Why a pilot might do things a little differently...

[PilotDAR]

Elsewhere, there have been discussions of pilot decision making - "Why would a pilot do that?!?" So ask the question... but before passing judgement, consider that maybe there are/were some other factors;

Personally, I have:

Chosen to both takeoff and land with a tailwind worthy of consideration. In some cases, because the slope of the runway or local terrain made it a better choice, and, sometimes, not to look directly into the sun during the takeoff or landing.

Chosen to takeoff in a gusting crosswind when into the wind was a possibility - because of the large hill on the shore. I both did not want to take off toward rising ground, nor fly into what I anticipated could be settling air off the hill.

Chosen to land on the ice of a frozen lake: Amphibian (instead of the airport) - because I had one set of wheels up, and the other side down - 'done that twice. Straight floatplane (instead of open water), 'cause I had a broken cross bracing wire, and I was afraid that the other might break, and the plane flop into the lake. If it flopped on the ice, it would not sink (well, right away, anyway). It did not flop.

Chosen to land crosswind on the grass, rather than into the wind on the paved runway - I suspected, and later confirmed, a wheel was jammed. The tire slid on the grass, rather than burned on the pavement.

Chosen the unfavourable crosswind on the runway - amphibian - flat brake on one side, I wanted to be able to hold it straight with the remaining downwind brake. Landing was no problem, taxiing in - problem.

Chosen to complete a forced landing on a lake - the engine had stopped momentarily (unported fuel tank in steep turn), and I was not sure that it would stay running in the immediate, if I chose to go around at low altitude instead.

Flown ('cause there was no choice) a curved final approach and departure at a certified airport - 'cause there are mountains just off both ends of the runway there.

Announced to ATC that I did not know where I was (a couple of times ), 'cause bluffing it was not going to work out better!

Taken off without planning to, with full flaps out, and with no seatbelt on - 'cause the person I trust, who was marshalling me while I taxied on a frozen lake, assessed that if I stopped, the plane might break through the ice. Happily, obstacles were not a concern, just getting the weight off the wheels was!

Prebriefed myself that in the case of an engine failure (Navajo) that I would gently close the other throttle, and land ahead as best I could, instead of trying to climb away on one - test flight on a modification, and single engine handling and speeds not yet known.

Prebriefed myself that I would land the plane on the belly (gear up) if a forced landing were necessary - frequently, when flying over an unsuitable wheels down landing surface. 'Never had to do it...

Just some examples which came to mind while I was mowing the runway this morning. I remind myself to get as many facts as I can about a pilot's decision, before passing judgement, because the pilot might have known something about the situation that is not [yet] obvious to those who might comment....

[Squaretail]

Like they say, never judge another pilot until you have flown a mile in their shoes...

Because then you have a head start and his shoes!

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Also, speaking of shoes, don't judge the pilot in front of you too harshly if you're waiting to line up. Perhaps he/she just forgot to tie their sholeaces and only realized it at the threshold. I'm guilty of that, with a Dash 8 and a hundred passengers behind me.

It's not a pilot thing really. People are too quick to judge - it's why we scare off all the journalists who show up here. Never forget that every pilot who ever faced a difficult decision was fighting a battle for his/her life that you know nothing about.

[digits_]

I think you should really stop flying amphibian airplanes. Doesn't sound too healthy for the blood pressure!

Seriously though, good examples, thanks for sharing.

[PilotDAR]

I think you should really stop flying amphibian airplanes. Doesn't sound too healthy for the blood pressure!

Yeah, but more choice as to where to land when something's not going right!

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Yeah, but more choice as to where to land when something's not going right!

A parachute for either pilot or aircraft can provide that option as well. Just sayin'

[challenger_nami]

Edited. Inflammatory remarks.

.

[Aviatard]

When an accident happens, the thoughts and actions of that “pilot” are in public domain and shall be scrutinized for education, statistics etc.
If the pilot has done things in the proper manner, then that pilot should NOT have any fear for his/her actions being scrutinized.

