The Rogue and the Professional

[Bryan D]

The Rogue and the Professional.
A rogue has an empty void that can never be filled. He is missing something in his life.

Like Johnny Ringo

 

[Dash8]

Like Johnny Ringo

i'll be yo-ah huckleberrah

 

[DCitrus9]

sky37d, I think you missed the point. Nobody is dissing GA flying. The thread is about intentional disregard for safe and professional aviating, which is not limited to any one branch or even to commercial flying.

 

[Lead Sled]

sky37d, I think you missed the point. Nobody is dissing GA flying. The thread is about intentional disregard for safe and professional aviating, which is not limited to any one branch or even to commercial flying.

By definition, a professional pilot must be a pilot by profession. However, a non-professional can (and should) have a "professionial" approach to his/her flying. It's as much of a "mind set" as anything else. I've flown with a few high time airline captains that were very unprofessional and some low time private pilots that had a very professional approach to the way they flew an airplane.
'Sled

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

How about the pilot that flies fires, or crops, or the recreational bugsmasher pilot who goes out and practices formation stuff. Is it only the AIRLINE pilots who can be prefessional. I follow the rules. I challenge my skills. I don't fly to ORD or JFK, I guess that means I can never be a professional. I do fly to MDW, TEB, DAL. I guess those airports are for rogues, or weenies.

PROFESSIONALISM



Professional in the dictionary is defined as a person engaged in the occupation or one who receives pay. One can choose to define themselves as a professional simply because they receive money for what they do however this at times cannot yield a high standard. A high standard ensures safety, respect and results in a minimal investment for the greatest return.



A professional is an individual who chooses to maintain a high standard and an attitude to compliment it. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the governing agency to regulate the US aviation industry, can violate individuals who break the FARs to the extent of criminal prosecution. One reason the FAA does this is simply because they cannot be everywhere policing the aviators, ensuring they are obeying the law. As aviators we do not want the FAA over our shoulders. As professionals we can choose to police ourselves. If we choose to adhere to the FARs and company policy we will reduce the chances for a certificate violation, earn the respect from our peers and ourselves and enhance safety. Any other course would be counter productive to an aviators income, professional and personal life.



It has been said that pilots today do not have the respect of the public that they once did during the earlier years of commercial aviation. This may or may not be true, however as pilots we can influence both the public and our own industry on how we are perceived. It is very important to understand image. The image may or may not be true, but what really matters is the idea or impression we project. This ranges from uniform to behavior. First and foremost a professional pilot must lead by example. It is quite normal to judge ourselves by our thoughts and others by their actions. “I never go below minimums” may be what you said, but what you actually did will be remembered differently by a fellow pilot. In addition, professionalism can only be demonstrated if it is practiced. The desire or belief is not the same as the practice.



Aviation is the application of logical science. Emotions are quite necessary at times but many times are not. For certain, outward expressions of anger are counter productive. When you get defensive, personal or petty and use profanity what you are really saying is this; ‘I do not understand or like what is going on and I am confused or fearful. The situation has exceeded my limits and I do not know what to do. I am no longer in control.’ The ability to remain in control depends on an aviator’s commitment to professionalism. The professional pilot knows his limitations and doesn’t exceed them.



If a flying operation always went as planned, there would be no need for mechanics and meteorologist. If a pilot expects an operation to run smoothly, he will only set himself up for disappointment. However, if a pilot expects a change of plans and welcomes the challenge to handle such changes, he will be very effective and a pleasure to fly with.



Professional pilots maintain a high standard because when the cockpit becomes task saturated the ability to maintain safe flight from mediocrity is impossible. The aircraft will crash. The art of a high standard in aviation is called Airmanship.

AIRMANSHIP



The difference in being a good “stick and rudder” pilot and a professional aviator is tremendous. A pilot may be able to land aboard an aircraft carrier or fly a crop duster under power lines, but does this make them a professional aviator? Under what conditions are these maneuvers executed? Ultimately, what are the risks? Judgment and decision making is the deciding factor and cornerstone between piloting and professional airmanship.



