What planet are you from Avbug? The NTSB reports are full of accidents that have probable causes that are not the pilot. Go peddle your "Holier than thou" trash somewhere else. Better yet, put on "The High and Mighty" - it is right up your alley.
I firmly maintain that the pilot in command is ultimately responsible and the final authority for the safe outcome of the flight, bar nothing...and you see this as holier than thou? By what possible twisted perversion of logic might one arrive at such a conclusion, barring mental defect on your part?
This planet, thanks, and I've never seen the high and the mighty, nor read the book.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the regulation. It reads:
Part 91 – General Operating and Flight Rules
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
Now, you don't seem too observant, but you might have noticed that it doesn't say "
The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft unless there's a thunderstorm in the area," or "
The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft unless the pilot has knowingly accepted a flight in an aircraft that's too difficult for him." Go figure. Why do you suppose the regulation doesn't say that?
The regulation states as much. Any operations manual reiterates this in spades. But if I restate it, stipulating that the pilot takes responsibility, which is not my opinion but truth, it's somehow holier than thou. Your logic is truly mindshattering, kiddo.
Too bad you guys have to live under this stupid burden that your fallen loved ones are only worthy of your honor and respect if they lived and flew error free. Nobody does that.
This is exactly true. As stated before, remember them for how they lived, now how they died. The most any of can hope to have said of us is that we died doing our best. It's all anyone can ask.
And how the hell can you accept responsibility for a thunderstorm? Unless your name is Storm and you're a memeber of the X-Men? Stop talking crap. Thunderstorm=not man-made=uncontrollable. Basic meteorology.
Oueee, that's one's a toughie. Lesee, how does one accept responsibility for thunderstorm avoidance? How about by flying around them, or refusing to fly when they pose a threat? You're not a pilot, are you? How can a pilot take responsibility for dealing with weather, and the outcome of flying through it? Because it's the pilot's job, and any pilot who isn't prepared for that is in no wise competent to perform his job. Period. It's a basic component of any flight training program at the most elementary level, not to mention any flying job...dealing with weather. Fly into weather, you have yourself to blame. Period. Nothing holier than thou about that, and one doesn't need to be a cartoon character to understand and apply basic meteorological judgement.
Avbug here is an example. S*** happens. Pilot handled it, but still ended up in the weeds with a lot of damage. Just luck no one died. It was not his fault! THE AIRPLANE FAILED. POOR DESIGN.
Doesn't change the fact that the pilot is still responsible. Do you land on impossibly short iced fields in the hopes that the brakes and t/r's work, or do you plan ahead and leave yourself an out? Who forced that pilot to land on a contaminated runway, and had he planned on having adequate performance available if he didn't have reverse thrust? Evidently not. Am I saying he's to blame? No, and I don't care. But if he or anyone else points the finger at the airplane, instead of taking some personal responsibility, they are mistaken. Certainly the NTSB noted the failed part, and certainly it was addressed by "mandatory" service bulletins...but the fact remains that the manufacturer didn't land the airplane there. The pilot did.
Pilots blame things on poor maintenance...but few pilots seem to appreciate that a mechanic can't return an aircraft to service. Only a pilot can. A mechanic can approve it for return to service, but only the pilot returns it to service by flying it. Pilot responsibility, final responsibility. Always. Not opinion. Not holier than though. Not the statements of the god of this forum. Merely the truth.
A poor carpenter blames his tools. The tools may break, but it's the carpenter who takes responsibility, always, for his work, and who is responsible for getting the job done weather the tool breaks or not. You're probably not familiar with the title of an older excellent publication, "Fly the biggest piece home." This comes from an era when people knew that life happens, and one deals with it. A lesson apparently not carried over today, judging from the myopic responses to this thread.
As for my responses being out of touch with this forum, or the woefully idiotic assertions that I have made myself the god of flightinfo...those are your words folks, not mine. I offer statements which are truth, regulation, and the standard of the industry throughout the world...reiterating nothing more than the facts. With respect to the target aircraft in question, you may note that virtually everyone (with a couple of exceptions) who does have experience with the aircraft has agreed with my commentary from the beginning. The dissention and panic posts come from those with no experience or a foot to stand upon. That speaks volumes of it's own accord.
Lots of posts here, some profane, some vulgar, some insulting, several threatening. I have done none of these (despite one notable attempt and struggle with the censor), and have called for an end to speculation, supported the law that the pilot is the final authority and responsible for the safe outcome of the flight, and suggested without reservation that one should look no farther than one's self instead of incriminating the airplane...yet I'm labled by the inexperienced and uninformed as the self-proclaimed "god" of flightinfo. Again, your words, not mine...I made no such assertion,but only conservative statements based in fact and truth.
Once more, if you can't accept that, then as they say, get our of the kitchen. You don't belong. Your intolerance is self-incrimination.
