Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 18:18:01 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1113231@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=148.78.247.132; envelope-from=hwasti@starband.net
From: "Hamid A. Wasti" <hwasti@starband.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: IVP Crash
References: <list-1113076@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Posted for "Tom Gourley" <tom.gourley@verizon.net>:
>
>  
>  I was not throwing stones at anyone.  If my comments were perceived 
> that way,
> I apologize.


Tom,

My post was not intended to imply that you were throwing stones.  I 
apologize that it it came across that way.  The "you" in the post was 
directed at the generic "you" or in other words all of us.  

My point was that all of us are quick to criticize a pilot that fails to 
react correctly to an engine failure or other clear cut event for which 
we have all trained and trained and trained... or at least should have. 
 I wanted to point out that there are other issues that frequently come 
up in real life that are not present in training, that can not be 
present in training.  In training, the decision to land straight ahead 
has no adverse consequences because we know that we will not actually 
land and put ourselves at risk of injury.  In training, the answer to 
the "has the engine failed" question never in doubt.  Even if the 
instructor somehow managed to create a situation where the answer was in 
doubt, there is no "cost" to making the safe decision to landing 
straight ahead.  

How will we react when we are not sure about how bad things are with the 
engine and sure that an off airport landing will cause injuries.  Think 
about that and know that in real life, you will be dealing with a messy 
ambiguous situation, not the sterile clear cut training scenario.

Regards,

Hamid