Judgment is a skill that can be illustrated but is really acquired through experience. However, there is a standard that one can choose operate at. Consider two pilots with 350 hours of flight time; one pilot flies a Cessna 150 while the other flies a tactical jet from an aircraft carrier. Which one operates at a higher standard? It could be the Cessna pilot. What can aviators do to operate at a high standard?



Professional pilots choose to operate at a high standard. This commitment is the same in any profession. An aviator once said, “when I go home I don’t think about flying until I return to the airport.” Can a ballplayer win consistently if he shows only for the games? A professional athlete cannot function this way and neither does the professional aviator. The professional pilot studies and prepares on his time off. He studies the FAR/AIM, the company operations manual, the aircraft operations manual, aircraft systems and normal/emergency procedures, Jeppesen and weather information. Emergency procedures are the least used and the most critical to survival.



The professional aviator has is own personal library which includes the above listed references and many more books such as; the ATC Controllers Handbook, FAA advisory circulars, high and low speed aerodynamics, weather flying, aircraft systems and engine operations, airmanship, an aerospace dictionary, crew resource management, human factors, instrument flying and navigation.



A very simple way to fly at a high standard is to know and fly by the book. Can a crew conduct a flight with minimal preparation? Most likely, but how well did they fly? Did they have to reference material often? Did they have to change plans because they didn’t know how to function in the system? Were they reactive or proactive? Did they get frustrated and angry?



The complimenting side to a high standard is the right attitude. Professional aviators have the right combination of confidence, modesty, integrity, and pride. Confidence comes from a pilot’s previous performance and knowledge, not his title. [Knowledge is power and to re-emphasize, knowing the book will empower an aviator.] Modesty is a welcomed characteristic. An aviators peers and co- workers don’t care for arrogance or aggrandizement, an attitude that one self imposes to elevate themselves among their colleagues. There is no I in team. Integrity is critical because what is good for an individual is not necessarily good for the organization. A professional aviator’s colleagues and superiors need to know that he isn’t just looking out for himself. The right level of pride will give self-respect. Too much pride can bring a person down.



Leadership is the most critical characteristic of a professional aviator. Aviators are ultimately the ones in control and responsible for the aircraft. The ability to do this relies on the coordinated efforts of many people doing different jobs. Therefore the aviator depends on others for the efficiency and safety of the operation. The attitude and behavior of the leadership flows down the chain of command and, good or bad, will be reflected by everyone. This is critical to understand. Aviators cannot expect good job performance from others if they do not demonstrate it. Aviators who break the rules have people who they depend on break the rules.

 

[Jmajoris]

Dr Tony Kern, a Lieutenant Colonel in the US AirForce, has raised the bar for all of us. In 1997 he wrote "Redefining Airmanship" followed by "Flight Discipline" in 1998, and "Darker Shades of Blue" in 1999. All 3 books as well as the "Controlling Pilot Error" series of 12 books in which he is a contributing editor, deal with improving flight safety. We would be wise to learn from him.


Being a pro has nothing to do with your job. It has everything to do with your attitude.

 

[sky37d]

Dr Tony Kern, a Lieutenant Colonel in the US AirForce, has raised the bar for all of us. In 1997 he wrote "Redefining Airmanship" followed by "Flight Discipline" in 1998, and "Darker Shades of Blue" in 1999. All 3 books as well as the "Controlling Pilot Error" series of 12 books in which he is a contributing editor, deal with improving flight safety. We would be wise to learn from him.


Being a pro has nothing to do with your job. It has everything to do with your attitude.

Thanks, I'll find his books.

I do operate like a pro. I use my checklists, everytime. I brief my passenger/co-pilot. I tell her I love her.
Then I make sure her seat belt is on, her seat is locked into position. She locks the door. She has her responsibilities, and I have mine, to land safely, every time.

