The Jerry clown show.

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
I reckon one could make a pretty compelling argument that for dudes (attitudes) like Jerry, having an instrument rating actually makes them more dangerous than they would be without an instrument rating.
Of course you can. But it's more fun to make a compelling argument to support any prejudice one has whether it's a traditional one like race or simply looking down on pilots with lower ratings to make oneself feel superior. As Flip Wilson once said about prejudice, "everyone needs a little recreation."
 
Last edited:

averettpilot

Well-Known Member

Well, ahhhhhh, yeah. That, er, pretty much sums up my point: A bad attitude will kill you no matter how technically proficient you may be.

I mean, if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass a-hoppin'.

And Josef Mengele was a better doctor because he went to medical school.
Well, ahhhhh, I don’t think most pilots have his attitude. So on the whole, an instrument rating would make MOST pilots safer. Unless we wanna just say screw it and NOT try and put a dent in GAs safety record.
 

SlumTodd_Millionaire

Socialist Pig Member
Or when it doesn’t sense the wall


Or a tractor trailer and drives you under the trailer.
Except, you know, when they drive into the median and explode, killing the "driver"
Yesterday: *110 people died in old fashioned car crashes*

You: *Didn't bat an eye*

Past FIVE YEARS: *six total Tesla automation deaths*

You: "OH S%*^, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!1!111! BRING IN THE REGULATORS!!1!!!!!1!"

:rolleyes:

This is the Jerry thread after all...

Do you really think Jerry is safer because he has an instrument rating? (I mean, he does... I think. I'm just assuming given that he opens instrument flight plans.) I reckon one could make a pretty compelling argument that for dudes (attitudes) like Jerry, having an instrument rating actually makes them more dangerous than they would be without an instrument rating.
I certainly don't think Jerry would be safer WITHOUT an instrument rating. Because he sure as hell wouldn't let the absence of it stop him from flying in the soup. So yes, I'd say he's safer with that training than without. If only marginally so.
 

Crop Duster

E pluribus unum
Well, ahhhhh, I don’t think most pilots have his attitude. So on the whole, an instrument rating would make MOST pilots safer. Unless we wanna just say screw it and NOT try and put a dent in GAs safety record.
C'mon. I hope that over the years of reading my posts that you have discerned at least an inkling of my affinity for more and better education and excellence.

I'm just saying that technical education is rather useless without parallel and commensurate moral and ethical education.

If a pilot has the correct attitudes and capacities for decision-making, he will be a safe pilot, instrument ticket or not. Lacking proper attitude and decision-making skills, he won't be.

A pilot possessing proper attitude and enough financial resources will very likely self-select for instrument training anyway, for precisely the reason you point out. To wit: it will make him a more capable aviator. So, there's really no reason to force the issue. There are many reasons not to force the issue.

No amount of training is likely to help the hazardous-attitude-infected pilot. Hazardous pilots gonna hazard; It's what they DO.

I just don't think its fair to burden all the decent private pilots with the sins of a few morons and asses. If currently we properly examined and oversaw pilots according to the currently extant body of law, we would not have to worry about the morons and asses; They would not have made it through the selection process.

But I believe in less government regulation and more enlightened SELF regulation. At the very least, I believe in enforcement of the current regulations we have allowed our representatives to impose upon us, instead of creating new regulations that pretend to fill the gaps that have been created by not enforcing current regulations. So that's my disclosed bias. It's more or less a bias against stupid.
 
Last edited:

trafficinsight

Well-Known Member
Yesterday: *110 people died in old fashioned car crashes*

You: *Didn't bat an eye*

Past FIVE YEARS: *six total Tesla automation deaths*

You: "OH S%*^, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!1!111! BRING IN THE REGULATORS!!1!!!!!1!"

:rolleyes:
I really dont understand why you dont see the difference between those two things or why they dont correlate, but I dont have the energy right now to explain like you're 5.

Hint: I'm not advocating against autopilot and I never have.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::tinfoil:o_O:confused2::confused2::cool:
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
but I dont have the energy right now to explain like you're 5.


:rolleyes::rolleyes::tinfoil:o_O:confused2::confused2::cool:
Don’t worry, I do!


It is true that the only time they seem to have accidents is when a human driver in another car screws up, though.
Or when it doesn’t sense the wall


Or a tractor trailer and drives you under the trailer.
You see Todd, you made a blanket statement that is demonstrably false. I countered with facts and included sources. You then threw a temper tantrum unrelated to your original claim.
 

denverpilot

Well-Known Member
Past FIVE YEARS: *six total Tesla automation deaths*

You: "OH S%*^, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!1!111! BRING IN THE REGULATORS!!1!!!!!1!"

:rolleyes:
Just think how much fun it’ll be, and how expensive, once government starts “certifying” automotive autopilots for “safety” and auto makers turn the software updates into a rental/revenue stream.

