Survey: Pilot Weather Related Decision Making
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I put a very low confidence on each question. That was because the information was completely inadequate but you have no way of making that point.
Graphics poor and I cannot understand why the altimeter was blanked - how many times do we fly in VFR without a working altimeter??? Totally artificial exercise by, what would appear, a non-pilot
Graphics poor and I cannot understand why the altimeter was blanked - how many times do we fly in VFR without a working altimeter??? Totally artificial exercise by, what would appear, a non-pilot
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found realism sufficient for the purpose. Allowing the altimeter would have made it too easy. Of course one has to make assumptions. How far to the airfield, does the otherwise flat terrain suddenly change? Any windmills or high masts to spoilt your day. Is finding the airfield an issue? E.g. a green field in a green forest?
Assuming some runway line up aids e.g. railway, river or GPS, quite low altitude and visibility can be safely accepted. I found all the examples suitable for continuing.
Good exercise. Let’s have some more.
Flyme.
Assuming some runway line up aids e.g. railway, river or GPS, quite low altitude and visibility can be safely accepted. I found all the examples suitable for continuing.
Good exercise. Let’s have some more.
Flyme.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An2 I agree. I originally wondered whether this test was in actual fact specifically designed to find people like FlyMe273
Ok, FlyMe I'll give you one - you are in a plane and the engine starts making a 'funny' noise. Do you :
A) Continue, because on long journeys it's nice to break up the monotonous drone of Continental engines with a rattle or clunk or two. My favouritest noise is 'bang, splutter' (second only to the sound of two bricks being bashed together).
B) Continue, because I like funny noises. They make me laugh. I feel that my passengers feel more reassured when I laugh, out loud, a lot...
C) I don't have enough information to make a decision, yet.
Sometime, not making a decision, is the best decision to make.
And perhaps that is the point of the test?
....ok now I'm intrigued.
I found realism sufficient for the purpose.
Allowing the altimeter would have made it too easy
Good exercise. Let’s have some more
A) Continue, because on long journeys it's nice to break up the monotonous drone of Continental engines with a rattle or clunk or two. My favouritest noise is 'bang, splutter' (second only to the sound of two bricks being bashed together).
B) Continue, because I like funny noises. They make me laugh. I feel that my passengers feel more reassured when I laugh, out loud, a lot...
C) I don't have enough information to make a decision, yet.
Sometime, not making a decision, is the best decision to make.
And perhaps that is the point of the test?
....ok now I'm intrigued.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Clunk,
In my opinion you are expecting too much from this simple survey. This survey is in the form of a "flash-card" presentation. These types of surveys can never truely represent real life situations. Sure it could be further developed. I think the authors will find this out when they receive a wide scatter of answers.
Per the engine noise: I would:-
1. select carb heat
2. move mixture to full rich
3. fuel pump on, change tanks
4. mags select each in turn
5. adjust throttle
6. steer towards landing area.
flyme.
In my opinion you are expecting too much from this simple survey. This survey is in the form of a "flash-card" presentation. These types of surveys can never truely represent real life situations. Sure it could be further developed. I think the authors will find this out when they receive a wide scatter of answers.
Per the engine noise: I would:-
1. select carb heat
2. move mixture to full rich
3. fuel pump on, change tanks
4. mags select each in turn
5. adjust throttle
6. steer towards landing area.
flyme.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just completed the survey before reading the thread and my feeling was pretty much the same as most other posters here. I think I used my experience of flight simulator flying more than actual flying experience to guess the altitude from which everything else was based. Ground texture is the only thing you can really use for altitude when you don't have an altimeter. In fact you can use the cloud base as well once you have confirmed its height (not a good idea really).
It did raise the question though about how accurately I could guess the altitude with real imagery. At low levels it's fairly easy, but looking at video stills from 2000 feet and up (where I know the altitude), I could just as easily guess it wrong.
It did raise the question though about how accurately I could guess the altitude with real imagery. At low levels it's fairly easy, but looking at video stills from 2000 feet and up (where I know the altitude), I could just as easily guess it wrong.
Last edited by The500man; 26th Feb 2013 at 12:48.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the original intent of the survey is for VFR flight, does the person who set the questions not understand the use of the instrument scan.
We have an altimeter or two that help us judge things. Add to that our stereoscopic vision gives us perspective.
A computer-generated 2d image of dubious quality does not equate to real-world conditions and removes most of the cues we use on each and every flight.
Sorry, but I don't think there is enough information available in the survey to make meaningful judgements. But I would like to see the conclusions they offer.
We have an altimeter or two that help us judge things. Add to that our stereoscopic vision gives us perspective.
A computer-generated 2d image of dubious quality does not equate to real-world conditions and removes most of the cues we use on each and every flight.
Sorry, but I don't think there is enough information available in the survey to make meaningful judgements. But I would like to see the conclusions they offer.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Per the engine noise: I would:-
1. select carb heat
2. move mixture to full rich
3. fuel pump on, change tanks
4. mags select each in turn
5. adjust throttle
6. steer towards landing area.
flyme.
1. select carb heat
2. move mixture to full rich
3. fuel pump on, change tanks
4. mags select each in turn
5. adjust throttle
6. steer towards landing area.
flyme.
1: Brown underpants time.....
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm also with AN2 on this. I completed the survey after reading the comments and think most are getting a little bogged down with the aeroplane details. I would be very interested in the results.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Herts
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with everyone who want to read the altimeter. If I don't know my altitude, I'm not going to start guessing the cloudbase. This survey doesn't really assess one's ability to make weather-related decisions, it's about how well one can estimate altitude from a poor picture.
Last edited by rsuggitt; 26th Feb 2013 at 15:43.
@Robin:
Stereoscopic vision is useful only to about 6 metres or so. Thankfully we have other depth cues available.
I suspect I know what the study is looking into but I'm still not convinced that the results are going to be valid.
Stereoscopic vision is useful only to about 6 metres or so. Thankfully we have other depth cues available.
I suspect I know what the study is looking into but I'm still not convinced that the results are going to be valid.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, probably not enough info to make a 'real life' judgement call, but it was fun to do it anyway wasn't it?
Especially when we all expect we'll be told we'll get 100% at the end of it...
Especially when we all expect we'll be told we'll get 100% at the end of it...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Was that part of the test?
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Barbados
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quit part way through after a the second scenario - the graphics are not too clear, generally if the winds are that light (I am used to 20kts as a typical), the spread on the temp/dew point so big, the cloud that high I am happy to fly.
If it was to test decision making I would have thought a track of three hours of metars and a TAF with a "go no go" would have been a more precise way to gauge decision making.
Would be intereting to see the spread based on total hours of the participants - would it show the fabled over-confidence in the 250-350 hour range.
Using the Internet and site like this to select while maybe generating a larger number of participants will of course tend toward a self selecting sample which could/should slew results for a number of reasons which would compromise any statistical analysis.
If it was to test decision making I would have thought a track of three hours of metars and a TAF with a "go no go" would have been a more precise way to gauge decision making.
Would be intereting to see the spread based on total hours of the participants - would it show the fabled over-confidence in the 250-350 hour range.
Using the Internet and site like this to select while maybe generating a larger number of participants will of course tend toward a self selecting sample which could/should slew results for a number of reasons which would compromise any statistical analysis.