From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: ASRS CALLBACK # 163 (
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:38:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

MCT> .problem.  How hard would it have been for the controller to
   > .mention contact approaches?

The controller isn't allowed to solicit a contact approach.  I missed
the beginning of the discussions, but did the pilot declare an
emergency?  If not, why not?  Lots of things change when an emergency is
declared.

   > .The FAA creates a regulatory environment so complex that the
   > .average pilot cannot realistically understand all of it, and an
   > .enforcement environment so vindictive that people would rather
   > .cover their asses than act to reduce dangerous situations. Then
   > .NASA (and NTSB, too) proclaims the fault to be the pilot's, who
   > .should have known better.  Why can't they look at the real
   > .problems? (rhetorical question)

What, in your opinion, are the "real" problems?  The regulatory
environment is indeed complex, but little of it comes into play
during the average flight operations.  There certainly is an involved
enforcement environment, but the _current_ enforcement environment does
not seem to be nearly as vindictive as you imply.  But the myth is
propagated and newbies _believe_ that they need to cover their behinds
more than they need to fly the aircraft.

MCT> .   Sifting through these complaints, we discovered that many of
   > .   these pilots apparently had been content at briefing time to be
   > .   *inert recipients of whatever the system delivered*, rather
   > .   than becoming active participants in the weather briefing
   > .   process -- questioning, comparing, analyzing.  Not one reporter
   > .   indicated that he or she had obtained temperature-dewpoint
   > .   data, an important indicator of the condition of the atmosphere.

MCT> .Why don't briefers provide the information pilots need?
   > .Temp/dewpoint is pretty basic.  Most pilots have more
   > .interest in weather than the average person, but we should not
   > .have to be experts, that's what the briefers are for.

I'm not sure where the incident took place, but in every FSS briefing
I've ever gotten the temp and dewpoint were given for origin and
destination, and as part of every SA that I requested.  Briefers follow
a standard format for delivering the information.  That format is
designed to give the pilot enough information to determine whether it's
a go/no-go situation, and whether to request more info.  A briefing
SHOULD BE an interactive process, not a compulsory step in filing a
flight plan, which is mostly ignored by the pilot.  A briefer can, and
will, say "VFR not recommended" if there's any marginal condition.  But
the pilot is the ultimate and final judge of whether or not to go.
Ditto for an IFR flight.  NO briefer can or should take the
responsibility for thinking for the pilot.

   > .I agree that pilots should be active information seekers during
   > .weather briefings, but we should be able to have confidence that
   > .we'll get the obviously relevant information without having
   > .to pull teeth for it.  Again, there are problems here that
   > .it is unreasonable to blame completely on pilots,
   > .but they are being overlooked.

Do you have concrete suggestions?  Saying that the briefers should
supply the information that the pilot needs is like saying that you
believe in apple pie and motherhood.  How about specifics as to what's
wrong, and how to improve it.  Bear in mind that FSS' are going away, in
favor of a few AFSS, and that the emphasis is shifting to a pilot
doing a self-briefing with DUAT.

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com