[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Army Aviation Officer
Date: 26 Jul 2001
Time: 18:34:34
Your story about the 135 pilot is interesting, but I would suggest the fault lies in poor training rather than technology.
I know your background in aviation, so I know that you realize aviation training is 10% about when things go right and 90% about when things go wrong. I remember my instrument training. I generally spent 2 hours of the 3 hour period with one or more failed indicators. Perhaps this stems from the fact that I am a helo pilot, and we helo pilots have an inherent distrust of our aircraft. We are, as the famous quote says, "broody, introspective anticipators of trouble." In truth, all aviators should be that way.
There can be no doubt that technology greatly enhances the safety of aircraft. The danger lies in the training and use of that technology. Murphy's Law tells us that what can go wrong will go wrong. If you are a pilot and are training based on a best-case scenario, you aren't doing yourself any favors.
I always like to try and kill myself 20 different ways in the simulator to practice emergency procedures. Systems failures should be a routine part of training. If a pilot is sweating bullets trying to fly an ILS on raw data, that pilot has serious issues. What happens when he loses the 8-ball and has to fly a PAR without attitude indications? If you are not training for the worst and hoping for the best as a pilot, you need to seriously re-evaluate your career choice.