Sully Sullenberger is a good example of the above.

Weren't they initially trying to hang Sullenberger for his decision not to return to Laguardia because the simulations showed he could have made it? Wouldn't that be an example of a a pilot having his actions scrutinized? I expect Captain Sullenberger had some fear while this was going on. Fortunately for him it was shown that he made the correct decision after all.

[challenger_nami]

When an accident happens, the thoughts and actions of that “pilot” are in public domain and shall be scrutinized for education, statistics etc.
If the pilot has done things in the proper manner, then that pilot should NOT have any fear for his/her actions being scrutinized.

Sully Sullenberger is a good example of the above.

Weren't they initially trying to hang Sullenberger for his decision not to return to Laguardia because the simulations showed he could have made it? Wouldn't that be an example of a a pilot having his actions scrutinized? I expect Captain Sullenberger had some fear while this was going on. Fortunately for him it was shown that he made the correct decision after all.

Exactly my point.
They scrutinized him as they should have .... and tried to “hang” him as you preferred to put it.

At the end of the day, it was shown that he made the correct decision after all, and achieved the best outcome when everything considered. Most importantly, he averted the real catastrophe by NOT trying to make it to the nearby airports.

.

[PilotDAR]

They scrutinized him as they should have .

This is very true, and correct. That said, the "they" are qualified, appointed accident investigators, acting within their authority and scope.

I have been "scrutinized" by TSB following an accident. I explained my choices and decisions, and the preventative measures and precautions I had put in place for the flight and my student. At the end of a very cordial and professional discussion, the TSB Investigator said: "Yup, that's why we call them accidents, sometimes stuff just happens.". And that was the last I heard from the TSB about it.

I'm content that most often a professional investigation provides good analysis and appropriate learning opportunity.

[valleyboy]

Just demonstrates that there is a lot of "grey" and nothing is ever just black and white in decision making. One must be prepared to think and take action, even if some others might consider it breaking some sort of rule, of thumb or otherwise.

[PilotDAR]

take action, even if some others might consider it breaking some sort of rule, of thumb or otherwise.

I recall a discussion with an airline training captain, in which he related a training scenario, in which there were only two possible outcomes (it was planned that way) either break a reg, or fly an instrument approach on fumes. He said he was amazed at how many pilots would follow the rules, and take the chance on a flameout. The correct answer was break the rule, and explain why after a safe landing.

[digits_]

I recall a discussion with an airline training captain, in which he related a training scenario, in which there were only two possible outcomes (it was planned that way) either break a reg, or fly an instrument approach on fumes. He said he was amazed at how many pilots would follow the rules, and take the chance on a flameout. The correct answer was break the rule, and explain why after a safe landing.

To be fair, scenarios like those are more a reflection of what the trainee thinks about the trainer, than they would be an indication of what the trainee would actually do in such a scenario.

It's also a no-win situation for the trainee, as every situation could be described as the wrong one. Or the right one, reinforcing the notion that the exercise tells you more about the trainer than the trainee.

[PilotDAR]

Noted Digits. The context of the explanation to me (from the trainer) was that it's better to make a decision which will most likely result in a safe landing, over a legally compliant one, if there is no safe

and

compliant choice.

I can think of a few times when I've done something for which an explanation could have been sought, but a very quick and informal acknowledgement seem to suffice - yes, with TC....

[telex]

take action, even if some others might consider it breaking some sort of rule, of thumb or otherwise.

I recall a discussion with an airline training captain, in which he related a training scenario, in which there were only two possible outcomes (it was planned that way) either break a reg, or fly an instrument approach on fumes. He said he was amazed at how many pilots would follow the rules, and take the chance on a flameout. The correct answer was break the rule, and explain why after a safe landing.

Sounds like a solid training program there.

Break the rules and get a gold star at airline X.

I wouldn't use this tale to prove any point other than what airline to never be a passenger on.

