What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

We are the enemy

C

Captain Avgas

Well Known Member
I'm beginning to suspect that we as pilots are our own worst enemy. No sooner does one pilot thread about aircraft accidents die than another one promptly pops up to take its place. There seems to be no end of nervous-nellie pilots, presumably anxious about their own flying skills, trawling through NTSB reports looking for the latest deaths.

The FAA and the rest of the burgeoning bureaucratic safety "industry" loves this. It gives them further political ammunition to expand their operations and to tighten the screws even more.

In the UK the CAA "safety" stranglehold on the homebuilt category is so severe it prevents RV owners from flying IFR, flying at night, performing aerobatics...and from even flying over built-up areas.

Aircraft accidents attract public attention, not because there are so many of them but because there are so few of them...that's what makes them newsworthy. And the fewer there are, the more newsworthy they become. That's the Catch 22 of aviation.

There might be some merit in a reasoned statistical analysis of aircraft accident trends over time...but this maudlin preoccupation by some pilots to rake over every fatality via the internet is truly counterproductive.
 
Bravo!

Good post. You have read my mind, Captain. I too have noticed this trend in us pilots, and for that reason, skip the threads that whang away on how unsafe all this flying is.

Art in Asheville
 
Your observation is dead nuts spot on! To my everlasting chagrin, two recent days in a row the local electronic media has treated 2 non-fatal landing incidents to blaring and almost breathless coverage. Interviewing the obligatory and predictably upset witness, usually a disheveled suburban housewife quoted as saying "Thank God there were no children around!" only reinforces a negative and ill-informed public perception. On another front, it doesn't help our cause when licensed pilots race to the keyboard in a bid to be the first to post the latest untoward incident. Worse, there is a propensity among a few who should know better to....and as one member so brilliantly put it.....to publicly "pee on the crater." Bad things happen. Aircraft accidents will occur as long as man flies. We don't need need to obsess over it and we don't need to beat each other up about it either.
 
Point of View

I think that I agree with the premise here....that it is wrong to wring our hands and chastise each other for making stupid mistakes, that it is wrong to speculate on the causes of mishaps without any facts and before the wreckage is even cold, and that it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that we wouldn't partake of certain aviation activities based on single points of evidence. No argument there - we need to take a step back from the emotional , use statistics wisely, and not get ourselves worked up to the point that we fear opening the hangar door.

However.....(there is always a however)....I am all for studying previous mistakes, mishaps, accidents and screw-ups. Heaven knows that there are enough of them out there, and if I can learn from someone else's mistakes, I hopefully won't have to make the same ones myself. I look at accident reports frequently - not as "warnings" to stay away from things, but as "lessons" as to how to do things with better odds of survival.

One of the many hats that I wear in my job is that of organizational Flight Safety Officer. When I took the assignment, I stated that I was NOT going to be an enforcer - if people broke the rules, they would be dealt with through normal channels. I was not going to be a mother hen, standing there and pointing out bad behavior or poor judgment. What I WAS going to be was an educator - helping the general safety record of all our people rise by giving them, the opportunity to learn from previous mistakes and errors. You don't learn the right lessons from early reports - you need to read the full reports of mishaps and incidents to find out the real Root Causes.

So no, don't obsess over accidents, don't sensationalize....in fact, it's a great idea to wait fro the actual reports to surface, and to hear about (and learn from) the Root Cause....but don't miss the opportunity to learn from them.

Just my two cents,

Paul
 
Dear Capt Avgas

I whole-heartedly disagree. Raising awareness about safety issues cannot possibly be the problem, just the beginning of a solution. Labeling the introspective among us "nervous nellies" serves no purpose. Your time would be better spent analyzing the Nall Report on general aviation accidents. It might affect your views on this subject.

With experimental aircraft comprising 10% of the general aviation fleet, we have nearly 20% of all accidents. That's an acknowledged accident rate of double that of production aircraft.

Accident rates for experimental aviation are based on an average annual GA fleet utilization rate (125 hrs per plane) If you consider the fact that experimentals are not used for hire, I think you will see that the accident rate per block flying hour is considerably more than double. I'll bet the fleet average utiliztion for the homebuilt community (not RV) doesn't amount to 30 hrs per year per airplane. That would equate to 8-10 times the production accident rate.

How does this affect me? I'm still enthusiasticly assembling my RV-9, hoping for A 2007 first flight, but I won't be using unproven parts or engines, no low-level aerobatics, no formation demos with neophyte pilots, no IFR without a VFR escape route, no car gas, no car parts.

