Your saying you would do this with a student learning their instrument.
I said no such thing. Put words in your own mouth, not mine. And learn to read. This thread is not about me, it's about a topic you introduced, criticizing a flight operation in another country, under different regulations, in different airspace to our own. You make numerous conclusions you can't back up, and admit to some ridiculously poor airmanship in the process. Let's discuss that.
Do you mean to tell me that its ok for someone in the backseat with no access to the controls to be a great safety pilot.
A safety pilot is an observer, not a controller. The person in the back seat need not be a pilot. You're obviously unfamiliar with this, and with the regulation in this country...so let's begin there. As the video is clearly not in the US, the regulation doesn't pertain...but you fly in the US, and you have very little exposure and very little experience, so we'll start with what you're *supposed* to know.
§ 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests.
(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and
(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls. However, simulated instrument flight may be conducted in a single-engine airplane, equipped with a single, functioning, throwover control wheel, in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons, when—
(i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and
(ii) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.
You see, while YOU might not understand the concept, the FAA certainly does, and provides for this in the regulation. This may be news to you.
As evidenced from the video do you think he could respond fast enough and then the pic respond fast enough to steer clear of traffic in the vicinity.
One can't tell from the video, as much of the external view is obscured by light interfering with the camera. However, you
assume that there's a need to look out, and you
assume it's training and not being conducted under IFR, every bit as much as you
assume they don't have adequate vision for their purposes.
As you lack experience, you may not know that in many countries, if you're not up there under IFR, you're not up there at all. In many places there's little if any pleasure flying, and traffic collision isn't an issue; you're part of the system of you're not in the air, period. We don't know where this is taking place, or for what purpose. You simply
assume.
Assumption is vague, unprofessional, and guesswork, the hallmark of unprofessionalism.
30 day VOR check: so let me guess what your saying is the instrument can only fail on the 31st day? Or how about someone that isnt very knowledgeable at doing VOR checks? Is it possible that someone can ******************** that up?
How is this relevant, exactly? You really shouldn't guess what I'm saying; you do so poorly when it comes go guesswork and assumption. Again, I said no such thing...best putting words in your own mouth...not mine.
A 30 day VOR check is a legal requirement. Ensuring one's equipment is functional is also a legal requirement separate and aside from the 30 day equipment check, and a responsibility of the pilot in command.
You appear to hold out the position that VOR equipment can't be trusted, that one should always be able to see out of the airplane, instead of trusting that equipment. Again, this may shock you to death, but approaches are flown in IMC, without the ability to see past minimums, all the time. I do it regularly myself. If one can't trust one's instruments and truly believes that they contain gross errors beyond comprehension, then perhaps one ought not be flyin at all.
We don't train to fly instruments simply to be able to do it only with a hood over our head and a safety pilot by our side, you know. Some of us actually do it for a living...and the equipment really works. I do it all over the world....and would get very little done if I waited for a nice, clear day with unlimited visibility every time.
What if your equipment fails on the 31st day, you ask. What if it fails during the approach? Should one not fly IMC or in reduced visibility, then? That really destroys the point of flying on instruments.
I preflight my nav equipment before every trip, as should you. You, on the other hand, arrive on an approach in error by 30 degrees and express bewilderment. Most enlightening.
Ok heres where it gets good mr. brains while shooting the VOR 15 into KARR I noticed that while on the Final Approach Course of 150 and within a maximum dot deflection the whole time that the aircraft was continuosly off of course by 30 or so odd degrees. Well thinking to myself thats odd I decided to tune in my number 2 VOR to notice that I was infact off of course.
Again with the poor airmanship. You really do sound like a future smoking grease spot on a hill side, somewhere.
You failed to tune in your second nav. Poor airmanship. You managed to arrive somewhere on the approach and find yourself "
30 degrees" off course. Poor airmanship. You were "
maximum dot deflection" during the approach, which is also poor airmanship (the needle is supposed to be in the center, you see. Didn't anybody tell you?).
Sounds like you really need to seek some remedial instruction before you hurt or kill yourself. Hopefully you didn't have a student on board when that happened. One can only imagine the poor example you set.