“The government announced today that all Volkswagen Jetta 7 Max vehicles will be illegal to operate pending an investigation of the company’s autopilot system after two accidents...”

“Mandatory update. Please wait. Estimated time remaining: 3 hours”

“My car is stuck in a reboot loop after last night’s update. I’ll be late to the office. On hold for GM IT. It says my estimated wait is six hours.”

“Thank you for calling Toyota. My name is Bob from India. Oh, your touchscreen broke. Do you have ToyotaCare? If you take it to an independent repair shop, you know we void the warranty and your autopilot isn’t legal anymore on the roads, right? But today we have a special offer for you...”

“Keep your car legal. Driver365 gets you all government updates for a year for only $12,000. For drivers who only need a one time update good for one month, DriverPak is available for $2,000.”

“My car has ransomware. It’ll need to be towed to the dealer and reflashed. I think my kid was watching clicking on stuff on the center console.”

“Sir just click on the Ford logo and then Tools then Manual Software Update. I know you’ve been using cars for twenty years and don’t know how to do this yet. Yes it’s all our fault. I understand you want to speak to a supervisor. Please hold.”

It’s going to be fun to watch the tech industry totally screw up cars. :)
 

CFI A&P

Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
Well, ahhhhhh, yeah. That, er, pretty much sums up my point: A bad attitude will kill you no matter how technically proficient you may be.

I mean, if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass a-hoppin'.

And Josef Mengele was a better doctor because he went to medical school.
The reality is that old Jerry could be logging enough approaches and holds to stay legally current and never interact with a CFI-I. He might be getting his flight reviews in a J3 or clapped out VFR only C150, which would be 100% legal and never reveal his IFR or multi-engine deficiencies.

The same thing happens often with the builders of E-AB. They spend years building a hot rod, then get a bare bones flight review in an aircraft not representative of what they built yet they’re legal. The final step is usually balling up the new airplane, unless they were smart and received transition training for the new aircraft.
 

Crop Duster

E pluribus unum
Well, ahhhhh, I don’t think most pilots have his attitude. So on the whole, an instrument rating would make MOST pilots safer. Unless we wanna just say screw it and NOT try and put a dent in GAs safety record.
You are right. Again.

I'm not arguing with you.

I'm just saying, a safe pilot is a safe pilot - even if said pilot possesses only a mere PPL. And, as you've made quite clear, you feel MOST pilots are NOT like Jerry. So, MOST of those paltry PPL VFR only pilots are probably pretty darn safe, eh??

Adding an instrument rating should be an opportunity... NOT an obligation.
 
Last edited:

Crop Duster

E pluribus unum
The reality is that old Jerry could be logging enough approaches and holds to stay legally current and never interact with a CFI-I. He might be getting his flight reviews in a J3 or clapped out VFR only C150, which would be 100% legal and never reveal his IFR or multi-engine deficiencies.

The same thing happens often with the builders of E-AB. They spend years building a hot rod, then get a bare bones flight review in an aircraft not representative of what they built yet they’re legal. The final step is usually balling up the new airplane, unless they were smart and received transition training for the new aircraft.
Yup.

One can train for and receive one's instrument ticket in a G1000 rig.

Then, LEGALLY, one is qualified to fly IFR in a steam gauge airplane... the good/bad news is that statistically, if one chooses to do so, that scenario will end about 48 seconds after entering IMC.
 
Last edited:

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Yup.

One can train for and receive one's instrument ticket in a G1000 rig.

Then, LEGALLY, one is qualified to fly IFR in a steam gauge airplane... the good/bad news is that statistically, if one chooses to do so, that scenario will end about 48 seconds after entering IMC.
I don't disagree at all that someone trained only on a 10"wide attitude indicator with all the other indicators in immediate view would have difficulty in the soup a 3" wide AI and a traditional six-pack (it works the other way too). But I'm definitely curious about the source of the statistics you mention.
 

Crop Duster

E pluribus unum
I don't disagree at all that someone trained only on a 10"wide attitude indicator with all the other indicators in immediate view would have difficulty in the soup a 3" wide AI and a traditional six-pack (it works the other way too). But I'm definitely curious about the source of the statistics you mention.
The funny thing is, it really doesn't work the other way. If you train IFR in steam gauges, it takes 2-3 additional flights to transition to glass. If you train in glass... hell, you might as well start over from the beginning.

I would not accept students who insisted on doing IFR training in Glass. I would happily train them in steam and then transition them to glass.

I mean, glass is easy. Everybody these days wants EASY. Quick. Convenient. Easy... FI ! Go climb a mountain barefoot! Learn what it means to be a real human animal. I'm sick of climate-controlled, panzy-assed, padded-for-your-protection. Use your body! Use your brain! Observe. Investigate. Cogitate. Flagellate. Be freaking human!

