Sigh...a new breed on the way???
- Thread starter Hawgwash
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Gdavid
Guru
Way too painfully accurate. They always tend to have their eyes glued on their chart plotters as well, with little concern for the 13' whaler they pass within 10 yards.
I believe that when chart plotters became affordable for the average boater, the common courtesy on the water took a nose dive. Rather than using line of sight navigation and a compass (which is sufficient for the average excursion for 95% of Clorox bottle cruisers and forces the driver to keep their eyes out of the boat) boaters now focus on keeping the course line on their plotter lined up with that next waypoint and only deviate the absolute minimum to avoid anyone else. A contentious navigator will recognize when they are on a converging course with another boat a mile away and will alter course by half a degree or so and maintain a wide berth. The new breed of "captains" that have appeared over the last decade and half will come within 100 yards of an anchored boat fishing in the middle of an empty bay before making a 90 degree turn, sending a giant wake toward the previously peaceful vessel.
Rant over.
JDCAVE
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,908
- Location
- Canada
- Vessel Name
- Phoenix Hunter
- Vessel Make
- Kadey Krogen 42 (1985)
...cause he's dropping $250k on a McClaren instead!
http://globalnews.ca/news/2447804/metro-vancouver-the-luxury-car-capital-of-north-america/
"For these drivers, dropping $200,000 on a new ride is no big deal, making Metro Vancouver the luxury and supercar capital of North America.
Just ask 20-year-old Max Yi, the proud new owner of an Aston Martin Rapide S.
“I just want to buy it,” Yi said. “It’s cool.”
The $270,000 four-door sports car is not even Yi’s first luxury vehicle.
“He got a Bentley before but it was crashed,” said Yunhun Yao, who was riding shotgun in Yi’s Aston Martin. “So he needed a car immediately and this car was in the same store where he bought the Bentley.”
Jim
Sent from my iPad using Trawler Forum
What a great video Jetstream, thanks for putting it up.Jetstream said:
Your perceived "drift" isn't one as your input easily transitions to boating. In fact I think, even though that video was done in 1997, it is a very appropriate entry demo, as more and more boaters climb aboard without the low level "manual control" training.
FF
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 22,552
Are the "flight schools" not teaching what you were taught?
The Skools teach the minimum that is required . A normal T.O. cruise and landing.
The cost of training is so high that unusual situations (ooops were stalled , or inverted or upset ) can not be covered.
" They were all qualified to be there but that doesn't ensure expertise."
"So the old "join the military, learn to fly, get some experience, leave the military, and get your Private, get your Commercial, Instrument, ATP on the government's dime, and get a great job flying for an airline" no longer works today."
Sadly true , buy its only MONEY for education that stands in the way of a trained pilot and a multi fingered switch flicker .
The problem is understood and the new series of simulators can do unusual attitudes and more interesting flight situations.
They also realized approach to stall training was killing folks in a real stall, and have changed training procedures.
The Skools teach the minimum that is required . A normal T.O. cruise and landing.
The cost of training is so high that unusual situations (ooops were stalled , or inverted or upset ) can not be covered.
" They were all qualified to be there but that doesn't ensure expertise."
"So the old "join the military, learn to fly, get some experience, leave the military, and get your Private, get your Commercial, Instrument, ATP on the government's dime, and get a great job flying for an airline" no longer works today."
Sadly true , buy its only MONEY for education that stands in the way of a trained pilot and a multi fingered switch flicker .
The problem is understood and the new series of simulators can do unusual attitudes and more interesting flight situations.
They also realized approach to stall training was killing folks in a real stall, and have changed training procedures.
Last edited:
Robster_in_edmonds
Senior Member
Slight thread drift... Regarding boaters slavishly following a chart or using their autopilots. Coming home on my boat after New Year's weekend, I encountered just three or four boats between Seattle and Edmonds. Two of them were on a 90-degree course and in each case we were on a collision course. In each case I was the stand-on vessel. I watched each time as the other boat got closer and closer. Each time I hailed the captain on VHF 16 and each captain answered. Both times they (reluctantly) changed course at the last minute to pass behind me.
We were in the middle of the Puget Sound! If they had been paying attention they could have shifted a couple of degrees ten minutes earlier and nothing interesting would have happened. This is why I ALWAYS have someone at the helm on the lookout. Had I gone to the galley to make a sandwich there could have been a very ugly collision. Two 50-foot boats running at 8 knots colliding at a 90-degree angle... ugh.
