Adlerdriver

ptarmigan,
This website has its flaws but at the end of the day, one of the main reasons professional pilots stop by is the exchange of information. Whether it's about a layover, contract help, some comic relief or one of the more important subjects like safety.

I can only speak for myself but I'm going to bet others might feel the same: I've had about enough of the "I'm the smartest guy in the room but I can't tell you why" act. You want to sell your book? Fine. Go do that somewhere else.

The veiled, leading questions and statements lacking specifics have gotten old and do nothing to further anyone's understanding of this event. Actually contributing to the "Safety" section of this forum has taken a backseat to sales and that's your option. But if I were a moderator here, I think I would ask you to refrain from posting on this subject as long as your priorities remain in that order.

METO Guido

Whoa Adler, who burnt your toast? Obliged by custom to pre-qualify everything that follows, IMHO.

If you take the time to work through ptarmigan's Asiana paper, you'll notice a method entitled, CAST. (Casual Analysis using Systems Theory) I take this to mean examining events from some form of a causal determinism (probability) framework applied to systems theory (altering one component affects the entire structure with predictable outcomes.) In short, free will is a human construct. Won't help you get off the gate any sooner but pretty interesting if you have the time. Which, since everything under the sun is pre-ordained, either you already do or you don't.

Adlerdriver

Guido, I truly mean no offense and it's probably me but.... I usually have to try wayyyyy too hard to even follow most of your posts.

Maybe it's the lack of pronouns, the fragmented sentences or you've got some "right brain" higher echelon stuff going on and I'm just not worthy.

I stand by my post and there's no toast involved. I've read the accident report and a few articles related to the accident as well as flown the Airbus. I've formed an opinion that happens to be shared by other professional who visit this board. If ptarmigan wants to refute what's in the public domain and the opinions of many here with some specifics, I would welcome his inputs.

METO Guido

None taken. Guilty of overtaxing an anonymous internet forum by use of too few pronouns & too many fragments, got it. Looking back over contributions made in this thread, can't see where those charges stick. In comparison to others, my points appear reasonably straightforward using acceptable grammar and lie well within the forum's TOU policy. I do find soliciting moderator censure of posts in the above case off the mark and, quite frankly, school boyish.

So, you read the accident report. What, may I ask, are your specific, professional recommendations?

ShyGuy

+1




I get that you have a book to sell, but you are really reaching here now with your posts on this crash. Crossing the line into non-sense now.

Adlerdriver

I never said you were in violation of the TOU policy. I just have a hard time interpreting some of your posts without some effort. As I said, it's probably me but case in point below:
I don't believe I solicited any censure. I simply offered an opinion using the hypothetical if I were a moderator, not expecting or desiring actual moderator action. Maybe I'm interpreting the TOU restriction against postings that promote or advertise products and services too strictly. Probably one of the reasons I'm not a moderator.

ptarmigan has opted to include a link to what is essentially a book review and advertisement below every one of his posts. In addition, on numerous occasions in this thread, he has opted to use "teasers" and vague questions in his posts. In my opinion, these are clearly designed to promote interest in his book rather than simply contribute whatever additional knowledge he may possess to this discussion. Simply put, I'm not a fan of this approach to a safety related discussion.

Some examples:
Finally, I'm not sure why my disagreement with his methods and my reading the accident report somehow mean that I'm now required to produce "recommendations". But, if you want one, I would offer this:

Don't take minimally experienced pilots produced in time limited and cost-conscious training courses, turn them into auto-pilot cripples on long-haul airliners and expect them to perform well when events take them outside their extremely limited "normal".

METO Guido

The author collaborated on a book. No doubt it was published at the expense of great effort and if enough of those discovering it here actually place an order, maybe he can go out and buy a zero turn lawnmower with his share of the proceeds? Could he have been more forthcoming, engage the topic deeper? Sure. Seems well equipped to speak for himself so, I'll move on.

Here's the entire exchange you cite as problematic:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
One of the basic tenants of aircraft operation is the use of known pitch and power settings. Pitot static malfunctions can create confusion but only if they are viewed as a singular event with no knowledge of events leading to them. An aircraft in level flight holding a stable airspeed at FL350 doesn't just start to overspeed or stall spontaneously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by METO Guido
Heart of the matter as far as I can tell. Perished not a clue as to why.
This crew couldn't identify an airspeed unreliable abnormal correctly, stalled and left this life in a desperate hunt for understanding. No one has explained to me adequately yet, what's to be done about it.


I think if you've formed an opinion and ask for specifics, it's fair game to offer them too.

ptarmigan

Actually, my questions were meant to stimulate thought and further discussion. That is why I wrote "serious question".

It is all too easy to judge from the outside of an event, when we know the outcome. It is a lot harder from inside of the event, and pilots are our own worst critics, constantly guilty of fundamental attribution error.

As for my signature, yes, it includes a link. There is just no way I can get into every aspect of the issues on this forum where it took a couple hundred pages in a book. I think if you look at the reviews and look up who gave them you'll see that they are not just "Joe Shmoe pilot" or lay-people. Here is another http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcont...&context=ijaaa

That said, it may seem that I am trying "argument by authority", but in truth I am just trying to help people past the bias that they might have based on the classic "self protection" modes we go into as pilots. I am really just interested in preventing an accident, and what concerns me is that nobody has actually learned the lessons from this accident so it is waiting out there. I would estimate that about 80% of the pilots out there are susceptible to it, sadly.

tomgoodman

If your aim is to be persuasive, the quote above demonstrates why you fail. Even the world’s greatest expert will lose his audience the moment he appears to insult them.

ptarmigan

Perhaps. I get frustrated with pilots that think they know better and that it "wouldn't happen to them". I am a staunch pilot advocate and want to never see a pilot-preventable accident again.