Old 10th Dec 2013, 19:53
  #69 (permalink)  
AirRabbit
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 802
OK … I’m getting confused trying to stay up with what it is you are trying to say …

Originally Posted by cosmo kramer
Here is is no requirement to have the runway in sight, as long as you can find your way with other identifiable terrain features (e.g. follow a coastline that leads to the airport). Hence you fly it looking out the window…
Who “flys it” looking out the window? The pilot flying? The pilot looking out the window? Or is one pilot doing both? I thought you said that wasn’t the way you flew?

Originally Posted by cosmo kramer
You can't do that looking over your shoulder. Especially with mountains, strong wind and turbulence, your would have to work to keep the aircraft on the desired path, that may be with a very limited margin defined by MDA/cloudbase - being too close to do a 180 and too far to keep the runway or associated lights in sight. On a dark, poor vis, rainy night, I would even recommend you fly (aviate) with reference to your ADI, as previously described a few posts back. Not looking out the window for the nearest MacDonald.
When I described a pilot moving a control surface or making another flight control adjustment you come back with a statement that again says “…you can’t do that looking over your shoulder…” indicating that you can’t do that when looking out the window …?

Originally Posted by cosmo kramer
Keeping the runway in sight is navigate. To rely on that sight alone for navigation, with all associated optical illusions due to darkness, rain, unusual altitude, poor runway lightning seen from an angle etc., I maintain is reckless.
And here … we’re going back the other way … relying on looking out the window is a proper way to navigate, but it’s reckless.

I’m not trying to make you angry … I’m just pointing out an apparent lack of continuity in your thought process.

Originally Posted by cosmo kramer
You on the other hand jumped in with a completely off-topic post where you are trying to assert yourself as some master, who discovered a new trend before anyone else. There after, again "the master", is telling us everything we do is wrong and continue to "back up" your argument with a CV that is (sorry to say) not that particular extraordinary. It usually comes with growing older that you did a lot of "stuff.
Actually, I “jumped in” to comment on what appeared to be the generation (and acceptance) of yet another in a series of “cheat-sheet” methods to reduce the amount of flight awareness that simply must be maintained during flight operations. And I’m still not sure that what was being described is not one of those “feel-good-rules-of thumb” that have little to do with the task at hand. In fact, I cannot believe that with the amount of time and experience you claim, that you have not seen a pilot attempt to drag out from memory a set of specifically-committed-to-memory-values that is thought by that pilot to be “the way” to address the situation at hand. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that the Asiana 214 tragedy involved at least some pre-conceived “it’s-always-worked-before” kind of “semi-procedure” that, when it was failing, because it HAD always worked before, neither pilot at the controls recognized that something was wrong and going even more wrong – until the stick shaker shook them back to reality just in time to push up the throttles and have the tail smack the sea-wall. You, and others who believe as you do, will just have to pardon the fact that my interest and commitment to urge the elimination of such “cheat-sheet” methods, because invariably they allow semi-competent pilots to attempt to operate airplanes with passengers aboard. My skepticism and my digging into what is visible only on the surface, together with others who share my concerns, has been one of my primary responsibilities for a good share of my career. I can appreciate that some don’t like to have something that they’ve become accustomed to doing to be criticized … but I would hope that understanding why such criticisms are made – that being to better ensure that pilots remain aware of what their airplane is doing, understand why it is doing that specific thing, and agree that what is being observed is what was asked for by the pilot at the controls.

So, please continue to attempt to belittle me or criticize my thoughts or motivations if you choose – you aren’t the first … and likely won’t be the last … and I say that because such criticisms do, on occasion, make sense, and requires those of us who believe the way we do that some additional issues have to be addressed. That is a good thing … and I don’t object … at all. However, apparent disconnects with the criticisms … an appearance to stubbornly hold on to issues that are inherently inaccurate or have been known to generate problems simply cannot be allowed to go unchallenged and uncorrected.

As I said previously – I hope you continue to operate safely and continue to enjoy the best profession on the planet.
AirRabbit is offline