Doug Reeve's Safety Missive

[java]

Originally Posted by Sig600

...it is not your place to threaten their lively hood or possible ability to provide for a family...

Does the professional pilot breaking the regs not have any responsibility for threatening his own livelihood!?! Maybe if his livelihood and family is that important to him he should show better judgement. Maybe if he can't / won't, he needs to find a new profession. I know I wouldn't like to ride behind a pilot who flouts regulations and then tries to place the burden for his transgressions on someone who has the intestinal fortitude to call him on it.

[bizjet]

java, it's not about breaking the regs. It's about Doug Reeves, or any other individual deciding on his own what is right, or wrong - safe, or unsafe. Back in the day we used to call this kind of behavior being a 'busybody'. That is annoying, but harmless. Calling the Feds based on one's personal opinion is not harmless.

Regards,

Bill

[luddite42]

Originally Posted by John Clark

When someone augers in solo in the middle of nowhere there will be collateral damage to the whole group. Public perception, insurance rates, and legislation can and will be affected.

I really don't think the FAA gives a rat's rear if you kill yourself alone in an airplane. All FARs are designed to protect passengers, people, and property on the ground. If the FAA cared that much about solo pilots killing themselves, airshows would be LONG out of business. Where's all the clamor for shutting down airshows?

I don't mind one person expressing their own safety beliefs, but I've got a big problem with someone reporting to the authorities behavior that involves risk to no one but the pilot alone. And as far as low passes go, someone please clarify for me what FARs are broken when someone performs a low pass at an airport in an unpopulated area, with nobody on the ground in the area, and at a distance greater than 500' from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Anyone who is so against low passes (from a purely safety standpoint) to the point of reporting folks to the FAA should be lobbying to do away with the option for waivered airspace (airshows)...unless of course they feel the paper the waiver is written on will cushion the impact of aluminum with earth. Anybody ever done a pass to check/clear for deer at dusk? Should crop sprayers be put out of business? Is it the fact that low passes are usually such non-essential "show off" maneuvers that so irks some people? How is it that you're stroking your ego? I mean what skill are you showing off? Your ability to fly an airplane within a few feet of the ground? For 99% of us, getting in an airplane and taking off is completely non-essential in the first place. Are you vehement anti-low-passers going to start hanging out at fly-ins and attempt to violate folks left and right? If I stay in ground effect to build speed for a little too long on takeoff before climbing out, will I get a chewing from the anti-low-passers? Are we seeing gray yet?

[kevinh]

Originally Posted by bizjet

java, it's not about breaking the regs. It's about Doug Reeves, or any other individual deciding on his own what is right, or wrong - safe, or unsafe. Back in the day we used to call this kind of behavior being a 'busybody'. That is annoying, but harmless. Calling the Feds based on one's personal opinion is not harmless.

If the well-intentioned person sees something wreckless enough to call the feds, then the feds will do an investigation and based on the investigation they will decide what is next. This seems no different then calling the cops when you see a drunk driver.

---

If I see someone driving drunk, I call the police.

If I see someone flying after drinking, it is quite appropriate to call the FAA (though I would talk to the pilot before making such a call).

If I see someone doing low altitude acro and risking my local field, it is also appropriate to call the FAA. I'm sure there is some small chance that person has a waiver making such operations legal - if they have such a waiver then there will be no problem with the FAA. The odds are high though the person was just being reckless and risking (at the very least) the good relations with the houses near the field.

[java]

Originally Posted by bizjet

java, it's not about breaking the regs. It's about Doug Reeves, or any other individual deciding on his own what is right, or wrong - safe, or unsafe. Back in the day we used to call this kind of behavior being a 'busybody'. That is annoying, but harmless. Calling the Feds based on one's personal opinion is not harmless.

Regards,

Bill

But if it were a clear and obvious disregard for a regulation in place for safety?

See, that's the problem with these online discussions. Positions get taken thinking we're all talking from the same perspective, when that is not necessarily the case.

I agree with your point completely because you added the words, "...on one's own personal opinion..." and, "...deciding on his own...". No one has the right to call the Feds on what they "think" is the right or wrong way to fly. They do if they observe disregard for the regs the Feds have been asked to enforce on behalf of the public. As with many things in life, the black and white are easy. It is the grey that becomes difficult.

[thevintageflyer]

Originally Posted by thevintageflyer

So Doug, may we assume you have already reported “So there I was, getting a haircut...” to the FAA?
Or the many other examples you speak of?

[ed. Sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but if it is have I ever reported anyone, the answer is no. dr]

I was referring to a video recently posted on this forum. I guess it doesn’t matter which one; I have no desire to actually put the person that posted it on the spot. I enjoyed the video. It seemed popular and enjoyed by many others at the time. In fact, a few that made humorous comments about the video, have also jumped on the band wagon blasting people for doing so in this thread. By the way, someone else on the forum did address the issue at hand within the video, quite tactfully I thought.