Nervous Nellie....... I don't think so. This is my third homebuilt and my 7th GA
airplane. I know the risks, and deal with them accordingly. This is not golf nor model airplanes......act accordingly. It's us against gravity.
 
Yukon said:
I whole-heartedly disagree. Raising awareness about safety issues cannot possibly be the problem, just the beginning of a solution.
Click to expand...
And there is the rub. While certain "safety" issues are blatantly obvious, others--many of the ones which you mention could be considered subjective based on the pilot, equipage and aircraft. So for someone to get on a soapbox and proclaim this or that is unsafe for all, is counterproductive.

I regularly peruse the NTSB reports but I do that for my personal education and never use it to beat others over the head as to what they should or should not do. I think this is what Captaion Avgas is eluding to. Some who are uncomfortable with night flying use the reports to "show" why "your odds of dying flying at night is so much greater than during the day." All the while planning on using an auto engine conversion in their RV. I'm sure you could get lots of opinion and "statistics" on the "safety" of auto engine conversions.

"Don't use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post; for support rather than for illumination"
 
Captain Avgas said:
In the UK the CAA "safety" stranglehold on the homebuilt category is so severe it prevents RV owners from flying IFR, flying at night, performing aerobatics...and from even flying over built-up areas.

There might be some merit in a reasoned statistical analysis of aircraft accident trends over time...but this maudlin preoccupation by some pilots to rake over every fatality via the internet is truly counterproductive.
Click to expand...

FAR 91.319 sets limitations on experimental aircraft not unlike the UK rules. Example - flying over populated areas or near a congested airway is not permitted in this country except for take off and landing. Yes, we can be issued special authorization for other than day VFR operations but unless the ops specs for a particular airplane authorizes it, we are restricted to VFR day operations. I do not know if the UK rules have such a provision.

"Special authorization" was a hot topic around here with the FAA when I had my airplane certified. The DAR insisted on a certified altimeter even for day VFR because some yahoo in an experimental airplane wandered into Class B airspace with an uncertified altimeter that was 1200' in error. We have rules, and they will be tightened more if we don't get our act together with regard to this and poor judgement accidents.

Statistical analysis of anything has merit beyond an assertion it is counter productive. Pilots can learn from mistakes of others and adjust their thinking about what they do - if they chose to do so. Unfortunately, some do not. A discussion (reading a report) about what went wrong with any accident is the only way to possibly prevent it from happening again.

No one has ever "learnt" anything with their head stuck in the sand.

dd
 
Last edited:
w1curtis said:
Some who are uncomfortable with night flying use the reports to "show" why "your odds of dying flying at night is so much greater than during the day." All the while planning on using an auto engine conversion in their RV. I'm sure you could get lots of opinion and "statistics" on the "safety" of auto engine conversions.

"Don't use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post; for support rather than for illumination"
Click to expand...

I don't know if you are saying this to me or to Ross. I stated the statistics just for information only. Ross stated he did not fly at night. I was curious to see what the stats were for the last five years and I put that reply in there just to let people know my findings.Not to support either side but to "illuminate". I fly at night. I enjoy night flying. Yes, both of us are using auto engines. I don't think Ross ever quoted stats. He just said that from his experience. Stats can be misleading. I stated that you were 2.5 times more likely to die at night if you lost an engine. Well there have only been SEVEN engine out at night fatal crashes in the last five years. I think flying at night is pretty safe. Am I using the lamp post for support or illumination? You tell me. Maybe Ross has taken one risk out by not flying his autoconversion at night.
 
Good for You Captain

You will take a lot of barbs for this thread I suspect but it is far past time that someone called attention to the negative side of accident sensationalizing. Good for you.

Bob Axsom
 
Rick6a said:
Your observation is dead nuts spot on! To my everlasting chagrin, two recent days in a row the local electronic media has treated 2 non-fatal landing incidents to blaring and almost breathless coverage. Interviewing the obligatory and predictably upset witness, usually a disheveled suburban housewife quoted as saying "Thank God there were no children around!" only reinforces a negative and ill-informed public perception. On another front, it doesn't help our cause when licensed pilots race to the keyboard in a bid to be the first to post the latest untoward incident. Worse, there is a propensity among a few who should know better to....and as one member so brilliantly put it.....to publicly "pee on the crater." Bad things happen. Aircraft accidents will occur as long as man flies. We don't need need to obsess over it and we don't need to beat each other up about it either.
Click to expand...

Rick, did you see the TV report where the owner stated he thought his "very experienced" pilot simply ran out of fuel?

