Differences in training
It has occurred to me, and was the subject of a recent discussion I had with a recently retired jet fighter pilot, that our civilian training lacks something, which I think must be core in military training: The concept that the flying machine is paid for, who cares, save the people. This closely corresponds to; okay, I was flying one second ago, now I'm riding, I don't like it - eject! And you're out of there...
During a discussion on another thread, I offered that I doubt that I could get my head around the concept of the ballistic parachutes found on a few GA airplanes, and when to use it. Nothing in my training has ever addressed the concept of "give up flying now, and pull this handle". I've always been trained, and practiced, making the best of things, and aiming for a suitable landing area, and trying to save everything. The spectre of being harder to insure as a pilot in the future plays into this.
The difference being the concept of "save youself, forget the machine" Civilian operators really don't highlight this as much as the military - cost of crew training relative to cost of machine, I suppose. It was a shock for me a year ago, during specialized marine training, while standing at the dock, to be told by the instructor "drive it like you stole it, you don't have to pay for it, no matter what happens". You don't ever hear that on a civilian flight line! The training environment was much more relaxed, and I didn't ding the boat!
Our industry will help itself, if we draw together the currently distant elements of a machine which will really tell the pilots "okay, this is it, I'm drawing my last breath one way or the other, save yourselves now"; and pilot training which includes more reassurance that when you get that message, the boss, and insurance company, agree that the flight crew are no longer resonsible for the machine - only the people - do what you've gotta do!
In today's information age, why don't pilots have a suscinct summary of a lot of information? Instead of a chip light, and a low pressure indication, and a high oil temp indication, why does the pilot not get a message (like the soft voiced british lady some where in the spacecraft of all of those Sci-Fi movies), which urgently says: "Land now regardless of the surface under you. I'm watching 10 chip sensors, 8 temperatures, 4 pressures, 2 smoke detectors, and three torques in the main rotor transmission. 82% of the indications are outside the prescribed limits, and you should expect that the rotor will not be turning 115 seconds from now. Land now regardless of the surface under you." Once that message was written on the EFIS, and spoken to the CVR, the pilots would know that they were off the hook for the machine.
Our industry needs to take the pressure off the pilot for deciding that a flight must end before they planned it to, and include the concept that "abandon flight " is also worthy of pride.
Pilot DAR