VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #21  
Old 12-04-2012, 06:03 PM
flyboy1963's Avatar
flyboy1963 flyboy1963 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lake Country, B.C. Canada
Posts: 2,416
Default non-standard low level manoeuvers

I think this falls somewhere between show-boating, indifference, and ignoring the fact that near most public airfields, you are expected to be in a certain place, during a particular phase of flight, so that others can 'see and avoid' you. ( most midairs are near airports)
since nobody else has raised this issue, exactly what part of a circuit, or traffic pattern, is this climbing turn/breakaway thing?
If I am approaching this field, on the upwind side, here comes this guy, who is unlikely to see me in his nose high arcing path, while I am focused on the wind sock and other traffic at circuit height.
I might expect to see the guy who just called that he was 'rolling zero-six' climbing straight out on the runway heading to circuit height.
I do NOT expect him to be climbing up under me on a collision course.

my $.02
__________________
Perry Y.
RV-9a - SOLD!....
Lake Country, BC
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-04-2012, 06:09 PM
RV10inOz's Avatar
RV10inOz RV10inOz is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brisbane Qld. Aust.
Posts: 2,271
Default

Russ none of my posts are aimed squarely at you. The attitude of the folk who cause us the problems is typically exactly as you posted.

I spent 2 hours yesterday going through the list of accidents, fatal in the state of New South Wales with the guy who heads the police investigations preparing reports to the coroner. They work with the ATSB and other groups and have a pretty good understanding of why things went wrong. This was a very long list, and just NSW, he has no shortage of work for the rest of his career. Sadly.

Funny how often even among commercial and so called professional operations the underlying cause was easily classed, generically speaking, as cowboy operations. Be they private folk doing low level aero's in an unsuitable ultralight by untrained pilot, or night VFR ops in a Trike (unlicensed/trained to do so) right through to piston twin and turbo prop operators.

So, while the person who gets into your RV4 understands the risks, do you think they understand and are happy for you to lift off and say chuck a roll or two at 50 feet while departing in formation with a few of your buddies? All unplanned and unbriefed?

I trust not, but there is an NTSB report of two wrecked RV's and dead people from something as described above.

There are two ways to be the star attraction at a coronial inquest. Neither of them are good.
__________________
______________________________

David Brown

DYNON Authorised Dealer and Installer


The two best investments you can make, by any financial test, an EMS and APS!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-04-2012, 06:29 PM
Russ McCutcheon's Avatar
Russ McCutcheon Russ McCutcheon is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
Posts: 908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV10inOz View Post
Russ none of my posts are aimed squarely at you. The attitude of the folk who cause us the problems is typically exactly as you posted.

So, while the person who gets into your RV4 understands the risks, do you think they understand and are happy for you to lift off and say chuck a roll or two at 50 feet while departing in formation with a few of your buddies? All unplanned and unbriefed?
No problem Oz, I have no problem with you either, its just a discussion.

As to your example, the passenger might not like that but this is the chance you take any time you get in a vehicle with someone else at the controls. That pilots actions should not be held against you and me and the industry, it's not our responsibility to fix this and it should not be forced on the industry to fix this either. Not to mention he already broke at least one law, if the FAA cant fix it by making the law how are we supposed to fix it?
__________________
Russ McCutcheon
@rv4welder on Facebook
russmccutcheon@gmail.com
We build many of your RV weldments.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-05-2012, 02:41 AM
chrish chrish is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
Default

The difference with aviation is that not everyone you take in the other seat is familiar with what is safe, prudent or legal. In a car, most people you take with you will have an understanding of the road rules and a personal yardstick based on their own experience against which they can judge you as a driver. Having that personal experience, they will feel more confident telling you they are uncomfortable with your driving and may even tell you to pull over and let them out. For non-pilots, there will be little or no understanding of the rules or a measure of what is safe for them to judge against. Moreover, they will not be able to tell you to pull over and let them out if they are unhappy.

Reference the argument about the aircraft having 'experimental' and other warnings - that is a notice to the passenger that the aircraft is built to different standards. The variable in the safety equation we are discussing here is the pilot. The argument that the passenger knows and accepts the risk based on the available warnings would only hold true if the pilot had a notice painted on his forehead 'I fly to standards considered unsafe by the regulator', or 'my ego exceeds my ability'.

