Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by Dave Krall CFII, Aug 24, 2013.
Wow, this is quite the tiny penis thread.
And again, the Nall report doesn't mention types of military ops because they don't have that data. Without that data, you're just making uneducated assumptions. You can't possibly compare GA to military without doing some serious investigating. You'd have to list each GA vs military task and assign some sort of risk value to that task. I think you'll find military ops are just as varied and "demanding" as GA, with some of their ops not even having a comparable GA counterpart.
Demand or effort is subjective anyway. Like stress, people respond differently to a demand placed upon them. You can't quantify demand like in some ridiculous risk assessment that the military or FAA has generated. Even a risk assessment isn't a very good indicator of risk, let alone demand. You could have the exact same risk value and the same pilot qualifications and hours, but the demand or effort on each could be night and day. No two pilots are the same.
You’re getting into the real substance of the comparisons there. The military is definitely generally closer to GA in flying demands because so many operations are one-off, or moving and changing with new routes and tactics all the time, certain parts of which can’t be pretrained for. There will always be exceptions to any set of ops in any of the flying groups involved. In cases where the military was flying set cargo/troop routes from one huge airport to another over and over again, those ops would more closely resemble airline ops.
I would readily agree to some of your statements above on risk assement and demands. Although after over 25 years of reading and practically applying their conclusions personally in my certified flight instruction, the various aviation reports, I have to say that being far from ridiculous, have all come to their conclusions objectively, and accurately after much detailed study by thousands of professionals over the decades. It’s not a quick conclusion by any of them.
The Nall Report’s conclusions are of comparing the two types generally and as whole populations as much as possible viewed in the studies, not of a difficult task in one v. an easier task in another.
Wow, that is quite the tiny cerebral cortex post.
You can come up with nothing better to represent yourself?
It’s about time for this
My questions about all of this are, "What difference does it make? What are we supposed to do about it?"
But allow me to introduce this one individual's experience because it fits my pre-conceived opinion and backs my hypothesis up.
So, you use as an "expert opinion" a guy who is involved with writing the report that you are using to validate your claim.
There are plenty of guys on here who fly GA, 121 and military. Me being one of them. Our opinions don't count, I guess. Yours is the only opinion you'll entertain (and you've admitted that you haven't flown 121 or military).
Added to that, you just assumed I was going disagree with you. I offered no opinion on the matter. Yet.
Yep, sounds pretty much like my SP IFR flights, other than I have no crew, so I get to do all of those things. With XM/ADS-B weather I check ATIS long before I get to the descent point, especially so if the weather is getting worse. When it's getting worse I'm watching the trend of the ceiling/winds/etc.
Yeah, the GA planes are smaller so easier to taxi, but I've also been to cluttered ramps with no instructions on where to go or taxiing between to close rows of planes with no one out there "wing walking".
Lots of similarities and differences. Flying 121 there are rules that don't apply to 91. Like shooting an approach with ceilings below minimums. That's not allowed on 121, but 91, sure "go take a look". Plus there are lots of people to help and validate decisions. In 91 one is typically alone to make the decision, and if they choose poorly there's no one to challenge them.
One thing that is well known, 121 is far safer than 91. Even when you get rid of the moronic stuff (running out of fuel, low level maneuvering, ...) 91 is still not as safe as 121. You can move it from motorcycles to cars, but not to 121.
I have also done GA and 121.
I'm really not sure what your point is here and why you keep harping on this. Are you trying to stiff arm everyone into agreeing with you?
I don't see it your way, and never will. There is more to it than you are writing.
The sheer pressures, responsibilities, and expectations to name a few.
Oh how easy it would be just to say "no, I'm not flying today because of low ceilings", and not get an inquisitory phone call.
Meh. CGI. No different than Tom Hanks playing ping pong in Forrest Gump.
And here I have been avoiding the "Show us your 'Christmas Tree'"thread, because I thought it was some code...
Whichever is more demanding, Commercial or GA, would be orders of magnitude more difficult if someone were actually shooting at you. I'm afraid the high honors go to those who position themselves on the pointed end of the spear to defend our nation and its freedoms.