[shimmydampner]

take action, even if some others might consider it breaking some sort of rule, of thumb or otherwise.

I recall a discussion with an airline training captain, in which he related a training scenario, in which there were only two possible outcomes (it was planned that way) either break a reg, or fly an instrument approach on fumes. He said he was amazed at how many pilots would follow the rules, and take the chance on a flameout. The correct answer was break the rule, and explain why after a safe landing.

I can think of a few times when I've done something for which an explanation could have been sought, but a very quick and informal acknowledgement seem to suffice - yes, with TC....

I agree with your original point. However, as a trainer, in the past, it has been suggested to me that I incorporate exactly such a training "scenario" which I refused to do for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I'd rather not open myself up to any liability by training someone to break regulations. I can absolutely accept that there may be instances where the safer course of action involves breaking a regulation. However, in the context of training, it seems highly irresponsible to open the proverbial Pandora's box of training someone as to when it is appropriate to do so. In my opinion, we are supposed to be training to a standard within the bounds of the regulations and what is legal. I have yet to see an approved standard for when it is appropriate to exit those bounds. I can't imagine the regulator approving a training program that included doing so, although I have heard that it happens regularly at a major Canadian airline, so perhaps TC is fine with it.
Furthermore, what is the point of type specific training? Is it to pass on as much pertinent knowledge as possible and allow the candidates to practice critical operations and maneuvers until they are comfortable and competent operating the aircraft? Or is it to test them in impossible scenarios? That may be fun for highly experienced crew members with lots of time on type, but in my experience, most guys benefit far more from being filled with knowledge that they may have forgotten and allowed to practice maneuvers that they normally don't get the opportunity to practice on the line. I don't think breaking regulations in the interest of safety is something you can responsibly train someone to do.

[rookiepilot]

take action, even if some others might consider it breaking some sort of rule, of thumb or otherwise.

I recall a discussion with an airline training captain, in which he related a training scenario, in which there were only two possible outcomes (it was planned that way) either break a reg, or fly an instrument approach on fumes. He said he was amazed at how many pilots would follow the rules, and take the chance on a flameout. The correct answer was break the rule, and explain why after a safe landing.

What airline? I'm curious who would enact such a training approach.

[complexintentions]

I don't know which airline he was referring to specifically, but I do find it a bit sad that a few people seem surprised that task prioritization is taught in any decent training regime. In one large overseas airlines I worked, they became alarmed at the increasing number of incident reports on the line and training failures due to poor decision-making, much of which was attributed to absolute rote adherence to procedures for fear of repercussion. They subsequently modified their syllabus and began to heavily emphasize the concept of "resilience", encouraging the management of complex non-normal situations to best effect a positive outcome. Not just blindly follow a checklist. Incident occurrences dropped dramatically. In years past I guess they called such a concept "airmanship". Dirty word now.

I agree with your original point. However, as a trainer, in the past, it has been suggested to me that I incorporate exactly such a training "scenario" which I refused to do for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I'd rather not open myself up to any liability by training someone to break regulations. I can absolutely accept that there may be instances where the safer course of action involves breaking a regulation. However, in the context of training, it seems highly irresponsible to open the proverbial Pandora's box of training someone as to when it is appropriate to do so. In my opinion, we are supposed to be training to a standard within the bounds of the regulations and what is legal. I have yet to see an approved standard for when it is appropriate to exit those bounds. I can't imagine the regulator approving a training program that included doing so, although I have heard that it happens regularly at a major Canadian airline, so perhaps TC is fine with it.
Furthermore, what is the point of type specific training? Is it to pass on as much pertinent knowledge as possible and allow the candidates to practice critical operations and maneuvers until they are comfortable and competent operating the aircraft? Or is it to test them in impossible scenarios? That may be fun for highly experienced crew members with lots of time on type, but in my experience, most guys benefit far more from being filled with knowledge that they may have forgotten and allowed to practice maneuvers that they normally don't get the opportunity to practice on the line. I don't think breaking regulations in the interest of safety is something you can responsibly train someone to do.