As for rules, problems are not always fixed by making laws. It is compliance with the laws or regulations, or more importantly, compliance with safe practices and procedures that the law is trying to formalise, that fixes problems. Laws and rules are made to try to modify or confine behaviour, generally after some people have acted in an unsafe or unacceptable way. Strict regulation and penalty schemes do not guarantee compliance. Such efforts often result in people complaining that their 'freedoms' are being violated, and that gives them an excuse to continue. Peer review and criticism of behaviour is often a very good motivator for people to modify behaviour, so I do see a role for participants in sport aviation to discuss and critique safety culture. I believe that if there are cowboys out there that make a bad name for the sport, the result will be increased regulation for all.

I believe that personal freedom involves a social contract. That is, with freedom also comes responsibility. The ideals of the enlightenment that lead to the founding principles of the USA were that personal freedom was about being free to do what you like, so long as it does not affect other people and their freedoms. Acting in a reckless way that endangers the life of your passenger or innocent people going about their day-to-day lives does not, in my opinion, meet that social contract of your actions not affecting someone else's right to not be killed or injured.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-05-2012, 03:29 AM
RV10inOz's Avatar
RV10inOz RV10inOz is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brisbane Qld. Aust.
Posts: 2,271
Default

Great post Chris, well said.

Freedom is not FREE

Quote:
That is, with freedom also comes responsibility. The ideals of the enlightenment that lead to the founding principles of the USA were that personal freedom was about being free to do what you like, so long as it does not affect other people and their freedoms.
And idiotic yahooing will one day affect all our collective freedoms.

We have a moral obligation to apply peer pressure. We do not need more laws...we need more displays of common sense and protecting our freedoms. By that I mean pressure on cowboys to not destroy out freedoms.

Like it or not, we all get tarred with the one brush! And it is the lowest common denominator not the highest we get judged upon.

Otherwise ....let everyone run riot! Who cares, its our free and democratic right
__________________
______________________________

David Brown

DYNON Authorised Dealer and Installer


The two best investments you can make, by any financial test, an EMS and APS!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-05-2012, 04:37 AM
rzbill's Avatar
rzbill rzbill is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 2,692
Default

The philosophical points about freedom and caring for the safety of others are good, of course.

Earlier in this thread I tried to make the point that application of these ideals is far from a black and white judgement.

The examples I used were from never ending arguments that have freedom and safety at their heart.

For instance:
Will YOU take a passenger IFR in a single?
Will YOU take a passenger at Night in a single?
Will YOU fly a passenger from Florida to the Carribean in a single?
Will YOU fly an overhead approach?

All of these can be argued to be reckless, just as the early turnout is being argued here. I DO fly IFR and Night. I have not flown out of sight of land yet, but will someday. We need to be very careful about blanket statements regarding safety. The safety culture could make these illegal.

As I said before, if I am approved by my tower to do an early turnout, I will do so in a Jersey second. There is no traffic safety issue. Doing it at an uncontrolled field is different. Not saying I won't. I'm just saying the conditions are different and must be taken into account.



My favorite quote regarding freedom:
?Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.? Ben Franklin
__________________
Bill Pendergrass
ME/AE '82
RV-7A: Flying since April 15, 2012. 850 hrs
YIO-360-M1B, mags, CS, GRT EX and WS H1s & A/P, Navworx
Unpainted, polished....kinda'... Eyeballin' vinyl really hard.
Yeah. The boss got a Silhouette Cameo 4 Xmas 2019.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-05-2012, 05:10 AM
ronschreck's Avatar
ronschreck ronschreck is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rzbill View Post
The philosophical points about freedom and caring for the safety of others are good, of course.

Earlier in this thread I tried to make the point that application of these ideals is far from a black and white judgement.

The examples I used were from never ending arguments that have freedom and safety at their heart.

For instance:
Will YOU take a passenger IFR in a single?
Will YOU take a passenger at Night in a single?
Will YOU fly a passenger from Florida to the Carribean in a single?
Will YOU fly an overhead approach?

All of these can be argued to be reckless, just as the early turnout is being argued here.

Answer: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes. I do all these things on a regular basis. My wife may be the luckiest passenger in the world and I must be the most dangerous pilot on the planet. And I thought we were doing so well! She will not be reading this thread.

