Passenger pontification and pilot safety
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by despegue
Dear The Passenger,
As an airline pilot, I personally appreciate that you value yours and others safety as a priority when flying. This is a very good thing, and nomatter what other contributers have said, most of which is valid and true I must add, I value that.
As an airline pilot, I personally appreciate that you value yours and others safety as a priority when flying. This is a very good thing, and nomatter what other contributers have said, most of which is valid and true I must add, I value that.
"Safety is a CONDITION of a relative absence of danger".
In my professional view as a Safety expert (in former life as Maritime officer) and current Boeing pilot, The condition was not compromised as there were still enough redundant systems. The condition was still so that there was no high chance of risk. So, in the beginning of the flight, and for most of the flight it seems, there was an absence of danger. The danger only came when fuel levels became too low for a safe landing at the planned airport.
Hence, the condition changed, as the relative absence of a danger changed into a relative RISK that a dangerous situation could occur should the pilots continue to the planned destination.
In my professional view as a Safety expert (in former life as Maritime officer) and current Boeing pilot, The condition was not compromised as there were still enough redundant systems. The condition was still so that there was no high chance of risk. So, in the beginning of the flight, and for most of the flight it seems, there was an absence of danger. The danger only came when fuel levels became too low for a safe landing at the planned airport.
Hence, the condition changed, as the relative absence of a danger changed into a relative RISK that a dangerous situation could occur should the pilots continue to the planned destination.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Sky Wave
But would you do it on an A330, B767 or B777?
(Of course you can always reply "but it is still much safer than driving a car". This will certainly also be true for the 747-3 engines-crossing...I guess). But this is not the point of my post. The point is, you should resist beginning to compromise safety. Twin jets crossing the atlantic for me is a (small) move in this direction, too (and I know that the statistics donīt show that...at the moment).
Donīt forget that the Concorde was one of the safest airplanes (statistically speaking) BEFORE the accident. AFTER this one accident it was by far the most "dangerous" airliner. Thats statistics...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by NigelOnDraft
'Passenger' Please could you expand on your logic here?
And please could you expand on what you understand by "declare an emergency"? Do you know/understand the ICAO definitions of "Pan" and "Mayday"?
Finally, what decision, and at what point, do you think the crew should have made?
TIA
NoD
And please could you expand on what you understand by "declare an emergency"? Do you know/understand the ICAO definitions of "Pan" and "Mayday"?
Finally, what decision, and at what point, do you think the crew should have made?
TIA
NoD
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/30/news/fly.php
As they lost one engine immediately after take off - why not return to the departure airport?
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As they lost one engine immediately after take off - why not return to the departure airport?
Passenger person, please go and research the facts of this incident elsewhere on the forum. Then go and get an ATPL. Then get type-rated on the 747-400. Then come back on here and continue to give us your opinions. I'm not going to hold my breath...
Moderator
Amazing how a thread can go off the rails in only a few hours from the initial post ... and, invariably, when I am tucked up in bed and not keeping an eye on things ..
The discussion has the potential to be of value if we, as practitioners, maintain a rational environment ... the Passenger, in respect of his/her anxieties, is the tip of the iceberg in that many customers have an intrinsic (if often irrational) fear of flying ...
Points to note ..
(a) the views held by passengers (who are not expert) may vary enormously but are pertinent as they (the passengers) pay a significant part of the bill for running the aircraft which our flying folk operate. It is not unreasonable that we consider those concerns. This present thread is not much different in philosophy to the situation arising for any non-expert person dealing with matters which are conducive to anxiety ... how many of us (having little expertise in surgical practices) are really comfortable in hospital as the mask comes down over the face .. ? Same story, different scenario ...
(b) none of us has all the answers.
(c) if any poster (passenger or crew) puts a view which is considered to be "wrong" then, by all means, speak to the topic .. but keep in mind that, in this forum, we play the ball ... not the player.
(d) for the Passenger, neither the Industry nor the practitioners are faultless and this is equally valid in any area of human endeavour. However, the demonstrable risk is very low. With regard to your first post, competent published statistics make it clear that, generally (while acknowledging that one can tweak the numbers to support this case or that), one is at lower risk in the average airliner than the average car .. I, for one, am far more nervous on the road than in the air ...
(e) considering the mistakes made by an airline, crewmember ... whoever ... the frequency of a consequential incident is quite low (if you like, the incidence of detecting and correcting errors is high .. this is the underlying principle of the QA systems within which we operate) and the frequency of a resulting accident is extremely low. Overall, the risk level of airline flying for the customer is way down there in the weeds, regardless of whatever prejudice any individual customer may exhibit.
More importantly, this Industry directs a lot of effort toward learning from mistakes to reduce the incidence of similar mistakes in future ...
It is just unfortunate that some Industries (nuclear and aviation, in particular) attract an intrinsically high anxiety level in the general public ....
(f) it has been observed that the pilots are "the first to arrive at the scene of the crash" .. therefore it is quite reasonable to presume that the piloting fraternity has a very earnest and real vested interest in keeping the risks down and safety up ...
(g) in respect of fines .. it is likely that the Passenger is unaware of how the FAA often does business. Further, anyone who gives undue and uncritical credence to that which is reported in the popular press is likely to be mislead to a greater or lesser extent..
(h) the Passenger or anyone else, for that matter, is perfectly entitled to choose with which carrier he/she will/won't fly .. there ought to be no concern with such a view ... surely ?
The upshot is that, if the tone of this thread doesn't improve rapidly, I will either padlock it or move it to a forum where this sort of undisciplined banter is more appropriate.
The discussion has the potential to be of value if we, as practitioners, maintain a rational environment ... the Passenger, in respect of his/her anxieties, is the tip of the iceberg in that many customers have an intrinsic (if often irrational) fear of flying ...
Points to note ..
(a) the views held by passengers (who are not expert) may vary enormously but are pertinent as they (the passengers) pay a significant part of the bill for running the aircraft which our flying folk operate. It is not unreasonable that we consider those concerns. This present thread is not much different in philosophy to the situation arising for any non-expert person dealing with matters which are conducive to anxiety ... how many of us (having little expertise in surgical practices) are really comfortable in hospital as the mask comes down over the face .. ? Same story, different scenario ...
(b) none of us has all the answers.
(c) if any poster (passenger or crew) puts a view which is considered to be "wrong" then, by all means, speak to the topic .. but keep in mind that, in this forum, we play the ball ... not the player.
(d) for the Passenger, neither the Industry nor the practitioners are faultless and this is equally valid in any area of human endeavour. However, the demonstrable risk is very low. With regard to your first post, competent published statistics make it clear that, generally (while acknowledging that one can tweak the numbers to support this case or that), one is at lower risk in the average airliner than the average car .. I, for one, am far more nervous on the road than in the air ...
(e) considering the mistakes made by an airline, crewmember ... whoever ... the frequency of a consequential incident is quite low (if you like, the incidence of detecting and correcting errors is high .. this is the underlying principle of the QA systems within which we operate) and the frequency of a resulting accident is extremely low. Overall, the risk level of airline flying for the customer is way down there in the weeds, regardless of whatever prejudice any individual customer may exhibit.
More importantly, this Industry directs a lot of effort toward learning from mistakes to reduce the incidence of similar mistakes in future ...
It is just unfortunate that some Industries (nuclear and aviation, in particular) attract an intrinsically high anxiety level in the general public ....
(f) it has been observed that the pilots are "the first to arrive at the scene of the crash" .. therefore it is quite reasonable to presume that the piloting fraternity has a very earnest and real vested interest in keeping the risks down and safety up ...
(g) in respect of fines .. it is likely that the Passenger is unaware of how the FAA often does business. Further, anyone who gives undue and uncritical credence to that which is reported in the popular press is likely to be mislead to a greater or lesser extent..
(h) the Passenger or anyone else, for that matter, is perfectly entitled to choose with which carrier he/she will/won't fly .. there ought to be no concern with such a view ... surely ?
The upshot is that, if the tone of this thread doesn't improve rapidly, I will either padlock it or move it to a forum where this sort of undisciplined banter is more appropriate.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passenger,
Yes, unquestionably the KLM skipper in Tenerife erred in interpreting the route clearance as takeoff clearance but that's very different from deliberately taking off without permission from ATC.
No, the tower staff were not watching a football match. The critical factors in this tragedy were spelled out in the official accident report, of which I have a copy. I find myself pulling it from my files at least once a year to try and correct someone or other's misimpression.
Rockhound
Yes, unquestionably the KLM skipper in Tenerife erred in interpreting the route clearance as takeoff clearance but that's very different from deliberately taking off without permission from ATC.
No, the tower staff were not watching a football match. The critical factors in this tragedy were spelled out in the official accident report, of which I have a copy. I find myself pulling it from my files at least once a year to try and correct someone or other's misimpression.
Rockhound
The Passenger,
Non-airline pilot (also) here. Have worked as a controller for a few years. Have flown many times.
Things you might like to consider....
-If professional aircrew come across as impatient with non-expert opinions, it is often because some of those opinions are gestated from media reports, and, aviation, (particularly the regulatory side, which we spend a career learning) is complex, and the media spectacularly get it wrong, so often, again and again. (This can be true of less complex subjects too, of course. After all, the media's job these days is to give us what we want.As much drama and controversy as poss.)
-The flight crew are usually the first to arrive at the accident scene.
-The huge majority of flight crew do not want to die prematurely.
-Of those that do, the huge majority do not elect to take a load of pax with them.
I get to interact with quite a few flight crews day to day. Hardly ever have I encountered an attitude suggestive of non-professional approach. In fact, I can't remember even one.
Non-airline pilot (also) here. Have worked as a controller for a few years. Have flown many times.
Things you might like to consider....
-If professional aircrew come across as impatient with non-expert opinions, it is often because some of those opinions are gestated from media reports, and, aviation, (particularly the regulatory side, which we spend a career learning) is complex, and the media spectacularly get it wrong, so often, again and again. (This can be true of less complex subjects too, of course. After all, the media's job these days is to give us what we want.As much drama and controversy as poss.)
-The flight crew are usually the first to arrive at the accident scene.
-The huge majority of flight crew do not want to die prematurely.
-Of those that do, the huge majority do not elect to take a load of pax with them.
I get to interact with quite a few flight crews day to day. Hardly ever have I encountered an attitude suggestive of non-professional approach. In fact, I can't remember even one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
the passenger
I donīt think flying is unsafe but I hate tendencies to decrease the safety margins, even if it is only by a very small amount.
Have you considered the impact on safety margins of an airborne return?
Flying such a long route over water
If you read the comments by the professionals on the forum, the LAX-LHR is not a long over water route.
I have flown 100km over water in a single engined aeroplane (when I was younger) - that makes me nervous when I think of it now, but the 3 engined 747 does not in this incident, remember that it is certified for NORMAL operations on three engines, due to the high levels of redundant systems.
I donīt think flying is unsafe but I hate tendencies to decrease the safety margins, even if it is only by a very small amount.
Have you considered the impact on safety margins of an airborne return?
Flying such a long route over water
If you read the comments by the professionals on the forum, the LAX-LHR is not a long over water route.
I have flown 100km over water in a single engined aeroplane (when I was younger) - that makes me nervous when I think of it now, but the 3 engined 747 does not in this incident, remember that it is certified for NORMAL operations on three engines, due to the high levels of redundant systems.
The Passenger might benefit from a class for nervous flyers-if so, it is nothing to be ashamed of. These classes can enlighten and inform (our media often does a terrible job, well aware of its distortions and misrepresentations-they take a situation with a burned-out gear green light and finish by saying.."There were no fatalities!..." It is very rare to have injuries with these.).
A few months ago in a Michigan airport, I met an off-duty policeman who was taking his first flight in at least twelve years: he had been driving each year to Florida! After stating that we have procedures for everything and also use our experience, my suggestion was to go to the next gate and ask 'his' Airbus flightcrew a few questions. The guy also admitted to me that he needed to be in control. I told him that I might be uncomfortable in his uniform with the low life all over the city's streets.
If we are very concerned, or have phobias about medicine, we could all sit for hours in Borders, or Barnes & Noble bookstores, read the Merck's Manual on diseases (my mother-in-law has a copy...) and books about pharmaceuticals and then go on a doctor's or nurses' website and be able to instantly steer these highly-trained professionals in a new direction, possibly evaluate the success of certain surgical procedures.
No sweat-we all take part in the medical profession as we undergo various treatments, thereby allowing us all to judge, second-guess the decisions and the effectiveness.
Being unconscious during surgery, or in a passenger seat (dreaming of the Microsoft computer game [it has changing weather, winds, odd, mysterious systems indications and many partially blocked radio calls after five hours sleep next door to self-centered yokels who always let their hotel door slam?]) is no obstacle.
The bumpkins in the back of the plane who assume that a flight is safe only because they have intermittent light turbulence and feel a soft landing will always be bumpkins because they never even attempt to stop by a c0ckp1t to ask questions, or ask us in the 'food court', and never take the initiative to begin to learn how to put a few things in their proper context.
Years ago, a flight attendant told me that her plane had suffered a partial loss of cabin pressure. The masks dropped down when the cabin altitude reached 14,000', but very little oxygen flow comes through the mask (and now the area near oxygen generators can smell like scorched cotton). An Air Force flightcrew who had been onboard, knowing nothing about FAA requrements, tried to create a problem at the arrival gate, because so little air came from the masks. Although proficient flying large 4-engine KC-135s or such, their ignorance led some of them to jump to conclusions. Airline aviation and its regulations are so different from anything else.
How often do the media consult actual pilot spokesman after an incident? Rarely are their so-called 'experts' trained and experienced on aircraft similar to those involved. Some have only a bit of experience in a very small (six-seat) Cessna 402 and are aviation professors (academia), but presume to judge and evaluate an event-not having access to more than a tiny bit of info-which took place in a CRJ, B-737, A-319 or a DC-10.
J. Tullamarine-I just read your excellent comments after mine were posted, and you beat me to those main points.
The media collects certain statistics on accidents involving pilots in their own, or rented, small, even experimental aircraft. There have been articles lumping general aviation incidents and airline incidents together, in the same categories, especially those involving those under the influence of something prohibited. Is any light finally illuminating a dark cave? The Dark Ages still exist.
A few months ago in a Michigan airport, I met an off-duty policeman who was taking his first flight in at least twelve years: he had been driving each year to Florida! After stating that we have procedures for everything and also use our experience, my suggestion was to go to the next gate and ask 'his' Airbus flightcrew a few questions. The guy also admitted to me that he needed to be in control. I told him that I might be uncomfortable in his uniform with the low life all over the city's streets.
If we are very concerned, or have phobias about medicine, we could all sit for hours in Borders, or Barnes & Noble bookstores, read the Merck's Manual on diseases (my mother-in-law has a copy...) and books about pharmaceuticals and then go on a doctor's or nurses' website and be able to instantly steer these highly-trained professionals in a new direction, possibly evaluate the success of certain surgical procedures.
No sweat-we all take part in the medical profession as we undergo various treatments, thereby allowing us all to judge, second-guess the decisions and the effectiveness.
Being unconscious during surgery, or in a passenger seat (dreaming of the Microsoft computer game [it has changing weather, winds, odd, mysterious systems indications and many partially blocked radio calls after five hours sleep next door to self-centered yokels who always let their hotel door slam?]) is no obstacle.The bumpkins in the back of the plane who assume that a flight is safe only because they have intermittent light turbulence and feel a soft landing will always be bumpkins because they never even attempt to stop by a c0ckp1t to ask questions, or ask us in the 'food court', and never take the initiative to begin to learn how to put a few things in their proper context.
Years ago, a flight attendant told me that her plane had suffered a partial loss of cabin pressure. The masks dropped down when the cabin altitude reached 14,000', but very little oxygen flow comes through the mask (and now the area near oxygen generators can smell like scorched cotton). An Air Force flightcrew who had been onboard, knowing nothing about FAA requrements, tried to create a problem at the arrival gate, because so little air came from the masks. Although proficient flying large 4-engine KC-135s or such, their ignorance led some of them to jump to conclusions. Airline aviation and its regulations are so different from anything else.
How often do the media consult actual pilot spokesman after an incident? Rarely are their so-called 'experts' trained and experienced on aircraft similar to those involved. Some have only a bit of experience in a very small (six-seat) Cessna 402 and are aviation professors (academia), but presume to judge and evaluate an event-not having access to more than a tiny bit of info-which took place in a CRJ, B-737, A-319 or a DC-10.
J. Tullamarine-I just read your excellent comments after mine were posted, and you beat me to those main points.
The media collects certain statistics on accidents involving pilots in their own, or rented, small, even experimental aircraft. There have been articles lumping general aviation incidents and airline incidents together, in the same categories, especially those involving those under the influence of something prohibited. Is any light finally illuminating a dark cave? The Dark Ages still exist.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 6th Apr 2006 at 06:51.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by overstress
Passenger person, please go and research the facts of this incident elsewhere on the forum. Then go and get an ATPL. Then get type-rated on the 747-400. Then come back on here and continue to give us your opinions. I'm not going to hold my breath...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Rockhound
Passenger,
Yes, unquestionably the KLM skipper in Tenerife erred in interpreting the route clearance as takeoff clearance but that's very different from deliberately taking off without permission from ATC.
Yes, unquestionably the KLM skipper in Tenerife erred in interpreting the route clearance as takeoff clearance but that's very different from deliberately taking off without permission from ATC.
No, the tower staff were not watching a football match. The critical factors in this tragedy were spelled out in the official accident report, of which I have a copy. I find myself pulling it from my files at least once a year to try and correct someone or other's misimpression.
Rockhound
Rockhound
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thePassenger.
In your view, as an expert in aviation. I need to ask you a question.
Q: On a 4 engined aeroplane. When one engine fails. Must the pilot land at the nearest airport?
L337
In your view, as an expert in aviation. I need to ask you a question.
Q: On a 4 engined aeroplane. When one engine fails. Must the pilot land at the nearest airport?
L337
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Ignition Override
These classes can enlighten and inform (our media often does a terrible job, well aware of its distortions and misrepresentations-they take a situation with a burned-out gear green light and finish by saying.."There were no fatalities!..." It is very rare to have injuries with these.).
(Eastern Airlines, 1972, Everglades).
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by thePassenger
I can´t remember the details and have no way to look them up at the moment - but weren´t there some rumours that they watched a soccer-game in the tower?
The sad fact about that accident it that it was the ultimate "Swiss-cheese"-type incident. *If* Los Rodeos was equipped properly for 747 operations, *if* they had more than one radio channel, *if* Van Zanten had decided to refuel at Las Palmasin instead, *if* he had parked his aircraft 12 feet to the left of where it was, *if* the PanAm crew had attempted the acute turn on to the third taxiway exit and finally *if* the Canary Island separatists had not bombed Las Palmas airport in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As for the other incidents, if you have an engine fire in flight, you shut the thing down. All the BM crew did was follow their training - the fact that the training was no longer relevent on the new aircraft was not their fault.
There are only 2 cockpit crew on a 757 - it was nearly midnight and the only reference they had was their instruments. If (as was the case) their instruments were giving erroneous readings then it's very easy to get the aircraft into an unrecoverable attitude, no matter how good you are.
The Staines incident led to a near-revolution in safety procedures, including mandatory CVRs and the advent of CRM. To pull that up as relevent to today's safety culture is erroneous to say the very least.
[EDIT : A lot of lessons were learned in the early '70s - a lot of systems design was re-evaluated in the light of Eastern 401 too. (In that case, the autopilot could show as engaged on one side of the cockpit when in fact the opposite column had disengaged it, and the audible warning for "leaving assigned altitude" was too quiet)]
Referring back to the original topic, the 744 has buckets of power in reserve compared to the 747 Classic even before you start comparing to ETOPS. The IHT was just engaging in a bit of old-fashioned muckracking and US exceptionalism.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by L337
thePassenger.
In your view, as an expert in aviation. I need to ask you a question.
Q: On a 4 engined aeroplane. When one engine fails. Must the pilot land at the nearest airport?
L337
In your view, as an expert in aviation. I need to ask you a question.
Q: On a 4 engined aeroplane. When one engine fails. Must the pilot land at the nearest airport?
L337
- Iīm not an expert, Iīm a passenger (you didnīt read my posts, did you?)
- I guess the answer to your question is: no
- but this was never the point of my posts. The point was: I really donīt like to be on an airplane which suffers an engine-failure shortly after take-off and the pilots choose to continue a rather long flight. The feeling would be different if this had happened somewhere along the route (even if returning to the departure airport would still have been nearer than continuing with the flight).
Itīs strange for an airline like BA to do such a thing: it just doesnīt look right (= giving utmost priority to safety considerations) and certainly it does not FEEL right (for the passengers). I would rather have thought that this is something (maybe) an African airline would have done...but obviously this is just some kind of prejudice!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
There are only 2 cockpit crew on a 757 - it was nearly midnight and the only reference they had was their instruments. If (as was the case) their instruments were giving erroneous readings then it's very easy to get the aircraft into an unrecoverable attitude, no matter how good you are.
Captain Ahmet Erdem, first officer Ayvkut Gergin and relief pilot Muhlis Evrenesoglu :
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...a/bericht.html
Probable cause was the inability of the flight-crew to recognize the activation of the stick-shaker as a direct warning of an imminent stall.
The flight-crew´s insufficient knowledge of aircraft-systems, autopilot etc.
They already noticed during take-off that they had a problem with the airspeed-indicators:
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...birgenair.html
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't matter, only 2 were in control and only 2 could see the instruments. Outside was pitch black. They noticed one of the altimeters was misreading (in the case of a single failed altimeter, the book says you can continue with caution), but they didn't pick up that the airspeed indications were erroneous (they weren't significantly out until the aircraft was at altitude).
In that situation (pithc black outside, remember) you have a reading that says you're going too fast, so you slow down. They were not trained to spot the signs of covered pitot tubes (since added to all 757 training) and so followed their instruments. To attempt to blame them for the accident is a tad harsh. to say the least.
In that situation (pithc black outside, remember) you have a reading that says you're going too fast, so you slow down. They were not trained to spot the signs of covered pitot tubes (since added to all 757 training) and so followed their instruments. To attempt to blame them for the accident is a tad harsh. to say the least.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 6th Apr 2006 at 11:17.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
Doesn't matter, only 2 were in control and only 2 could see the instruments. Outside was pitch black. They noticed one of the altimeters was misreading (in the case of a single failed altimeter, the book says you can continue with caution), but they didn't pick up that the airspeed indications were erroneous (they weren't significantly out until the aircraft was at altitude).
In that situation (pithc black outside, remember) you have a reading that says you're going too fast, so you slow down. They were not trained to spot the signs of covered pitot tubes (since added to all 757 training) and so followed their instruments. To attempt to blame them for the accident is a tad harsh. to say the least.
J.
In that situation (pithc black outside, remember) you have a reading that says you're going too fast, so you slow down. They were not trained to spot the signs of covered pitot tubes (since added to all 757 training) and so followed their instruments. To attempt to blame them for the accident is a tad harsh. to say the least.
J.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by thePassenger
O.K. I take note of your opinion (Iīm not even saying that you are wrong), however the official accident report came to another result and I remember well the interview I read with a Lufthansa-pilot, who blamed the Birgen air-pilots, too, because they should have known that getting an overspeed-warning at such a high rate of climb was impossible.
The point is that if you're reliant on instruments and those instruments are giving conflicting readings, you're going to hve a hell of a time trying to put that aircraft safely back on the ground no matter how good you are.