You are entitled to your viewpoint, but… as respectfully as I can manage to say this, I don’t agree. This is your forum and your rules. I want to ensure that I completely understand them. The issue for some (me included) is the following:

• If I witness you blatantly breaking the FARs in the USA, I will bring it to your attention. If I see you doing the same thing a second time I will report you to the authorities. If you post a video of yourself blatantly breaking the FARs somewhere and link to it in my forums, I will delete the post and immediately forward the YouTube link to the appropriate authorities.
Friends or not, we have to police ourselves better in general aviation. When you signed that pilot card in your wallet you agreed to fly by the rules.

This includes:
o Video of acro with a passenger and no chutes.
o Dodging in and out of clouds when it's obvious you're VFR
o High speed low passes.
o Acro where you can see dozens of houses in the shot.

That’s a very zero tolerance attitude. You have given me reason to be very cautious, at least with what I post on this forum. Does it apply to the ones that are already out there? Or just from this point forward?

Don’t get me wrong, I feel you mean well and actually care very much. There are many of us that share your concern as evidenced by the discussion. There are also many of us that have concern about reporting such events, whether witnessed or through video links.

My opinion (and there are others that seem to share it) is that we should work together to improve our safety record within the amateur built community. If we are the problem, then we also have the power to be the solution. How do we do it? Peer pressure? Positive role models? Honest, open discussion?

If we begin to routinely report one another, then we will no longer trust one another.

[John Clark]

Luddite: First, I'm sure that at some level the FAA does care if you kill yourself alone in an airplane. It messes up their statistics and, surprising as it may be to some, I know several feds that really do care about the well being of the pilot group. My point was that even in your example the issues caused by such a crash are far reaching and never good for the hobby.

As I said in earlier post, a low pass in the middle of nowhere, with no one around is a non issue, no harm, no foul, unless you crash. In my experience the "look at this" behavior seldom crops up in the middle of nowhere with no one watching. It usually takes place where FAR ? 91.119 applies.

None of this is about "hanging around fly-ins to violate people". This discussion is about working on the poor safety record of EAB aircraft and heading off additional restrictions.

On the subject of airshows, even though it is way off the original topic, yes there has been some "clamor for shutting them down". Having helped produce several airshows in the past I have experienced both the general public's pressure and the high cost to insure such a venture. Like it of not, insurance carriers are very good at figuring odds.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

Originally Posted by luddite42

I really don't think the FAA gives a rat's rear if you kill yourself alone in an airplane. All FARs are designed to protect passengers, people, and property on the ground. If the FAA cared that much about solo pilots killing themselves, airshows would be LONG out of business. Where's all the clamor for shutting down airshows?

I don't mind one person expressing their own safety beliefs, but I've got a big problem with someone reporting to the authorities behavior that involves risk to no one but the pilot alone. And as far as low passes go, someone please clarify for me what FARs are broken when someone performs a low pass at an airport in an unpopulated area, with nobody on the ground in the area, and at a distance greater than 500' from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Anyone who is so against low passes (from a purely safety standpoint) to the point of reporting folks to the FAA should be lobbying to do away with the option for waivered airspace (airshows)...unless of course they feel the paper the waiver is written on will cushion the impact of aluminum with earth. Anybody ever done a pass to check/clear for deer at dusk? Should crop sprayers be put out of business? Is it the fact that low passes are usually such non-essential "show off" maneuvers that so irks some people? How is it that you're stroking your ego? I mean what skill are you showing off? Your ability to fly an airplane within a few feet of the ground? For 99% of us, getting in an airplane and taking off is completely non-essential in the first place. Are you vehement anti-low-passers going to start hanging out at fly-ins and attempt to violate folks left and right? If I stay in ground effect to build speed for a little too long on takeoff before climbing out, will I get a chewing from the anti-low-passers? Are we seeing gray yet?

[CFI1513840]

Doug should be commended for having the courage of his convictions. His Safety Culture wasn?t presented as dogma, only his own personal limits, but ones that make good sense and gave us all something to think about.

The most controversial item seems to be the one about reporting a violator the second time around. I think many of us would be inclined to look the other way, as I?m sure we have all done. Perhaps like me, you are fortunate that someone else looked the other way on certain occasions. At some point I went from being bold to old and I?m happy to say I?m still flying. There was a certain amount of luck involved.

Danny King?s posting illustrated the worst case scenario for reporting violations. I can?t help but wonder if there wasn?t a grudge factor involved in his case.

Clearly, if someone witnesses a violation of FARs that is a threat to life and limb, it should be reported, but there is a big grey area in between. Where do you draw the line? It?s a matter of degrees, but any ?hotshot? flying antics can eventually lead to dire consequences. By the way, this is not an activity that is confined to A-B aircraft. There are idiots out there flying all different types of aircraft.

