How not to train instrument students

[ALIMBO]

This is coming for mr. bigshot with the 17 posts. I don't need a million hours to know something. The simple fact of the matter here is what was done may not be illegal but is clearly bad practice. That was my point in showing it. People on here came on to try an bash it which only made them look dumb not me. Nothing I have done to explain myself has made me look any more stupid. So please mr socal pilot explain to me how my ******************** doesn't stink from my points. If you think it does that your opinion that no one asked for.

 

[avbug]

So in that case which I'm going to assume is it was an IFR flight conducted in VFR conditions. Now for legal purposes if your not in IMC and given a report of traffic its your responsibility to see and avoid. I can't foresee that being to different in other countries because it avoids lawsuits.

Yes, you do assume. Far too much.

You cite legal purposes, but this takes place in a foreign country, and you really have no idea what the legalities are there. Therefore, you are in error. You guess. You assume.

Assumption does not say good things about you. You understand this?

Law suits? Have you ever been out of the country?

You're assuming the legal liability in a country which you know not, in a legal system you know not, an an operation of which you don't know the type, operating rules, or if it's even instructional, in which you can't determine the visibility, have a grainy, inadequate video, in a different language...and assuming you know something, anything, about what's going on.

As you're merely talking out your backside with no information, and doing nothing but assuming, let's transfer this scenario to the US. Again, you'd have no idea the purpose of operation of the flight. Under IFR, the pilot or crew isn't required to be able to see out...many flights are conducted IMC, of course. Even if the crew were training and therefore responsible for see and avoid, the crew has augmented themselves with at least one, possibly more, observers.

The thing is...it's not in this country, and the truth is, lacking any information, you've not a clue whence you speak. That leaves your favorite thing: assumption. Again, this doesn't say good things about you, jumping to conclusions and offering nothing more than guesses. How typical of you.

Did you look up the VOR 15 at KARR? Apparantly not because you would have seen what the #2 Nav was tuned to. But instead you assumed that it was tuned to nothing obviously.

I assumed nothing, and can only go by what you've given us. You've stated you were off by a dot, a full dot, and full deflection, You were unable, when asked, to explain what you meant by being "30 degrees" off.

Yes, I am looking at the VOR 15 for KARR. I cannot see what you tuned your second nav to, because I can't see into the past, and I won't assume what you did. I know what I'd have my second nav tuned to, but we don't know if you have DME, or how you identified the crossing radials. Without assuming...which I refuse to do...one simply dosn't know what you did or didn't do, beyond what you provide...which is that you bungled the approach so badly that you were grossly off course.

Further, you haven't stated how you determined your nav equipment was in good working order, other than actually flying the approach. Again, poor airmanship.

Furthermore it is common that you get off from a centered needle.

It is, if you can't fly an approach. You assume everyone else flies as poorly as you. There's no law against trying harder, you know. You can fly the approach with a needle centered. In fact...that's the idea. Are you a flight instructor?

Thats why I was practicing and given the windy conditions of the day along with turbulence the fact that it was only a dot off at most isn't really that bad.

Interesting. Embracing mediocracy isn't a professional attribute, either.

Then again, a dot off for us is a bust. As in failed. For you it's "really not bad."

Do you know there are approaches out there in which you can't go full scale without hitting a mountain?

Keep your needles centered, grow up a little, get some more experience so you have some idea what you're talking about, preflight your equipment a little better, learn to know where you are so you don't bust your navigation so badly, accept responsibility for your errors, and for heavens sake, keep the needle centered, next time. Hopefully you know this, but you can certainly do better. Much, much better.

 

[AC560]

but we don't know if you have DME

8/0712 - FI/T AURORA MUNI, CHICAGO/AURORA, IL. VOR RWY 15, ORIG-B... DME REQUIRED EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS, DPA VOR/DME OTS. WIE UNTIL UFN. CREATED: 01 AUG 13:03 2008

 

[avbug]

We still don't know if he has DME, or if he's equipped with RNAV.

 

[Andy Neill]

You cite legal purposes, but this takes place in a foreign country, and you really have no idea what the legalities are there.

OK....it's a Brazilian registration. We have enough Brazilian expertise here. What are the legalities of see and avoid while IFR in VMC?

 

[avbug]

Do you know the airplane is in Brazil?

This is an exercise in assumption, you see. One engine fails, does one soldier on, assuming the other won't? One has a fire, puts it out, does one assume one can press on? We don't assume.

The original poster has assumed ad infinitum. Right up the ying-yang, as it were.

Where the airplane is registered has little to do with the regulations under which it's operated in a foreign country...so is it in Brazillian airspace?

The point here isn't really whether it's legal or not, or even safe. It's the assumptions...this thread being one long one after another.

In aviation, should we not wait to act, until we know what it is that we're acting upon?

 

[ALIMBO]

Im done you sir are by far the biggest tool on this forum good day. I hope to god I never find out who you are or ever share a cockpit with you.

 

[Andy Neill]

Do you know the airplane is in Brazil?

Ah....you're right. It might not even be an airplane. It could be a simulation with green screens and CG special effects. Sorry.

 

[ALIMBO]

LOL I looked up the little code on the video and it traces back to Brazil. Which I do believe is an ICAO authorized country, so that would probably mean the rules are somewhat similar to our country and the many others like it.

 

[avbug]

Which I do believe is an ICAO authorized country, so that would probably mean the rules are somewhat similar to our country and the many others like it.

"do believe" and "probably"

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

Ah....you're right. It might not even be an airplane.

I said nothing of the sort. Clearly it's an airplane. What is not clear is the location or the regulations under which it's operating.

What is clear is an overabundance of jumping to conclusions.

 

[ALIMBO]

You do realize your calling and making yourself an ass right?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Pilots whine so much.

