05-17-2022, 06:55 AM
Idle speculation - Situation Awareness.
FWIW - been pondering the Mt Disappointment (and other) CFIT events off and on over the last few days, trying, in my muddled way, to hunt down the radicals. There are a couple of 'stand out' items which, IMHO merit some discussion. Now, I ain't saying these are the answer to a pagans prayer, but.....
Item one: examinations for licence. There has always been 'exams' to pass - head scratching book work by the bucket full. Pass them you must - but I wonder if the modern trend is learning to 'pass' rather than 'learning' the subject as part of your toolkit. For example, radio and similar stuff; I hated the subject - did as much as needed to pass (more than 70% not required) and left the rest up to those with an interest and understanding; hence my less than optimum knowledge (pig ignorant). The thing worked until the smoke escaped or it did not - end of. However, all other subjects seemed to have great relevance; and, were worthy of additional research; handy tools to have in the bag; these were not tedious subjects. My bookcase reflects this - but I digress.
One absolute favourite was 'Met' - the dynamics and the scale of weather and the effect it will have on any flight, fascinating. (patience - I'll get there) - When we had briefing office crew, a chat with the Met man was always worth the time and the dry printed forecast became a 'living' dynamic thing. I doubt I could count the number of times where some additional gas was tanked - based not on the forecast - but on the possibility of it being needed - the Mildura incident springs to mind. There was a 99% chance that fog would be a factor - there were lots of early warning signals, time and fuel for early diversion - the trap was announced, forecast and very neatly sprung. A close call - you bet. (Question - command prerogative reduced by?)...
Today's focus seems to be on the 'legal' of weather, rather than the 'dynamics' of the weather. After 0330 Z alternate required; at 2100 rain; at 0400 cavok. Which is theoretically fine and dandy - provided someone informed the actual weather that it was expected to perform within these time lines. That is if you can actually read (translate) the forecast - or rather read between the lines of the highly coded message provided. Most seem to look to 'legally' cover their arse ahead of 'operationally' assessing the potential for Murphy to get a look in.
A study course aimed at 'pass and forget' is about as much use to a working airman as chocolate spark plugs; reading a forecast which is almost undecipherable to those who are not reading them almost every day is unacceptable; but, then we look at the latest CFIT. Take a look at the forecast for that day - a real look; look at the before picture, the potential, the development, the lapse rates, humidity and breeze; and the actual. Then read the passenger notes. Much like the Mildura 'nearly' and the half dozen other CFIT, maybe a failure to understand what the weather forecast was actually telling them and a lack of understanding of the situation they were flying into tells us part of the tale. Dead, but dead legal. Somethings wrong there.
Perhaps there are two daemons which could stand eradication. Lack of faith in the forecast; lack of understanding of the forecast. Maybe we could add in the reliance on GPS as a contributing factor. Not knocking the GPS - love it to bits - but; is it a good thing early in the navigational training? Perhaps (and just saying) that early in the piece, the pilot should be checking the GPS is right, rather than the GPS doing the heavy lifting. An awareness of terrain, track and weather affecting all should be trained to be instinctive (don't know). But, seems to me that if that 'instinct' is not nurtured and instilled at an early stage, given that we all get slack after a while - can it affect basic situational awareness, that which keeps us mostly out of harms way?
Aye: All purely idle speculation on my part; a ramble to make some sense of it all. Before the heavy duty stuff comes to mind - stuff like "Oh, I've done it a thousand times and always squeezed through" except the once. Memory of flying in PNG reminds me that there are old pilots, there are bold pilots - but very few old bold pilots. CFIT related to weather consistently remains at the top of the fatal list; despite the posturing and rhetoric of 'the' so called safety agencies. Time to reduce the body count methinks (the only rock solid thought on the subject).
Toot toot.
FWIW - been pondering the Mt Disappointment (and other) CFIT events off and on over the last few days, trying, in my muddled way, to hunt down the radicals. There are a couple of 'stand out' items which, IMHO merit some discussion. Now, I ain't saying these are the answer to a pagans prayer, but.....
Item one: examinations for licence. There has always been 'exams' to pass - head scratching book work by the bucket full. Pass them you must - but I wonder if the modern trend is learning to 'pass' rather than 'learning' the subject as part of your toolkit. For example, radio and similar stuff; I hated the subject - did as much as needed to pass (more than 70% not required) and left the rest up to those with an interest and understanding; hence my less than optimum knowledge (pig ignorant). The thing worked until the smoke escaped or it did not - end of. However, all other subjects seemed to have great relevance; and, were worthy of additional research; handy tools to have in the bag; these were not tedious subjects. My bookcase reflects this - but I digress.
One absolute favourite was 'Met' - the dynamics and the scale of weather and the effect it will have on any flight, fascinating. (patience - I'll get there) - When we had briefing office crew, a chat with the Met man was always worth the time and the dry printed forecast became a 'living' dynamic thing. I doubt I could count the number of times where some additional gas was tanked - based not on the forecast - but on the possibility of it being needed - the Mildura incident springs to mind. There was a 99% chance that fog would be a factor - there were lots of early warning signals, time and fuel for early diversion - the trap was announced, forecast and very neatly sprung. A close call - you bet. (Question - command prerogative reduced by?)...
Today's focus seems to be on the 'legal' of weather, rather than the 'dynamics' of the weather. After 0330 Z alternate required; at 2100 rain; at 0400 cavok. Which is theoretically fine and dandy - provided someone informed the actual weather that it was expected to perform within these time lines. That is if you can actually read (translate) the forecast - or rather read between the lines of the highly coded message provided. Most seem to look to 'legally' cover their arse ahead of 'operationally' assessing the potential for Murphy to get a look in.
A study course aimed at 'pass and forget' is about as much use to a working airman as chocolate spark plugs; reading a forecast which is almost undecipherable to those who are not reading them almost every day is unacceptable; but, then we look at the latest CFIT. Take a look at the forecast for that day - a real look; look at the before picture, the potential, the development, the lapse rates, humidity and breeze; and the actual. Then read the passenger notes. Much like the Mildura 'nearly' and the half dozen other CFIT, maybe a failure to understand what the weather forecast was actually telling them and a lack of understanding of the situation they were flying into tells us part of the tale. Dead, but dead legal. Somethings wrong there.
Perhaps there are two daemons which could stand eradication. Lack of faith in the forecast; lack of understanding of the forecast. Maybe we could add in the reliance on GPS as a contributing factor. Not knocking the GPS - love it to bits - but; is it a good thing early in the navigational training? Perhaps (and just saying) that early in the piece, the pilot should be checking the GPS is right, rather than the GPS doing the heavy lifting. An awareness of terrain, track and weather affecting all should be trained to be instinctive (don't know). But, seems to me that if that 'instinct' is not nurtured and instilled at an early stage, given that we all get slack after a while - can it affect basic situational awareness, that which keeps us mostly out of harms way?
Aye: All purely idle speculation on my part; a ramble to make some sense of it all. Before the heavy duty stuff comes to mind - stuff like "Oh, I've done it a thousand times and always squeezed through" except the once. Memory of flying in PNG reminds me that there are old pilots, there are bold pilots - but very few old bold pilots. CFIT related to weather consistently remains at the top of the fatal list; despite the posturing and rhetoric of 'the' so called safety agencies. Time to reduce the body count methinks (the only rock solid thought on the subject).
Toot toot.