There is also the causal effect to be considered, producing consequences that range from the abhorrent accident rate of A-B aircraft to the threat of greater regulation and even the loss of our A-B privileges. I would not fault anyone who in clear conscience exercises what they feel is their moral obligation to report an FAR violation and certainly wouldn?t consider it ?snitching?.

[flion]

Personally, I like Doug's stance. While his minimums aren't mine, they reflect thought about the risks. Some of my minimums are probably more strict, due to my lack of experience. Others are probably more lax, again due to experience levels. I've flown at night from Sedona to Flagstaff; I don't think I'm materially worse off. Even in daylight there's not much choice if something goes south. But not flying is not, for me, an acceptable way to minimize the risks; instead I pay more attention to maintenance and my physical/mental state. But I wholly agree with the philosophy behind Doug's rules.

The big thing people seem to be taking exception to is that he says he will report to the authorities (we seem to assume that is the FAA) repeat violators and those who post their own violations on the forums. Well, I doubt either of those is a hard and fast rule. I expect that if you made a mistake, felt bad about it, and posted it here in the spirit of helping others avoid the mistake, you would be neither deleted nor reported. But the spirit of what he was trying to express (how can you ever cover all the bases in a few paragraphs?) is very simple, direct, and useful.

If someone is operating in a knowingly reckless manner, don't you have a responsibility to speak up? If they don't know, wouldn't you give them 'a word to the wise'? By extension, if they are knowingly operating in an illegal manner, don't you have an obligation to act? Better they answer to the FAA than St. Peter; the laws of nature are often irrevocably enforced.

But I didn't take away from Doug's missive that he would be surveying the aviation community with binoculars and notebook; marking down every infraction he could find. I took it that he would, if he noticed a problem, talk to the person involved. Only if it seemed that something truly unsafe were continuing would he involve others. I don't, for example, think he would start to stage interventions for those who use alternative engines. And as for those who post their stupid tricks on the forums (though I can't think of examples - we seem to be a fairly sane bunch), they have already shown, twice, that they have no sense - first when they did the stunt and second when they were still proud enough to brag about it. That kind of ongoing bad sense should be corrected quickly.

I think, on the whole, we all agree with Doug to an extent. Some of us are more inclined to sit back rather than act but I've seen a few times where someone (usually a newbie) has posted a really bad idea. It gets squashed really quickly, resulting in the person either being educated and going forward wiser and safer or abandoning the forums (and one hopes, building - but we never know). There will always be Darwin Award winners in every endeavor but I don't think it's right to just stand by and watch the show without trying to stop them.

That said, there's always a need for the risk-takers, the ones who push the envelope. But there's a difference. While many may have thought that Burt Rutan was crazy at the start, his risks weren't grandstanding and definitely not in the same class as the nut who did a low pass over a closed runway and collided with an R/C aircraft. The former I might argue the merits of composites with but would respect his reasoning; the latter I would report in an effort to protect him and others. If we can agree there is a spectrum of risk then we can agree that perhaps Doug has the right idea and that we should not be passive what goes on in our community.


[ed. Spot on, and thank you. dr]

[jthocker]

I thought I should post a private message I sent Doug on Friday.

Originally Posted by jthocker
Hi Doug,
Many years ago when I had my first RV4 I did some pretty crazy things until my partner in crime(an RV4 owner also) and I were given an "unofficial" talking to by the local FED. He was and is a great guy and a fellow QB! He appealed to us that, we were professional pilots and should know better than to be doing what we were doing. We got a heads up from Martha Lunken (former FED now writing for FLYING) that Bob wasn't going to violate us, he just wanted to chew our As#$%'s. I sat quietly and listened to what he said and reflected that he was right. My partner argued that we were legal! 3 years later my partner was dead, killed in our "joint" RV4 from doing low level aerobatics.
Imagine my red face when I got to the bottom of your safety missive! For a few seconds I was "ticked off", then I became mortified that I'm being used as an example of an unsafe pilot! A review of my actions gives me pause, to realize, that I needed another talking to all these years later.
Thanks Doug!!!
Best regards,
Jon


As a professional pilot and airline captain I pride myself on being safe, and adhere to the regulations and company procedures that keep me and my crew safe. In my professional flying, I strive for "perfection", not only for my own personal satisfaction ,but also for the approval of my peers.
My mother's advice many years ago, "That it takes a bigger man to admit when he's wrong", has served me well throughout my life. So I will stand up and say, I have been guilty of setting a bad example for the RV community. I have posted some video's of mine and other's flying that, at the "least ", showed a lack of judgment.

FLYING AN RV IS INTOXICATING! The overconfidence that it can inspire, can lead you to forget rules and common sense, BEWARE!
Van is right, that we need to "Police" ourselves.
Sometimes an "intervention" is necessary!
I personally will try to provide a better example to the RV community!

Best Regards,