pug writes:
peanuts loudmouth ground people
Ouch! If you won't kiss me first, at least buy me a drink!
As far as pilots vs. doctors, well, I have naturally good health.
I fly more often than I get sick.
Therefore, my fat butt has been entrusted to more pilots than doctors.
So far, so good.
But speaking from a purely statistical perspective, I'm more apt to be let down by a pilot than a doctor.
I use pilots more frequently, and I cannot go to the same one for 25 years.
Ain't that a hoot?!
I read the whole thread some time back.
The whole problem is that it is hard for folks who have never worked on a large mil or civ airframe (C-5, C-141, which I worked on, and the C-17 which always gives me a morning crescent, and certainly all the commercial birds) to determine exactly WHAT makes an airframe dangerous to operate.
Folks including a lot of the FAA folks. Almost of FAA know their stuff and love aviation, but there are just enough paper-pushers in the loop to confugulate things.
That's because every condition has implications which affect the entire flight. In commercial transit, things get even more complex and folks who don't love and understand aviation may miss true problems as well as being triggered by insignificant ones.
Perfect World: Everything is working, everyone in MX likes to see his reflection from the paint, every rivet is inspected before each flight, and there are puppy dogs holding flowers as runway signage.
Real World: Most stuff breaks after a certain amount of time, some stuff isn't absolutely necessary, we have missions/schedules to attain, and a few (not most) maintenance folks don't like to be bothered.
Of the 65k, there are prolly only a handful of real killer issues.
But the lack of regard for procedures and doc is troubling indeed - aviation is certainly mostly intuitive, but it is also a hard taskmaster when it comes to documenting everything. So that future issues can be prevented.
Commercial air transit- to me - represents one of the highest points of human endeavor.
The physical engineering is incredible - durable enough to fly for 20 - 40 years, yet light enough to operate economically. (Natch there are exclusions, but we'll leave them alone for now.)
The application engineering is incredible as well. Develop routes, and market/operate them safely and profitably. (Again, exclusions, yadda-yadda...)
I yuttered something about "perfect world" a few lines back.
Let me add that in a perfect world, everyone connected with air travel would be deeply in love with it. I'm not in the biz, but I still have a great love for the aircraft and the folks who make them possible.
I'm not cut to be a commercial pilot - frankly, I lack the sheer discipline it takes. I could not do what y'all do day in and day out. I started but never followed-through on a PPL, because I became too busy with family. Once I fully retire, if I'm able to get the 100 acres I'm lusting after, I might try an ultralight. (I'm thinking of a
Mitchell wing. Looks damn demanding to learn, with lots of performance lurking behind.)
I could not survive the stress of being ATC. It's a job I think I could do for a few weeks, but would eventually stop showing up for due to lack of sleep.
So all of you have my deepest respect - truly.
But don't vote the dad and kids off the island, m'kay?