|
Kevin said,
I am starting to wonder if it is a bad idea for
the LML to be used as
a form for speculation regarding the causes of
an accident,
I suppose speculation and rumor mongering
are bad things.
On the other hand, respect for vested interests
tends to defer attention
until it's so old news that no one learns from
it.
Choosing the lesser of the two evils, I would
advocate trying to narrow
it to a limited number of scenarios and then
thinking about what we would
do. But I would go beyond the
procedural answer and try to address the mental scenario
and try to figure out how you would deal with
that.
I would wager that a good percentage of the pilots
no longer with us
would have given the right answer on the ground but
somehow
couldn't get to the right answer in the
air. I think THAT particular
problem is very worth discussing, and one that
procedural training
doesn't always solve.
I have to relate that my 2nd scary situation in an
airplane was resolved
by pattern recognition. After reading
"aftermath" for a decade, but still
with only 100 hours under my belt, I was out with
my family, vfr, on a murky
day which turned into night in the
mountains. At some point a mental alarm went off when I
recognized this was starting to sound like an
"aftermath" story. At the
moment, the repugnance of having <you guys>
monday morning quarterback
my crash was highly motivating. I found
an airport and landed without
incident. Recognizing early that you
need to change something is one
thing we learn from thinking about these
situations.
Colyn
|