I imagine it depends on the individual airline's OpsSpecs. As was previously mentioned in the thread, if it's not allowed by regulation or OpsSpec, then it's not even an option, barring an emergency.
Pressing "Start" on the timer when shooting an ILS
- Thread starter kiloalpha
- Start date
I imagine it depends on the individual airline's OpsSpecs. As was previously mentioned in the thread, if it's not allowed by regulation or OpsSpec, then it's not even an option, barring an emergency.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
IMC? Where on the approach?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Not buying it unless it was visual.
Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Yep PF lost his, PNF still had his and they talked their way down.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Well, that's a different story, then. That's not a lost navaid, that's faulty equipment.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
This is really the core issue.
Former and current squadronmates of mine (even those who come from 'heavies', but mostly fighter/trainer guys) who also fly for various 121 operations frequently talk of this difference in perceptions. There are typically lots of raised eyebrows during the discussions, and a genuine belief that the over-emphasis on deferring to the most conservative answer has lead to seriously atrophied airmanship in an industry that already has several generations of risk-averse aviators.
It isn't just a military-vs-civilian comparison, either: I know a number of civil-background pilots who 'expanded their minds' with high(er) performance flying via the warbird and airshow community and have expressed similar feelings.
FWIW, IMHO this is why airlines used to like hiring pilots from a variety of backgrounds, otherwise the community becomes a self-perpetuating echo chamber of ideas and beliefs that continues to reinforce itself every successive generation.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Perhaps, but you can't argue with the results, Hacker. Year after year after year of zero fatality travel in an industry that has thousands of flights every single day. I think our way has proven itself to be the safest.
Thousands of flights on the mil side daily too....and a zero fatality for many years running in just basic operations. So who is safest? It's a completely stupid question with no legitimate answer even if comparing apples to apples, but this is where this thread is leading.
When Im talking airmanship, Im not talking "who's the better pilot"; Im talking where does their respective mindset come from....what has created it? Why do they think how they do? It's not a right/wrong issue, it's an understanding the culture issue. Our backgrounds are different, very different....even you and I are exceptionally different. Obviously, that's going to cause different perspectives in how business is done.
Case in point: checklists. I see guys who aren't mentally able to do anything other than what a checklist tells them to, and end up with the blue screen of death if there's something a checklist doesn't cover. Guys like this don't realize that while a checklist is indeed something to be followed, there are unusual times when good judgement and airmanship trump the checklist. Heck, that's even stated on page 1 of every EP section of every flight manual I work with. Granted, those times are usually very few and far between, but they are there, especially for things a checklist doesn't happen to cover. And there are a wide spectrum of aviators who this falls to, it's not picking on 121 guys......so don't worry about being thrown under any kind of bus there; because guys like Cronin, Haynes, and Sullenburger have proven otherwise. However, these guys are also older heads and come from a different time of training and background. Even for me, the older guys senior to me have a different mindset about things, and I never really know how they look at the "new generation." Interesting food for thought.
Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Haha yeah but would you continue to fly the approach after your side lost it's information? BTW this is the same craft you fly.So, what you're saying is that they still had guidance?
I wouldn't continue the approach if it was the Capt's side that lost the information. Because after watching the movie "Flight" and knowing how accurate it is, I don't trust the FO to be able to handle the situation.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Seriously? The statistics are widely available, and the military accident rate is astronomical compared to part 121 aviation.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Alternate EFI.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
That is, indeed, the overall goal and I agree in general.
However, it is impossible to attribute that safety record directly to that mindset, nor is it possible to prove that another mindset might not achieve the same result.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
How is there any 'throwing under the bus' going on? So far as I can see, the discussion is simply highlighting the differences in perspective, and we're tussling over which one is better.
How many times has a similar discussion on this board resulted in a chorus of 121 guys calling my 'cowboy' military attitude completely inappropriate and how it would be dangerous in 121 ops?
There's more than enough self-righteousness AND ignorance to go around. Either way, nobody is claiming that anyone just fell off the back of the truck.
Remember, I said comparing apples to apples.....ie- type of operation. You can't compare night NVG rotary-wing operations and low level fighter operations to 121 flying. Compare the heavy side to the heavy side, and specifically, the strat airlift side....tankers/heavy transports.
On the tactical side, safety is important yes, but there's alot of "cost of doing business" risk accpeted too.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Since the reduction in accident rate has occurred simultaneously as this mindset has become more and more ingrained into the industry, even while pilot experience level has drastically reduced, I think it's difficult to attribute it to anything else.
///AMG
Well-Known Member
Yeah to be fair most of our fatal mishaps are the result of things like midairs or other tactical portions of the flight (but primarily midairs). That is the percentage threat to pointy nose mil pilots....that and maybe hypoxia events for my particular sub-community. I can't think of the last time I heard of someone flying into the ground on an approach, though of course this has happened before....just not with any sort of regularity.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
There has also in that same time period been a dramatic increase in the mechanical safety and reliability of the aircraft themselves, along with advances in avionics that have improved navigation precision, weather awareness, etc.
None of these things is individually responsible, nor do they exist in a vacuum: they are all part of an inter-dependent ecology that have all together reduced the accident rate.