Capt Avgas is right, we are the enemy.

dd
 
Captain Avgas said:
I'm beginning to suspect that we as pilots are our own worst enemy.
Click to expand...

There's a ******* (and I'm dissapointed that he flys an RV) that insists on buzzing my neighborhood all the time...I don't mind but what do you think the other 30 votes in my neighborhood think?

This is right on the money in MANY ways, not just sensationalizing accidents. I'm glad someone finally said something.
 
Ever notice that flying is a lot like golf. Most golfers are more than willing to spend a small fortune to have the same equipment as Tiger or Phil, yet they spend all their time on the course, little or none on the practice range, and wonder why their handicaps are double digits.
Look around at the RVs at most fly-ins today - GPS/WAAS, WX, EFIS, etc. The equipment is better than the majors flew with a couple of decades ago. Small wonder that Commercial Airlines, Fedex, UPS and others are flying nightly (many with SE aircraft) with viturally no incidents, yet individuals manage to keep burying aircraft under legal IMC conditions or at night. If you don't practice, it's difficult to fly with the precision necessary to be comfortable in actual conditions. If your practice shows you can't do it with precision EVERY time, keep practicing and stay out of the system- there's plenty of VFR/day opportunites to enjoy the experience rather than risking the safety of yourself, your passengers, or people on the ground.
We expect our equipment to perform with precision every time we call on it-too bad we can't expect the same from ourselves.
 
David-aviator said:
Rick, did you see the TV report where the owner stated he thought his "very experienced" pilot simply ran out of fuel?

Capt Avgas is right, we are the enemy.

dd
Click to expand...
Dave,

Yes I did. I happened to turn on the TV to see Dennis Bampton (owner of St. Charles Flying Service and the Cessna) completely misnamed by KMOV. Still, I thought he did a fairly good job of downplaying the incident and saluted his bid to allay vague public fears about general aviation. The multi-thousand hour charter pilot was allegedly quoted as saying "it could happen to anybody". Apparently, he volunteered that he simply ran out of fuel.
This incident underscores what many of us feel. Pilots of all experience levels can and will continue to run out of fuel. Unfortunate and preventable? Sure. But I'm not about to point my finger at someone with far more hours than I and pontificate "Ah ha dummy, how could you be so stupid?" Never say never. Lessons? Nothing new under the sun. Everything you could possibly do to screw up in an airplane has already been done...time and time again by others. How many accident reports do we need to read to absorb that most fundamental and useful of lessons...i.e. don't run out of fuel?
 
Risk/Reward Ratio

w1curtis said:
And there is the rub. While certain "safety" issues are blatantly obvious, others--many of the ones which you mention could be considered subjective based on the pilot, equipage and aircraft. So for someone to get on a soapbox and proclaim this or that is unsafe for all, is counterproductive.

I regularly peruse the NTSB reports but I do that for my personal education and never use it to beat others over the head as to what they should or should not do. I think this is what Captaion Avgas is eluding to. Some who are uncomfortable with night flying use the reports to "show" why "your odds of dying flying at night is so much greater than during the day." All the while planning on using an auto engine conversion in their RV. I'm sure you could get lots of opinion and "statistics" on the "safety" of auto engine conversions.

"Don't use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post; for support rather than for illumination"
Click to expand...

Curtis,

Nobody's "beating you over the head". If you are comfortable with night single engine flight, live it up. I used to be comfortable with it too. If you want to do it behind a car engine, press on, it's your right. Hard IFR, in the winter is done all the time too, but not as carefree as you might think. And if you want to do all these things simultaneously, with a new PPL as your wingman, there are several great websites to show you how.
 
TSwezey said:
I don't know if you are saying this to me or to Ross. I stated the statistics just for information only. Ross stated he did not fly at night. Maybe Ross has taken one risk out by not flying his autoconversion at night.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't fly any single engined aircraft at night any more no matter what engine it has up front actually. I don't consider a Lycoming any more reliable than my Sube in it's current form as I've seen enough of them fail as well.

I'd agree that speculation as to accident causes and sensationalizing them as the media does serves no useful purpose. Learning something from an accident report and storing that lesson to be applied if one is in a similar situation IS useful in my view.

I'm afraid I agree with one other poster from a few days back who said it was often the experienced, complacement pilots who leave smoking holes in the ground. I'm sure we've all seen the type- knows everything, not willing the learn anything and making novice mistakes on every flight without even realizing them. It only takes a short look back on a few accidents in 2006 to see that "experienced" pilots have made novice mistakes that have killed them. The CJ wrong runway one, the C5B 2-3 engined approach and stall one, B1B wheels up landing one, the Spectrum control reversal one etc. All so preventable with standard, routine checks we should all be doing. This isn't figure pointing, it is learning that accidents happen to pilots at all experience levels at that we all need to watch the basics on every flight.