Common sense dictates that it isn't a great idea as you theoretically block out your field of vision.

We've all probably shoved a jacket up front during our instrument training. I know I have (on myside only and just enough to limit the effects of the sun) when landing into the sun on an ILS just outside the marker (class C RADAR environment) so the sun had less effect on the scratched up foogles.

Go ahead and throw me under the bus. I dont care.

Its obviously not a good idea during VMC cruise under the hood, but during an approach, riding the rails down under RADAR with a safety pilot doesn't comprimise safety too much.

I think some of the discussion here is asinine.

Good day.

 

[phr8dawg]

Air thick with testosterone and verbal bile. CCCCan't breathe! MMMMust bail out!

This forum site is badly in need of good humour. Go check out Jet Blast at pprune.org if you need an example.

Unless, you guys are kidding. Right?

 

[avbug]

You do realize your calling and making yourself an ass right?

I didn't call anybody anything; you assume, again, incorrectly.

Once more, put words in your own mouth, not mine.

However, when you assume, as you do so much, you do live up to the well worn catch phrase, "when you assume, you make as ass out of u and me." Assumption is the mother of all screwups.

Assumption runs rife...when you make guesses and state "it probably is" you're making an assumption. You're performing guesswork. You're saying, in essence that you haven't a clue, but it "might" mean this, and it "might" mean that. You don't know. What this means is that on the subject upon which you choose to comment, you are clueless.

We see this constantly here in many forms. I elected to beat you up a little here not really because I care what the people in a light piston twin are doing in another country, but to make a point regarding assumption...which has clearly gone well over your head.

There's a worn-out interview question that still gets used, in which you're asked "You are in your hotel room, and there's a knock on the door. You answer the door, and the captain is standing there in a dress. What do you do?"

The question is a trap, of course, designed to see how much you assume. If you assume it's a man in a dress, then you assume too much, you assume incorrectly. The captain in the question is, in fact a woman, and there's nothing more to do than say "What can I do for you this evening, captain?" Many pilots, in fact most who haven't heard the question before, immediately pass judgement, assume.

A company loses an airplane. It crashes. The cries go up like coyotes howling at the moon "What poor maintenance! Pilot error! How stupid was that?" Without knowing any of the facts.

You're in a mall, Christmas shopping. You see a man enter a store. He reaches into his waistband and draws a firearm. He points the firearm at the clerk, and yells very loudly for the clerk to put his hands in the air. Is this a hold-up? Is this a reason to fear? Assumption might say so...but it's really a police officer making a fugitive arrest. Assumption is assinine.

Many years ago a man was beaten to death by a group of joggers in a park. He was seen on top of another man, who was lying on his back, unconscious. Both mean were dead when police responded. The man on his back...he'd had a heart attack. The man who was beaten to death was a first responder, attempting to perform CPR. The crowd assumed he was attacking the first man, and attacked him, killing him, and denying the heart attack victim the lifesaving help he needed. The first man died of his heart attack because the crowd beat to death the first responder...because the assumed.

I've seen pilots attempt to shut down the wrong engine and do all manner of incorrect things...because they assumed they had all the facts. Just as you did when you started this thread attacking the people in the video, assuming you knew what was going on. What you've learned, hopefully as the thread unfolded, is that you really didn't know...anything. You simply assumed...most of your assumptions were wrong, as has been demonstrated. Rather than explore that, regroup, and address correct information, you've continued to defend assumptions, and make more assumptions...a number of which have also been wrong.

You're inexperienced, and far, far too sure of yourself. One of the best things you can do as a pilot, the moment you wake up, the moment you sit in the cockpit, and every moment of the flight, is to constantly ask yourself "what is it I don't know yet?"

Far too few people take the time to say "I don't have enough information, yet." In the case of the airplane in this video, you didn't have enough information, and still don't, to pass the judgement you've passed. Instead, you've brayed and cawed about the scent of feces, called names, leveled insults and attacks, and defended poor decisions and pathetically poor airmanship.

It's time to grow up, alimbo. Flying is an adult profession; assumption is a childish trait. Set it aside.

 

[ALIMBO]

It does not take me assuming this is a bad idea to think its a bad idea. Really if you think this is the least bit acceptable than that really shows what type of pilot you are. Apparently you growing up has not given you to much intellect either. You using your age and amount of hours to prove you being right and knowing near everything does not mean sh*t. In fact I bet my lack of sheer experience and your over confidence in flying puts us at about the same risk level. Furthermore I never attacked anyone I merely stated this is how not to train instrument students. See it is you that assumed that not me. The fact that this thread has gone for 3 pages is pure humor for me, especially when you go and bring up this whole issue of assumptions. Please do not make comments on my thread if you have nothing positive to say about it. If you want to go ahead and condone flying like this because it is legal fine I can care less just stay the fu*k outta of the air when I'm up there. Remember what's right is not always good but what's good is not always right.

 

[avbug]

Please do not make comments on my thread if you have nothing positive to say about it.

Don't post is you don't want replies, and don't post stupidly if you aren't willing to take the criticism.

 

[FlyinFife]

Sweet!

I think it's awesome how AVBUG made the "ass" in assume bold faced as if he was pointing out that ALIMBO was an ass! And then I thought it was funny that ALIMBO then started making the "ass" in assume bold faced also because he thought AVBUG was an ass! This is awesome! I totally can read between the lines and am able to detect your setiments for each other! I'm going to pop some popcorn! This is great!

ASSume! HA! That's so cool!

 

[WMUchickenhawk]

If only I had patented my "jump to conclusions" matt. This thread would have made me a mint.

 

[ALIMBO]

avbug is a tool plain an simple

 

[FlyinFife]

If only I had patented my "jump to conclusions" matt. This thread would have made me a mint.

Now that is funny right there; I don't care who you are.