kellwolf
Piece of Trash
I own that movie.
Pilots in crashes had failed multiple tests
- Thread starter SpiceWeasel
- Start date
I own that movie.
MikeD, was that quote from movie "War Game"?
I believe it's the opening scene, IIRC.
General Berringer (played by Barry Corbin, with a great Curtis LeMay impression complete with Red Man chew):
"Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to the conclusion that your new defense system sucks. "
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
Not too sure on that...
I've known 3 pilots in the military I tought were accidents ready to happen. 2 of the 3 had class A mishaps. Both continued flying. The system didnt weed them out. I had a squadronmate who landed in the wrong touchdown zone (opposite the approach) and run off the end of the runway and destroyed the airplane. Although as white as me, he unabashedly played the race card to keep his wings cause one of his parents could sing most likely sing the words to cielito lindo.
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
You may be on to something...Well......they were Navy, you know.
Is that why I transferred to the USAF reserve??
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
General Berringer (played by Barry Corbin, with a great Curtis LeMay impression complete with Red Man chew):
"Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to the conclusion that your new defense system sucks. "
Great movie. My last job active duty was in the missile warning center in Cheyenne Mountain. The computer systems were in a word, antiquated, But very very well tested.
seagull
Well-Known Member
Treading dangerously! Anyway, didn't say that Mil was a 100% guarantee, only that the average is better.
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
Truth was unfortunate in that case. Having put up with some narrowmindedness for my international marriage to one of another culture, I would hope anyone would not take my comment out of context. Based on the Dawes list, I guess I could apply for an Indian card. If I were to use that as an excuse for poor airmanship that would be disgusting. I was just pointing out, that it seemed to work for this individual in the military setting.
In general I agree with your sentiments vis a vis the military system, with some reservations.
seagull
Well-Known Member
Well......they were Navy, you know.
Sticker on our Director of Flight Training's door "Go Navy, Beat Army, Air Force is irrelevant".
Our Director of Ops is Navy, Director Training is Navy, Director Standards, USMC, Chief Pilot is a zoomie (USAFA, office next to Dir Training with sticker!) and VP Flight is civilian. We might have them all covered!
tonyw
Well-Known Member
Worse.
He ended up at the Pentagon.
Didn't McCain crash a couple of planes while he was in training? I am sure the fact that his father was an admiral had nothing to do with him being allowed to continue flying. Nothing at all.
Before anyone says I'm turning it political, I'm not. I certainly admire McCain's service but I am just pointing out that no system run by humans is infallible.
seagull
Well-Known Member
Didn't McCain crash a couple of planes while he was in training? I am sure the fact that his father was an admiral had nothing to do with him being allowed to continue flying. Nothing at all.
Before anyone says I'm turning it political, I'm not. I certainly admire McCain's service but I am just pointing out that no system run by humans is infallible.
The military type flying leads to a higher accident rate. It really is not the point, and a red herring at best. The point I am making involves the experience level AFTER training. 3 checkride failures at a primary level is concerning, no matter how you cut it. Military training accidents are less so. Do some research on those incidents you cite. Less reliable aircraft leading to mechanical problems, combined with weapons.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Are you talking about failing 1 task on 3 different rides, or failing one ride 3 times?
What about 141, where they fail a "stage check" yet have no FAA documentation? Does that count?
seagull
Well-Known Member
Don't think that either of the first scenario is a good thing, particularly considering that people should be getting one "do over" for most of the tasks. On the 141 scenario, if there is a trend, it should, as that is part of the program. In my experience, the 141 programs tended to want to get people through, so failures were not common absent significant deviations.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
If I didn't get a "mulligan" on my pops, what say you? Am I unfit?
Gonzo
Well-Known Member
3 failures here too.
PPL- Bad VFR checkpoint
Muti-PPL Add-On - No clearing turns before my VMC Demo
CML - DPE said I turned crosswind 100 feet to low.
I guess I have no right to be in an air plane.
seagull
Well-Known Member
No, as I said previously, sounds like you had a dingbat for an examiner. That happens too. Multiple failures are more cause of concern than one due it meaning there could be a trend. Doesn't mean there IS a trend, but it does mean that an accident investigator needs to look very hard at that. The facts might show an issue or might not. As for hiring, that's a different issue. Due to the risks involved, multiple failures could easily be enough to screen someone out of the pool. It is a fairly powerful indicator, particularly if different examiners were involved.
seagull
Well-Known Member
The first two sound like they have merit, but where is the regulation or rule that says the min height for crosswind? Is that a specific (published) local procedure, or something that is based on the DPE's preferences? I would challenge that one.
KLB
Well-Known Member
Thats the thing. It's hard to distinguish a ticky tack fail and a legit fail at that level of training. There's just too many factors. You have bad instructors, bad flight schools, and bad DPE's! There's just not enough standardization and too many things left open for interpretation the lower levels of flight training.
I believe that an improvement in more stringent training by the air carrier would be better. One of my buddies who works at a 121 regional didn't even have to hardly to study to make it through this particular company's training program. This was for his initial and transition to a new aircraft! I don't know ...the guy may have just been that good. Or the training program could have been really really weak!
If I fail more than one ride at my current employer, I'm out. No if, ands, or buts about it! Thats the way it probably should be.
I believe that an improvement in more stringent training by the air carrier would be better. One of my buddies who works at a 121 regional didn't even have to hardly to study to make it through this particular company's training program. This was for his initial and transition to a new aircraft! I don't know ...the guy may have just been that good. Or the training program could have been really really weak!
If I fail more than one ride at my current employer, I'm out. No if, ands, or buts about it! Thats the way it probably should be.