 

[91100 100 set]

The leading post in this thread was excellant. I have known a few "rogues" during my career, and I'll certainly encounter more. As an FO (for the better part of 6 years now, against my wishes, of course), I do what I can, but as always, the captain sets the tone and I try my best to be a chameleon and not let these rogues damage me, my career, my company's ability to provide me with an income, the airplane, the people in the back, or anything else (maybe in that particular order, maybe not, depending on my own mood).

Just a few weeks ago, I was sitting in recurrent, and we were on a break from class, sitting around, shooting the breeze. The one guy from my class was telling a story about how some captain and him flew into an uncontrolled field a few months ago. Overflew the field at 800', entered midfield downwind, and "cranked it around", still "banking and turning final, like, at 200 feet". He said it was awesome. I made a weird face and said, "well, thats all good fun and sporty flying, but they don't pay us to fly these planes around to have fun and do stuff like that with 50 people in the back". Kinda shut him down, but it pissed me off, and I hope it made an impression, whether he thinks I'm a jerk or not.

 

[redd]

Just my opinion...but,

Isn't Tony Kern the S. O. B. that single handedly shut down the airtanker industry last year, and used the trajedy of fallen airmen and the felled carcus of this segment of aviation as a stepping stone only to further his own career ambitions?

I don't think you guys have the whole story on this man, or his competenacy on evaluating airmen.

I think he falls victim to being knowledgable and personally experienced in a small slice of the aviation industry and lacks the broader perspective of what it takes to be an aviator in all realms. I think a large motivator in what he does lies in the realm of the political arena and self advancement.

There are a good number of extreemly well qualified pilots that are currently out of work due to this man, and I think they have some legitimate reasons as to why they blame him for throwing them out of a job. From what I've heard and read of what the airtanker pilots have to say, I would tend to agree with them, it sounds like this guy had an ulterior motive and an axe to grind. Some of the stuff he says sounds good on the surface, but I'm not so sure that it is built on a foundation of a true perspective or motivation.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Isn't Tony Kern the S. O. B. that single handedly shut down the airtanker industry last year, and used the trajedy of fallen airmen and the felled carcus of this segment of aviation as a stepping stone only to further his own career ambitions?

I don't think you guys have the whole story on this man, or his competenacy on evaluating airmen.

I think he falls victim to being knowledgable and personally experienced in a small slice of the aviation industry and lacks the broader perspective of what it takes to be an aviator in all realms. I think a large motivator in what he does lies in the realm of the political arena and self advancement.

There are a good number of extreemly well qualified pilots that are currently out of work due to this man, and I think they have some legitimate reasons as to why they blame him for throwing them out of a job. From what I've heard and read of what the airtanker pilots have to say, I would tend to agree with them, it sounds like this guy had an ulterior motive and an axe to grind. Some of the stuff he says sounds good on the surface, but I'm not so sure that it is built on a foundation of a true perspective or motivation.

Well yes, your opinion... here is not my opinion. Rather a link....

But before you go, I'm not sure what the connection is, except the guy writes about professionalism and quality airmanship and then applies those principles to the aging air tanker industry and says there are major problems. I mean when one watches a [C-130?] wings rip off on CNN, I can see where Kern is coming from. I don't know Kern. He could a great guy or a major tool box. Being brought up Navy, I wouldn't be suprised if Kern takes his family photo in an ascot... . The point is I've had the opportunity to read Redefining Airmanship, The Rogue Pilot and Flight Discipline. The books seem to stand on their own regardless of his involvement in the Air Tanker biz.....

...or in HTML form:

http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:HGxbwgcEm5kJ:www.hallassoc.net/BRP_120502.pdf+%22Jim+Hall%22+Blue+Ribbon+Commission+Airtankers+Forest&hl=en&ie=UTF_8
In 2004 some substantial changes were made. Thanks to the fearless leadership of former Air Force Lt.Col. Tony Kern (who had headed up the Forest Service Aviation division for several years prior), 33 of the most dangerous airtankers were grounded. A political firestorm instantly replaced the forest-based firestorms of fall and Kern found himself under massive attack from the airtanker companies, senators, congressmen, and others who simply did not understand the seriousness of the situation. Regarding Kern's courage inconsistent with the usual bureaucratic niggling, see: http://www.montanaforum.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=161


​

 

[redd]

Yes, he may be a tool, which may influence his viewpoints and his perspectives. You quoted an article that said:

33 of the most dangerous airtankers were grounded.