I know pilots who scoff at using checklists, don't worry about frost on the wings, don't do preflights etc. One day, behavior like this may bite you. These accidents may wake some pilots up to their slack airmanship so are useful.

When I'm flying with another pilot, after the runup, I ask them to offer critique on my procedures and piloting. I've picked up some useful feedback which I've applied in future.

Safety, much of it is in your hands. I'd use all tools at your disposal to make your flight safe.
 
Last edited:
rv6ejguy said:
I wouldn't fly any single engined aircraft at night any more no matter what engine it has up front actually. I don't consider a Lycoming any more reliable than my Sube in it's current form as I've seen enough of them fail as well.
Click to expand...
Interesting, Fed EX does this every night with a fantastic safety record. Granted this is a turbine but is also without any fancy "glass cockpits."

cessna_208_2.jpg


I realize that you said "I" and are outlining your personal limitation, but this again is why blanket implications about the safety of this or that becomes counterproductive.
 
Apples and Oranges

Curtis,

Not only is it PT-6 powered with millions of flight hours, it has a 3 axis, certificated auto pilot, redundant electrical system, factory installed wing, tail and prop de-ice, radar, factory trained A&P maintenance, ATP, simulator trained and recurrent qualified pilots, flying 5 nights per week.

In what way is this similar to our RV's?
 
Last edited:
Yukon said:
In what way is this similar to our RV's?
Click to expand...
Yukon,

One of the best quotes I gained from this forum is; "Life is full of situations crying out not to be commented upon."
 
As I said before. I have a friend who has a lot of Caravan time with two PT6 engine failures. Sheared fuel pump drives, not core failures. Plenty of fatal icing accidents on these as well in last 2 years in Canada. TC has revised flight into known icing for these as a result.

I hope Fedex continues to have good safety records with them.

Some countries do not allow single engine commercial pax operations as well.

The Caravan is somewhat different than an RV.
 
Horseplay

w1curtis said:
Yukon,

One of the best quotes I gained from this forum is; "Life is full of situations crying out not to be commented upon."
Click to expand...

Here's my favorite...... "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"
 
rv6ejguy said:
..
Some countries do not allow single engine commercial pax operations as well.
Click to expand...
No doubt due to outcries from "Nervous Nellies." Well, there are quite a few things about the Canadian (TC) and European air administration that I *hope* is NOT repeated here. User fees for instance. If I had a choice, I'd take a turbine single over a piston twin any day--but that's just my opinion.

rv6ejguy said:
The Caravan is somewhat different than an RV.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I believe your statement was:
rv6ejguy said:
I wouldn't fly any single engined aircraft at night any more no matter what engine it has up front actually.
Click to expand...
 
Better yet.........

Yukon said:
Here's my favorite...... "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"
Click to expand...


.....or, "You can lead a horse to drink but you can't make him water.. :D

Keepin the shiny side down.... :eek:

Regards,
 
OldAndNervous

rv6ejguy said:
...

When I'm flying with another pilot, after the runup, I ask them to offer critique on my procedures and piloting. I've picked up some useful feedback which I've applied in future...

Safety, much of it is in your hands. I'd use all tools at your disposal to make your flight safe.
Click to expand...

rv6ejguy - good. I like a pilot who is open to critique.

Perhaps some of this thread is in response to the "Rocket Crash Preliminary Report Out" thread that has been running the last week or two. Perhaps I am considered to be one of the nervous nellies that is the enemy.

When I read the beginning of that thread it made me stop and think about crash reports of RV accidents that I had read before. The reason I had read about RV accidents was to see if there were things that were peculiar to RVs and the people who fly them.

When I started looking I was expecting to see things like wing spars failing or other mechanical things failing and killing pilots. What I instead noticed was that it seemed like a lot of the accidents "involved" (not necessarily caused by) certain behaviors or activities. How detailed do I need to be in analyzing these accidents in order to feel that I should avoid certain activities or change certain behaviors?

Am I (or anyone else) really causing a "problem" by looking at the reports and trying to discern better flying practices?

