Scudrunners

When it comes to the subject of safety, I think we often have illogical things driven down our throats without critical thinking. If something is being done in the name of "safety," we just accept the policy or procedure without really thinking about if it will be effective in what it is trying to accomplish. This is why we have 200 pages of SOPs we MUST comply with. This is why we have multiple pages of checklist items we MUST accomplish for every flight. In the end, a lot of it is jerking off (sorry for the graphic analogy.)


Who else here says:


PF "transition 18 up check"
PNF " transition 18 up check"
PNF " altimeter set two niner decimal niner two right (left) and cross checked"
PF " altimeter set two niner decimal niner two left (right) and cross checked"
PNF "transition 18 up check complete"
PF "check"
PF and PNF think to themselves " goddamn we are a pair of awesome professionals."


I get that it is this way because someone forgot to set their altimeter and busted an altitude, or going down ran into a mountain, but if you both forget, you both forget all the jerking off too. Give me a break!


Who else here takes a course in CRM that basically tells you to not be an asshole and listen to the input of your fellow crew members. Trouble is, the assholes that need it don't pay attention!


Did you know that our Air Force pilots all take a course in the affects of hypoxia that includes shutting off the flow of oxygen to their brain? What logical person would want to do this? All in the name of safety. During this course they are taught to not trust the symptoms from prior exposures to tip them off as they are highly likely to vary with each subsequent exposure. Excuse me? Say again?


Prior to landing I once made the grave error of saying "flaps fifteen" to the PNF.
Fortunately he caught me on it right away saying with as little aggravation as possible "flaps wun fife?"
While thinking to myself would you just fuck off and run the flaps and there is no flaps 50 so wtf I said "oh pls excuse me flaps wun fife"


Anybody else fly a maintenance test flight, or a short reposition flight and have to race, and I mean race! through the checklist to get it done in the period of time you've got, or worse yet extend your flight to complete your two person play? Did this make your flight safer having one pilot with his head in his lap the entire flight while the other is distracted calling out responses?


If you complain, you're labelled a cowboy or anti safety and sometimes that is just ridiculous.


Thanks for listening.

I dont use a checklist, and GASP.... I always remember to put the gear down.... I must be a bad person though.

[quote]I must be a bad person though[/quote]

Hell, you're the CEO of the BP corporation!!  >:D

That actually made me laugh out loud!


:)

Someone has gradually morphed pilot training into producing systems operators who are trained in the paint by numbers skills set.

Works fairly well until the paint by numbers expert is faced with a blank page to work with.

Verbal dia fucking reeeea -- while you need to check transition both ways and contrary to most young canadian pilots it is not 180 or 18 thousand everywhere - canadian airspace is so fucked up (time for my rant) most common phrase on the radio in this area -- descending/climbing from/to the flight levels -- that's right up there with "any conflicting traffic" but I digress, Uncontrolled airspace in Canada should be flight levels, pure and simple, just yesterday I am observing loss of separation due to altimeter settings in uncontrolled airspace. Add +500 for the guys who insist on flying IFR at these altitudes it is a formula for disaster. I often ask why guys do this and their main reason. I don't have IFR fuel. Holy fuck, who cares how much fuel you have. If you choose to fly IFR (which is much safer than scudrunning - sorry scud -- lmfaooooo) don't be so stupid to think it's ok because you are flying +500 --- fly the IFR altitudes, it's uncontrolled airspace with large gaps in altimeter settings, give yourself that extra separation. Just another example where trying to "stay legal" on paper is far more dangerous than "bending" the rules. I'm sick of the phrase, "it's legal" and then someone launches at 300/1 and becomes a statistic. Where has the true thought process gone.

Holy crap Chuck - are you running screaming down the street - according to CBC that's what is going on after that shaker -- lol     

SOP you say! Verbal Diarrhea you want? I should should you the 2 inch binder my company wrote for my bird. It tells me when to pause and take a breath during the briefing. 

[quote]I'm sick of the phrase, "it's legal" and then someone launches at 300/1 and becomes a statistic[/quote]

Ah, but at the time of impact, all the paper
was in order, and that's what TC tells us is
important.

[quote]Where has the true thought process gone[/quote]

Careful.  TC doesn't like people who think for
themselves.  They are the [i]enemy[/i] and they
must be [i]punished[/i] because they are a threat
to TC's [i]control[/i].

Can't have people thinking.  No telling what
they might come up with.  And that wouldn't
be good for pensions, promotions and politics.

After enough time passes, and you become
cynical enough and your idealism completely
leaves the building, you realize that TC has
absolutely no interest in safety, despite any
rhetoric.  TC has self-interest which is evident
in their promotion of the bureaucratic organism.