I don't agree with this writers observation either, I don't think he had all the facts, only two types of airplanes crashed and had the problems, C130's and PB4Y's, other airworthy tankers were grounded as well.

Here's a recent article about the aftermath of Kerns decisions:


Most of fleet grounded as season nears; replacement plan founders
07:37 AM PDT on Wednesday, May 25, 2005


By RICHARD BROOKS / The Press-Enterprise

With most of the nation's big air tankers grounded by safety concerns for the second straight year, firefighting officials now have more bad news: They won't meet their previous goal of modernizing the aging fleet by 2008.

The U.S. Forest Service is concentrating on how to safely return to duty as many planes as possible, and little progress has been made on a long-range plan, issued in 2003, that called for a fleet of 30 to 35 jet-powered air tankers and 15 to 20 large helicopters by 2008 to fight fires nationwide.

"I can't put a time on it," said Larry Brosnan, the Forest Service's top-ranking aviation official.

"Our focus ... is on the upcoming season," Brosnan said. "We take this one season at a time."

This season, only 10 air tankers are considered safe enough to fly, down from 33 that were grounded at the beginning of 2004. The remaining 23 planes are parked indefinitely.

Brosnan disagrees with tanker pilots who argue that grounding so many planes is putting lives and property at risk if there is a repeat of the devastating wildfires of 2003 that claimed seven lives and destroyed about 1,400 homes in San Bernardino County.

"We feel like we have adequate resources," Brosnan said by phone from Washington, D.C.

This year the service is relying on the 10 tankers that have met new safety requirements, six heli-tankers, 24 medium helicopters and eight military C-130 fire bombers.

Pilots Are Skeptical

But that won't be enough if the reduced fleet is faced with a severe fire season, tanker pilots contend.

"If we get (a) season like we had in Southern California at the end of 2003 ... we're going to lose property that we would have been able to save with the aircraft we had a few years ago," said pilot Walt Darran of the Associated Airtanker Pilots' safety committee.

Report Was Critical

The Forest Service's large air tanker program became dysfunctional after the National Transportation Safety Board released a stunning report in April 2004 on three tanker crashes.

Among the findings: Metal fatigue caused the wings to snap off three aging tankers in 1994 and 2002, killing eight crew members, and the Forest Service had no method of ensuring the airworthiness of the rest of the fleet, the report said.

Tanker pilots say it wasn't necessary to cancel the contracts for any of the 33 tankers scheduled to fly during 2004.

The types of planes that fell apart -- C-130A Hercules and PB4Y Privateers -- already had been permanently grounded, Darran said, and the remaining types of planes have never suffered a structural failure.

Darran said he would prefer to have all of the idled planes returned to service, but equipped with sensors that can monitor the aerodynamic stresses and whether any cracks are developing.

For a long-term fix that would meet modernization goals, the Forest Service is counting on the tanker industry to offer solutions and to design and develop a new generation of tankers. The service does not own any tankers, nor does it fund upgrades. It relies on contractors to supply, maintain and fly the planes during fire season, and propose improvements.

The possibilities include: new planes designed specifically for firefighting, existing passenger planes or cargo haulers that can be converted to drop fire retardant, or acquiring additional Lockheed P-3 Orions, which have passed all the safety tests and comprise seven of the 10 tankers of the current fleet.

Only three types of large planes have begun formal testing to become the next generation of tankers. Among them: a wide-body DC-10 that's being converted in Victorville.

Industry in Turmoil

The air-tanker industry has been in turmoil since the Forest Service grounded the 33 large air tankers while airworthiness requirements were revamped. Two firms that own and operate tankers under contract to the Forest Service have gone out of business.