John Babrick
N777XV (almost finished with drywalling the shop)
 
w1curtis said:
No doubt due to outcries from "Nervous Nellies." Well, there are quite a few things about the Canadian (TC) and European air administration that I *hope* is NOT repeated here. User fees for instance. If I had a choice, I'd take a turbine single over a piston twin any day--but that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

The aviation bodies in these countries generally responded to accidents in writing their regs. They are the "Nervous Nellies" I suppose, attempting to protect people. If there is a series of similar accidents, these bodies generally step in to do something about them even if the pilots involved were just stupid. Witness the new voluntary runway lengths for jet operations suggested by the NTSB due to all the overruns.

Problems with the Caravan in icing are pretty real and demanded a change in operations.

The PT6 is a wonderfully reliable engine and most people do not have trouble from them. I've enjoyed flying them and my dad has over 8,000 hours on them without a peep. If it does stop, you are then a glider with only one out in front however. Statistically, this is very unlikely but it has happened. We had a Pilatus PC-7 with a reduction drive failure many years ago in Canada. It did a long glide but landed short of the runway. Analysis showed a debated design change in the chip detector circuit Pilatus used in place of the common twin engined installations. This was changed as a result.

We need some rules but I agree that too much regulation is unwelcome. All countries have different regs some more or less restrictive than in the US. I think it is a good idea to fly safe, obey the regs and don't invite more scrutiny from governments or insurance companies. Try to keep the great freedoms we have in North America.
 
OldAndBold said:
Am I (or anyone else) really causing a "problem" by looking at the reports and trying to discern better flying practices?
Click to expand...
IMVHO, there's a significant difference in discussing an accident and broadly characterizing scenarios and/or pilots from one's particular vantage point.
 
Public hand wringing

I'd like to clarify a few things in relation to my original post.

I don't have any problem with pilots who peruse the NTSB accident reports...there's probably some lessons to be learnt there. On the other hand I'm not sure how many reports it's necessary to read to figure out that running out of fuel or crashing into a hill in poor visability can be bad for your health.

I'm also not concerned if there are pilots out there who privately pour over these reports due to some darker fascination with the death of others (or due to an unhealthy preoccupation with their own inevitable death). In private to each his own.

It is also of no perceived relevance to me that many pilots are probably drawn to read the crash comix simply because they are anxious about their own flying skills.

But what I truly see as destructive is the constant public hand wringing by pilots over safety issues, the finger pointing, the incessant preaching and pontification via the internet....because this is not good for for GA...and it is particularly dangerous for the Experimental Category.

If pilots themselves continually and relentlessly berate each other over perceived safety deficiencies then how are we expected to convince the broader public, and the regulators, that flying is not an unreasonably risky undertaking.

Of all the posts on this "safety" thread so far I think Rick Galati summed it up most succinctly when he said: "We don't need to obsess over it and we don't need to beat each other up about it either".

I couldn't give better advice.
 
Last edited:
Bogus Reasoning

There is nothing "public" about this site. While in the public domain, it is only frequented by a handful of hardcore RV enthusiasts, and most certainly the forums. No damage is being done to the sport by introspective self-examination of the risks we face as experimental aviators. On the contrary, risks will be mitigated and the accident rate will improve if we self-regulate.

The first thing we have to do is to accept and proclaim the accident rate unacceptable. The solutions will follow.
 
This is public

My day job is supporting server and network infrastructure for a daily newspaper. This forum is plenty public. I can't say much for reporters but they do know how to dig. We had an homebuilt aircraft accident here about a year ago and a couple of our reporters were all over the kit manufacturer's website, builder websites, builder forums, etc. Google is the reporter's friend.

As for the accidents, they are sad. Hopefully there is not one in my future. I try to be as careful as I can and plan as well as I can. But there may come a time where a small mistake may get me killed in my plane. There may also come a time when a small mistake may get me killed when crossing the street, driving to work, or whatever. What should I do? Keep studying the accident statistics for street crossings to try to devise a safer method to cross the street? There's only so many ways that can be done. My personal favorite way to cross the street is at 3000 MSL in my RV-4.

I don't read accident reports any more. How many times do I have to read "continued VFR into IFR conditions" to know that can get you killed? Controlled flight into terrain? Base to final stall? Low level aerobatics? Buzzing? Some of those things you can get away with a time or two but sooner or later your number will come up if you persist. I just don't see the point in reading those things over and over.

Has anyone seen any genuinely new accident cause lately? You know like, vaporized in flight by alien spacecraft or something?
 
Last edited:
Rick6a said:
Dave,
......... The multi-thousand hour charter pilot was allegedly quoted as saying "it could happen to anybody". Apparently, he volunteered that he simply ran out of fuel.
This incident underscores what many of us feel. Pilots of all experience levels can and will continue to run out of fuel. Unfortunate and preventable? Sure. But I'm not about to point my finger at someone with far more hours than I and pontificate "Ah ha dummy, how could you be so stupid?" Never say never. Lessons? Nothing new under the sun. Everything you could possibly do to screw up in an airplane has already been done...time and time again by others. How many accident reports do we need to read to absorb that most fundamental and useful of lessons...i.e. don't run out of fuel?
Click to expand...

