CFIs across the nation do their best to instill in their students and clients a realization that safety is truly in their hands. It’s our role in the system.
Often the reality is our students and clients are loathe to read the reams of information and guidance that comes from the FAA annually. So CFIs do the reading for them. Then we try to impart that knowledge during our lessons or flight reviews.
The problem is that some CFIs — a small percentage to be sure — have a very different attitude toward flight. They take the “hey watch this” approach. An attitude that is mimicked by dumb-ass, ground-pounding kids on a tear when they match this level of ineptitude with their “hold my beer” antics.
Fortunately, none of this is intentional. It is the truly rare bird who sets out to cause mayhem. The vast majority of poor habits and shockingly bad decision-making come from plain old myopia. The offenders simply don’t think past the limits of their own cockpit. Consideration for others is just not part of their reality.
Inconsiderate behavior without malice is still inconsiderate behavior. The line of reason that extends from inconsiderate to unsafe is quite short, I assure you.
None of us is immune from this malady. We’re all human. And as humans we are flawed. Just as a politician who stays in office too long is nudged toward misbehavior over time, pilots can be a bit too full of themselves. By adopting the belief that “I am so talented I couldn’t possibly be wrong,” we are virtually guaranteeing that we will indeed be the perpetrator of misery in the skies at some point.
Consider these simple but classic examples.
Anyone who flies in and out of non-towered airports has heard the phrase “any traffic in the area please advise,” on the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF). It’s an innocent question posed by pilots who are hoping someone will share pertinent airport traffic information. Of course, that exact information could be ascertained by simply listening on the frequency. That requires the extra step of pre-planning your arrival or departure, however. So why bother?
It’s interesting to note that this line is the one self-announce sentence the FAA specifically states we should not use. It doesn’t recommend we limit its use to specific situations. The FAA doesn’t even imply that it isn’t the best use of the local bandwidth. The FAA actually says, in writing, this radio call “should not be used under any condition.”
That would seem to be an emphatic enough statement to stop the unnecessary chatter. But it has not. Pilots continue to make a call the feds have told us not to in clear, unambiguous language.
Is that ego? Laziness? A lack of familiarity with the standards we’re expected to follow?
Not one pilot who is guilty of making this call thinks of themselves as a bad person or a negative influence. Yet, in some sense they are.
Those of us who stand in front of safety seminar crowds do our best to bring solid, well-documented information to the masses. Many of us actually enjoy that pursuit. Although virtually all of us have had the experience of a member of the audience doing their best to derail the presentation by forcefully explaining why their personal method of operation is superior to the one the FAA recommends.
Ironically, the boldest of these offenders tend to come from the ranks of our best trained, most respected pilots: Former military fliers.
These folks are amazing. They have talent. They’ve been trained by the best to be the best. They often have insight and knowledge that can be of real benefit to the rest of us. But they are human. And as humans they can sometimes over-estimate the value of their skill when applied to a new and very different environment.
The overhead break is a great example of this. When flying a heavy, fast, super-maneuverable fighter jet in a military environment, it is perfectly reasonable to fly an overhead break to dissipate energy and provide safe spacing of aircraft while landing.
In the civilian world, that can be a problem. Not because the overhead break is flawed, but rather because it’s being flown in the wrong place.
That student pilot in the pattern is joined by a whole slew of civilian pilots doing their best to remain well spaced and safe as they approach to land. They enter the pattern on a 45° angle to the downwind, with the intention of flying downwind, base, and final.
This is the standard procedure. They’re doing what they’ve been taught and what is expected of them.
Then, to the amazement of no one and the consternation of all, a former military fighter pilot zips into the pattern on what looks like a long straight-in approach — a procedure the civilians know the FAA does not recommend to a non-towered airport. The former military pilot overflies the approach end of the runway, possibly with one or two buddies stretched out in an echelon formation.
They bank hard, seeking the perch. They fly a 180° arc that puts them on final in 1, 2, 3 order. Their sporty civilian aircraft gleam in the sun as each pilot relives the gallantry of their youth at the controls of turbine-powered beasts of the air.
Unfortunately, none of the civilian-trained pilots have any idea what’s going on. At a towered airport there would have been a request and approval to fly the break. At a non-towered airport there’s just confusion and concern among the non-military trained pilots who are now concentrated on avoiding a collision rather than flying a stable pattern.
Nobody needs this kind of excitement in their life.
Our egos can get us into a whole lot of trouble in life. When we climb into an aircraft however, our natural inclination to be all that we can be can clash with the intentions of others — especially if the mission we’re flying and the procedures we’re using are a complete mystery to our aeronautical peers.
Hopefully, there are enough good, capable, dedicated CFIs in the system to get the cowboys to settle down and play nice with their fellow pilots. That’s my hope, anyway.
