Search

Almost half the men surveyed think they could land a passenger plane. Experts disagree

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/guido-carim-junior-1379129">Guido Carim Junior</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chris-campbell-1414564">Chris Campbell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elvira-marques-1362476">Elvira Marques</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nnenna-ike-1490692">Nnenna Ike</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tim-ryley-1253269">Tim Ryley</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> Picture this: you’re nestled comfortably in your seat cruising towards your holiday destination when a flight attendant’s voice breaks through the silence: <blockquote> Ladies and gentlemen, both pilots are incapacitated. Are there any passengers who could land this plane with assistance from air traffic control? </blockquote> If you think you could manage it, you’re not alone. <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/01/02/fd798/3">Survey results</a> published in January indicate about one-third of adult Americans think they could safely land a passenger aircraft with air traffic control’s guidance. Among male respondents, the confidence level rose to nearly 50%. Can a person with no prior training simply guide everyone to a smooth touchdown? We’ve all heard stories of passengers who saved the day when the pilot became unresponsive. For instance, last year <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbMoyWukjbs">Darren Harrison</a> managed to land a twin-engine aircraft in Florida – after the pilot passed out – with the guidance of an air traffic controller who also happened to be a flight instructor. However, such incidents tend to take place in small, simple aircraft. Flying a much bigger and heavier commercial jet is a completely different game. <h2>You can’t always rely on autopilot</h2> A pilot spends about 90% of their time monitoring autopilot systems and making sure everything is working as intended. The other 10% is spent managing problems, taxiing, taking off and landing. Takeoffs and landings are arguably the most difficult tasks pilots perform, and are always performed manually. Only on very few occasions, and in a handful of aircraft models, can a pilot use autopilot to land the aircraft for them. This is the exception, and not the rule. For takeoff, the aircraft must build up speed until the wings can generate enough lift to pull it into the air. The pilot must <a href="https://youtu.be/16XTAK-4Xbk?si=66yDo5g5I086Q2y2&t=65">pay close attention</a> to multiple instruments and external cues, while keeping the aircraft centred on the runway until it reaches lift-off speed. Once airborne, they must coordinate with air traffic control, follow a particular path, retract the landing gear and maintain a precise speed and direction while trying to climb. Landing is even more complicated, and requires having precise control of the aircraft’s direction and descent rate. <a href="https://youtu.be/u_it9OiTnSM?si=xNZrLB9ZH870LEa3&t=360">To land successfully</a>, a pilot must keep an appropriate speed while simultaneously managing gear and flap configuration, adhering to air traffic regulations, communicating with air traffic control and completing a number of paper and digital checklists. Once the aircraft comes close to the runway, they must accurately judge its height, reduce power and adjust the rate of descent – ensuring they land on the correct area of the runway. On the ground, they will use the brakes and reverse thrust to bring the aircraft to a complete stop before the runway ends. This all happens within just a few minutes. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Nyx4NyMrvOs?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> Both takeoff and landing are far too quick, technical and concentration-intensive for an untrained person to pull off. They also require a range of skills that are only gained through extensive training, such as understanding the information presented on different gauges, and being able to coordinate one’s hands and feet in a certain way. <h2>Training a pilot</h2> The journey from student to commercial pilot is a long one. It normally starts with a recreational licence, followed by a private licence, and then a commercial licence (which allows them to fly professionally). Even before stepping into a cockpit, the student must study aerodynamics, air law and flight rules, meteorology, human factors, navigation, aircraft systems, and performance and flight planning. They also need to spend time learning about the specific aircraft they will be flying. Once the fundamentals are grasped, an instructor takes them for training. Most of this training is conducted in small, lightweight aircraft – with a simulator introduced briefly towards the end. During a lesson, each manoeuvre or action is demonstrated by the instructor before the student attempts it. Their attempt may be adjusted, corrected or even terminated early in critical situations. The first ten to fifteen lessons focus on takeoff, landing, basic in-flight control and emergency management. When the students are ready, they’re allowed to “go solo” – wherein they conduct a complete flight on their own. This is a great milestone. After years of experience, they are ready to transition to a commercial aircraft. At this point they might be able to take off and land reasonably well, but they will still undergo extensive training specific to the aircraft they are flying, including hours of advanced theory, dozens of simulator sessions and hundreds of hours of real aircraft training (most of which is done with passengers onboard). So, if you’ve never even learned the basics of flying, your chances of successfully landing a passenger aircraft with air traffic control’s help are close to zero. <h2>Yet, flying is a skill like any other</h2> Aviation training has been democratised by the advent of high-end computers, virtual reality and flight simulation games such as Microsoft’s <a href="https://www.flightsimulator.com/">Flight Simulator</a> and <a href="https://www.x-plane.com/">X-Plane</a>. Anyone can now rig up a desktop flight simulator for a few thousand dollars. Ideally, such a setup should also include the basic physical controls found in a cockpit, such as a control yoke, throttle quadrant and pedals. Flight simulators provide an immersive environment in which professional pilots, students and aviation enthusiasts can develop their skills. So if you really think you could match-up against a professional, consider trying your hand at one. You almost certainly won’t be able to land an actual passenger plane by the end of it – but at least you’ll gain an appreciation for the immense skill pilots possess.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218037/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/guido-carim-junior-1379129">Guido Carim Junior</a>, Senior Lecturer in Aviation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chris-campbell-1414564">Chris Campbell</a>, Adjunct Associate Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elvira-marques-1362476">Elvira Marques</a>, Aviation PhD candidate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nnenna-ike-1490692">Nnenna Ike</a>, Research Assistant, Griffith Aviation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tim-ryley-1253269">Tim Ryley</a>, Professor and Head of Griffith Aviation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/almost-half-the-men-surveyed-think-they-could-land-a-passenger-plane-experts-disagree-218037">original article</a>. </div>