It is not "training someone to break regulations". It is cultivating lateral thinking in the admittedly rare situations where safety and legality either don't completely overlap, or are in direct conflict. If time is so critical in the sim, it can be done as a verbal briefing exercise to probe a trainee's thought process.

"Impossible scenarios"? I had an emergency early on in my career that pretty much WAS the one used as an example: critical fuel due to enroute malfunction of a transfer pump, in a remote area. By the time the malfunction manifested the destination was the closest option. But then as "luck" would have it, lower than forecast cloud base at the airport. Mr. Murphy DOES show his face some days.

Declared an emergency, and you better believe I busted minimums and landed. It was fortunately only a small turboprop flying cargo and I briefed my FO for it. But yeah, "regs" had moved down my list of priorities a notch or two.

Wrote it up, no legal repercussions whatsoever. Would definitely have been some very unpleasant ones had I decided that being legally compliant at all costs was the ultimate goal.

It's depressing to me how many pilots would press a dangerous situation to satisfy the letter of the law. But lack of critical thought isn't limited to aviation, it's endemic in society now.

[valleyboy]

There was a time when air canada had a Cincinnati day in the sim. It was of course an non jeopardy training session designed to see how crews could think and "free wheel" it if they thought it necessary. I guess, from what I heard talking to crews, it could become very interesting.

You could break almost any air reg in an emergency if it was to save the day and there would be no repercussions at all (except the miles of paperwork).

[shimmydampner]

I do find it a bit sad that a few people seem surprised that task prioritization is taught in any decent training regime.
...
They subsequently modified their syllabus and began to heavily emphasize the concept of "resilience", encouraging the management of complex non-normal situations to best effect a positive outcome. Not just blindly follow a checklist.
...
It's depressing to me how many pilots would press a dangerous situation to satisfy the letter of the law. But lack of critical thought isn't limited to aviation, it's endemic in society now.

It would be depressing to me if I were running a training department and the best the instructors could come up with to teach task prioritization, "resilience" and the management of complex non-normal situations was a scenario where the choice was between a questionable outcome or an illegal one. In my opinion and in my experience, any trainer worth their salt and who really knows their airplane well can come up with a more inventive scenario that will easily hammer home these ideas without having to resort to that low-hanging fruit. As was pointed out, more often than not, I don't think they give an accurate reflection of what the pilot would actually choose in that scenario, and instead reflect what the pilot thinks the trainer wants to see, and I think the general expectation is that that includes adherence to regulations.

[complexintentions]

I do find it a bit sad that a few people seem surprised that task prioritization is taught in any decent training regime.
...
They subsequently modified their syllabus and began to heavily emphasize the concept of "resilience", encouraging the management of complex non-normal situations to best effect a positive outcome. Not just blindly follow a checklist.
...
It's depressing to me how many pilots would press a dangerous situation to satisfy the letter of the law. But lack of critical thought isn't limited to aviation, it's endemic in society now.

It would be depressing to me if I were running a training department and the best the instructors could come up with to teach task prioritization, "resilience" and the management of complex non-normal situations was a scenario where the choice was between a questionable outcome or an illegal one. In my opinion and in my experience, any trainer worth their salt and who really knows their airplane well can come up with a more inventive scenario that will easily hammer home these ideas without having to resort to that low-hanging fruit. As was pointed out, more often than not, I don't think they give an accurate reflection of what the pilot would actually choose in that scenario, and instead reflect what the pilot thinks the trainer wants to see, and I think the general expectation is that that includes adherence to regulations.

Uhh...well, ok.

Sure, if training outcomes don't at least nominally reflect what people will do on the line then I guess it doesn't really matter what you train. Ya got me there! But I'd like to think you're releasing pilots on biannual checks with at least SOME confidence that what they're doing is "an actual reflection of what the pilot would actually choose" in the given scenario.

