S61N Reject after CDP
Guest
Posts: n/a
wong,
What you are looking for is the Universal Book of What To Do, so that no real judgement is needed, I think. We are not there.
Back when we were writing the flight manual, I was discussing the draft S-76 emergency procedures with an FAA pilot who disagreed with one (it was the standard chip light procedure - if confirming secondary indications, get to safe single engine speed, shut down the engine, etc.)
He said that this procedure would lead a fellow who was hovering at home base to take off and get to forward flight if he saw a chip light! The "discussion" was saved when an experienced FAA ops inspector said, "If he is that dumb, he deserves to die!"
If we could write down all the possibilities in a book, we would not need trained professionals, we could wire the book to the controls and save all that pilot pay (don't worry, its coming!)
I wrote the paragraph in the front of Chapter 3 of the S-76 RFM, which I do not have handy to quote here, but it basically says that these procedures are the recommended ones, but compound emergencies and conditions might lead the pilot to do other things. I wrote that so that a chief pilot wouldn't read the book to a Captain who made it home.
If a guy took the helo around in the case we are discussing, and all was OK, he did good. If he rejected and all was OK he did good. If we are confused that multiple actions are acceptable, and that this is a ambiguous world, we must adjust.
Think of the Air Florida that hit a bridge rather than violate max EPR, or the Air Canada that ordered meals while the CB's were popping prior to a toilet fire, or the AA DC-10 that was slowed to Vy while climbing at 2000 fpm and lost control. Think of the United that flew home with no controls, and made it, mostly. Procedures are guidelines, not bibical pronouncements. Lose the ability to think and you are already having an accident, it is in the future.
Any other students of Ernest Gann out there?
What you are looking for is the Universal Book of What To Do, so that no real judgement is needed, I think. We are not there.
Back when we were writing the flight manual, I was discussing the draft S-76 emergency procedures with an FAA pilot who disagreed with one (it was the standard chip light procedure - if confirming secondary indications, get to safe single engine speed, shut down the engine, etc.)
He said that this procedure would lead a fellow who was hovering at home base to take off and get to forward flight if he saw a chip light! The "discussion" was saved when an experienced FAA ops inspector said, "If he is that dumb, he deserves to die!"
If we could write down all the possibilities in a book, we would not need trained professionals, we could wire the book to the controls and save all that pilot pay (don't worry, its coming!)
I wrote the paragraph in the front of Chapter 3 of the S-76 RFM, which I do not have handy to quote here, but it basically says that these procedures are the recommended ones, but compound emergencies and conditions might lead the pilot to do other things. I wrote that so that a chief pilot wouldn't read the book to a Captain who made it home.
If a guy took the helo around in the case we are discussing, and all was OK, he did good. If he rejected and all was OK he did good. If we are confused that multiple actions are acceptable, and that this is a ambiguous world, we must adjust.
Think of the Air Florida that hit a bridge rather than violate max EPR, or the Air Canada that ordered meals while the CB's were popping prior to a toilet fire, or the AA DC-10 that was slowed to Vy while climbing at 2000 fpm and lost control. Think of the United that flew home with no controls, and made it, mostly. Procedures are guidelines, not bibical pronouncements. Lose the ability to think and you are already having an accident, it is in the future.
Any other students of Ernest Gann out there?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
Thank you for putting ito words what most of us experienced pilots are thinking and practising. You must be speaking with some authority since you have had some inputs to the S76 flight manuals. What most of us are really worried are the "people upstairs" sitting in an air conditioned room putting judgements on us should something bad really happens. If in this case, a reject after CDP has been done and there are some damages to the machine, then the book will be thrown at the poor guy who has to take all the blame and probably loses his job! That is why I feel flight manuals should be more concise.
Thank you for putting ito words what most of us experienced pilots are thinking and practising. You must be speaking with some authority since you have had some inputs to the S76 flight manuals. What most of us are really worried are the "people upstairs" sitting in an air conditioned room putting judgements on us should something bad really happens. If in this case, a reject after CDP has been done and there are some damages to the machine, then the book will be thrown at the poor guy who has to take all the blame and probably loses his job! That is why I feel flight manuals should be more concise.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wong,
Again I find that when we seem to disagree in this forum, it is not that we disagree, it is the limitation of the medium that slows down the communication.
I fully agree that the second guessing issue is important. The seconds we are given to decide in the air palls when compared with the hours management has to consider the alternates!
Again I find that when we seem to disagree in this forum, it is not that we disagree, it is the limitation of the medium that slows down the communication.
I fully agree that the second guessing issue is important. The seconds we are given to decide in the air palls when compared with the hours management has to consider the alternates!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
Very well said...absolutely spot on! The book bangers overlook words like "suggested" or "recommended" . It must be because they find little comfort in having to conduct independent thought.
They cannot grasp the concept that the book deals with issues that are considered "normal" conditions. What is sacrosanct about a red line limit when you are riding an express elevator downwards near the ground in a micro-burst such as the Delta crew at Dallas encountered?
In the simulator I have watched more than one crew placidly sit by and fly into the ground because they refused to fly beyond the "normal" limitations...and during the critique later...they actually get hostile when it was suggested they had not done all that could have been done.Invariably the defence was that I was at max power and I would have over temped or over torqued the engines!
Never mind they crashed into the ground at 90 knots and 1000's of feet per minute rate of descent.
Yes Nick....for those poseurs who asked themselves who this Gann fellow is....maybe in the future they will expose themselves to the "Truth" and be the better for it. One cannot claim to be a pilot until he knows Gann!
Very well said...absolutely spot on! The book bangers overlook words like "suggested" or "recommended" . It must be because they find little comfort in having to conduct independent thought.
They cannot grasp the concept that the book deals with issues that are considered "normal" conditions. What is sacrosanct about a red line limit when you are riding an express elevator downwards near the ground in a micro-burst such as the Delta crew at Dallas encountered?
In the simulator I have watched more than one crew placidly sit by and fly into the ground because they refused to fly beyond the "normal" limitations...and during the critique later...they actually get hostile when it was suggested they had not done all that could have been done.Invariably the defence was that I was at max power and I would have over temped or over torqued the engines!
Never mind they crashed into the ground at 90 knots and 1000's of feet per minute rate of descent.
Yes Nick....for those poseurs who asked themselves who this Gann fellow is....maybe in the future they will expose themselves to the "Truth" and be the better for it. One cannot claim to be a pilot until he knows Gann!
