Atlas NTSB 3/12 investigative update

trafficinsight

Well-Known Member
Raise your hand if your initial training airplane didn't even have an electrical system, much less these new fangled things like transponders, etc. Hell, getting into an airplane that had a starter was like Buck Rogers type luxury.
I mean... Mine didn't have an electrical system reliably, does that count?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

Beefy McGee

Well-Known Member
There was a period of time where our FSDO had a policy of all CFI initials done in house, during that time we had one inspector basically tell us quietly that if students were assigned to a certain other inspector they should just cancel and reschedule because his philosophy was "everyone fails the first try."



Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
ATL?
 

nibake

Powder hound
Sadly, this will most likely be an exercise in futility since neither objective facts or fundamentals of logic seem to be able to slow you down.

No, the essence of the logic is that they’re better informed and qualified to determine the causes of accidents than the rest of us.
That's not close to what you said. Let me quote your message again, in case you forgot.:

Do you honestly think that investigators aren’t open to this? Seriously? We all know they are because it’s their job
Because is a word that attributes cause. Your logical construct was flawed.
If you want to walk that back and apologize, cool, otherwise, all we can do is go off of what you said, not what you decided your logic really was after the fact. It's interesting to note that no one disagreed with the idea. However, @Crop Duster called you out on blatantly flawed logic. As a side note, although I disagree with a lot of his viewpoints, he has shown himself to be a head and shoulders above the pack around here when it comes to applying critical reasoning with a good amount of consistency. All I did was refer back to what he said, although you seemed to understand neither his post nor mine.

Wait...you’re the guy who knows science better than scientists. It’s all coming together now.
This is the kind of cheap shot that might work on the middle school playground, but has no place in grown-up conversation. For those who did not read the post in question, I disagreed with your viewpoint and even told you that I respect your viewpoint even though I disagree with it. I'm not sure what else you want? I said nothing that could be construed as knowing science better than scientists.

In the meantime, I'm going to go on having grown-up conversations with the adults in the room who can exercise at least a little respect for critical thinking and objective facts. You are welcome to join if you like, but for now:

I heard some pilots talking on guard today. Everything they said must be professional pilot talk. We all know they only say professional pilot things because it's their job.
 

zmiller4

Well-Known Member
All I did was refer back to what he said, although you seemed to understand neither his post nor mine.
Please help me out then. What evidence do you have that the NTSB won’t consider the range of possible causes? That’s what this is about.

For those who did not read the post in question, I disagreed with your viewpoint and even told you that I respect your viewpoint even though I disagree with it.
You alledged that there is an inherent bias in the conclusions of an entire scientific community. I don’t know how else to interpret that other than that you think you know science better than scientists.
 
Also, nobody is a better pilot because they can do NDB approaches.
Hmmm. I would argue they might just be better pilots. And I would certainly argue that folks who can fly NDB back-courses are better pilots (if for no other reason than it's awesome to watch someone successfully execute such parlor tricks).

Having to continuously observe, think and mentally calculate corrections while hand-flying... then manually inputing those corrections into the the airplane, then continually rinsing and repeating ... all while not forgetting to descend... That takes some bandwidth and concentration far beyond any I've applied in almost all other sub-routines of operating aerial appliances.

That bandwidth, and that ability to concentrate while hand-flying, are highly transferable to all other aspects of operating aerial appliances and will make one better at those other operational aspects.
 
Last edited:

Ajax

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hmmm. I would argue they might just be better pilots. And I would certainly argue that folks who can fly NDB back-courses are better pilots (if for no other reason than it's awesome to watch someone successfully execute such parlor tricks).

Having to continuously observe, think and mentally calculate corrections while hand-flying... then manually input those corrections into the the airplane, then rinse and repeat. That takes some bandwidth and concentration far beyond any I've applied in almost all other sub-routines of operating aerial appliances.

That bandwidth, and that ability to concentrate while hand-flying, are highly transferable to all other aspects of operating aerial appliances and will make one better at those other operational aspects.
Probably a stupid question but:

What is an NDB backcourse, do you mean tracking away from the station, a loc/bc that has an NDB involved?

My stance on NDBs, I don't think it's such a transferable skill, it's not too similar to a VOR/ILS to be substantial. It is more difficult, though, someone who can handle that probably has a better scan and SA than someone who cannot. But, I don't think it's a black eye to someone if they'd never done an NDB. You can still be a very capable pilot and not have ever done one.
 