A decent question for a change here! What we in GA can “do about it” is approach some aspects of our flying more like they do in airlines. As we were all taught in our initial training and FAA flight testing, more strict adherence to well known preflight proceedures, especially fuel for the missions is probably the most glaring task as was pointed out. Also more additional voluntary flight maneuvers practice totally initiated by the pilot themselves, it doesn’t take all that much, to name two.
If you were actually interested in a discussion about this I'd invest more time in a response.
Wonder what the 2021 Krall report will say
There's nothing GA needs to do about anything. They're already on the right path. If it ain't broke...
If I had to guess, I’d say it would be almost identical to the Air Safety Foundation’s and the Nall Report’s.
Past history has shown that would be a very safe bet and an accurate portrayal of the Aviation scene at that time.
One new factor being thrown into the mix though is the exponentially increasing use of Unmanned Aerial Systems and their impact on manned flights of all kinds. Many incidents already, almost all due to incursions by the UASs, I think largely due to a severely decreased sense of their pilots’ responsibilities because no one is on board THEIR aircraft.
“Don’t see it my way and never will” No prejudgment there eh?
So let’s focus on your last two sentences:
Are you man enough to be a real PIC or not? Ceratainly sounds like there’s been flights you’ve been “pressured” into making by those paying the bills for the operation or am I not reading it right?
Yeah there are generally more “responsibilities” on the airline pilots, human lives theroretically being at the top of the list. An airliner’s pilot taking off with 40 pax on board has at least 10 times more responsibility on their shoulders than a GA pilot taking off with just 4 on board. That’s one reason that airline risks in the form of pilot error are mitigated by increased and more frequent recurrent training, which I mentioned in a previous post.
What are these “increased expectations” that you speak of in 121?
Those improvements are encouraging, maybe more pilot’s are “getting it”, or maybe it really is is harder to fly these days (highly debatable) and those that make it into flying and stay there are of a higher caliber?
No prejudging here. Been flying 34 years with extensive experience in all kinds of flying other than military. I've read your arguements. I have agreed there is less to do flying airlines, but i think you are completely off base about it being easier.
You just cannot except someone else's viewpoint. That is not a quality trait.
Just curious, are you stamping your feet as you type because some don't agree with you?
I don't expect you to understand about pressure. I'm not talking about refusing a flight when warranted, but a line of thunderstorms between you and your destination does not warrant saying no. That still doesn't make it something I enjoy and would do if I was flying my own GA airplane. So yes, there is a pressure and responsibility to go. Spin it however you want. You are manipulating people into saying things and you hang back with predetermined arguements ready to pounce.
What is your aviation background? Have you flown extensive 121? I guess your a flight instructor but perhaps your tag is old.
Until you've done both it's very hard judge.
Regardless, as others have said it's apples & oranges.
[RotorAndWing said: ↑
This is just a very small example. There are multitudes of other factors. My point here is trying to say the airline cockpit is "less demanding" is pure bunk and nowhere in the Nall Report do they make that claim.]
I’ve actually always agreed that the typical ‘airline cockpit’ itself is moderately more complex than most GA aircraft, that’s obvious and it’s not the question at hand. Nor did I ever say the Nall Report said what RW perceived that I said.
It is the entire airline activity as a WHOLE that has been simplified for their pilots in a very successful bid to mitigate risk and reduce pilot demands by spreading responsibilities among multiple parties that I have stated repeatedly that hasn’t gotten through to RW and some others here.
Well in your first paragraph you really support my position because as you say, “I get to do all those things” when you fly single pilot IFR, as opposed to airlines who share duties between two pilots, (plus ground personnel) thereby reducing substantially the demands on the airline pilot.
Looks like it took you four years to get around to replying to that post!
Based on what I've heard about the complexity of the systems in an airliner and how airline ground schools are like drinking from a fire hose, together with the fact that airline crews are expected to launch in conditions that I wouldn't even dream of flying in and the fact that as a GA pilot, I don't have to worry about what anyone thinks of my no-go decisions, it's hard for me to buy the idea that airline crews have it easier than I do.
