph saying "we don't have a checklist for everything" in the front end of the QRH. Most abnormal situations are covered, but there will be ones that aren't.
This is otherwise known as "doing your damn job as a pilot," and it's under the category of "you might get it at age 5, age 25, age 50, or you might never get it."
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Part 91 corporate aviation is TWICE as safe per 10,000 hours flown, actually. Statistically speaking at least.
I'm actually in agreement with what you guys are saying though. I've seen a shift at my company, and it's for the better. Particularly in the training department. At a lowly "ZOMG dangerous cowboy 135 outfit" even! Just sayin...
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
That's exactly what I'd expect an automaton to say! CUT YOURSELF TO THE BONE, PROVE YOUR HUMANITY!
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Precisely. Safety at the 121 level is managed by reducing the overall risk. FOQA and ASAP give us a very good understanding of what is going on out there. Not perfect, but very solid. Procedures are changed constantly to address issues as they appear. Over time they are finely tuned.
The amount of data available is staggering. At XJT we captured upwards of 20,000 flights a month with FOQA. It's higher than that now. Other programs at other airlines capture nearly 100% of the flights. That means you don't need statistics to determine likelihood. If you capture ALL of the flights in an operation you can say with certainty how often stick shakers activate, or when unstable approaches occur.
One in a million is not good enough when you fly 800,000 flights in a year. Procedures are written for the aggregate, not individual flights. And they are written to reduce the risk to the lowest level practicable. Since the data are captured at such a high rate, verifiable results can often be seen within a week or two of a procedure change.
I'm still not sure why this is controversial.
Nick
Well-Known Member
As safe, what?
Like crashing? NSTB reportable events? Incidents? Airplane damage?
Just wondered since the statement quoted is very specific but lacks a definition of 'safe.'
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Nothing is controversial about compiling statistics. Who said anything was?
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Indeed, and the kinds of incidents/accidents may be damning for part 91. I'd have to google it again, but it was NTSB events per 10,000 hours. It was from 2008 too, I think.
Goes up to 2012 now. 121 has held steady, 91 corporate is slipping.
http://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/
Last edited:
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
I must say I'm relishing more than I probably should the sound of crickets w/r/t the ABX crash. It seems impossible that training orthodoxies could ever be wrong, so there must be some other explanation. Would that my poor, inexperienced ears could hear it.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
You have been steadfast in your opposition to modern safety philosophy. Don't play coy.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
I can only respond to what you say, not what you're thinking. In spite of the rumors, I'm not psychic. Or maybe I am.
In any case, you asked what was controversial about compiling statistics. I said "nothing". No one seems to have jumped in to the breach to disagree, so settled, yes?
In any case, you asked what was controversial about compiling statistics. I said "nothing". No one seems to have jumped in to the breach to disagree, so settled, yes?
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
I thought I had touched on that. Stall training since 1996 has gotten much more realistic to actual operations.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
And nice job, well done Orthodoxy on that one. Hooray Orthodoxy. Except, of course, the Orthodoxy when those poor dudes kersplatted was to do exactly what they did. And herein lies the lesson, as far as I can tell.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
The procedures and philosophy that you've been downplaying come directly from data and research. You have been arguing against procedure and the philosophy behind it. That is what I meant, and you know it.
You said in your PM that we don't get along online and THAT is precisely why. You play with words and are intentionally difficult. You use language as an intellectual weapon when the rest of us are speaking colloquially. You intentionally make this a place that's less fun to have discussions. You intentionally get in the way of good discussions and learning. That is why I do not like your presence here.
Grow up.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Training and "orthodoxies" are by no means static or correct 100% of the time. As more data comes about, training and procedures are revised and improved to improve overall safety.
But, as to what you're getting at with the topic in this thread: Shutting down engines at 500' without a crosscheck from the other pilot has long shown itself to be less safe. No debate on that. Many of us have seen people shut down wrong engines while cowboying it in the sim.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Christ Allmighty, the Barbarians really are at the gates, this time!
