A Friday night ramble.
Perhaps, maybe, this lack is the true ‘mystique’ of aviation safety, which the law dependent denizens of Sleepy Hollow just don’t get; because they were never ‘told’. There are some blokes worth the time and effort to ‘bring along’ and that effort is always rewarded. You can spot ‘em a mile off and even if you have never seen, let alone flown with the fellah (or fellahinny) by the time you pull up at the holding point; you know – this is one to keep. And so the slow, often painful process of investment begins; usually ‘in the pub’ between first beers and dinner. (Q) Well, where did it go wrong? – (A) – usually a critique of the actual ‘stuff up’, simple in nature “we’ll I let it get too high and fast on final and with the breeze as it was Blah, blah, blah. Etc. Next round, you patiently explain that the ‘stuff up’ actually started at the briefing – before TOD, where Blah, blah, blah. Etc was overlooked. Things like the inversion and the bumps below it being tackled at full whack, rather than taking a more gentle approach, which, a thinking man would have anticipated: the speed/ROD being arranged slightly before ‘the encounter’ or better yet, the descent planned, anticipating to accommodate just such an event.
Then there is the loss of “I learned about flying from that” and similar published in the legendry, much mourned, missed and lamented ‘Safety Digest’. The discussion, argument, casual education and tales that publication generated are uncountable. The benefits simply not quantifiable.
The ‘booze bus’ may, quite rightly (IMO), claim to have prevented many a boozy night around the BBQ, where tall tales and true were welded into legend and Old Wives Tales were forged into both myth and legend; even if patently untrue – they formed a base from which truth and knowledge could be gained, a start point, or foundation if you will, from which the sprog could begin to build a unique and very personal tool bag; that of experience, both shared an acquired. There’s much more than todays NOTAM and latest Met in a pilots Nav-bag, it’s where the stored knowledge, factual, mythical and imagined is kept, for the once in a career time where an anecdote or ‘pearl’ can actually ‘save the day’.
If I’ve mentioned this before; skip this part. Once, not too long ago I was presented with a made up TAFOR. “Do you need to carry alternate ?” was the question. “Well” say I, where’s the area forecast and MSL chart?” “What for? says my interrogator, “assume that that TAF is valid for todays flight and your ETA is scheduled for XYZ0 z”. Oh ho thinks I, so I carefully ‘read’ the missive and scratched my poor wooden head for the ‘legal’ rights of it. There was a small window between something coming off and something coming on, which, had I been bang on ETA would, technically, allow me to depart without an alternate being carried. “Well” say’s I “it’s debatable, but theoretically, although there is no legal requirement; operationally, and, without all the data, only a fool would not acknowledge and plan for an acceptable alternate”. “Then you would fail my test” says this worthy. I let it slide then, he happy with his ‘win’; me, comfortable with the secret knowledge of bygone days and tales (all true) of weather reports being akin to the pronouncements of ‘Gypsy Rose’ the fortune teller. Quite apart from that, I had the benefit (as had many others) of real met briefing, from a qualified, experienced man who actually took the time to explain the vagaries of forecasting and how to beat the odds; (hint) he could also pick race day winners on any track in the country. RIP mate.
This desperate need to be legal; in compliance with ‘black letter law’ creates many more problems than it solves. Had that TAF been wrong – in the right direction – I may have carried a little more weight than strictly required; however, had my timing been out or the forecast wrong - in the wrong direction - then I would have happily sailed through to the next port, knowing I could make it. By the way – this doyen failed, totally and utterly to grasp the subtle difference between my sighting ‘acceptable’ and ‘suitable’ alternates (for technical’ planning) so I just ambled off, bemused, looking for a coffee.
I guess I’m just trying, in my usual, clumsy fashion to point out that the currently ‘in vogue’ slavish reliance on black letter compliance, whilst disregarding hard won ‘common’ or garden, experienced sense has the potential to kill you – legally of course. It is the bastion of those who have never been inducted into the genuine, grass roots ‘mystique’ of real air safety or understood how to translate myth, legend and knowledge into a practical, working anthology of ‘aviation’. Those who believe strict compliance will, if they actually did ever have to fly to earn a living, find that rigid compliance will keep them, technically and legally safe, whilst clinically dead, all for wont of ‘understanding’.
Aye well – enough of my ramblings. All your fault “V”, enjoy the TT’s.
Sponsored by the IOS. Happily aided and abetted by one (or was it two) Arthur Guinness Esq…
..