Man, I'm glad I don't fly for your airline! That sucks you had that experience in the 121 world - where was it?
At Delta it's not like that at all. The pilots swap off legs on a trip - you are pilot flying or pilot monitoring. Normal tasks are divided as such and to my surprise every captain that I flew with asked my opinion before making just about every decision. Doesn't mean that I would've changed their minds had we disagreed but that was rarely - if ever - the case.
Same when I was at ASA. Probably some of it due to DAL HQ right there at ATL and mirroring DAL's training programs. But I would think it's this way at all the majors as well as the vast majority of regionals.
I reread the Nall report, and nowhere in there does it even hint at saying that GA is more demanding than airline flying. Dangerous, maybe, but not demanding.
I think the big problem is that the OP never defined what "demanding" means.
Demanding how? Stick and rudder-wise? Decision-making? CRM-wise? Demanding how?
Demanding like flying a KC-135 in Afghanistan responding to calls for a refueling asset in Killbox AB-Keypads 4-9 for A-10s supporting a TIC. At night... in the weather. That kind of demanding?
Or demanding like launching at sunset and flying 10 hours and landing in Guangzhou, China with controllers who barely speak English and having to fly a RNAV approach using metric altimetry, then land with a 35 knot crosswind?
Or bouncing around in a cloud layer in my Cherokee-6 picking up traces of ice and trying to figure out where I'm going to land because the weather forecast was so incredibly wrong?
What is demanding?
I agree. At FedEx, the Captains really have embraced the "you're a Captain, just sitting in the right seat" philosophy. I found when I was an FO, and it was my leg, 99% of the Captains let me run the show. Make the decisions (after using CRM and consulting with them... obviously, they had ultimate veto power) and execute, and they supported me. Now that I'm in the left seat, I try to do the same with the guys and gals I fly with. By the time you are at a major Part-121 carrier, you were a Captain somewhere else, whether it was in the military or at a regional carrier. And I've been treated like that my entire time here.
You agree with me about the airlines having less for the pilot’s to do but they are not easier? Please amplify.
I can accept all the other views that say airlines are so hard, I just can’t figure why flying between a few select points over and over again is so hard for you guys, especially when other Captains among your ranks as well as the Nall Report summary of experts consistently agrees with me decade after decade.
What am I doing with my feet? Well they’re opposite me at eye level on the couch. Oh, a little toe twitch there, does that count? So... what are you wearing?
There’s all kinds of pressure and I’ve experienced my share although that’s not a prerequisite here because this is all academic. As previously stated, there can be far more pressure to fly for a CFI or a tour flyer cancelling for marginal Wx, or a busissness man/owner cancelling and missing an important meeting or work session, especially if profit margins are marginal, than cancelling a flight with an airline and having to “talk” with whomever is upstairs. And the larger aircraft can handle more Wx demands anyway, so Wx cancelations will be less often when flying the larger aircraft.
Manipulating people into saying things? I would hope they could formulate their own rebuttals into sentences of their own but maybe not. Still don’t know exactly what you mean by that one.
All my certificates and “tags” are current, are yours?
What difference do you think those for either of us makes for this discussion anyway? I’ve done lots of single pilot IFR for a few years out of 20 on scheduled flights where significant money and time would be lost if the flight wasn’t made, all in light aircraft.
The highly studied experts, many with experience in both sectors plus more at the Nall Report, are able to compare the two sectors of flying without any difficulty, why is it so difficult for some participating in this thread?
I’ve never been fond of the idea of me flying predetermined routes over and over Ad nauseam per the schedule of others so I’m going by mostly written and a few verbal passages of those who have flown airlines over the years to add to my own conclusions.
Beyond the academic observations already stated supporting me, to this I would again refer to the multiple Captains statements I’ve here previously quoted, especially the Quantas Captain that says
“ It’s almost TOO easy.”.
Statements of individuals are not evidence unless you survey a statistically significant sample.
I guess it's a good thing that hearsay is allowed in the courts of the inter-webs.
