so much for 12 hours from Bottle to Throtle(sp)....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/33852360#33852360

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

He quit drinking out of the bottle 13 hours earlier and switched to a tumbler . . .

__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century

OBK #55

1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold
Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold
The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold
Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles
2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles
2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles

Let’s see. ATP requirements:

1. Be at least 23 years of age.
2. Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.
3. Be of good moral character.

Oops....
Oh well. I guess making two out of the first three (of nine) isn’t too bad.
I’ve always thought that “Having/showing good common sense.” should be one as well.


When will these guys ever learn?

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

a pilot is a fiduciary who holds a position of trust and responsibility. he or she has the lives of the passengers in his or her hands. being people, we are all prone to mistakes, however when piloting a multimillion dollar aircraft, the mistakes are magnified 10 fold.

which brings me to the 95/5 rule. I've learned this the hard way, i.e. "the school of hard knocks". 95% of anyone in a given, chosen field of endeavor are either incompetent or doin' jus enuff to gets by.......slackers. 5% are the real winners, champions, people who excel.

as an example, say you are looking for a competent brain surgeon. how do you separate the 95%ers from the 5%ers? these are questions I've had for years. and, having personally experienced medical care at the hand of some in the bottom of the 95%ers, it isn't fun. in fact, in one instance, the doctor came very very close to killing the patient.

so.....in the piloting field, on one hand you've got Captain Sullenberger, a real 5%er....on the other hand, you've got this United Airlines captain. both "licensed" by the FAA and both fly for major airlines. both should be competent, right? so....what's the answer? do we constantly test and monitor trying to "weed out" the incompetents? or....it appears the system waits until they do something really stupid to do anything. reactionary thinking vs proactive thinking.......

I like Jack Welch's approach, you reward the top 5% lavishly and continuously eliminate the bottom 5% (i.e., fire the bottom 5% of you workforce every year). You try to create incentives for the middle 90% to be in the top 5%, and suggest they move on if they are not interested in excelling. This really pisses off the "9 to 5" types, but it keeps things shaken up. It also won't work if you have a union involved because their goals are the exact opposite.

He had pre flight jitters and took a nip to steady his nervs.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

You confuse the 5% group with the the "incompetants". It's not a black and white issue. The remaining 95% are probably of several hierarchies. 80% of them do a reasonably competent job and probably won't be tested above their capabilities for their tenure in the industry. The remaining 15% are an accident waiting to happen.

In recent memory, there are many accidents clearly attributable solely to pilot error:

American 587
Continental 3407
American 1420
American 965
Southwest 1455
Delta 554
Delta 1141
Northwest 255

I'll leave you to ponder if the pilots were in the 80% group........or the bottom 15%.

99% of the time the skills of the pilots are more than adequate to the task. When it comes down to the last 1%..........it takes a very high level of skill to land the airplane.........or make a decision to abort because you're in over your head.

Some of the above accidents are the result of sheer carelessness...........skill was not a factor in the crash.

I'm not so sure. piloting an aircraft is far different than piloting an automobile. it is said among pilots that a good landing is one which you walk away from. I'll second that. as you say, on landing there isn't much room for error, if any. either the pilot knows how to do his/her job, or he/she doesn't.

I've always felt there are people who possess a natural talent to do a particular thing better than others. some are natural born fly boys, some should keep their feet on the ground. so, what testing procedure could be implemented to ferret out the losers?

back in the mid 1980's Category III landings were possible (completely automated). the FAA wouldn't allow it though. technically, an aircraft has enough computing power aboard to fly itself. heck, we send satellites up in orbit aboard computer controlled rockets, right? so why not take the "human" factor out of it and let the machines take over. computers have come a long way and are capable of FAR more than they used to be. and, they don't get drunk.......

Isaac Asimov might have liked this idea.....

The problem comes when you can't over ride the computer such was the case with a Delta L1011 flight into Michigan and the landing gear wouldn't go down and they couldn't over ride the computer....

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

I think the REAL answer is to build high speed rail to criss cross this country. the German mag lev train such as the one built in China could be a real pleasant way to travel. think about it, passengers have limited visibility while aboard today's passenger aircraft. it certainly isn't anyway to see the U.S.A. up close.

a modern high speed train, on the other hand could be the ultimate way to travel. 300 MPH, starbucks coffee, USA Today or the Wall Street Journal for your reading pleasure, nice. and, you don't have to dodge other idiot drivers on the road and worry about that Semi truck bearing down on your hind side.

high speed rail initiatives seem to get gunned down time and again all over the United States. I think the airlines are scared silly that the idea might actually gain footing and are trying to stop it.......

I agree on the skill levels required. But, check out those flights that I cited. Quite a few of the accidents have nothing to do with skill..........just inattention to the details.

The natural talent is necessary and will be apparent on a day like today........winds NE 20-30 kts. with gusts to 50 and periods of heavy rain. However, only one of the above accidents occurred under such conditions.

B- I heard that alot of air incidents happen in good weather and that few happen in bad weather because pilots tend to pay closer attention in bad weather? What are your thoughts?

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

one thing that totally amazes me is aircraft accidents related to airport issues. such as big tall trees completely surrounding the airport. plane loses power, no where to land but in the trees. or, super tall power lines on one end of the take off/landing area. plane loses power on takeoff and hits the power lines. good place for the power company to put the lines. of course, we will here the old, "we were here first" argument while planes continue to plow into them.

my favorite is the Delta crash at DF/W in 1985. the aircraft was blown off course to the left of the runway. big giant water tank just happens to be in the way. tears off the left wing, gas spewing which then ignites. TO THIS DAY THE WATER TOWER IS STILL THERE. take a drive down Highway 114 and you can still see the huge dent in the water tank left by the wing. uhhhh, duhhhhhh, perhaps it might be time to move the water tank to another location? 'ya think?

I believe you'll find the majority of accidents that are due to pilot error are a result of failure to simply do the tasks required..........lost track of position.......forgot the flaps, etc. It always happens in good weather.

There are a select few that occur when the pilot is pushed beyond his capabilities...........and he makes the wrong decision.

Check out the aforementioned list. You can google every one of them. You'll be surprised at the results.

If the aircraft is so far off course that he's involved with a water tank, the results are not going to be pretty, no matter what occurs. In this specific case, the tank caused a worse outcome, but you really cannot expect the infrastructure to be completely rebuilt to accommodate the once in 500 year scenario.

The record shows that this aircraft entered a severe wind shear and he could not have recovered it under any possible scenario. The only possibility of avoiding that crash was to employ the Doppler radar that shows the cell right smack on approach..........go around.