Travel Trouble

Why are homes still being built along rivers? Flooded residents disagree on the solution

Like many residents living near Calgary’s rivers, Irene’s house flooded in June 2013 when heavy rainfall melted the snowpack in the Rocky Mountains, inundating much of southern Alberta in what was, at the time, <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/2810070/top-10-most-costly-disasters-in-canadian-history-for-insurers/">the costliest disaster in Canadian history</a>. Irene watched as her belongings floated down the street. Everything in her basement and the first level of her home had to be discarded into a trash pile in her front yard. Reflecting on this trauma and her home’s devastation, she said: “Developers get away with a lot of shit they shouldn’t get away with.” She recalled arguing years earlier with the developer about how close to the river it planned to build the houses, and wondered if it might have been worse had her home been built as close to the river as initially planned. I was part of a team <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/15356841211046265">studying housing, environmental views and hazards</a> who interviewed residents of Calgary’s flood-affected neighbourhoods. Remarks like Irene’s were common. Calgary and many other cities, including <a href="https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/housing-development-in-ste-marthe-sur-le-lac-was-mainly-in-flood-zone">Montréal</a>, <a href="https://www.mapleridgenews.com/news/maple-ridge-council-proceeds-with-riverfront-subdivision/">Vancouver</a>, <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2019-10-08/commentary-the-danger-of-development-in-flood-prone-areas">Myrtle Beach</a> and <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Even-after-Harvey-Houston-keeps-adding-new-homes-13285865.php">Houston</a>, continue to build houses in areas that hydrologists and engineers have designated as being high-risk for flooding. In most jurisdictions, home-builders are not financially liable for flooding for very long. In <a href="https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/n03p2.pdf">Alberta, the window of liability is one year</a>, at which point the risk is transferred to homeowners. Following floods and other disasters, research shows that the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0047">development of new housing does not slow</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sox054">but intensifies</a>, as flooded properties lose value, are bought by developers and, as memory of flooding fades, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/calgary-home-built-after-alberta-floods-11604521775">become lucrative investments</a>. <h2>The residents’ point of view</h2> The residents I spoke with viewed developers as myopic capitalists who choose profit over safety. Scott told me that while developers are responsible for driving the hazard risk, “You can’t blame the developers, they are … there to make bucks, right? And if the city says you can build there then, bingo!… They make a pile.” Surprisingly, even though their homes had been flooded, residents were not angry at developers for situating the houses close to a hazard. Rather, they were resigned to it. <img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434534/original/file-20211129-19-1bqnj0l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="A man wearing a mask and work gloves throws muddy debris into a pile next to a house." /> Yahya Abougoush helps clean up his parents’ house in High River, Alta., on July 3, 2013. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh When asked what they thought should be done to keep people safe from floods, residents had two very different suggestions. <h2>Better regulations</h2> A sizeable group of Calgarians favoured new government regulations limiting development in flood-prone areas to rein in developers. Rachel said, “They can’t build where the city says they can’t…. It has to be government who says it can’t be done.” Gary said he believes Calgary’s municipal government “lacks the balls” to stand up to developers and regulate floodplain development. When asked why that was, he said, “It’s about money” and the political influence that developers wield over city council. Residents viewed the municipal government as weak, ineffectual and unwilling to stand up to developers. Quite often, the same people who argued for better government regulations on floodplain development also insisted that government should provide home buyers with a disclosure of a home’s location in a flood-prone area, a move that the real estate industry has dubbed “idiotic” and one that would “<a href="https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/jeff-goodell/the-water-will-come/9780316260206/">kill the market</a>.” <img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431443/original/file-20211111-27-1w1jkn7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="A gravel path and some strips of grass separate a row of homes from a river." /> New homes in Riverstone, with Bow River visible on the