I've heard horror stories too, but I don't actually know of any of them are true because I wasn't there; two sides to every story and most people (including me) end up leaving out something from every story - even if it's not intentional. After actually having been an airline pilot for a while I can speak to my experience but nothing else. Maybe I just got lucky or maybe it really isn't what you described. I'm pretty sure any captain that had a "sit on your hands till I tell you to do something" attitude wouldn't last long these days.
Did you ever think that those who feel being an airline pilot is "too easy" is because they have a lot of experience, BOTH Capt & FO? You're basing this on a handful of Captains that you talked with. Not really enough of a sample now is it?
It appears to me you don't like airline flying, which is fine, it's not for everyone. But this whole thread is ridiculous and there are differences between GA and the airlines. Many of the airline pilots are or have been military pilots, a lot of experience right there, and another reason why some may feel it's easy compared to other flying they've done.
I started in GA, built my hours up flying 135 and instructing, then got hired at a large regional airline. Flew a couple of turbo-props (EMB120, ATR72) which were definitely more complicated and challenging than any GA plane I had flown. Then transitioned to flying jets when the CRJ came on the scene. So what I'm trying to say here is I have a pretty good background and feel more qualified than you are to judge which type of flying is "easier". You don't have any 121 time so I don't know why you want to keep trying to prove something which the majority of pilots know is not factual. But carry on as I'm sure you will.
Remember, if you ever did even read my opening post for 2017, and the OP, I questioned the professional curators of the Nall Report directly by phone and email and they said their conclusions are EXACTLY as I said.
GA is more dangerous because it is generally more demanding than the airlines. It is harder to do. It is more difficult to do. It is done without a helper co pilot. More difficult CRM wise. More difficult descion making wise GA goes to more places by far and involves more challenges than the airliners operating on long, well equipped, unobstructed runways.
Any individual observations cited by me by Captains flying in both GA and the Airlines merely illustrate the professional safety experts’ conclusions by the Nall Report. Individual cases don’t prove their conclusions agreeing with me any more than isolated cases cited by my opposition disprove the conclusions of the Nall Report. The Nall Report continues decade after decade to reach the same conclusions I cite and they publish them year after year.
Yeah, you've written those same comments ad nauseam. Still a bunch of bs. What's your motive? Why do you "revive" it almost weekly?
Go figure... curators of the Nall report agree with the Nall report.
I ask again, demanding how (not why, how)?
Harder how? More difficult... how?
"...helper co pilot." Lol.
Why? How so?
Does it? Is going to your local uncontrolled field more demanding than landing at mins in Almaty, Kazakhstan using a QFE-meters approach with non-English fluent controllers?
Go back and reread my last post (that you quoted) where I listed "demanding" flights in the 121, military and GA world. Now answer the question... what do you mean by demanding?
As far as I can tell, the Nall report is commissioned by AOPA, which is an advocacy group for General Aviation. I think their conclusions are skewed towards the "all us GA pilots have the most "demanding" flying there is... more so than Part 121 and the military." It's no more than some feel-good rhetoric to give the GA crowd something to beat their chests about.
And the reason I keep putting "demanding" in quotes is because that is your word, not the words of the Nall report. I did a word search for "demand" in the 2014 Nall report (the latest one I could find) and this is what I found. Three instances:
Where do you keep getting your trope that the Nall report says that GA is more demanding than the airlines?
1. By now you should have completed the English 101 Course I sent you for Christmas, so you should now be able to understand what the Nall Report Summary says. I actually let a high school student read it and they could clearly understand it.
2. As previously stated, I called them and they verified it. Why don’t you ask them too if you really want to know? Composed partly of Airline and GA pilot’s, they’re a public service organization and are glad to clarify misconceptions such as yours and a few others.
Contrary to your unfounded supposition, I generally LIKE Airline Pilots, especially when I want to get somewhere fast over a commonly flown air route flown near the center of the aircraft’s envelope at almost all times. When I remember to ask, the random ones I’ve met and talked with over the decades ALL readily agreed with my and The Nall Report’s conclusions, which are derived by a consensus of objective, professional studies. You should be pleased to know they even advise GA pilot’s to use more of the training techniques employed by Airlines to help mitigate the typically higher demands.