Data and research? WHAT data and research? All I've seen so far are repeated explications of how I, my brother's cousin, or my best friend are Experts on Airplanes and, like, you should shut up because we have Authority because, you know, this is what we DO. And, no, guy, I really don't know what you mean. This is the problem with human consciousness...we all think that everyone else knows what we MEAN all the time. It turns out that you have to explain what you mean to other people. All I've seen you explain, thusfar, is that you think X and X is right because you're an Expert and that it's really trivial and bad for young pilots for anyone to maybe question what you're saying because, well, you know, you're an Expert! An Expert, damn it!
Precisely why...what? We don't get along? We don't seem to get along because you barge in waving your imaginary badge of "always-right" backed up by your self-proclaimed expertise, but never seem to explain why or how you're right past saying that, well, you know, "I'm an authoritay"
Here's the unexpurgated PM I sent you, uh, in case you've forgotten.
In my estimation, you can't play with words. They're how we communicate. As to being intentionally difficult, I'm certainly difficult towards ideas with which I disagree. Again, part of being a thinking human being. It seems to me that you want to dismiss what I say with the wave of a hand..."oh, he's just being difficult", without addressing it. Which would fit rather neatly in to the notion that you're an aparatchik of some structured belief system or another, totally closed off to any other way of viewing things.
Yeah, it's totally unfair that I type all of these multi-syllabic words when you're just trying to make sure that everyone understands that you're right.
Right, I've been spending the last seven years trying to undermine any sort of real communication here, but now you've caught me. Hands up, you got me. You can bring me to the next NJC in fetters and tell everyone you've captured the beast who has been making this place suck so much that you've had a fit and had to go on a Crusade. But you'll still have to drink some Ass Juice, so we're even!
I grew up a while back, Admiral, and recognized long ago that my place in the world is a small one, like everyone else's. But by all means, rant on, Big Wheel.
Data and research? WHAT data and research? All I've seen so far are repeated explications of how I, my brother's cousin, or my best friend are Experts on Airplanes and, like, you should shut up because we have Authority because, you know, this is what we DO. And, no, guy, I really don't know what you mean. This is the problem with human consciousness...we all think that everyone else knows what we MEAN all the time. It turns out that you have to explain what you mean to other people. All I've seen you explain, thusfar, is that you think X and X is right because you're an Expert and that it's really trivial and bad for young pilots for anyone to maybe question what you're saying because, well, you know, you're an Expert! An Expert, damn it!
Precisely why...what? We don't get along? We don't seem to get along because you barge in waving your imaginary badge of "always-right" backed up by your self-proclaimed expertise, but never seem to explain why or how you're right past saying that, well, you know, "I'm an authoritay"
Here's the unexpurgated PM I sent you, uh, in case you've forgotten.
Boris Badenov said:You seem like a well-intentioned guy. Please abandon this misperception that I'm gunning for you, personally, or something. I mean, we pretty obviously rub each other entirely the wrong way on the internet, and I still maintain that there's no scientific validity to this safety-orthodoxy culture (and find it poisonous, wrongheaded, etc etc), but I'd still swerve if you were walking across the road.
In my estimation, you can't play with words. They're how we communicate. As to being intentionally difficult, I'm certainly difficult towards ideas with which I disagree. Again, part of being a thinking human being. It seems to me that you want to dismiss what I say with the wave of a hand..."oh, he's just being difficult", without addressing it. Which would fit rather neatly in to the notion that you're an aparatchik of some structured belief system or another, totally closed off to any other way of viewing things.
Yeah, it's totally unfair that I type all of these multi-syllabic words when you're just trying to make sure that everyone understands that you're right.
Right, I've been spending the last seven years trying to undermine any sort of real communication here, but now you've caught me. Hands up, you got me. You can bring me to the next NJC in fetters and tell everyone you've captured the beast who has been making this place suck so much that you've had a fit and had to go on a Crusade. But you'll still have to drink some Ass Juice, so we're even!
I grew up a while back, Admiral, and recognized long ago that my place in the world is a small one, like everyone else's. But by all means, rant on, Big Wheel.
Last edited:
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Instead of engendering a true discussion, you belittle and talk down to everyone on here. I'm tired of it.
I'll happily continue a discussion if you cut out the snide remarks. Otherwise, I'm out.
I'll happily continue a discussion if you cut out the snide remarks. Otherwise, I'm out.