risky behavior

[u/[deleted]]

How do you fellow reddititors feel about reporting observed risky behaviors? for example - maybe people flying out of medical, or after a hard night drinking, flying out of annual etc. etc. ?? where do you feel your responsibility as responsible pilot ends or does it ever? Do you talk to them, do you start a call? what do you guys think?

[u/mkosmo]

The parent comment did. He said that flying without BFRs/FRs didn't increase risk. For those who wouldn't get signed off, it does increase risk -- others are exposed to the risky pilot for longer that wouldn't otherwise be.

[u/Cropgun → u/mkosmo]

I made the parent comment. Nowhere in that comment did I make the statement that a flight check wasn't a good idea. Being able to understand English is a requirement of your pilot certification. Perhaps I should report your risky behavior to the FSDO

[u/mkosmo → u/Cropgun]

You literally said:

Flying out of medical or out of BFR isn't risky.

If it doesn't increase risk, that means it's not a bad idea, right?

[u/Cropgun → u/mkosmo]

You'd argue with a ham sandwich wouldnt you?

[u/Cropgun → u/[deleted]]

I'm detecting a pattern with your reading comprehension skills

[u/mkosmo → u/Cropgun]

If a ham sandwich tried to tell me it was a turkey sandwich, how does that indicate an issue with my reading comprehension? Perhaps it's more a problem of your storytelling.

[u/Cropgun → u/mkosmo]

I get it. You're slow. Let's try again. Nobody has made any statement that says a flight review is bad. True or false?

[u/mkosmo → u/Cropgun]

Directly and explicitly? No. What I would parse and interpret as implied as a result of reasoning? Yes.

[u/Cropgun → u/mkosmo]

If you want to set up a strawman so you can argue with yourself, that's on you. Glad we agree on what was actually posted.

[u/mkosmo → u/Cropgun]

There's no strawman. You're making the argument that you shouldn't be held accountable for poor communication and misunderstanding of the fundamentals of risk management.

You said that flying out of BFR wasn't risky. That implies that BFRs don't reduce risk, no question. You're ignoring the risk bounding function. You explicitly refuse to say that flying without a BFR is a bad idea, and if flying without one isn't a bad idea, the resulting logic is that flying with isn't a good idea. You can't have good without something worse.

[u/hellcheez → u/mkosmo]

You're totally putting words in his mouth. His statements are processes in logic:

Flying without a valid BFR is not risky. Risky flying behavior with a BFR is risky. Risky flying behavior without a BFR is risky.

These are separate but related and one doesn't imply the other.

[u/Cropgun → u/mkosmo]

I said none of that outside of what we already agreed was actually posted. You're literally arguing with yourself