cjh@CCA-UNIX@sri-unix (08/04/82)
I would like to see what factual bones you have to pick with these 2.5 articles. I have not been an active pilot for some time, but I don't see anything new or improbable about what is said here---certainly airplane manufacturers, like car manufacturers, don't try to sell safety in their personal-size products, and certainly many pilots fall into the general category of "ragged individualists", unwilling to accept any degree of guidance or control. (Even at Hanscom (Bedford MA), which in my day was almost as busy as Logan (BOS) (200,000+ movements annually in the early 70's) the standards were not nearly what they should have been; noise regulations specified that main-runway downwind legs were to be flown over the base main street, a good half-mile from the runway, but I saw several problems from people flying far outside this pattern from simple sloppiness.) I very much doubt that most pilots had the degree of attention my training got; I took almost 80 hours to get a private license and considered them all well-spent. I also started immediately on an instrument rating, and picked one up in just over the minimum total hours---with at least 15 hours of actual thanks to an instructor who flew DC-9's for Delta. And I don't consider any of that time wasted. The only possible question I can see in those articles is the statistics, and WSJ is usually good about those. Do you have some alternate figures, or are you just objecting to their calling a spade a spade?
PS@MIT-MC@sri-unix (08/05/82)
From: Peter E. Seissler <PS at MIT-MC> I was pretty popped after typing all of the article in, so I didn't start with my criticisms. I'll do it in a day or so. The only comment I'd make about your remarks is that can one consider a rought indicator of skill (pattern tightness) to be an indicator of SAFETY? Yes, to some degree. The highly skilled pilot will probably be safe as well. But I don't consider myself to be a highly skilled pilot (my patterns sometimes suck), but I can probably call myself a safe pilot (the airspeed on final may change, but it never gets close to stall; a may negelct right rudder during a climb, but I keep the nose lined up on the runway during landing. When flying VFR, I may occsionally let my altitude stray a few hundred feet (not during IFR though), but I never fly VFR below 2000' AGL); etc.). Anyway, let me detail my complaints and we can talk more. Pete
cjh@CCA-UNIX@sri-unix (08/06/82)
In response to your message of Wed Aug 4 18:48:05 1982: You mistake my point; if you think you're flying a pattern in what the tower calls approach space, sooner or later you're going to run into something. There's also a matter of PR here; does it really make sense to fly a wide pattern in an area where even a narrow pattern annoys people who were here before the airfield? Too many pilots don't give a damn about the rest of the universe.
LRH@MIT-MC@sri-unix (08/06/82)
From: "Lyman R. Hazelton, Jr." <LRH at MIT-MC> And by the way, most of the pilots that I have met care and are very aware of the "rest of the universe". Your generalizations seem to me to be based on what you think pilots are like... it sure doesn't sound like you have had much contact with them. Finally, if you want to experience real non-square patterns and really see what the world of flying has to offer in the way of a challenge to a good pilot, try going into DCA at around 18:00 on a Friday evening. I'd like to see your square patterns there, and you better be warned about things like wake turbulance by yourself, because the controllers won't have the time to tell you about it. But if you do screw up, they will take the time to either envite you up for a chat if you manage to land, or send you to another airport (and that with a very few words, too.) I've seen this happen more than once. I agree that pilots could be trained much better than they are to handle unusual and demanding situations, and I have known a few who were. But I doubt that the way they fly patterns would tell you of that fact.
cjh@CCA-UNIX@sri-unix (08/06/82)
In response to your message of Fri Aug 6 02:14:01 1982: Sorry; I have a pretty substantial experience of pilots, albeit somewhat dated (mid 70's---do you really think that pilots have changed substantially in that period? My contacts and the literature suggest that they haven't, which is one of the reasons I dropped various subscriptions). Half of the problem, admittedly, may be not that the bulk of pilots are inconsiderate about their own actions but that they commonly are reluctant to lambaste the arguably fewer careless ones (cf. the "ragged individualism" I mentioned earlier); the action a few years ago against the proposal to require large underwing numbers on light planes (and pushing to allow ridiculously tiny numbers on the sides) is an example of this. But this is secondary to the arguments about the original article, the thrust of which was that private pilots are falling out of the sky in substantial numbers (and causing a fair amount of trouble for the rest of the world when they do?). I still haven't seen anything to refute this. After all, the article didn't even touch the explosive light-plane issues, such as user fees.
PS@MIT-MC@sri-unix (08/07/82)
From: Peter E. Seissler <PS at MIT-MC> In reference to your most recent comments: 1) Most GA accidents (and most fatal accidents) do not cause extra aircraft causalties. I think Richard Collins discusses this in 'Flying Safely'. So, they only problems they casue for the rest of the world, is to increase the NTSB budget, and create work for local police, ME personel. 2) The big/small number issue: I've had the fustration of seeing buzzers, and yet not be able to see the N number, so I can report them (and I would). Believe it or not, aircraft owners do care about the ethestics of the birds, and felt that the big numbers detracted from their appearance. In addition, it does cost quite a bit to paint an airplane. The organizations that fought the decision to require big numbers (EAA, AOPA) are also at the forfront of trying to promote safety. Note the circulation of their publications, much of which deal with safety. Pete