left. (Timothy Haney), Author provided Tasha wished she had been informed of the risk prior to buying her home, and told us, “I have lived here for 42 years and I have never heard of ‘flood fringe’ … maybe realtors should be more upfront about that.” The flood fringe is the area adjacent to the river with measurable flood risk — usually greater than one per cent annual probability of flooding. Angela said any declaration must go beyond a simple disclosure and “explain what it means.” Many preferred this type of new regulation. <h2>Buyer beware</h2> As one might expect in Alberta, a place known for <a href="https://press.ucalgary.ca/books/9781773850252/">right-wing populism</a>, other participants pushed back against new regulations and said individuals must bear responsibility. They deferred to the sanctity of private property rights and their distaste for government overreach. They felt that buyers must beware, often mentioning the need for “common sense.” Caleb said, “I think people can live wherever they want, but I think they have to carry that risk.” Others called it “instinctual.” Sociologists, like me, are often critical of “common sense,” looking at how such taken-for-granted knowledge is a culturally dependent and contextually specific <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/678271">product of socialization</a>. Still, many Calgarians did not see it this way and did not believe that the government should infringe on private property rights. <h2>Precaution over profits</h2> Calgary, like many cities, continues to develop <a href="https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/development-dispute-chaparral-residents-say-proposed-community-would-put-their-homes-at-risk-1.5326215">new housing close to rivers</a>. New neighbourhoods like Riverstone and Quarry Park offer housing marketed for their picturesque living and river access. In other areas, older homes near the river are being <a href="https://calgaryherald.com/life/homes/condos/white-the-evolution-of-calgarys-infill-housing">razed to make room for infills</a> — usually two or more homes on an existing lot. These infill developments increase the density in river-adjacent communities, putting more residents at risk. The lack of consensus among the study participants was also noteworthy. Citizen activism tends to get mixed results in influencing government decision-making on development <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2019.1690337">even when</a> there is <a href="https://uwapress.uw.edu/book/9780295748696/pushed-out/">relative consensus</a>. But in the case of restricting development near rivers, there is no such consensus, which may make it difficult for residents to mobilize. My own view is that municipal governments must stand up to moneyed development and home-building interests by restricting growth near rivers, which should instead be preserved as green space. <img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434535/original/file-20211129-59784-d6hlez.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="aerial view of a bend in a river with some elongated islands, several bridges and homes and business developments on each bank." /> After floods in 1993 and 1995, and facing future flooding due to climate change, the Dutch city of Nijmegen gave more room to the Waal River during periods of high water by relocating a dike and dredging a new channel. (DaMatriX/Wikimedia), <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" class="license">CC BY-SA</a> This approach is often called “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2020.1723604">room for the river</a>,” and is particularly popular in northern and western Europe. With this approach, areas immediately adjacent to waterways are preserved, providing esthetic and recreational value, and people are moved away via buyouts when necessary. New development is restricted. It has been imported and applied in North American cities such as <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/cities-around-globe-eagerly-importing-dutch-speciality-flood-prevention-180973679/">Norfolk, Va.</a>, though with varying degrees of consistency and success. The more volatile climate we are experiencing as a result of climate change will undoubtedly bring new flood events near rivers and mounting flood losses. Society must work harder to keep people and property away from the water, starting with halting new developments near these hazards. The first step in getting out of a hole, of course, is to stop digging.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171660/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/timothy-j-haney-1032153">Timothy J. Haney</a>, Professor of Sociology and Board of Governors Research Chair in Resilience & Sustainability, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/mount-royal-university-966">Mount Royal University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-are-homes-still-being-built-along-rivers-flooded-residents-disagree-on-the-solution-171660">original article</a>. Image: THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