Rick,

Is it any wonder the public perceives GA as unsafe with such events occurring time and again? How is NOT reading an accident report possibly going to make things better?

As much as I would like to, I do not follow your logic on this matter. You advocate freedom with regard to what we do, but no direct responsibility for the outcome of our decisions, i.e., it could happen to anyone so its not really so bad, and darn the press for reporting it.

I was astounded to watch the TV report with the guy down playing his pilot running out of fuel as just another day in the life of a pilot and corporate flying. The public will not buy this cavalier explanation of what happened and I doubt the FAA will either.

It is public opinion that will lead to more and more regulation, not less, and we are forming that public opinion by continuing to be involved in accidents that are totally preventable.

If the discussion here, as uncomfortable as it is for some, causes one pilot to make a better decision, something has been accomplished.

That's what this is all about, nothing else.

dd
 
How to stay saft

For the people that want to stay the safest they can I think I can help by giving some stats. Here in percentages is what kills you. 20% die in autos. 17% die in their home. 14% on streets and sidewalks as pedestrians. Air, rail and water16%. Hospitals =32% .001% die during a church service. Can we learn something from thes stats? No but they are stats and that is what interests some folks. :)
Flying the Double Eagle (RV9-A)
 
Harvey L. Sorensen said:
For the people that want to stay the safest they can I think I can help by giving some stats. Here in percentages is what kills you. 20% die in autos. 17% die in their home. 14% on streets and sidewalks as pedestrians. Air, rail and water16%. Hospitals =32% .001% die during a church service. Can we learn something from thes stats? No but they are stats and that is what interests some folks. :)
Flying the Double Eagle (RV9-A)
Click to expand...

Surely you're not saying that 20% of all deaths are from traffic accidents?! I'm sure you must mean 20% of all accidental deaths are from cars -- big difference.
 
David-aviator said:
We have rules, and they will be tightened more if we don't get our act together with regard to this and poor judgement accidents.

Click to expand...

This point is the most pertinent I have seen in this thread. In the 40 years that I have been flying light airplanes (including my RV-8A VFR and IFR), I have see repeatedly our collective failure as aviators to teach the concept of good judgement. It is this failing more than anything else that brings negative views of general aviation, and rightly so. Like Paul Dye and others in this forum, I am an avid student of aircraft accidents. I study each one I come across and ask, "what would I have done were I in the left seat?" This is a powerful learning tool since those doing the teaching are dead, and in most cases because of some degree of poor judgement on their part. Am I immune from doing the same? No way. That's why I study this stuff diligently. While it is true that now and then a mechanical failure brings an airplane to grief, it is undeniable fact that far too often it is the decision of the person flying the aircraft that results in the accident.

We have to address this problem in a big way, and soon. If we don't, the forces that control our way of life as pilots and aircraft owners in the U.S. will impose their will upon us just as they have in many other nations around the globe.

Bill Marvel
 
One more chiming in...

Context: relatively new pilot, VERY new RV builder.

I would love, when I try to share my joy of flying and excitement of building my own aircraft with my friends and family (who are about as far away from GA as you can get), to get a response of interest, fascination, and support. Instead, I mostly get head cocked, eyebrow raised queries, and subtly unmentioned but discernable concern. Fascination maybe... in an auto accident kind of way.

Stop! Step outside your circle of friends / compatriots. Think of what others think of us. Then think about where they get their opinions from. Key point here that we often forget => reality is irrelevant... perception is everything.

I honestly believe that I understand the dangers of the "hobby" I've taken up. I know it is more dangerous than golf, bowling, woodworking, [insert popular hobby here], and yet I choose to follow it, because I also know that a significant amount of those dangers can be managed, and because I love it.

It scares me (and heartens me at the same time) to notice that the vast majority of accident reports seem to indicate pilot error as the cause. It suggests that if I am good, I won't fall into the same traps. The problem is that 90% of us think we're better pilots than most others, and statistically that is impossible. Perhaps a studious review of accident details can manage to fire the pertinent neurons at the right time to save one of our lives. It probably can't hurt.

I don't want to sound like I'm sitting the fence on this, but my diatribe above outlines my case. We pilots need to understand where others have made mistakes, to remind us of our fallability and learn from others screw ups. The public, however, has a different knowledge base and very different perspective, and needs to understand the REAL danger of GA (i.e. unless you're in the plane, not much... and there are mitigating steps you can take even then).

