Jump to content

The small chip on the shoulder that nearly all of us are guilty of.


Anticept

Recommended Posts

I've noticed that many of us, myself included, have a tendency to get somewhat defensive when we're proven wrong. Generally things play out pretty civil, but when it comes to flying technique, that's where it really seems to hit a lot of nerves.

 

Rather than wag my finger at everyone and say "play nice", I'd actually like to invite everyone to step back with me to think about how flying and maintenance techniques are developed, rather than just simply jumping on the "that's the way it says to do it in the book!".

 

Remember ladies and gentlemen, all the books that we read about technique are all invented by people. People, who, because of their time and place (and sometimes position), developed a technique that worked for them, and it has evolved and become the standard. For example, traffic patterns in the United States are recommended to be joined via 45 degree entry into the downwind leg. According to the UK CAA, the recommended method is to fly over the airfield, and descend into the upwind leg (this technique is something I will personally use if there is no weather report for the field). There are some techniques that are "catch-alls", and some that are "rule of thumb". What each of us should remember, is that most techniques fall into the latter category, and not the former!

 

Why do I point this out? Because aside from the very basic technique, most techniques are a "style" and not a "rule". An example is that personally I step down my throttle as I'm going through the pattern for landing (can make the landing quicker, but it does add extra workload that needs to be accounted for), whereas others cut power completely abeam the numbers. Both techniques are perfectly fine if they keep you safe, and bring you and everyone else back in one piece. Another is the classic argument of "fly it on" or "stall it on". I know the FAA requires that you have to land close to the stalling point as part of your tests, but personally, I think you should do what makes you come back safe (while still being able to do either efficiently so you have flexibility). I might get a little flak for saying that, but remember that the military prefers their pilots to set an AoA and airspeed approach, and fly it all the way down to touchdown. Do what works SAFELY.

 

A common thing we teach students at my facility, is that they could ask a hundred different CFIs about how to fly a plane, and get a hundred different answers. That's not a bad thing, there really is a whole stinkin bunch of ways to fly! What matters is they don't get themselves or anyone else hurt, respect other pilots, and preferably bring the plane back in one piece too. One of the best ways to do this, is to follow the AIM and recommended flying procedures.

 

On that note, there's a reason the AIM is not regulatory. The information contained within is, for the most part, "rule of thumb". But, as the pilot, you are taught to use flying techniques that make your flights safe. You are given a very liberal amount of judgement, because it's extremely difficult to apply techniques that will fit ALL situations. Can you imagine how unsettling it would be to use a short runway facing a cliff side if regulations said "You MUST land upwind" and the wind direction *IS* the cliff side? Regulations or not, I personally would not short field land facing a cliff unless it's a BIG drop, I'd rather land with a tailwind or go somewhere else.

 

If I posted saying that I land with a tailwind sometimes at the aforementioned airfield, people might jump all over me, citing "poor technique, bad piloting, or just risky behavior". I'd probably do it myself if someone said that (if I didn't know about the cliff face). But, we have to remember, maybe that person has done it a thousand times, and really knows that field, and their airplane. Is it still risky? I would say "depends on who is flying". I wouldn't have a 15 hour student pilot do that, but someone who has beaten the back-woods path in the yukon during a blizzard and looks at it like "just another day on the job", I wouldn't even bat an eye.

 

What I'm trying to get at, is different techniques apply to different people and experience. What the FAA teaches should be considered "good foundation" to flying. As someone develops their skill, they may find that there are other techniques that they could adapt and use for their situations. We should be offering advice and reasoning to each other and leave it at that, since it's quite easy to tell someone their technique is wrong while sitting in our armchairs in sunny-ville while they are out fighting the ridge winds of the rocky mountains or skirting the coastal storms in the gulf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, and what I have taken from these discussions is to put more thought into why I do what I do and occasionally a challenge to try something different. There are people who have flown a ton more than I have with my slightly over 200 hours. There are others who have done more mechanical work and seen more issues than I have. I am far from an expert, so I give my opinion and my experience and try to learn.

I believe discussion is good as long as it stays relevent and respectful. One of our issues has been communicating well, and occasionally taking things personally when they were not meant that way. That is one of the problems with not being face-to-face, but we generally cope. I don't want "do whatever works" to stop people from discussing what works for them. That is where I learn, both as a pilot and as an LSRM-A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most pilots are "matter of fact" types, and 80% of us share the same meticulous personality (literally, 80%+ of pilots are INTJ on the Meyers-Briggs personality assessment according to studies).  We like to correct errors where we see them, and not always in the most constructive ways.  I think if we can fight this impulse and use "a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down" as Mary Poppins says, it would help a lot.

 

Instead of "That's the wrong way, you should do this" we could maybe say "That's good if it's working for you, but something you might consider is..."

 

On the flip side, we don't really always receive criticism very well, and want to believe what we are doing or what we have been taught is the "right way."  We should fight this impulse also, and try to see where criticism is coming from and if it's valid at least entertain it.  As most of us know deep down, in aviation there aren't really "right and wrong" ways of doing a lot of tasks, instead there are "safe and unsafe" methods and varying degrees of efficacy in what we're trying to do.

 

Group Hug!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Doug.  This is a discussion board yet the most frequent crime that gets the admins and members upset is discussion.  

 

I don't want to settle for 'whatever works' to avoid discussion, that isn't as helpful to me as testing my thinking against  yours via a discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussions are not what this post is meant to address or try to shut down, but rather the attitudes towards them. It is meant to remind everyone that very very few techniques apply universally, and we need to remember that quoting from books and experience may not always be the best solution to a particular situation. It is also meant to remind people receiving advice, that there are a lot of ways to fly, and the best techniques may very well be an amalgam of various expert advice.

 

EDIT: as a side-note, starting a discussion has the same social nuances as starting a conversation. You INVITE people to a discussion, you do not force it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...