We were in the middle of the Puget Sound! If they had been paying attention they could have shifted a couple of degrees ten minutes earlier and nothing interesting would have happened. This is why I ALWAYS have someone at the helm on the lookout. Had I gone to the galley to make a sandwich there could have been a very ugly collision. Two 50-foot boats running at 8 knots colliding at a 90-degree angle... ugh.
You'll see a wide variation of boating skills, knowledge, attention, professionalism based on where you are as well. Growing up on a lake and living there until I was 41, I saw the least knowledgeable, least experienced. That's where you get all the go look at the pretty boat, buy it, get out on the water. Sometimes they're get an hour of education on their boat. Only one dealer in the area did any more.
Puget Sound, Biscayne Bay, Clear Lake, Long Island Sound just pop into my head as areas you might see anything and everything and will see a lot of inexperienced boaters with very little knowledge of what they're doing. Running the ICW you'll see far more than running outside. You'll encounter far more with their VHF off, not wanting to be disturbed by all the talking. Then there's the one a few weeks ago in a new boat who to his credit has his VHF on and was listening. Only problem was he didn't know what side port and starboard were. As he was running right in the middle of the ICW, I was asking which side he preferred us passing on. Oh, and for the wake issue. Ours wasn't going to disturb him as 30' to our side it was about 1' but he was going about 15 knots and his wake was about 3'. Didn't bother us, but I'm sure it bothered many others that day. I'm sure he thought by running slow he was doing a favor. Had he planed and run at cruise it would have been far less.
Oh for sure!
Attachments
A lot of people outside the industry today don't realize how capable, sophisticated, and realistic flight simulators are and have been for many years now.
We produced a number of videos in support of Boeing's bid for the new tanker. I directed one that highlighted the features and capabilites of the flight deck, which while in a 767 airframe features 787 dislplays and flight management systems. We shot several scenarios highlighing these features and capabilities using one of our full-motion simulators.
During the shooting the subject matter expert and I dreamed up a scenario on the spot, which was what happens if a SAM is fired at the tanker while it is refueling aircraft? It was not called for in the script but we shot it anyway just because we could.
The procedure when a SAM launch is detected is to instantly break off the refueling and take immmediate evasive action, the more rapid and violent the better. In the case of the tanker, the action on the part of the flight crew is to roll the plane partway over onto its back and then haul the nose down into a near vertical dive. This involves using the full travel of the yoke immediately.
Boeing's flight control philosophy allows the flight crew to do this. Airbus' flight control philosophy does not. (This has nothing to do with fly-by-wire, by the way, that's just a control surface activation system; we both use it although not in the 767).
The full motion simulator will do everything the actual plane can do. Its programing will not let it do anythinng the actual plane cannot do.
So we did the maneuver, with the first officer "spotting" a SAM lauanch and then they went through the procedure I've described. It was very violent and when they flipped the plane over and dove every alarm on the flight deck went off. But the plane did exactly what was asked of it.
An Airbus A330, the competing aircraft, will not do this at all unless most of the flight management system is disengaged which among other things involves pulling a whole bunch of circuit breakers. A SAM is not going to conveniently circle around for awhile waiting for the flight crew to do this.
The editor just for grins stuck this scenario in his first cut of the video. When the Boeing tanker folks saw it they went bananas because it clearly and very effectively illustrated a real-world scenario that nobody so far had thought of. It also illustrated a very critical difference between our produt and the competing product.
Much later we learned that this scenario, cooked up on the spot during shooting because we knew the capabilities of the airplane and the simulator, played a major role in convincing the customer (the Air Force) that the 767 tanker was the better platform.
Obviously it was not the deciding factor--- politics, economics and whole lot of other non-airplane issues eventually won the day--- but in terms of separating our product from the competition, this one maneuver did this very, very effectively and dramatically.
I tell this story to illustrate the tremendous capability of simulation. So the airlines have the tools, or have access to them, to train their pilots any way they want. The increasing de-emphasis worldwide on stick and rudder flying and the increasing emphasis on systems management is not due to any deficiencies in the simulators. They simply aren't used in this manner but instead are used to train pilots in all the sophistication and subtleties of the flight management system. In other words, they are increasingly becoming system management trainers, not flight trainers.