Home Hints & Tips

Here's what happens in the brain when we disagree

We’ve all been there. You are in the middle of a heated disagreement when you lose respect for the opposing party. Whether it is about the latest election or childcare, you feel like your considered arguments are not appreciated – perhaps even ignored. But did you ever wonder what exactly is happening in the mind of the person on the other side? In a recent study, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-019-0549-2">published in Nature Neuroscience</a>, we and our colleagues recorded people’s brain activity during disagreements to find out. In our experiment, we asked 21 pairs of volunteers to make financial decisions. In particular, they each had to assess the value of real estates and bet money on their assessments. The more confident they were in their assessment, the more money they wagered. Each volunteer lay in a brain imaging scanner while performing the task so we could record their brain activity. The two scanners were separated by a glass wall, and the volunteers were able to see the assessments and bets of the other person on their screen. When volunteers agreed on the price of the real estate, each of them became more confident in their assessment, and they bet more money on it. That makes sense – if I agree with you then you feel more sure that you must be right. Each person’s brain activity also reflected the encoding of the confidence of their partner. In particular, activity of a brain region called the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex">posterior medial frontal cortex</a>, which we know is involved in cognitive dissonance, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/115/23/6082">tracked the confidence</a> of the partner. We found that the more confident one volunteer was, the more confident the partner became, and vice versa. However – and this is the interesting part – when people disagreed, their brains became less sensitive to the strength of others’ opinions. After disagreement, the posterior medial frontal cortex could no longer track the partner’s confidence. Consequently, the opinion of the disagreeing partner had little impact on people’s conviction that they were correct, regardless of whether the disagreeing partner was very sure in their assessment or not at all. It was not the case that the volunteers were not paying attention to their partner when they disagreed with them. We know this because we tested our volunteers’ memory of their partners’ assessments and bets. Rather, it seems that contradictory opinions were more likely to be considered categorically wrong and therefore the strength of those opinions was unimportant. A polarised society We suspect that when disagreements are about heated topics such as politics, people will be even less likely to take note of the strength of contradictory opinions. Our findings may shed light on some puzzling recent trends in society. For instance, over the last decade, climate scientists have expressed greater confidence that climate change is man-made. Yet, a survey by the Pew research centre shows that the percentage of Republicans who believe this notion to be true <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/">has dropped over the same period</a> of time. While there are complex, multi-layered reasons for this specific trend, it may also be related to a bias in how the strength of other people’s opinions are encoded in our brain. The findings can also be extrapolated to political current events. Take the recent impeachment hearings against US president Donald Trump. Our study suggests that whether a witness appears “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/us/politics/bill-taylor-impeachment-hearing.html">calm, confident and in command of the facts</a>” (as government official Bill Taylor was described when testifying during the hearings) or “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/us/politics/bill-taylor-impeachment-hearing.html">unsteady and uncertain</a>” (as the FBI chief Robert Muller was described when testifying about his special counsel investigation back in July) will matter little to those who already oppose impeachment when testimonies are unsupportive of the president. But they will affect the conviction of those who are in favour of impeachment. So how can we increase our chances of being heard by members of an opposing group? Our study lends new support to a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/24/queens-speech-calling-for-common-ground-seen-as-brexit-allusion">tried and tested recipe</a>” (as Queen Elizabeth II recently put it while addressing a country divided over Brexit) – finding the common ground. The strength of a carefully reasoned opinion is less likely to be registered when launching into a disagreement with a sturdy pile of evidence describing why we are right and the other side is wrong. But if we start from common ground – that is the parts of the problem we agree on – we will avoid being categorised as a “disputer” from the very beginning, making it more likely that the strength of our arguments will matter. Take for example the attempt to alter the conviction of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children because they falsely believe vaccines are linked to autism. It has been shown that presenting strong evidence refuting the link does little to change their minds. Instead, focusing solely on the fact that vaccines protect children from potentially deadly disease – a statement that the parents can more easily agree with – can <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/10321.abstract">increase their intention to vaccinate</a> their children by threefold. So in the midst of that heated disagreement, try and remember that the key to change is often finding a shared belief or motive.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129018/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andreas-kappes-211872">Andreas Kappes</a>, Lecturer, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/city-university-of-london-1047">City, University of London</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tali-sharot-310916">Tali Sharot</a>, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/ucl-1885">UCL</a> This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-what-happens-in-the-brain-when-we-disagree-129018">original article</a>.

