Wednesday 19 June 2013 22:57 UTC
This forum is for anything to do with light aviation
Let me say straight away that I am not condoning anyone flying illegaly.
What I have learnt over many years of flying and driving is that the person that condems the actions of others and has never so much as " slightly bent" the rules in a "holier than thou " type of attitude is often the person that lacks skills and is more likely to have an accident when faced with a situation outside of their normal experience e.g. engine failure on take off. I have seen this time and time again.
A good example is the person that drives exactly to the highway code. Highly commendable and 100% legal. Put them in the middle of the City of London in rush hour and they are an accident waiting to happen.
I flew to Wellsborne last Sunday ( good cafe) and followed a few around the circuit which was busy when I arrived. I had a good tour around the local countryside and started to wonder if my 2 hrs of fuel remaining was going to be enough to actually get me on the ground as the circuit extended and extended as we had to wait for some of the worst radio transmissions from pilots that I have ever heard.They ranged from people that could not say their call sign to people that wanted to recite War and Peace.
Now I just know that any one of them would post on here that they were doing it "by the book". I am convinced that every one of those poeple would advocate what they were doing was increasing safety and every single one of them would turn in their graves if I suggested turning off the radio.
I would be slated as a cowboy.
30+ Yrs experience and thousands of hours flying from ( sometimes difficult ) farm strips PROVES the fact that I KNOW we could have landed ten fold the number of aircraft in half the time non radio.
However I also know that all those that cannot deal with not being spoon fed will disgree.
I await the incomig flack.
I tend to agree with the above post. I've skimmed through this thread and it seems like there are a great number of people who seem to love the idea of regulating, testing and training absolutely everything. There seems to be more of a focus on bits of paper than ability to fly.
I guess the same thing applies to driving a tractor or riding a push bike. I'm sure cyclists would love to have to pay road tax, get a mot and face parking fees whenever they stopped.
I don't mind if pilots choose to take risks on their own , away from others. If they do something to themselves it is their own fault. When the level of risk increases because of people / property / etc I would like to think most people would be sensible about their actions.
Does having all the correct paperwork make me a better pilot than someone else? No. Does it make me sleep more comfortably at night? Probably.
None of that makes any sense.
What you're saying is that experience is better than paperwork. Which is fine. But how do I, a ppl of 3 years, get to the 30 year skygod level? Are you suggesting that only those with the "right " experience should be allowed to fly? How will you measure that? Maybe some kind of formal, licensed training and ongoing checks..
I think you've missed the point entirely, he's not saying having 30 years experience is required to fly non radio, he's saying that he has seen many times the volume of traffic in a circuit fly non radio with no problems. The way that some ATC deal with more than a couple of aircraft in the circuit , compounded with the bomber circuits and verbose ATC comms can lead to things taking far longer than they have or need to.
There is no suggestion that all of the non radio traffic are sky gods, just the suggestion that people can get along and fit in quite well without the need to report their position down to the arcsecond.
What I was actually saying is that in my experience those that shout the loudest about being technically perfect and legal are often the less skilled.
All the gear and no idea comes to mind .
Especially more so of those that berate others for being less technically perfect or legal than themselves.
He's right, and not only with regard to licensing.
Those who make sure everyone else in the clubhouse knows about their strict personal VFR minima - those who won't launch with any cloud below 1500ft or more than 10kts of crosswind. Fine - set your own minima if you're not very confident, but don't preach about it and tut at the rest of us who tend to back our own abilities and fly to the limits of our license.
Those are the ones I worry about. In intense situations like a really busy circuit, hesitation and dithering can be killers.
I'm not high hours and make no claim to skygod-liness, but I've spent enough time sat next to licensed pilots who were muddling through and didn't have the confidence to do the basics to be truly frightened at how some people get signed off.
I also find such pilots are the ones who call the IMC rating an emergency get-you-home rating and can be heard tutting loudly about cowboys and accidents waiting to happen whenever IMCr pilots launch in IMC.
Yep, I've met 'em too - folks who've told me how irresponsible I am for taking off into a 1000 foot overcast and planning to fly to somewhere many miles away on my "get you out of trouble only" IMC rating. I thank them for their advice. If they continue to insist, I ask to see their Examiner or CAA Official ID, which often makes then even angrier. Then I go flying.
I've flown with many people over the years (comes of being both a ride-scrounger and a ride-offerer). Hatz's post above rings very true in my ears. His minima are different from mine, and he flies into places I wouldn't go without someone like him in the other seat. I suspect he'd feel the same the other way round on an ILS approach with me as P1.
Moderatio in omnibus
I would suggest that a reduction in unnecessary bureaucracy and cost, so that people would fly more, would mean people gain experience quicker and retain currency better.
Missed that, could you do it again ( with a bit of notice please so I've got time to get my magnifying glass out).
Who is online
Login / Register