 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:44 am Post subject: Training and judgement |
 |
|
Hi All-
| Quote: | but when I talk to other folks I start to feel like a paranoid, and that
my
|
| Quote: | concerns are leading me in the direction of overkill. What say you
experienced
|
| Quote: | folks? Am I being overly cautious?
|
Probably. However, a little fear of the unknown can be a good motivator,
and training is never a waste. It is better to be way over prepared than
slightly under prepared. The fact that you acknowledge the gaps in your
experience and want to address them already demonstrates good judgement on
your part; keep up the good work and attitude.
| Quote: | As far as i'm concerned, all the RPP and
Sport Pilot permits do is "dumb down" the priviledge of getting a pilot's
license. It may get more people in the air, but it looks more and more
like the tradeoff is less capable pilots.
|
Well, that's true. And a private is a dumbed down / less capable
instrument pilot, is a dumbed down / less capable commercial pilot, is a
dumbed down / less capable ATP. We can all get along safely as long as we
all exercise the required judgement and self discipline to stay within our
bounds, both legal and practical. As one old timer put it to me years ago,
"The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid using his superior
skill".
| Quote: | ... a plane being at fault...
|
I have a totally unscientific opinion on this issue. First, some data
points. Over time when speaking with the BRS folks, and reading some of
their literature, they have claimed a 'save' rate that was a very
significant percentage of the total number of GA fatal accidents. However,
the fatal accident rate wasn't radically reduced by the introduction of
their system. Also, as I understand it, Cirrus insurance rates are
inordinately high due to all the hull losses incurred with BRS deployment.
It seems to me that there are two potential reasons for this. First, there
may be some number of people out there who would not embark on a flight in
a Cessna under a particular set of circumstances, yet would attempt that
flight with a BRS equipped airplane. This, of course, raises their
exposure level markedly. Second, somewhere, someone is experiencing a high
pucker factor circumstance in aviation. When that person is in a
conventionally equipped plane, he generally has no choice but to continue
the flight to a landing somewhere. But if that plane is a Cirrus, and the
stress level gets high enough, there is always that Big Red Handle...
| Quote: | Similar thoughts (i.e. regarding the "ticket-in-Feb,
Cirrus-in-July, dead-in-Oct" sequence of events) occurred to me about the
NYC
accident too.
|
Who remembers Thurmon Munson?
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rv7(at)b4.ca
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:25 am Post subject: Training and judgement |
|
|
On 5:42:15 2006-10-13 "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | > As far as i'm concerned, all the RPP and
> Sport Pilot permits do is "dumb down" the priviledge of getting a
> pilot's license. It may get more people in the air, but it looks
> more and more like the tradeoff is less capable pilots.
Well, that's true. And a private is a dumbed down / less capable
instrument pilot, is a dumbed down / less capable commercial pilot,
is a dumbed down / less capable ATP.
|
Not quite. An instrument pilot is a private pilot who has learned specific
additional skills to fly into additional conditions. He's not required to
have any flying abilities or precision any greater than a private pilot. A
Commercial pilot, on the other hand, has learned to fly to a higher
standard, and i'll grant you that point. Carrying passengers for hire
probably does require greater precision than someone out for fun. But the
standards for the Recreational/Sport Pilot and the PP aren't really any
different, other than the number of hours necessary to get your license.
Furthermore, (in Canada, anyway) a Recreational Pilot can fly the same
plane that a Private Pilot can, provided he only carries one passenger.
There may be an upper weight limit that i'm not aware of as well, i'm not
that knowledgeable about the permit. But I do know that an RPP can fly a
Cessna 172 just like a PP can, as long as there is only one passenger.
So the only difference between an RPP and a PP (or SP and PP, in the US)
really, is how heavy an airplane you can fly. There are just too many
other things that vary between airplane types, and the RPP/PP division
doesn't address them. It's just an artificial division, to make an
artificially cheapened license.
And let's not even get into the discussion about pilots who are dropping
their PP in favour of a RPP or SPP because it means they don't have to get
a full medical that would invalidate their PP.
-Rob
Do Not Archive
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:22 am Post subject: Training and judgement |
|
|
Hi Rob-
First, my commentary on the 'hierarchy' of pilots was intended as more of a
philosophical observation than a purely technical one. If one chooses to
look down their nose at folks with lesser ratings and experience, they are
likely to find themselves staring straight up the nostrils of the fellow
with more ratings and experience.
Second, I can't comment on the state of affairs north of the border, but
here in the States my comment is also precisely correct on a technical
basis. Although my commentary was about pilots and not certificates, and
"Private' is a certificate and "instrument' is a rating, you must have the
former before acquiring the latter. Further, the latter requires much more
knowledge, training, and skill to acquire. As to the privileges accorded
the various certificates, a US sport pilot can not fly a C-172. Nor can he
fly at night. A private pilot can do both (simultaneously!), and without
an instrument rating. I believe our northern brethren must have the
instrument rating to fly at night at all. Also, both the Sport and
Recreational Pilot certificates in the US carry many limitations that do
not apply to Private pilots. These include passenger, operations,
airspace, weather, altitude, and border crossing limitations. Some of
those limits can be mitigated with further training.
Well, I'm sure there are RV'ers all around the planet rolling their eyes
right about now, so I'll yield soapbox.
Pax-
| Quote: | From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Re: Training and judgement
On 5:42:15 2006-10-13 "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
> > As far as i'm concerned, all the RPP and
> > Sport Pilot permits do is "dumb down" the priviledge of getting a
> > pilot's license. It may get more people in the air, but it looks
> > more and more like the tradeoff is less capable pilots.
>
> Well, that's true. And a private is a dumbed down / less capable
> instrument pilot, is a dumbed down / less capable commercial pilot,
> is a dumbed down / less capable ATP.
Not quite. An instrument pilot is a private pilot who has learned
specific
|
| Quote: | additional skills to fly into additional conditions. He's not required to
have any flying abilities or precision any greater than a private pilot.
A
|
| Quote: | Commercial pilot, on the other hand, has learned to fly to a higher
standard, and i'll grant you that point. Carrying passengers for hire
probably does require greater precision than someone out for fun. But the
standards for the Recreational/Sport Pilot and the PP aren't really any
different, other than the number of hours necessary to get your license.
Furthermore, (in Canada, anyway) a Recreational Pilot can fly the same
plane that a Private Pilot can, provided he only carries one passenger.
There may be an upper weight limit that i'm not aware of as well, i'm not
that knowledgeable about the permit. But I do know that an RPP can fly a
Cessna 172 just like a PP can, as long as there is only one passenger.
So the only difference between an RPP and a PP (or SP and PP, in the US)
really, is how heavy an airplane you can fly. There are just too many
other things that vary between airplane types, and the RPP/PP division
doesn't address them. It's just an artificial division, to make an
artificially cheapened license.
And let's not even get into the discussion about pilots who are dropping
their PP in favour of a RPP or SPP because it means they don't have to get
a full medical that would invalidate their PP.
-Rob
Do Not Archive
|
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