The FAA has tended to use the CFI checkride(s) as the first real "ball kicker" for certificate-seekers. Unfortunately, since the objective seems to be indiscriminate pick slips to cause intimidation, rather than cause applicants to achieve a higher standard of performance, it hasn't really done anything except cause a lot of otherwise good pilots to have a couple pink slips in their record.
I don't completely disagree (there are some giant douches and turd sandwiches out there), but I'd argue - based on a lot of observed CFI rides - that by and large the FAA CFI examiners are truly not as capricious as you intimate. Sometimes, but not typically. While they are looking for their 80% at the CFI ride level (which is a shame, IMO that should be found at tougher primary cert rides) most of the CFI failures I've seen have been completely justified.

The CFI ride should be- and usually is - about teaching skills, not flying skills. Lots of Sierra Hotel types can't instruct their way out of barn with the sliding loft doors open. And if they can't, the FAA is completely justified in failing them. Now those few (an increasing number, I fear) who fail a CFI ride for substandard airmanship... that's a whole other world of discomboluation.
 
Probably a stupid question but:

What is an NDB backcourse, do you mean tracking away from the station, a loc/bc that has an NDB involved?
Nope, no LOC, just flying the ADF needle backwards (outbound from station / reverse sensing ... kinda sorta) ... in a strong crosswind ... with turbulence ... and mountains on both sides of the course ... and uphill before AND after the reverse course reversal!! ;)
 
Last edited:
I failed my CFI oral 3x when I was 18, nearly 9 years ago. I’ve been through 3 121/135 initial training events and a captain upgrade without the need to repeat a single sim. I’m also a sim instructor for my airline. Should I quit flying? 4500+ hours later, I’m still incident/accident free.
FWIW I knew the FO, and he had no training problems at Mesa.
I knew a fella who failed at least 6 (maybe 7) times... involving different examiners at at least 3 different FSDOs. He's flying at a 121 now, too. I'd never step foot on a plane he had any involvement in operating. If for no other reason than the lack of judgment demonstrated by attempting the CFI ride 6 (or 7) times. "Hmmm, we went missed on the TVC ILS 3 times, I think we should give it one more shot, yeah?"
 

FalconNIB

Well-Known Member
I knew a fella who failed at least 6 (maybe 7) times... involving different examiners at at least 3 different FSDOs. He's flying at a 121 now, too. I'd never step foot on a plane he had any involvement in operating. If for no other reason than the lack of judgment demonstrated by attempting the CFI ride 6 (or 7) times. "Hmmm, we went missed on the TVC ILS 3 times, I think we should give it one more shot, yeah?"
Are you suggesting I lack judgement?
 

///AMG

Well-Known Member
My stance on NDBs, I don't think it's such a transferable skill, it's not too similar to a VOR/ILS to be substantial. It is more difficult, though, someone who can handle that probably has a better scan and SA than someone who cannot. But, I don't think it's a black eye to someone if they'd never done an NDB. You can still be a very capable pilot and not have ever done one.
I think the gist is that folks who grew up flying the magenta line (not speaking to anyone in particular) lost out a little on the primary training lessons taught when doing things the "hard" way. I'm sure there are plenty of talented aviators with that sort of background, who sought out professional knowledge and understand the concepts behind what the system is doing for them. For those who did not, one day that system will bite. The professional part of aviation is backing yourself up and catching it when that happens. We flew NDB's to learn how to apply wind correction to our approaches without the feedback an ILS will give you. We flew them to practice "breaking out" in weird positions not at all aligned with the runway, and transitioning to a stable visual approach. We flew them to fundamentally understand how to correct back to being on a course that isn't readily displayed for you in the form of a CDI/RMI/HSI.......it's a nav course you must continually picture in your head, and is only readily apparent on the instruments when you are actually on it. In itself, an NDB is mostly a relic of the past. But those skills are useful anywhere when things aren't working out as expected. Anyone can fly an NDB, it's not that hard.......but it was a very analog training tool that was still conceptually useful to me as an IR student 16-17 years ago, long after it was already operationally irrelevant. I'm not saying we should go back to training to them, obviously the training opportunities are limited in the lower 48 nowadays, but doing weird things like that are part of building the tool kid I believe. Just my opinion, just my $.02
 

SlumTodd_Millionaire

Socialist Pig Member
Pilot Error Suspected in Fatal Atlas Air Cargo Crash - WSJ
This seems like a wildly implausible sequence of events.
 

Roger Roger

Paid to sleep, fly for fun
Pilot Error Suspected in Fatal Atlas Air Cargo Crash - WSJ
That sounds like the least plausible sequence of events proposed thus far, and I don’t see a citation of any remotely reputable source for that theory. No stars.
 
Top