RA-Aus's Understanding of Safety 🙄

[Garfly]

 

 

59 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Ask around and you'll get vague answers like  "I'm careful", "I use Windy, doesn't everyone", and some will have read a book, but so far no one I've spoken has said  they've done a course or been tested. 

I'd like some more detail on that survey of yours. Ask around and you'll get the answers you need.

 

To me, the thrust of Nev's argument is that a pilot's having been 'trained' and 'tested' under a (marginally) superior licensing regime is not much guarantee of anything regarding weather wisdom.  He keeps stressing that even ATPL met savvy ain't enough to keep you out of trouble. 

 

I would add that making use of "Windy" (inter alia) is no indication of meteorological slackness.

Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[facthunter]

Well, I wouldn't like the task of rectifying it. In my own way I've consistently advised good preparation and caution and "never stop learning". I don't really know if it makes any difference.   Nev

[MattP]

All these things are just tools to use to build your situational awareness and help you decide a course of action. These things are tricky as whilst the weather might be the thing that causes the actual problems, accidents are usually caused by a number of factors such as pressure to press on, a schedule to be somewhere, commitments etc. As we've seen recently, experience isn't an antidote to this type of thing happening, and whilst there may be gaps in MET understanding, looking at the HF aspects is also critical. What drives one person to decide to go vs. another not go. Even if we took two people with the same level of MET knowledge, they'd make two different decisions based on their experiences be that aeronautical, the last time they did it working out, personal circumstances and even personality. Not sure how you train that other than the FAA hazardous attitudes material, which again requires someone to have the ability to self reflect on said attitudes. Hence we get back to the idea that this is a command decision on your part.

[facthunter]

A lot of truth in that, but skill level will also affect the outcome IF you get into a bad situation which CAN happen if your provided info is wrong. You have no claim against the Met People. They are excluded by law in the normal exercise of their "talents". in this country.  The Buck stops with the PIC when you are airborne except in rare things like Hijacking. Nev

[turboplanner]

36 minutes ago, Garfly said:

 

 

I'd like some more detail on that survey of yours. Ask around and you'll get the answers you need.

 

To me, the thrust of Nev's argument is that a pilot's having been 'trained' and 'tested' under a (marginally) superior licensing regime is not much guarantee of anything regarding weather wisdom.  He keeps stressing that even ATPL met savvy ain't enough to keep you out of trouble. 

 

I would add that making use of "Windy" (inter alia) is no indication of meteorological slackness.

Quite the opposite in fact.

 

Well if we're into Latin, QED.

 

[turboplanner]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

All these things are just tools to use to build your situational awareness and help you decide a course of action. These things are tricky as whilst the weather might be the thing that causes the actual problems, accidents are usually caused by a number of factors such as pressure to press on, a schedule to be somewhere, commitments etc. As we've seen recently, experience isn't an antidote to this type of thing happening, and whilst there may be gaps in MET understanding, looking at the HF aspects is also critical. What drives one person to decide to go vs. another not go. Even if we took two people with the same level of MET knowledge, they'd make two different decisions based on their experiences be that aeronautical, the last time they did it working out, personal circumstances and even personality. Not sure how you train that other than the FAA hazardous attitudes material, which again requires someone to have the ability to self reflect on said attitudes. Hence we get back to the idea that this is a command decision on your part.

MET training usually covers that in conjunction with flight planning. Last time we discussed this someone solve this with "We don't have to flight plan any more" and about three people in RA have been killed since, through not doing the basics, one going up a valley towards his destination, instead of down top the ocean where he had options down to zero feet = plop into the water and all swim ashore to the Surf Club for drinks, and another who flight took off, set his destination and died instead of flight planning for lowest safe altitude. As Facthunter is cautioning you can't just rely on the forecast because it can be wrong, it can change. 

[Garfly]

6 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Well if we're into Latin, QED.

 

Indeed!  That much we can both agree on.   ;- )

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I can understand not covering it as part of the general RAA BAK type training, 

Up until about five years ago I would have agreed with you because I'd had no issues with weather at my local field, then one day I read an incident report in which a pilot had been told to go away because the airport was closed by a fast moving storm. That was followed by another incident at a nearby airport where two pilots had taken off into blue sky, fog had rolled in while they were out in the training area, and when they got back to the airfield there was a solid blanket. They flew away and found a freeway under construction and landed there.

 

What that taught me is that even on your home turf with a local flight there is a need to have an alternative and the means to navigate there, and do a bit more than just roll up for the weekly flight, check the aircraft and take off for a casual hour....and that indicates MET should be started before first solo to the training area.

 

Edited September 25, 2022 by turboplanner

[Garfly]

28 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Up until about five years ago I would have agreed with you because I'd had no issues with weather at my local field, then one day I read an incident report in which a pilot had been told to go away because the airport was closed by a fast moving storm. That was followed by another incident at a nearby airport where two pilots had taken off into blue sky, fog had rolled in while they were out in the training area, and when they got back to the airfield there was a solid blanket. They flew away and found a freeway under construction and landed there.

 

What that taught me is that even on your home turf with a local flight there is a need to have an alternative and the means to navigate there, and do a bit more than just roll up for the weekly flight, check the aircraft and take off for a casual hour....and that indicates MET should be started before first solo to the training area.

 

I think few would disagree with you on this, Turbs, but to me your story goes right to the point.  Despite your (presumably) having studied and been tested in a pretty good licensing system, it actually took experience down the track for the theory that you knew (or, at least, once knew) to sink in - to become real for you.  I doubt, though, that any PPL course could ever cover all contingencies and phenomena in every subject that might come up in one's flying career.  But yes, I think we all agree that weather and its perils for small aeroplanes could, and should, be taught, in some fashion, from the get go.

But just cramming - once - for a 20 question multiple choice quiz is never going to cut the mustard.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Garfly

[facthunter]

There's the operational requirements that must be addressed like alternates and holding but also a disabled plane on a runway can make the aerodrome unusable for you and some alternates may be less suitable than others if remote. In Australia a drome can be closed to arrivals but if you have nowhere else to go being a bit insistent may suit you better. If you can hold, maybe do so. ATC will ask you for your endurance and intentions always so have that information at hand. IF you are properly monitoring the progress of your flight you will have it anyhow..?? 

  Actual weather, fronts, fog, excess X wind low cloud base Hail icing low vis in smoke and turbulence (Causes) must be understood and operation up valleys and near ridges covered .The applicability of LSALT to your operation should be understood and how it is derived at  the planning stage.  PPPPPP. Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. Use Google earth to do a run over unfamiliar places and destinations. The more info the better the result. Have someone at the destination you can contact etc. Nev

[sfGnome]

I may not be representative, but I recall doing a lot of met work in my RAA training (or it seemed to be a lot at the time because it was hard). I’m happy to accept that what I was taught was entirely up to my instructor (who was also the the CFI), so there’s no guarantee that everyone is/was trained the same way. It’s also possible that what seemed like a lot to me was only one pufteenth of the required knowledge; after all, I only know what I was taught, not what I wasn’t taught. But, let’s for a moment assume (on the basis of this sample of 1) that RAA training isn’t necessarily a poor cousin of GA training, though I’m sure that there are some poor RAA (and GA) instructors out there…

[old man emu]

16 hours ago, facthunter said:

Well, I wouldn't like the task of rectifying it. In my own way I've consistently advised good preparation and caution and "never stop learning". I don't really know if it makes any difference.   Nev

Does the comment "Hasn't enough sense to come in out of the rain" have some application here?