Oh... and also... dontcha know that 548.7% of internet statistics are made up on the spot???
 
Last edited:

Roger Roger

Paid to sleep, fly for fun
The funny thing is, it really doesn't work the other way. If you train IFR in steam gauges, it takes 2-3 addition flights to transition to glass. If you train in glass... hell, you might as well start over from the beginning.

I would not accept students who insisted on doing IFR training in Glass. I would happily train them in steam and then transition them to glass.
Ok boomer.
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
I’m trying to find accident statistics, but so far the only interesting thing I’ve found is that single pilot night IFR on approach accident rate is 8 times higher per 100k hours than single pilot night VFR on approach per 100k hours
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
I’m trying to find accident statistics, but so far the only interesting thing I’ve found is that single pilot night IFR on approach accident rate is 8 times higher per 100k hours than single pilot night VFR on approach per 100k hours
Actually I'm not surprised.

Not about IAPs, but I've seen many discussions of visual approaches by instrument pilots reflecting less understanding than a student pilot on their first solo cross country.
 

Crop Duster

E pluribus unum
Actually I'm not surprised.

Not about IAPs, but I've seen many discussions of visual approaches by instrument pilots reflecting less understanding than a student pilot on their first solo cross country.
Yup!

There's lies,
Damned lies,
And statistics.

Then there's what you actually see happening at the airports and in the skies.
 
Last edited:

TUCKnTRUCK

That guy
Yesterday: *110 people died in old fashioned car crashes*

You: *Didn't bat an eye*

Past FIVE YEARS: *six total Tesla automation deaths*

You: "OH S%*^, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!1!111! BRING IN THE REGULATORS!!1!!!!!1!"

:rolleyes:



I certainly don't think Jerry would be safer WITHOUT an instrument rating. Because he sure as hell wouldn't let the absence of it stop him from flying in the soup. So yes, I'd say he's safer with that training than without. If only marginally so.
Took all of a week for a “autonomous” taxi to kill a pedestrian. Why? Partially because the technology wasn’t ready, but mostly because the driver was watching TV on her phone.

The issue is still the person, and for the immediate future people will be required to monitor the cars. They simply not ready to run unmonitored yet, and we’ve already proven that as a society we will immediately drop attention and soon as we think we can safely. If there was a way to segregate autonomous and standard traffic, then I’d be all for it, otherwise it’s going to be a lengthy process with a fair amount of the technology adverse population staying away from it for a long time. Changing the way people think on an individual level is tough, on a societal level it takes forever, and is easily undermined.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Roger Roger

Paid to sleep, fly for fun
Took all of a week for a “autonomous” taxi to kill a pedestrian. Why? Partially because the technology wasn’t ready, but mostly because the driver was watching TV on her phone.

The issue is still the person, and for the immediate future people will be required to monitor the cars. They simply not ready to run unmonitored yet, and we’ve already proven that as a society we will immediately drop attention and soon as we think we can safely. If there was a way to segregate autonomous and standard traffic, then I’d be all for it, otherwise it’s going to be a lengthy process with a fair amount of the technology adverse population staying away from it for a long time. Changing the way people think on an individual level is tough, on a societal level it takes forever, and is easily undermined.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, it killed a person because she was high and crossing a freeway on foot at night while pushing a bike. Stupid games, stupid prizes.
 

Crop Duster

E pluribus unum
I don't disagree at all that someone trained only on a 10"wide attitude indicator with all the other indicators in immediate view would have difficulty in the soup a 3" wide AI and a traditional six-pack (it works the other way too). But I'm definitely curious about the source of the statistics you mention.
Something a bit meatier for you:
 

TUCKnTRUCK

That guy
No, it killed a person because she was high and crossing a freeway on foot at night while pushing a bike. Stupid games, stupid prizes.
But yet the car failed to react, and with fatal consequences. The program pretty much terminated after this. Would you call it stupid games if it was a diabetic having an episode vs somebody high? Plenty of people end up where they shouldn’t be, doing stuff they shouldn’t and it’s not always drug related. I know that the determination was that a human driver would have hit the lady as well- but that’s not really acceptable for a system that’s supposed to be safer is it?

The tech isn’t ready, and it won’t be for a long long time. Autonomous systems still don’t have the capability to see part of something and extrapolate what the item is. If a Tesla sees a foot, it doesn’t know there is a person attached to it unless it has been specifically coded to correlate foot to person. If a person has fallen down in a cross walk, there’s a good chance it will stop because of an obstruction, but a similar chance that it won’t recognize the obstruction as a person down in the toad.

Biggest flaw with the cars now is that they only know how to handle what has been programmed. They lack the capability to learn and adapt. It doesn’t matter if she was High, or in a place she wasn’t supposed to be. Vehicle failed to react = not ready for use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top