Originally Posted by
Legalapproach
Interesting, then, that RAFCAM were unaware of it and it has never been part of any anti-G training. Where do pilots pick up this bread and butter knowledge of potential sub A-LOC impairment, because it's not part of the syllabus?
Where do we pick it up? Every time we trained under G from early aerobatics on elementary trainers, through maximum possible rate turns at basic and advanced flying training, and onto air combat training at the front line. It may not have been taught at RAFCAM or given a name, but the understanding that even ‘simple’ things are more difficult while under G and the need to make appropriate allowance are things that a fast jet pilot recognises as a straightforward consequence of having passed the training, let alone having survived a career spanning thousands of hours. Failure to meet performance standards (eg height, speed, fuel awareness, quality of tactical decision-making), whether or not G-induced, is a common reason for application of remedial action up to and including withdrawal from flying duties. BV can provide a QFI’s perspective, but for me as a former front-line instructor, would a G-induced cognitive impairment excuse an individual from the professional consequences that might follow? Absolutely not.
I get that this wooliness leaves space for a legal argument and acquittal in a court of law. Fine. But that has no bearing on the judgement of the court of professional opinion. This forum is part of the latter, so LW50, your point is irrelevant. Views expressed here have no consequence for AH as a citizen, but we are entitled to hold them irrespective of the legal position.