Mind

How to disagree agreeably

A disagreement doesn’t have to devolve into an unsightly argument. Here’s how to disagree with respect. 1. Be calm This is the most important thing you can do in a situation like this. A disagreement, even a simple one, can quickly cause emotions to become charged. That’s when you will start yelling, levelling insults and generally getting worked up. Take a deep breath, clear your mind and focus on what it is you want to say. 2. Stick to the facts A respectful disagreement is one that focuses on logic, not emotion. Place your emphasis on reasoning and facts rather than straying into subjective territory. You will also need to make sure your facts are correct, so be wary of taking someone to task on rumours or hearsay. 3. Be respectful A disagreement is never one sided, so you will need to listen to the other person’s side of the story. If they feel that you are genuinely listening to them and hearing their opinion, they will be more likely to think favourably of your argument. And it goes without saying that yelling, threats and foul language are always off limits. 4. Use “I” rather than “you” A simple language trick will prevent you from sounding too accusatory and confrontational. Try saying “I feel hurt when…” instead of saying “You hurt me when…” This should prevent the other person from being on the defensive while still allowing you to express how you feel. 5. Don't try to win The aim here should be to clear the air and reach a mutually agreeable resolution, not to score points. Try to focus on understanding what the other person has to say and getting your point across clearly. That way, you can clear the air and everyone can move forward feeling happy with the resolution. 6. Pick your battles Disagreement is a part of life, so don’t feel the need to go into battle every time you have a difference of opinion. Take stock and decide if this issue is something that you really care about or if it would be easier for everyone if you just let it go. Sometimes silence is the best option for everyone. How do you handle disagreements with respect? Share your advice in the comments below. Looking for love – or perhaps you just want to meet some new people? <a href="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/301420739;128433504;u" target="_blank">Why not sign up at RSVP today by clicking here… You never know who is just around the corner.</a>

Relationships

5 tips for disagreeing grandparents and parents

These days many grandparents are playing an active role in the lives of their children and grandchildren. But as the generations try to work together it’s inevitable that some problems will arise. Today we have some tips for making the relationship between the three generations work. 1. Get on the same page There’s nothing like some unsolicited advice to make a parent feel criticised or undermined. It’s important from the start to let everyone know where the boundaries are in terms of the type of help offered or the advice that is warranted. Remember that all parties want what’s best for the little ones, so keep that goal in mind. It’s important for grandparents to always be on the same page as the parents. Comments to the grandkids about their parent’s style of parenting are both inappropriate and potentially damaging for the relationship. Always be constructive rather than critical. 2. Wait to be asked for advice Always respect that these are not your children, they are your grandchildren, and so your opinion is secondary. Resist the urge to correct your children or tell them they are doing something wrong (unless you see a safety issue). Most likely you will be asked for your advice down the track once they see that you are not judging them. 3. Don’t force anyone to take sides Despite your strong relationship with your own child, putting them in a position where they feel they need to side with you or their partner is never ideal. Most likely they will support their partner and then you will be left out in the cold. If you feel that there is an issue, it’s usually best to speak with your own child about it and be sure the grandkids aren’t within earshot. Open communication is key. 4. Be open about your ideal role For some grandparents, being asked to babysit every weekend or attending every soccer game is exhausting. For others, they feel left out if they aren’t invited. It’s important to be clear with your children about how you would like to be involved in their lives so that there are no hurt feelings. 5. Enjoy the relationship Being able to spend time with your grandchildren is something that not all grandparents get to enjoy. So instead of worrying that the kids watch too much TV or that the house is a mess, just enjoy the moments that you have with the children. Leave the parenting to the parents and revel in your role as grandparent. Have you ever had a disagreement about parenting with your own children? We would love to hear how you resolved it in the comments. Related links: <a href="/lifestyle/family-pets/2016/07/how-to-find-your-balance-as-a-grandparent/">How to find your balance as a grandparent</a> <a href="/lifestyle/family-pets/2016/07/parents-beliefs-about-failure-are-crucial-for-kids/">Parents’ beliefs about failure are crucial for kids</a> <a href="/lifestyle/family-pets/2016/07/how-to-pass-family-history-onto-grandkids/">How to pass family history onto grandkids</a>

Family & Pets

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property