Nowhere did I offer my (real-life) incident as the "best" used to train decision-making etc, that's just a lame straw-man that detracts from the actual point being made. No need to be condescending, I'm sure you're a very good trainer but Emirates had one or two that were "worth their salt" too.

At any rate, my point about critical thinking was missed/ignored, which ironically, underlines my...point about critical thinking. Ciao.

[PilotDAR]

I didn't mean to create a fuss about what airlines train, but rather the notion that training can (and in my opinion should) include scenarios which causes the pilot to think beyond the norm, if conditions are looking critical, and to do that thinking before criticality. I don't advocate breaking the rules, nor training to break the rules. But, if the safety of my flight depended upon breaking a rule, I would not discount that. I'd rather have to explain, than not be able to.

My more basic point is that not everything has been thought of to have a rule written about it. We're getting there, but pilots still manage to find themselves in new situations (some, probably "new" technology dependence, which us old guys might not think of first). It is important for the pilot to maintain a bigger view of the situation. The most safe outcome may come from thinking about the situation, rather than just looking for something written about it already - which might be inadequate. I've got myself in a couple of situations where blindly following the new tech in the plane would likely have taken me to the less safe outcome, 'same as some steam gauges didn't always work right either...

Having written quite a few flight manual supplements, and officially vetting a whole flight manual for a derivative light twin, I always ask myself if I have given the pilot enough information to complete a safe flight in any circumstance I can imagine. No matter how much I write, I can still draw from experience to imagine situations which are not described. Will the pilot's training, experience and wisdom fill the gap?

[Loon-A-Tic]

Most of the better SOP's I've ever read had somewhere within them; usually in the Preamble words to this effect "we can write a procedure for everything". So on occasion "reasoned" thinking outside of the box may be the order of the day.

[pelmet]

Just use common sense. The regulations are not designed for emergency scenarios. In fact, there is a specific FAR in the US that allows one to break a regulation during an emergency as long as it is appropriate to resolve the emergency).

One need only look at a simple TCAS RA. One can violate an ATC clearance to resolve the issue. I even had an interview question of what I would do if I was at the aircraft's maximum allowable altitude and got a climb RA. Climb carefully is the response. It is legal to violate your ATC assigned altitude, it is legal to exceed the maximum allowable aircraft altitude, and it is legal to be willing to not maintain the commanded rate of climb by the TCAS if it risks getting the aircraft in an unsafe situation speed-wise.

A good example of the follow-the-rules blindly-crowd was a NZ Air Force 757 a few years back flying down to the Antarctic with no alternate. The forecast weather changed and it was a bit below minimums when they got there. So what do they do? They held for a long time waiting for the weather to improve and be legal for landing. The weather got worse and their fuel ran low. So they ended up barely making it in after seriously busting minimums instead of busting minimums a bit.

Poor decision-making. The forecast is already much worse. Is it any surprise that the trend continued.

[shimmydampner]

At any rate, my point about critical thinking was missed/ignored, which ironically, underlines my...point about critical thinking. Ciao.

No need to get salty. I fully agree with and support your point about the use of training scenarios that require analysis, prioritization, decision making, etc. We're on the same page there. I just believe that those goals can be fully achieved through the use of scenarios that don't necessitate the breaking of regulations. And I think that makes it a more pure reflection of a candidate's real life decision making process if any uncertainty about "what exactly does the instructor want to see here" never enters the equation. I can come up with scenarios that teach a pilot things about the aircraft they probably didn't think about and are far more challenging decisions to make than a low fuel, weather below mins situation. In my experience, considering the aircraft I fly and the part of the world I operate in, that's a no brainer and would be a lazy scenario on the part of the trainer.
But that's just my experience and admittedly, I'm not some fancy Emirates trainer. We obviously don't do the same type of flying so perhaps your experience is different and the guys you train and fly with need to be taught that safety trumps regs.