This may change to a degree as the consequences of insufficient stick and rudder training and experience become more obvious and more frequent. But given the way I have been watching this industry go for the last 37 years, I suspect that any "flying" training will be a temporary fix (and an expensive one) and the real solution will be as I described earler; simply remove humans entirely from the physical flying of the airplane.
This industry does not view humans as the ultimate solution to anything. It views technolgy as the ultimate solution to everything.
And, I would venture to say, the same is true in the boating world, at least in the upper end of it with cruising boats and yachts.
We produced a number of videos in support of Boeing's bid for the new tanker. I directed one that highlighted the features and capabilites of the flight deck, which while in a 767 airframe features 787 dislplays and flight management systems. We shot several scenarios highlighing these features and capabilities using one of our full-motion simulators.
During the shooting the subject matter expert and I dreamed up a scenario on the spot, which was what happens if a SAM is fired at the tanker while it is refueling aircraft? It was not called for in the script but we shot it anyway just because we could.
The procedure when a SAM launch is detected is to instantly break off the refueling and take immmediate evasive action, the more rapid and violent the better. In the case of the tanker, the action on the part of the flight crew is to roll the plane partway over onto its back and then haul the nose down into a near vertical dive. This involves using the full travel of the yoke immediately.
Boeing's flight control philosophy allows the flight crew to do this. Airbus' flight control philosophy does not. (This has nothing to do with fly-by-wire, by the way, that's just a control surface activation system; we both use it although not in the 767).
The full motion simulator will do everything the actual plane can do. Its programing will not let it do anythinng the actual plane cannot do.
So we did the maneuver, with the first officer "spotting" a SAM lauanch and then they went through the procedure I've described. It was very violent and when they flipped the plane over and dove every alarm on the flight deck went off. But the plane did exactly what was asked of it.
An Airbus A330, the competing aircraft, will not do this at all unless most of the flight management system is disengaged which among other things involves pulling a whole bunch of circuit breakers. A SAM is not going to conveniently circle around for awhile waiting for the flight crew to do this.
The editor just for grins stuck this scenario in his first cut of the video. When the Boeing tanker folks saw it they went bananas because it clearly and very effectively illustrated a real-world scenario that nobody so far had thought of. It also illustrated a very critical difference between our produt and the competing product.
Much later we learned that this scenario, cooked up on the spot during shooting because we knew the capabilities of the airplane and the simulator, played a major role in convincing the customer (the Air Force) that the 767 tanker was the better platform.
Obviously it was not the deciding factor--- politics, economics and whole lot of other non-airplane issues eventually won the day--- but in terms of separating our product from the competition, this one maneuver did this very, very effectively and dramatically.
I tell this story to illustrate the tremendous capability of simulation. So the airlines have the tools, or have access to them, to train their pilots any way they want. The increasing de-emphasis worldwide on stick and rudder flying and the increasing emphasis on systems management is not due to any deficiencies in the simulators. They simply aren't used in this manner but instead are used to train pilots in all the sophistication and subtleties of the flight management system. In other words, they are increasingly becoming system management trainers, not flight trainers.
This may change to a degree as the consequences of insufficient stick and rudder training and experience become more obvious and more frequent. But given the way I have been watching this industry go for the last 37 years, I suspect that any "flying" training will be a temporary fix (and an expensive one) and the real solution will be as I described earler; simply remove humans entirely from the physical flying of the airplane.
This industry does not view humans as the ultimate solution to anything. It views technolgy as the ultimate solution to everything.
And, I would venture to say, the same is true in the boating world, at least in the upper end of it with cruising boats and yachts.
Last edited:
The more we advance in technology, the more we stay the same in attitude.
To demonstrate:
One of my early boats was a Star. 23' olympic racing class sailboat. I joined a fleet sailing in English Bay. One of our number (not me) had been racing in English Bay and encountered an inattentive power boater that came out of Vancouver Harbour and was heading more or less for the Bellbouy off Point Grey. The Star was the stand on boat, for more reasons than simply being under sail, but the power boat wasn't paying any attention to his surroundings. When close enough to be sure the Power boat wasn't going to alter course, my friend threw a beer bottle at him, and altered course (not necessarily in that order). Got his attention, as the guy came out on the back to see who had thrown something at him, but still didn't alter course. This was 1972.
