Opening this post today, after 3 days off-line, for my surprise I found some posts addressed to me. I feel I have not used enough words to say what I wanted, which was my fault due to my poor time and English available. Let me try to unmake the confusion I have created here. I will re-write, in a stretched way what I said in the post "The role of the pilot/Wingman" and comment the must important passages:
My comment: "Oh yes, let's realize Airbuses are pieces of s**t flying everywhere and putting in risk crews, passengers and common people's life that live below where Airbuses fly..."
Explanation: I told it in a generic way as I started to feel that the this topic was going to become that stressing and senseless Airbus vs. Boeing debate again as Wingman told "if a pilot wants to lay back and vegetate in front of computer screens, give him an Airbus; if a pilot wants to fly, give him a Boeing!". The word s**t can't be explicit found in posts above and consequently it is not directly linked with any of the posts above, despite "S**t definition" given to Airbus can be found with big frequency in the other topics, as we all have to agree that Airbus and its planes is usually victim of - free - aggression here.
Other comment made by my and that caused confusion:
"People, don't you see how ridiculous is to discuss an issue that you barely know about? (Or am I talking with someone here that has projected the systems in Airbus and Boeing a/c?)"
New comment: Of course I didn't meant that to participate in this forum and to post messages to its topics is ridiculous. If I had meant that, I would be calling, before anyone, myself ridiculous, since I'm a participant in this forum since the beginning of this year and I have previously posted a comment to the this topic ("The role of the pilot in Airbus and Boeing", from 27.08.99 at 20h45min). What I have entitled to be ridiculous are comments made by people that invert verbs: As I have never operated any airplane, always when I want to say something I use the following verb: "I think/ I was told/ I know someone who says/ I read somewhere,... but, many people here that I see that know the same (insufficient) amount of things that I know, they affirm with all conviction things that actually (s)he thinks/ imagine/ /would like things to be/ was told about/ read somewhere. This is what I've called ridiculous (and condemnable as well): one to support as true things that one don't know/ is not sure about/ simply would like to be. And more: once again, it's a very common practice by people in this forum, especially regarding Airbus vs. Boeing questions, EU vs. USA, orders to come, airline's preferences (fleet and models),... Once again, the mention I've made was addressed to condemn a common practice, and not necessarily passages from this current topic. I have just used the space, time and opportunity to say something I'd like to have already said before. We need - facts - to back-up what we affirm with all conviction. Otherwise, we have to recognize our ignorance (in usual sense, and not aggressive sense) face to the subject and say "I think" instead of "It is". This is what is called modesty, which is a very beautiful practice that I myself try to apply in life and texts.
"Pilots don't fly to have pleasure; they fly to work, it's their job. (...) If I was an airline chairman and a candidate to pilot post tells me he flies to feel happy, I would NEVER contract him."
I think it was the one that has caused the most polemic. Of course it's important (in all professions) to love what is done! But (and now you have to agree with me) if an airline selected its air crews according to each candidate level of happiness, satisfaction, proud and pleasure with the profession, one thing is undoubtful: I myself would be already flying a commercial plane!!!
It's very important to a pilot to like what (s)he does, as it's one of the most stressing jobs worldwide, but nothing asserts that the much satisfied a pilot is, the more safe it will be to fly with him! The levels of emotion are not the criteria used on selecting F/As and pilots. The criterion used is technique. This comment was directed to Wingman, as he meant that to fly with computerized systems makes a pilot tired and unmotivated to continue working and to fly safer.
And more: I believe that the real (not the imaginary/fantasy impression, I mean... To carry 100 passengers during 1 hour is different than to carry 400 during 13 hours...) difference between the level of fun that a pilot can have flying a F-100 or a B747-400 is inexistant, as it's very reduced in both cases! Pilots can't make risky/ special maneuvers such touch-and-go, flying-stall, dives, minimum-to-maximum engine power on flight,... as they are carrying passengers/freight; they're working! They are there to work for someone else (an airline, which demands him compromises and responsibilities, and not his/her personal satisfaction! - I've repeated what is the airline view) They must take-off, fly and land on places, times and conditions not up to them!
I'd like to ask for the apologies of people that have understood that I have told that jobs must be boring. The idea was - very - far from that.
Dash8, yes, I have already and for many years wished to become a pilot, to stay at airports, to cross oceans, to change year season in few hours,... all those powerful sensations and impressions that just the pilot profession gives, which is surely one of the most beautiful on Earth. Therefore, I'll never offend pilots and their profession because first of all, I would be offending myself and my dreams. The example used on "greasy and oil example" is simply understood: everyone tends to prefer and choose the less complex and hard work if there is option (I'm sorry if the impression I passed is that manual work has not value... what would a city be like without men to remove trash from the streets??? Surely a chaos...)! All this discussion makes me remember from the old school buses, those ones with manual opening of the front door. Do you or any here think that drivers became unsatisfied/ less happy with their job as buses with automatic system to open the door arrived? Please, don't tell you think... I'm happy to listen that you like to fly, as I understand that if someday you are the pilot of my flight I'll be in hands of someone that likes and dedicates to his job
. About your ask for me not "offend" you anymore, let's just remember that respect is something reciprocal and things will go as previously...
Wingman, actually I don't work yet! About the response you gave to my "fly and pleasure point", I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you: In theory, fly safer the pilot that has less things to do, and not necessarily the pilot that is the one who is happy and satisfied why job. At this point, I believe that to pilot a 90' plane is safer than to pilot a 70' one. While the old jet pilot has lots of sequences and operations to do, his fellow on the modern plane has a much more simplified job. As the pilot is exposed to more process, the chances of error in an old-jet due to human failure is much bigger than in a modern one featuring FBW and other stuffs like this.
24921, I appreciate that you use to respect what I write. It's important to have some feedback once on while! No, the "let's realize..." comment was not directed to you. I think I have already previously answered the comments you have done (Ridiculous is to assume as true and defends what one is not sure, and not to participate and give opinions/ comments in this forum; of course not I would impeach "my" pilots to be happy! I meant "to be or not to be happy" is not the criteria used to describe safety on-board planes. I just don't agree that the happier a pilot is the safer will be the flight! To be satisfied helps a lot, but it's not a rule. I have not ever told that a pilot, as any other professional, must not love his job (on contrary!), but that an airline don't select its pilots using as criteria "do you love to fly?" If this were the criterion, I myself would be already a pilot! The criteria are others than that. To like to fly is not enough to make someone an (airline) pilot!)
A word to United946:
Despite this "little" incident I've caused here, I'd like to tell you that I - do - think the question you have raised is important and up-to-date although old. It makes me think on the movie "Tempos Modernos" ("Modern Times" in English?) with Charles Chaplin. Automation and its limits is a very interesting social-economic question and it's present in all levels and sectors of our lives, and aviation is just one of them. As we are intelligent beings, it's positive to discuss what we want our future to be.
On the other hand, I promise I will watch out better what I write in order to make it the most comprehensible and easy to understand as possible, as I've realized nobody is obliged to guess what someone else writes and mean.
If someone finds any error/ wants to disagree or has not understand something, just reply/ e-mail me. (Although it's not really needed to say that in this forum, as things get hot sometimes
TP343, São Paulo, Brazil.