How not to train instrument students

[ALIMBO]

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.

If you look in the video the flight was conducted in what looks like pretty clear weather. 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. Take your own advice on assumption. I bet your a hoot to fly with.

 

[ALIMBO]

As for not trusting ones instrument you seem to be always assuming that its going to work. Not once did I say anything you listed about equipment failing. The fact that it did means yes trust them but they are not immune to failure and to be ready for it. Hence another good reason for training. But my avbug someone needs to squash you and I think this is your downfall here. You try an spread some wealth of your own knowledge and back it up by saying I do this an that all the time look how BA I am. When in fact you use your experience as the sole justification to being right. Old dogs can be taught new tricks maybe you should realize your not always right. Video was shot in Brazil btw.

 

[say again]

Avbug ALWAYS has an answer for everything, no matter how ridiculous is may be. Look, covering the windshield like that is asinine, and I really hope you can understand why. I'm not gonna get into the whole explanation of why, you should be able to figure it out.

 

[ALIMBO]

Thanks sayagain at least we understand why. Should is the keyword though just like he should probably off himself he wont.

 

[socal_pilot]

I'm not completely disagreeing with ALIMBO but I'm tired of listening to him think that his S#@* dont stink. When you total posts out number your total time I think its about time that you need to take a step back, get some experience and then your 2 cents will matter a little more.

 

[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.