As with all good debates, there is no easy answer to this one. The best suggestion I can think of is that we all need to be the safest pilots we can and educated ambassadors of our hobby, with empathetic understanding of the public's perspective, and a strong challenge to the media's sensationalism. Regarding the media, we may want to consider the tactics of successful polititians... they seem to understand the "game."
 
Harvey L. Sorensen said:
For the people that want to stay the safest they can I think I can help by giving some stats. Here in percentages is what kills you. 20% die in autos. 17% die in their home. 14% on streets and sidewalks as pedestrians. Air, rail and water16%. Hospitals =32% .001% die during a church service. Can we learn something from thes stats? No but they are stats and that is what interests some folks. :)
Flying the Double Eagle (RV9-A)
Click to expand...

You just confirmed what I've always believed; looks like we're better off in church. :) :)
 
awareness

if what tobin posted doesnt raise most peoples awareness what will. whats the big deal? this is remminicent of kitplanes claim on brians spread sheet. its just information that was already out there. could have just as easily been found by the evil press.(not you FOX) ;)
and what happened to my horse?
 
We are both the problem and the solution

cytoxin said:
if what tobin posted doesnt raise most peoples awareness what will. whats the big deal? this is remminicent of kitplanes claim on brians spread sheet. its just information that was already out there. could have just as easily been found by the evil press.(not you FOX) ;)
and what happened to my horse?
Click to expand...

OK I have to chime in here. I don't fly for an airline, I paid for my own ticket, therefore I'm a low-time pilot. I don't like to admit it but flying is EXPENSIVE. I can afford to maintain currency, but don't like most of the planes I MUST fly for this purpose. I'm building an RV because this is the only way I'll have a "good" plane I can afford to fly. This isn't true in many peoples case admittedly. I'll use the greatest care that I can putting my plane together. I want a nice new RV so I can fly more and get better at it! I'll use any means at my disposal to get better, including crash reports. I WON'T blab about those reports for effect or to impress my buddies. You just know you have heard, "I wouldn't suggest anybody do this but, ..." You can fill in the blank. Just having a licence doesn't give you good judgement, you have to practice at it. Intelligent people will actually TRY to avoid risks. I have been building mechanical things my entire life. Many of the people building a kit have not, and we try to help them for the safety of all. It doesn't matter what engine, or what panel toys you have if you haven't done a competent job of installing them! I know people who I wouldn't trust with any mechanical device especially an airplane. Others are so so intuitively good I'd trust anything they built. (sadly there are far fewer of these guys) We must all work within the Experimental community to improve our record or face becoming an "attractive nusience" and be legislated out of existance.
I am reminded of the super quote from Ben Franklin after signing the Declaration of Independence, "Gentlemen we must now all hang together, of we will all surely hang separately!" Less brass opinion, more assistance for the newbys is the order of the day.

Bill Jepson
 
Stupid?

"The aviation bodies in these countries generally responded to accidents in writing their regs. They are the "Nervous Nellies" I suppose, attempting to protect people. If there is a series of similar accidents, these bodies generally step in to do something about them even if the pilots involved were just stupid. Witness the new voluntary runway lengths for jet operations suggested by the NTSB due to all the overruns."

I think this was the point of the first post...Painting the broad brush of stupidity on ourselves.

Was MDW stupid for keeping the [airport/accident runway] open, or not issuing another friction number during continued precip? Were the other pilots who successfully landed there stupid? Is the airline stupid for having their own -friction index -> stopping distance computer- even though the faa says ""no corelation between braking action report or Mu (friction index) and stopping distance"". Is the faa's CYA mode why they won't issue an official one to the general public? Is the NTSB a bunch of hypocrites for using analytical methods for linking friction index to stopping distance in their investigation while official techniques are not made available to the majority of pilots? Are people stupid for completely surrounding the immediate periphery of an airport with streets and houses?

Are we stupid for being in a rigged game of musical chairs where when the "end" comes we are always left "standing" (and all the others are pointing)?

A bunch of pilots soley focusing other pilots sort of gives the impression that pilots are the only factor in anything going wrong.
 
By stupid, I was referring to accidents like the Citation overrun as seen on the net. Landing with a tailwind on a wet runway with the approach plate clamped to the column stating that the runway in question was not approved for jet aircraft. That is stupid.