To demonstrate:
One of my early boats was a Star. 23' olympic racing class sailboat. I joined a fleet sailing in English Bay. One of our number (not me) had been racing in English Bay and encountered an inattentive power boater that came out of Vancouver Harbour and was heading more or less for the Bellbouy off Point Grey. The Star was the stand on boat, for more reasons than simply being under sail, but the power boat wasn't paying any attention to his surroundings. When close enough to be sure the Power boat wasn't going to alter course, my friend threw a beer bottle at him, and altered course (not necessarily in that order). Got his attention, as the guy came out on the back to see who had thrown something at him, but still didn't alter course. This was 1972.
stubones99
Guru
My office overlooked the Melbourne FL marina for a while. During the late 90's before the telecom bubble burst, I saw numerous accidents where .com'ers bought a bigger boat than their experience and then tried to dock it.
The marina is quite protected with a slight current, and time after time, these guys are knocking out each others windows with bow rollers and such. You would think it was the bumper boat rides at Mario Andretti's park.
One guy was so bad he never took his boat out. He used it for parties, always docked. I guess three wrecks in the harbor was his limit.
So, what I started to say at the beginning was...
If joysticks is what helps them not bash each other up, then so be it. The industry as a whole will be better off with increased sales. The flip side to that is, what do they do when it blows a fuse and they have no inkling on how to find their slip? I guess they can drop anchor in the river and dinghy in to the dock.
The marina is quite protected with a slight current, and time after time, these guys are knocking out each others windows with bow rollers and such. You would think it was the bumper boat rides at Mario Andretti's park.
One guy was so bad he never took his boat out. He used it for parties, always docked. I guess three wrecks in the harbor was his limit.
So, what I started to say at the beginning was...
If joysticks is what helps them not bash each other up, then so be it. The industry as a whole will be better off with increased sales. The flip side to that is, what do they do when it blows a fuse and they have no inkling on how to find their slip? I guess they can drop anchor in the river and dinghy in to the dock.
Phil Fill
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,919
- Location
- US
- Vessel Name
- Eagle
- Vessel Make
- Roughwater 58 pilot house
My wife and I were metro sexual yuppies that bought a boat beyond our experience knowledge. Just saying. 
Thank goodness for the bow thruster which has a joy stick. 
Also the autopilot has a soft pad that controls the pump that I mostly use instead of that big wheel. A stern thrust is still on the want list. 
Many of the newer boats the helm wheel power an electrical pump, which could be replaced with a joy stick. Also newer larger boats have a remote that controls the helm, throttle, shift, engine rpm thrusters that a person can take with them. So the technology has been around for quite a while.
Thank goodness for the bow thruster which has a joy stick. Also the autopilot has a soft pad that controls the pump that I mostly use instead of that big wheel. A stern thrust is still on the want list. Many of the newer boats the helm wheel power an electrical pump, which could be replaced with a joy stick. Also newer larger boats have a remote that controls the helm, throttle, shift, engine rpm thrusters that a person can take with them. So the technology has been around for quite a while.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2007
- Messages
- 7,331
- Location
- Texas
- Vessel Name
- Floatsome & Jetsome
- Vessel Make
- Meridian 411
Trust me....I started writing a reply to your other posts that addressed all of this and did not feel it was worth the time. I will not change your mind. And while you think you have an inside track to the heartbeat of airline flying, you do not. It would not be a "rude awakening for me".....I am on the front line of this sh*t!!!!! My azz is on the line as is my passengers. DO you not think we take this sh*t seriously??? Do not patronize me like you do everybody else on this forum. You are not the end all to everything aviation on this forum!!!!...I don't care what imaginary friends you have in the industry. I live this sh*t....breath this sh*t. And am up close and personal when the sh*t gets real. Meanwhile YOU sit in your cubicle while I am reliably and safely delivering 190 people to their destination in conditions that would make you sh*t your britches....conditions that we do not even think twice about....because we have seen it over and over and over...and because we are highly trained and highly experienced. SO go on....slam the profession with all of your arrogance and ignorance. And trust me.....I am well aware of how we f*ck up.....it is at the heart of our safety infrastructure.
CPseudonym
Moderator Emeritus
Don't sugarcoat it John. Damn it, tell us how you really feel.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,731
- Location
- California Delta
- Vessel Name
- FlyWright
- Vessel Make
- 1977 Marshall Californian 34 LRC
- Status