Industry spokesman Bill Broadwell says most of the six remaining large air-tanker companies are hanging on by a thread as they face the possibility of a second season without any income from the Forest Service, the sole customer for most.

At age 65, tanker owner Gary Garrett is throwing in the towel.

"This has put me out of business," the Tucson-based pilot said of his inability to secure a federal contract for his three Douglas DC-4s. "We haven't had a paycheck in a year."

The big winner this year is Aero Union, a Montana-based firm whose seven Lockheed P-3 Orions are the newest and -- with a 3,000-gallon capacity -- among the largest retardant-haulers in the fleet.

Powered by four jet turbo-prop engines, the converted submarine hunters were originally delivered to the Navy during the 1960s.

This season, the P-3s are being augmented by two older Lockheed P-2V Neptunes and a Douglas DC-7 that have been specially instrumented to collect research data.

The Next Generation

In recent years, everything from blimps to converted Russian Il-76 jet transports have been suggested as possible air tankers. The Russian jet has been touted by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach.

Among the most novel ideas to be rejected: Dropping fire retardant from a tank tethered among four helicopters that would maneuver a bit like tug boats guiding an ocean liner.

"We don't want to discourage (novel concepts). But we look at it from a safety standpoint and an effectiveness standpoint," said Scott Fisher, chairman of the National Interagency Airtanker Board.

 

[redd]

And here’s more, it's an excerpt by someone in the tanker industry commenting on the article from an airtanker's web board:

[“For a long-term fix that would meet modernization goals, the Forest Service is counting on the tanker industry to offer solutions and to design and develop a new generation of tankers. The service does not own any tankers, nor does it fund upgrades. It relies on contractors to supply, maintain and fly the planes during fire season, and propose improvements.”

O.K. Hmmm let’s think about this, let me owner of “ACE Air Tankers Inc.” go out and spend a billion dollars on an airplane out of my own pocket and develop an air tanker for the Forest Service. So I can then Hope that they will contract it, and then fight with them on how much they are going to pay for daily availability, hourly cost etc. Then I have to Hope that they will sign a long-term contract with my company so that maybe in 20 years I might have my development, building, flight testing, and certification cost paid off. Then maybe I could give the employees a pay raise!

This is never going to work and we are going to be riding the merry-go–round for a long time. Unless there are federal dollars involved, we will be doing business as usual. So maybe the Forest Service needs to take some lessons from some other fire fighting agencies, let’s say the CDF, or Canadian provinces, or the Europeans. I notice that those agencies had the fore-sight to go out and develop newer designs, or at least improve on proven ones.]

---------

I think that guy really sums it up.

What Tony Kern did decimated the industry, threw it into chaos and threw gasoline on the fire. Ironically, the aircraft he grounded are one by one being re-released back into duty, the P3’s and the P2v’s and others, but his short sighted mandates have left a wake of destroyed companies and careers. There could have been other ways to deal with structural problems with aging WW2 aircraft (the C130’s and PB4Y’s are still grounded from service), and not disrupt the whole industry in the process.

When I look at all sides of the issue, it makes me question his judgment and his motives.


I'm not a tanker pilot, but as an outside observer, it really chapps my hide to see a governmental figurehead decimate a vital segment of the aviation industry either because he hates air tanker pilots, or he wants to improve his career status. He has since left his position in the USFS and has taken a higher governmental job.

 

[TurboS7]

Shall we ask the people who just lost their houses in California how they feel about Tony Kern????Right now I am really pissed off at Air Force people, I have lost a lot of respect that I used to have for that organization. Thank God for the Marines and the Navy, I wouldn't depend on the Air Force to get anything accomplished during a war.

 

[Crimson03]

Going back to earlier posts. If pilots are true 'professionals' then as professionals should'nt pilots be excluded from collective bargaining, unionization, and such under federal labor law?

 

[TurboS7]

Careful or we will all be working for 20K or less.