Perhaps, maybe, this lack is the true ‘mystique’ of aviation safety, which the law dependent denizens of Sleepy Hollow just don’t get; because they were never ‘told’. There are some blokes worth the time and effort to ‘bring along’ and that effort is always rewarded. You can spot ‘em a mile off and even if you have never seen, let alone flown with the fellah (or fellahinny) by the time you pull up at the holding point; you know – this is one to keep. And so the slow, often painful process of investment begins; usually ‘in the pub’ between first beers and dinner. (Q) Well, where did it go wrong? – (A) – usually a critique of the actual ‘stuff up’, simple in nature “we’ll I let it get too high and fast on final and with the breeze as it was Blah, blah, blah. Etc. Next round, you patiently explain that the ‘stuff up’ actually started at the briefing – before TOD, where Blah, blah, blah. Etc was overlooked. Things like the inversion and the bumps below it being tackled at full whack, rather than taking a more gentle approach, which, a thinking man would have anticipated: the speed/ROD being arranged slightly before ‘the encounter’ or better yet, the descent planned, anticipating to accommodate just such an event.
Then there is the loss of “I learned about flying from that” and similar published in the legendry, much mourned, missed and lamented ‘Safety Digest’. The discussion, argument, casual education and tales that publication generated are uncountable. The benefits simply not quantifiable.
The ‘booze bus’ may, quite rightly (IMO), claim to have prevented many a boozy night around the BBQ, where tall tales and true were welded into legend and Old Wives Tales were forged into both myth and legend; even if patently untrue – they formed a base from which truth and knowledge could be gained, a start point, or foundation if you will, from which the sprog could begin to build a unique and very personal tool bag; that of experience, both shared an acquired. There’s much more than todays NOTAM and latest Met in a pilots Nav-bag, it’s where the stored knowledge, factual, mythical and imagined is kept, for the once in a career time where an anecdote or ‘pearl’ can actually ‘save the day’.
If I’ve mentioned this before; skip this part. Once, not too long ago I was presented with a made up TAFOR. “Do you need to carry alternate ?” was the question. “Well” say I, where’s the area forecast and MSL chart?” “What for? says my interrogator, “assume that that TAF is valid for todays flight and your ETA is scheduled for XYZ0 z”. Oh ho thinks I, so I carefully ‘read’ the missive and scratched my poor wooden head for the ‘legal’ rights of it. There was a small window between something coming off and something coming on, which, had I been bang on ETA would, technically, allow me to depart without an alternate being carried. “Well” say’s I “it’s debatable, but theoretically, although there is no legal requirement; operationally, and, without all the data, only a fool would not acknowledge and plan for an acceptable alternate”. “Then you would fail my test” says this worthy. I let it slide then, he happy with his ‘win’; me, comfortable with the secret knowledge of bygone days and tales (all true) of weather reports being akin to the pronouncements of ‘Gypsy Rose’ the fortune teller. Quite apart from that, I had the benefit (as had many others) of real met briefing, from a qualified, experienced man who actually took the time to explain the vagaries of forecasting and how to beat the odds; (hint) he could also pick race day winners on any track in the country. RIP mate.
This desperate need to be legal; in compliance with ‘black letter law’ creates many more problems than it solves. Had that TAF been wrong – in the right direction – I may have carried a little more weight than strictly required; however, had my timing been out or the forecast wrong - in the wrong direction - then I would have happily sailed through to the next port, knowing I could make it. By the way – this doyen failed, totally and utterly to grasp the subtle difference between my sighting ‘acceptable’ and ‘suitable’ alternates (for technical’ planning) so I just ambled off, bemused, looking for a coffee.
I guess I’m just trying, in my usual, clumsy fashion to point out that the currently ‘in vogue’ slavish reliance on black letter compliance, whilst disregarding hard won ‘common’ or garden, experienced sense has the potential to kill you – legally of course. It is the bastion of those who have never been inducted into the genuine, grass roots ‘mystique’ of real air safety or understood how to translate myth, legend and knowledge into a practical, working anthology of ‘aviation’. Those who believe strict compliance will, if they actually did ever have to fly to earn a living, find that rigid compliance will keep them, technically and legally safe, whilst clinically dead, all for wont of ‘understanding’.
Aye well – enough of my ramblings. All your fault “V”, enjoy the TT’s.
Sponsored by the IOS. Happily aided and abetted by one (or was it two) Arthur Guinness Esq…
..