dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
I've been thinking about methods to inculcate judgment, especially after reading about the recent string of GA accidents directly attributable to poor judgment.
The Rejected Takeoff discussion also made me consider this problem. While RTO practice can help a new pilot understand the limitations and possible consequences of slow speed, close to the ground flight, the personal anecdotes related to real world RTO were all judgment calls -- Can I make it?
In engineering we depend on process to help cover the multitude of sins humans commit as a matter of course. Thus we trust, but verify with design reviews, peer reviews, Independent Quality Control, configuration management, and the rest.
The Army trains to standards based on doctrine, modified as required with technique (which are simply ways to accomplish the mission without violating doctrine). Every soldier from the newest private to the Joint Theatre Commander is evaluated based on objective performance standards.
The Air Force and Navy also have quals and evals -- independent verification that the task will be accomplished as expected, and the mission accomplished.
In GA we have checklists and biennials, yet apparently both are inadequate to ensure judgement is being taught and practiced consistently across the pilot population.
What's missing (outside the PTS) is a commitment to disciplined processes -- standard ways of doing things that can be verified and evaluated objectively.
Is it because the conditions are so widely variable that there is no way to predict and therefore plan for a steady progression from condition X to condition Y?
Hardly.
Consider the standard flight profile -- startup, taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise climb, turns, descent, approach, landing, taxi, shutdown.
Sure there may be a few unexpected events along the way, but certainly each is forseeable to some degree? Aren't entire Sim sessions devoted to practicing the unlikley yet possible?
So, I'd like to start a dialog on this topic -- How have you taught/ observed / practiced / incorporated judgement and process into your flying? (And not just training sessions, but everyday flying)
What are the key differentiators between those pilots you have known who exhibit good judgement (beyond "total time") and those that do not?
(And we should all know the hazardous attitudes -- so hopefully we can dig a bit beyond that).
I'm sure there is plenty of insight to go around beyond the mandatory reading list -- let's hear it.
I'll start by suggesting an excellent read: Flight Discipline, Kern
The Rejected Takeoff discussion also made me consider this problem. While RTO practice can help a new pilot understand the limitations and possible consequences of slow speed, close to the ground flight, the personal anecdotes related to real world RTO were all judgment calls -- Can I make it?
In engineering we depend on process to help cover the multitude of sins humans commit as a matter of course. Thus we trust, but verify with design reviews, peer reviews, Independent Quality Control, configuration management, and the rest.
The Army trains to standards based on doctrine, modified as required with technique (which are simply ways to accomplish the mission without violating doctrine). Every soldier from the newest private to the Joint Theatre Commander is evaluated based on objective performance standards.
The Air Force and Navy also have quals and evals -- independent verification that the task will be accomplished as expected, and the mission accomplished.
In GA we have checklists and biennials, yet apparently both are inadequate to ensure judgement is being taught and practiced consistently across the pilot population.
What's missing (outside the PTS) is a commitment to disciplined processes -- standard ways of doing things that can be verified and evaluated objectively.
Is it because the conditions are so widely variable that there is no way to predict and therefore plan for a steady progression from condition X to condition Y?
Hardly.
Consider the standard flight profile -- startup, taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise climb, turns, descent, approach, landing, taxi, shutdown.
Sure there may be a few unexpected events along the way, but certainly each is forseeable to some degree? Aren't entire Sim sessions devoted to practicing the unlikley yet possible?
So, I'd like to start a dialog on this topic -- How have you taught/ observed / practiced / incorporated judgement and process into your flying? (And not just training sessions, but everyday flying)
What are the key differentiators between those pilots you have known who exhibit good judgement (beyond "total time") and those that do not?
(And we should all know the hazardous attitudes -- so hopefully we can dig a bit beyond that).
I'm sure there is plenty of insight to go around beyond the mandatory reading list -- let's hear it.
I'll start by suggesting an excellent read: Flight Discipline, Kern
Last edited: