Passenger pontification and pilot safety
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any proof for this assertion or do you just throw around ominous, clever sounding remarks as many people seem to do here?
What is it that so motivates you to engage in this polemic and why can't you let it go?
On the other thread on this matter I have just posted a reply to the kind of "expert" pilot statement that you seem to like, namely this one from post #331:
but sometimes the impossible and improbable become the possible and inevitable. Stuff happens.
You might care to re-consider what I said above, and your reply, in the light of that post. It might help you understand the difference between unsupported generalised opinion and the significance to an argument of the real, or implied, operational context in which opinions are offered.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by BBT
If you have the interest and impartiality to inquire you can find that out. It has nothing to do with the immediate issues under discussion - it is a separate matter that arose during the same flight. The fact that you would cite that out of context - in other words the safety context is relevant regardless of other issues during this flight - suggests you really don't get the point of how "safety is done". In fact you are probably even going to argue that it is not out of context.
For example:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...9/ai_n12941248
(and doesnīt that mean that "BA crew training on fuel management in non-standard situations" should have been modified PRIOR to an "incident"?)
But still even their summary was:
"That said, and with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps the BA jet could have landed at O'Hare or John F. Kennedy International and spent the time en route getting the passengers set up for onward connections"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by GGV
thePassenger, quips like that are good for rhetorical purposes but, as with your other comments in reply to my post above, they suggest that engaging with the issues may be of less interest to you than polemics. Your reply to my question is very interesting. Either you have missed the point of the question, or you don't stop to think. The latter seems consistent with your style here.
On the other thread on this matter I have just posted a reply to the kind of "expert" pilot statement that you seem to like, namely this one from post #331:I think you like such statements. Sounds good. Sounds safe. Sounds like your kind of pilot. Really good for "proving" your concerns to be well placed. My reply is at post #333 at the following link: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...21#post2542821
You might care to re-consider what I said above, and your reply, in the light of that post. It might help you understand the difference between unsupported generalised opinion and the significance to an argument of the real, or implied, operational context in which opinions are offered.
On the other thread on this matter I have just posted a reply to the kind of "expert" pilot statement that you seem to like, namely this one from post #331:I think you like such statements. Sounds good. Sounds safe. Sounds like your kind of pilot. Really good for "proving" your concerns to be well placed. My reply is at post #333 at the following link: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...21#post2542821
You might care to re-consider what I said above, and your reply, in the light of that post. It might help you understand the difference between unsupported generalised opinion and the significance to an argument of the real, or implied, operational context in which opinions are offered.
When you speak of "quantifiable in terms of risk, redundancy" you must draw a line somewhere - what is acceptable (safe) and what is not. I just think that you should move that line a LITTLE BIT more towards the "safe" - side. Unfortunately the line seems to have been moved a LITTLE BIT towards the "unsafe" - side. In the end it is an economical consideration: if using 6 engines on an aircraft were for free (in all respects) then we would see 6-engined jets...
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf95/383880_web.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just think that you should move that line a LITTLE BIT more towards the "safe" - side.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malta
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the whole matter (reg also GGV posts on this and other thread mentioned) -if the real concern is safety of two engines jets overseas and safety in general- should be switched to a "builders of such a/cs-boeing or airbus doesn't matter- forum"....they probably will reassure people like The Passenger much more than pilots themselves. They can only deal, as better as they can, with machines they didn' t built. They can be the best pilots, safety rules followers and decision makers of the world, but if they got an "unlikely" aircraft they themselves cannot give you 100% of certainty.
skunkie
skunkie
Last edited by Skunkie; 30th Apr 2006 at 00:27.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: home
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The passenger,
I am not a BA pilot, but a pilot nevertheless. I do have a certain proffessional similarity with the BA pilots that you are criticizing. I don't think you have a clou on what you are talking about.
Pilots all over the world (the only profession that I am aware of) have to undergo a number of rigourous checks, bi-annually and anually for some of the checks. With the support of our colleagues such as engineers, cabin crew, air traffic controllers, etc... we have produced the safest means of tranportaion, ever.
If you don't fly BA, that is your prerogative, but trust me the airlines you choose to fly with won't be much different than BA.
Now why don't you leave us pilots enjoying our discussions in our own pilot's language?
I am not a BA pilot, but a pilot nevertheless. I do have a certain proffessional similarity with the BA pilots that you are criticizing. I don't think you have a clou on what you are talking about.
Pilots all over the world (the only profession that I am aware of) have to undergo a number of rigourous checks, bi-annually and anually for some of the checks. With the support of our colleagues such as engineers, cabin crew, air traffic controllers, etc... we have produced the safest means of tranportaion, ever.
If you don't fly BA, that is your prerogative, but trust me the airlines you choose to fly with won't be much different than BA.
Now why don't you leave us pilots enjoying our discussions in our own pilot's language?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Passenger
Dear The Passenger
As a long-retired BA Captain, may I cordially suggest that you change your soubriquet from "The Passenger" to "A Passenger", and shut up.
I have total confidence, as do all my friends and acquaintances, in my former colleagues, especially those who are fortunate, or wise enough, to fly four-engined aeroplanes across the inhospitable regions of our wonderful planet.
Kind regards
Stoic
As a long-retired BA Captain, may I cordially suggest that you change your soubriquet from "The Passenger" to "A Passenger", and shut up.
I have total confidence, as do all my friends and acquaintances, in my former colleagues, especially those who are fortunate, or wise enough, to fly four-engined aeroplanes across the inhospitable regions of our wonderful planet.
Kind regards
Stoic
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London
Age: 37
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am only a student pilot so forgive me if you feel it inapropriate for me to comment but when you say you don't like pilots playing with your life please just remember that its our lives too. We go through vast amounts of training so that we dont put anyone at risk. Please trust me you can not half-arse the training if you dont understand then you dont qualify!
The list of accidents/incidents that you shared on your initial post reminds me of the importance of my training and i'm sure, as you said, the list could go on however i imagine the list of successful flights thanks to pilots doing their jobs is far longer.
The list of accidents/incidents that you shared on your initial post reminds me of the importance of my training and i'm sure, as you said, the list could go on however i imagine the list of successful flights thanks to pilots doing their jobs is far longer.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's about time you got some credit
In response to The Passenger I would just like to say how grateful I am to the professionalism and dedication of pilots.
The comments by this person were out of all proportion and out of order.
If the media were to cover every successful flight, not just accidents there would not be enough hours in the day to fit them all in!
This person lists about ten or so accidents or pilot errors. Well, what about the thousands upon thousands of successful flights every day?
Yes, plane crashes are always a tragedy but you have to put it in a wider context. Some 3,000 people died on British roads last year alone yet in the ENTIRE WORLD only around 1,000 people died in plane crashes. If that does not highlight air safety nothing will.
Next time I step aboard an airliner I know that I will have some of the most highly skilled and dedicated people at the flight controls. Pilots, put our safety first and I congratulate them (you) for their work.
The comments by this person were out of all proportion and out of order.
If the media were to cover every successful flight, not just accidents there would not be enough hours in the day to fit them all in!
This person lists about ten or so accidents or pilot errors. Well, what about the thousands upon thousands of successful flights every day?
Yes, plane crashes are always a tragedy but you have to put it in a wider context. Some 3,000 people died on British roads last year alone yet in the ENTIRE WORLD only around 1,000 people died in plane crashes. If that does not highlight air safety nothing will.
Next time I step aboard an airliner I know that I will have some of the most highly skilled and dedicated people at the flight controls. Pilots, put our safety first and I congratulate them (you) for their work.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by GGV
On what criterion? Why just a little bit? Why not a lot?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Pilot PW
The list of accidents/incidents that you shared on your initial post reminds me of the importance of my training and i'm sure, as you said, the list could go on however i imagine the list of successful flights thanks to pilots doing their jobs is far longer.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick question for the MODS
Why have my posts to passenger been eradicated, and indeed his replies to me. They would have been post numbers 190 or so. Normally if a post is taken off there is a reason and at least a pm is sent.
My posts was not out of order, can anyone explain.
I further reiterate my last post,
Why is it that all of The passengers posts for the last 6 pages read number of posts 52?? Is this a wind up, is he a hacker? Since i posted this question my posts have dissappeared from this thread. I will send this through to a MOD for an answer please. Something fishy going on here me thinks.
Why have my posts to passenger been eradicated, and indeed his replies to me. They would have been post numbers 190 or so. Normally if a post is taken off there is a reason and at least a pm is sent.
My posts was not out of order, can anyone explain.
I further reiterate my last post,
Why is it that all of The passengers posts for the last 6 pages read number of posts 52?? Is this a wind up, is he a hacker? Since i posted this question my posts have dissappeared from this thread. I will send this through to a MOD for an answer please. Something fishy going on here me thinks.
Moderator
Tigs2 and mckrll,
Reasons are given in the deletions but note that the posts are "hidden" in the background ... if the powers that be should so dictate, said posts can be restored.
My posts was [sic] not out of order, can anyone explain
With respect, I took a contrary view.
Basic concern is that we don't really want threads in this forum degenerating into slanging matches. While I would never want to see the forum become a stilted and staid place, it is not the appropriate avenue for fire and brimstone .. There are other places where such banter is welcome ..
As I read it thePassenger has not resorted to other than polite and pertinent posts .. you may not agree with his views (or indeed my assessment of his posts) ... and my opinion of/agreement with his posts' content is not relevant. My discussions with him off line have satisfied me that he is neither a hacker nor any other sort of nefarious character whom we ought to preclude from the site ..
Provided that
(i) the topic is relevant to flying and the forum's thrust, and
(ii) posts are polite and pertinent to the topic
then they stay. Otherwise, they may be subject to mod edit or removal at mod discretion. In my view, your recent posts (which I deleted) added little, if anything, to the topic and are in the nature of the sort of posts we would prefer not to see in this forum .. ergo deleted .. You are, of course, free to put your case to those at the top of the totem pole and we mods will abide by any direction filtering down therefrom.
So far as the number of posts is concerned, that number remains constant within a thread .. as would be evident if you checked on any other poster's stats within this thread. Like you, I found that a bit confusing when I first realised that that was the way the stats worked.
In spite of the feelings of some of the posters regarding his posts' content, while posts are within the bounds of this forum's social mores, he (and anyone else) is welcome to put his views to the readership. It is, of course, an available option for those who disagree with his thoughts to choose not to post or, indeed, not the read the thread at all. Alternatively, if you disagree, the preferred option is to put a rational argument against the views .. but not rant and cant.
Sorry, buddy, but that's the way this site works .. and it is NOT a democracy .. although we err that way in this forum ... JT
Reasons are given in the deletions but note that the posts are "hidden" in the background ... if the powers that be should so dictate, said posts can be restored.
My posts was [sic] not out of order, can anyone explain
With respect, I took a contrary view.
Basic concern is that we don't really want threads in this forum degenerating into slanging matches. While I would never want to see the forum become a stilted and staid place, it is not the appropriate avenue for fire and brimstone .. There are other places where such banter is welcome ..
As I read it thePassenger has not resorted to other than polite and pertinent posts .. you may not agree with his views (or indeed my assessment of his posts) ... and my opinion of/agreement with his posts' content is not relevant. My discussions with him off line have satisfied me that he is neither a hacker nor any other sort of nefarious character whom we ought to preclude from the site ..
Provided that
(i) the topic is relevant to flying and the forum's thrust, and
(ii) posts are polite and pertinent to the topic
then they stay. Otherwise, they may be subject to mod edit or removal at mod discretion. In my view, your recent posts (which I deleted) added little, if anything, to the topic and are in the nature of the sort of posts we would prefer not to see in this forum .. ergo deleted .. You are, of course, free to put your case to those at the top of the totem pole and we mods will abide by any direction filtering down therefrom.
So far as the number of posts is concerned, that number remains constant within a thread .. as would be evident if you checked on any other poster's stats within this thread. Like you, I found that a bit confusing when I first realised that that was the way the stats worked.
In spite of the feelings of some of the posters regarding his posts' content, while posts are within the bounds of this forum's social mores, he (and anyone else) is welcome to put his views to the readership. It is, of course, an available option for those who disagree with his thoughts to choose not to post or, indeed, not the read the thread at all. Alternatively, if you disagree, the preferred option is to put a rational argument against the views .. but not rant and cant.
Sorry, buddy, but that's the way this site works .. and it is NOT a democracy .. although we err that way in this forum ... JT
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever John
I am afraid that Passengers original post :
As far as i am concerned this post is neither polite nor pertinent to this forum. If your criteria for 'polite' is that someone does not use expletives then that is fine, however i find this post, coming from someone who self confesses to know nothing of the aviation industry, both sweepingly judgemental and rude. If you also consider that it is pertinent for someone with no knowledge of aviation accidents or CRM/Human Factors to state that in the incidents he mentions that pilots did 'crazy things' then i throw the towel in. This person has come onto a pilots forum with sweeping statements about an industry he knows nothing about, and judging all and sundry on 'backseat knowledge'. If you consider that fair John then that is fine, however i consider it fair that he should be aware of the anger he has induced in many many professional aviators. Frankly, considering the purpose of this entire site, i am a little dissappointed.
I am afraid that Passengers original post :
Originally Posted by the passenger
As a passenger, I had to register on this forum because I know understand why so many people have a fear of flying and prefer to take trains or drive cars. Some of the real world pilots here have such a condescending, impertinent way of speaking and such an over-self-confidence that I would not like to have them as pilots on a flight I am on. I simply would not trust them to be safe pilots and I would not like to be a passenger on a British Airways flight ever again, thatī s for sure!
If this BA flight had to declare an emergency, this alone proves that safety was compromised by continuing the flight and I only would have hoped that BA would have been fined a much larger sum!
If pilots are such heroes and have no problems with "unusual situations" why do they switch off the wrong engine (British Midland, 1989), begin a takeoff without having the permission to do it (KLM, Tenerife, 1977), stall airplanes (Birgenair, 1996/ Northwest Orient, 1974/BEA, 1972), fly until they run out of fuel (Avianca, 1990/Antillian Airlines, 1970), land with retracted landing gear(Contintental Airlines, 1996), forget to configure flaps for departure (Northwest Airlines, 1987), land at the wrong airport or do other crazy things. The list is endless. Often an accident is initiated by a seemingly irrelevant incident.
In short: a little bit more caution and modesty would be much appreciated by the poor passengers. I donīt like pilots to play with MY life! I like cautious pilots who would rather return to the depature airport than try to save their company some money!
If this BA flight had to declare an emergency, this alone proves that safety was compromised by continuing the flight and I only would have hoped that BA would have been fined a much larger sum!
If pilots are such heroes and have no problems with "unusual situations" why do they switch off the wrong engine (British Midland, 1989), begin a takeoff without having the permission to do it (KLM, Tenerife, 1977), stall airplanes (Birgenair, 1996/ Northwest Orient, 1974/BEA, 1972), fly until they run out of fuel (Avianca, 1990/Antillian Airlines, 1970), land with retracted landing gear(Contintental Airlines, 1996), forget to configure flaps for departure (Northwest Airlines, 1987), land at the wrong airport or do other crazy things. The list is endless. Often an accident is initiated by a seemingly irrelevant incident.
In short: a little bit more caution and modesty would be much appreciated by the poor passengers. I donīt like pilots to play with MY life! I like cautious pilots who would rather return to the depature airport than try to save their company some money!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Devon
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As another "passenger" forgive me for posting on this thread but please professional avaitors do not tar all SLF with the same brush !
Some of us do respect your skills and attitudes and would not dream of "lecturing" about something which we only see from the outside.
Some of us do respect your skills and attitudes and would not dream of "lecturing" about something which we only see from the outside.
Moderator
Tigs2,
Your view is respected but we must continue to disagree.
Had you read the entire thread you would be aware that part of thePassenger's agenda has been to provoke a stimulated discussion on the subject which is his interest. Note I am not suggesting whether or not I agree with his theses, merely that his posts have not been out of order and, indeed, have provoked considerable discussion.
His thoughts are not as Industry folk might think but is that a failing or merely a reflection of a different personal background ? In any case, is it not a sad reflection on those posters who claim an inside knowledge of how things work in the Industry if they are not able to refute other (and perceived erroneous) views in a rational and logical manner .. without resorting to rant and cant ?
I suggest that your views may be a tad insular ..
By polite, I mean only that a post is acceptable in terms of
(a) those matters which figure in discrimination considerations
(b) no overt sarcasm, general anti-social commentary, etc.
.. that is to say posts are expected to adhere to a presumed standard which would not cause any of our grey-haired grandmothers to think undue ill of us .. certainly polite does not mean a post cannot contain thoughts which will stir up a vigorous discussion.
By pertinent, I mean only that the
(a) subject material is relevant to the forum, ie safety, CRM, or QA
(b) post contains no overtly time-wasting digression, repetition, or drivel.
As always, with these forums, I invite you to put your dissatisfaction to those further up the food chain for review .. after all, like you, I am but a guest here.
Your view is respected but we must continue to disagree.
Had you read the entire thread you would be aware that part of thePassenger's agenda has been to provoke a stimulated discussion on the subject which is his interest. Note I am not suggesting whether or not I agree with his theses, merely that his posts have not been out of order and, indeed, have provoked considerable discussion.
His thoughts are not as Industry folk might think but is that a failing or merely a reflection of a different personal background ? In any case, is it not a sad reflection on those posters who claim an inside knowledge of how things work in the Industry if they are not able to refute other (and perceived erroneous) views in a rational and logical manner .. without resorting to rant and cant ?
I suggest that your views may be a tad insular ..
By polite, I mean only that a post is acceptable in terms of
(a) those matters which figure in discrimination considerations
(b) no overt sarcasm, general anti-social commentary, etc.
.. that is to say posts are expected to adhere to a presumed standard which would not cause any of our grey-haired grandmothers to think undue ill of us .. certainly polite does not mean a post cannot contain thoughts which will stir up a vigorous discussion.
By pertinent, I mean only that the
(a) subject material is relevant to the forum, ie safety, CRM, or QA
(b) post contains no overtly time-wasting digression, repetition, or drivel.
As always, with these forums, I invite you to put your dissatisfaction to those further up the food chain for review .. after all, like you, I am but a guest here.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: EU
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A different Attitude
We often hear about the muppets, wind-up merchants and suchlike laying waste to our PPrune site, but The Passenger has seemingly genuine queries and worries that he wants to articulate and find some answers to. Since he is a fare-paying passenger and entitled to his opinion, whether one likes it or not, we should be trying to allay his fears about the industry with reasoned argument.
We may not like him criticising but surely (as Mr Tullamarine has intimated) he should be answered politely, professionally and not with a pompous attitude that is, sadly, often too prevalent on these threads from people old, experienced and educated enough to know better.
We may not like him criticising but surely (as Mr Tullamarine has intimated) he should be answered politely, professionally and not with a pompous attitude that is, sadly, often too prevalent on these threads from people old, experienced and educated enough to know better.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Elysion
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I was saying.....
(Cue Irving Berlin) Anything you can do, I can do better...........
Is that the point, is there a point? Absolutes there are not, pontiffs there are plenty, even. So it goes, by means of the master pontiff, and companion. As was said, known, to be sure. The contrarian roaming free. Hand in hand, beautiful, is it, not.
Cramped those Canadairs are too, no?
(Cue Irving Berlin) Anything you can do, I can do better...........
Is that the point, is there a point? Absolutes there are not, pontiffs there are plenty, even. So it goes, by means of the master pontiff, and companion. As was said, known, to be sure. The contrarian roaming free. Hand in hand, beautiful, is it, not.
Cramped those Canadairs are too, no?