XPost: rec.aviation.piloting, alt.usenet.kooks   
   From: mazorj@verizon.net   
      
   I was going to do a line by line parsing of his errors here,   
   but after reading his idiotic statement on medical   
   simulators, I don't see any point in it.  MaxManiac gets my   
   nomination for Aviation KOTY.   
      
   "Mxsmanic"  wrote in message   
   news:dfpc03trvl1550dh521likrhs08qqilbgn@4ax.com...   
   > John Mazor writes:   
   >   
   >> And it's possible for crew to fly for 16 hours straight   
   >> with   
   >> no relief crew or stops, without an accident.  Just   
   >> because   
   >> it can be done doesn't mean that it's desirable, let   
   >> alone   
   >> optimal.   
   >   
   > Where sim-only training is being done, it's being done   
   > because it's economical   
   > and desirable.  Why bother with irrelevant experience and   
   > expensive training   
   > if you don't need it?   
   >   
   >> So the abiity to make an incision and sew it up is pretty   
   >> good "proof of concept" that a freshly minted medical   
   >> intern   
   >> can do brain surgery?   
   >   
   > This analogy, if that's what it is, is flawed.   
   >   
   > Doctors can and do learn to do certain things in   
   > simulation, or by the book,   
   > or by observation, and the first time they actually do it   
   > themselves, it's on   
   > a live patient. There is no equivalent to flying a   
   > non-revenue flight for   
   > practice, which is a major flaw in your analogy.   
   >   
   > Not all surgery is brain surgery, but minor surgery can be   
   > learned as you   
   > describe.  Brain surgery is only slightly different from a   
   > surgical   
   > standpoint; most of the require skill relates to knowing   
   > specific   
   > characteristics of the brain, not differences in making   
   > and closing incisions   
   > or other basic surgical procedures.   
   >   
   >> Bullshit.  You deleted the following sentence in my   
   >> statement: "One sufficiently bad pilot screw up = one   
   >> smoking hole."  That's the whole point.   
   >   
   > Zero tolerance might be a romantic ideal, but that's not   
   > the way aviation   
   > works in real life.  In the real world, a certain   
   > threshold of accidents is   
   > tolerated in order to make practical aviation achievable.   
   >   
   > In airline accidents, the cause is often not so much a bad   
   > pilot as a pilot   
   > who made the wrong mistakes at the wrong time.  Many   
   > pilots who crash have   
   > good records, but for any of several possible reasons,   
   > they messed up once and   
   > died.  That happened despite all their experience in tin   
   > cans, their ratings,   
   > their logged hours, and so on.   
   >   
   > You're never so experienced that you can afford to be   
   > complacent.  Conversely,   
   > if you are very careful, you don't have to have 30 years   
   > of experience.   
   > Personality plays a major role here, as numerous studies   
   > have proved, and the   
   > old saying that there are no old, bold pilots continues to   
   > ring true.   
   >   
   >> Not when you factor in the costs of accidents caused by   
   >> inadequate training.   
   >   
   > Less training doesn't mean inadequate training.  Much of   
   > current training is   
   > difficult to justify in a practical sense, and doing   
   > without it would have   
   > only a slight impact on accident statistics.   
   >   
   > Most accidents involve crews placed in situations that   
   > involve multiple   
   > departures from the norm.  The confusion this causes   
   > destroys situational   
   > awareness and crew coordination and leads to accidents.   
   > Part of this can be   
   > improved through training, part of this cannot.  Some of   
   > it is human nature,   
   > some of it is personality.  It's a complex domain of   
   > study, but it's clear   
   > that many aspects of current training are irrelevant,   
   > whereas other aspects   
   > are needed but missing.   
   >   
   >> Such as who?   
   >   
   > Those who fly as a job, and not as an adventure.  They do   
   > what they are   
   > required to do, and that's it.  There are pilots who do it   
   > only for the money,   
   > although they are perhaps more common in developing   
   > countries than in   
   > developed countries (developed countries offer more   
   > choices for high-paying   
   > jobs, many with fewer requirements and prerequisites than   
   > piloting).   
   >   
   >> Well, duh, you can't do them all in a sim or training   
   >> flight.   
   >   
   > Fortunately, they aren't all necessary, as they   
   > effectively never occur in   
   > real life.   
   >   
   >> But every year we get any number of emergency scenarios   
   >> that   
   >> transcend normal training routines.   
   >   
   > Yes, but the first one to do it tells everyone else in   
   > line what it will be,   
   > so it hardly comes as a surprise.   
   >   
   >> That's what separates   
   >> the pros from the amateurs - the ability to draw on other   
   >> experience and extrapolate to whatever doo-doo has just   
   >> hit   
   >> your fan.   
   >   
   > That is completely uncorrelated with pro vs. amateur.  A   
   > professional is   
   > someone who is paid to do something; an amateur is someone   
   > who does it for   
   > fun.   
   >   
   >> You obviously have not the slightest concept of what goes   
   >> on   
   >> in the cockpits of airliners every day.   
   >   
   > In other words, you disagree.  But I might have a much   
   > better idea than you   
   > think.   
   >   
   >> Yes, the vast   
   >> majority of flights are routine or encounter only minor,   
   >> easily fixed problems.  Be it 99% or 99.9%, it's that   
   >> last   
   >> "9" that "proves the concept" that on any given day,   
   >> somewhere in the entire air transport system, some crew   
   >> saves their behinds and those of their passengers by   
   >> exercising experience and skills that rise above the   
   >> lower   
   >> level of what is normally required.   
   >   
   > Except that, below a certain probability, it's easy for   
   > pilots to go through   
   > their entire careers without being called upon to handle a   
   > given situation, in   
   > which case training for it is wasted, and those who cannot   
   > handle it are just   
   > as good in their positions as those who can.   
   >   
   >> And that's what makes   
   >> flying on on an airline the safest possible way to get   
   >> from   
   >> A to B in the U.S.   
   >   
   > That's a separate debate that I won't get into here.   
   >   
   >> Not nearly as often as the real-life situations that are   
   >> what I was referring to in my previous paragraph.   
   >   
   > But if I'm to believe what you appear to assert, spins   
   > should be practiced   
   > "just in case," and any pilot not familiar with them is   
   > somehow going to   
   > perform worse in his job than one who is.   
   >   
   >> The Sioux   
   >> City accident, where Capt. Al Haynes dealt with a system   
   >> failure for which there was no training and marshalled   
   >> his   
   >> resources, is a classic example of the difference between   
   >> a   
   >> button-pusher and a real pilot.   
   >   
   > It's actually a classic example of multiple heads being   
   > better than one, and   
   > of good crew cooperation.   
   >   
   >> Shit happens like this all the time.  Trained-monkey   
   >> button   
   >> pushers, let alone automated systems, cannot be expected   
   >> to   
   >> routinely rise to such levels of airmanship.   
   >   
   > It doesn't happen all the time.  It happens on rare   
   > occasions.  Whether   
   > old-school pilots like it or not, flying airliners is   
   > increasingly a matter of   
   > pushing buttons, and this trend will only continue.   
   >   
   > Most modern airliners don't require a flight engineer; he   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)