In many other accidents there are mitigating circumstances. This does not fit in that category.
 
overruns

I made the assumption because the only new -voluntary runway lengths for jet operations- I am aware of have to do with contaminated runways, not runways in general, and are largely the result (knee-jerk) of the SW MDW accident.

A dry runway probably would not have helped much in that Citation accident.
 
Last edited:
Mitigating circumstances

rv6ejguy said:
......In many other accidents there are mitigating circumstances. This does not fit in that category.
Click to expand...

Under Part 121, when I was working, there was a provision for a "wet dispatch". What that meant, if the dispatcher and captain agreed, the runway was going to be wet when the flight arrived and runway length had to be increased x % over what was required for a dry arrivial. That number was arrived at by the elevation of the runway, temperature, estimated tail wind if any, weight of the airplane and other certification requirements. Head wind and reverse thrust were never factored into the formula. Actually, what came out of all the calculations was a max landing weight.

In 32 years of riding one seat or another, I never once saw a "wet dispatch". The reason the dispatcher and captain never forecast a wet runway was the very conservative factor of reverse thrust and a head wind, which were never in the formula. Places like MDW would not have had jet service if a "wet dispatch" were used, the runways simply are too short.

In reality, there is plenty of safety factor, unless the flight lands long with a tail wind, the thrust reversers are inop or slow to come in, and/or the approach speed is over what it should have been. Many of the pieces of the swiss cheese have to be lined up for the airplane to end up in the boonies. That's why most flights park at the gate but on very rare occasions they don't at places like MDW.

I once had a "dry" dispatch to an airport with reported rain, light freezing rain, patches of ice on the runway, and one thrust reverser placarded inop. I called the dispatcher and told him I didn't think this was good idea - he agreed and the flight was canceled. That's how it should work. The flight was legal, but it was not a good idea.
 
Exactly

What David's post tells me is that good judgement was used; the key to staying alive in this flying business.

I just read about the Cessna 414 that crashed at LZU (Atlanta) on Christmas day. The pilot was told that the weather was 1/2 mile visibilty and 100 foot ceilings in fog........DUH!! He nevertheless made the approach, missed it the first time and asked to try it again........DUH #2 !! What are the minimums at LZU? Judgement guys, is the answer. The one reason I made this post is to get all of us thinking about this. I get no joy about crashes like this that kill everyone on board but there is a lesson in this case. An ex-military pilot once told me that he was taught to ask himself one really important question when conditions are dicey upon landing attempts and that is, "Do I absolutely have to land this airplane right here, right now?" If the answer is "No", then by all means divert. It involves enough gas for your flight with reserves; enough good weather to continue, enough oil in the crankcase before you fly. You don't check the oil before each flight? You don't do a mag check again for the second joyride of the day? You don't drain a little gas at a strange airport after filling up? Ask yourself these questions and more and be honest with your answers and start avoiding avoidable mistakes.

Regards,
 
Inappropriate comments

pierre smith said:
I just read about the Cessna 414 that crashed at LZU (Atlanta) on Christmas day. The pilot was told that the weather was 1/2 mile visibilty and 100 foot ceilings in fog........DUH!!
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that the pilot concerned had an alternate approach planned at another airport in the event that the actual conditions upon arrival (as opposed to the forecast conditions) at LZU were below minimums. We're not talking storms here...low viz but relatively calm. However the pilot radioed the tower at Briscoe Field saying that he was having difficulties with the plane and needed to set it down. The NTSB is investigating and I would suggest that the above comments are entirely inappropriate at this time.

I do find it disturbing that some pilots are so anxious to be judgmental in respect of their peers.
 
Last edited:
The Warning Syndrome

I just got my March 2007 issue of AOPA Pilot yesterday and after reading Rod Machado's License to Learn column, I figured I'd revive this horse for some further beating. It's like he was monitoring this thread in stealth mode--or more likely these "warnings" from "medical students" are so prevalent among pilot communities so that he felt compelled to address it. So for those suffering "The Warning Syndrome", seek to cure thyself.

The article starts; "... one of the best ways to develop hypochondria is to enroll in medical school, and one of the best ways to recover is to graduate."
 
Why do we look at accidents

For one, ever see an accident scene without a bunch of onlookers or if you're in the NE, rubberneckers? We have some morbid curiousity. Now, what do I learn from these NTSB reports, that
1) It can happen to me.... i.e. engine failure and the like
2) What not to do ..... fly into weather that I'm not equipped to handle, buzz at low altitudes, think it'll go away, think that although rusty .. flying IFR to minimums is easy

I look at the reports because a wise man learns from others mistakes, the average man learns from his own mistakes, and a fool never learns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top