Life is risky. A full life, a little more so.
__________________
Ron Schreck
IAC National Judge
RV-8, "Miss Izzy", 2250 Hours - Sold
VAF 2021 Donor
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-05-2012, 05:47 AM
chrish chrish is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
Default

rzbill and ronschreck, I agree with both of you. I think, as you have demonstrated, there are grey areas. However, it is how we deal with these that makes a difference. If it is in an informed way, with thought given to mitigating risk, I see it as being different to the 'cowboy' approach of poor consideration or poor self discipline. For example, IFR in a single over high terrain will be a different risk profile to planning via a route that minimises or excludes the terrain to mitigate risks of engine failure, icing etc. Flying formation aerobatics with a passenger by members of a well practiced team, appropriately qualified and briefed, is quite a different risk profile to doing the same thing unbriefed with an unskilled pilot. I am sure there are a multitude of other examples too.

Overall, I think having the discussion to bring the experience of others in to the way we think about our own operation is a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-05-2012, 06:13 AM
ronschreck's Avatar
ronschreck ronschreck is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrish View Post
rzbill and ronschreck, I agree with both of you. I think, as you have demonstrated, there are grey areas. However, it is how we deal with these that makes a difference. If it is in an informed way, with thought given to mitigating risk, I see it as being different to the 'cowboy' approach of poor consideration or poor self discipline. For example, IFR in a single over high terrain will be a different risk profile to planning via a route that minimises or excludes the terrain to mitigate risks of engine failure, icing etc. Flying formation aerobatics with a passenger by members of a well practiced team, appropriately qualified and briefed, is quite a different risk profile to doing the same thing unbriefed with an unskilled pilot. I am sure there are a multitude of other examples too.

Overall, I think having the discussion to bring the experience of others in to the way we think about our own operation is a good thing.
Ironically, this thread appears the morning after I flew home from northern Ohio in solid IFR at night over mountainous terrain. (Check my APRS track.)
My thought process on mitigating risk: I would not have made this flight with my wife on board as I know she would have been nervous. I try to avoid any unnerving activities when she is on board because I want her to continue to fly with me until we are old and gray(er). She is OK with formation flight but I never carry passengers when doing formation aerobatics. (It's a CG issue as well as a safety issue.) On the flight home last night I considered my options in the event of engine failure and decided to carefully observe the road patterns on the GPS and always have a stretch of straight road to head for when out of gliding range of an airfield. With he help of GRT synthetic vision I reasoned that I could make a reasonable approach to a road and hope for the best, just as I would had it been day VFR. I could have spent the night in a hotel in Ohio, but for ME the risk was acceptable after considering my capabilities and the equipment on board my RV-8. YOUR assessment of risk at any given time may be different from mine, but I would hope that you would also consider your abilities and the equipment available to you before taking on any endeavor.
__________________
Ron Schreck
IAC National Judge
RV-8, "Miss Izzy", 2250 Hours - Sold
VAF 2021 Donor
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-05-2012, 06:29 AM
chrish chrish is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronschreck View Post
Ironically, this thread appears the morning after I flew home from northern Ohio in solid IFR at night over mountainous terrain. (Check my APRS track.)
My thought process on mitigating risk: I would not have made this flight with my wife on board as I know she would have been nervous. I try to avoid any unnerving activities when she is on board because I want her to continue to fly with me until we are old and gray(er). She is OK with formation flight but I never carry passengers when doing formation aerobatics. (It's a CG issue as well as a safety issue.) On the flight home last night I considered my options in the event of engine failure and decided to carefully observe the road patterns on the GPS and always have a stretch of straight road to head for when out of gliding range of an airfield. With he help of GRT synthetic vision I reasoned that I could make a reasonable approach to a road and hope for the best, just as I would had it been day VFR. I could have spent the night in a hotel in Ohio, but for ME the risk was acceptable after considering my capabilities and the equipment on board my RV-8. YOUR assessment of risk at any given time may be different from mine, but I would hope that you would also consider your abilities and the equipment available to you before taking on any endeavor.
You make some good points. You identify risk and have a strategy to mitigate, This is quite different from blindly heading out, hoping that nothing will go wrong and no plan for any contingencies. For me, it is not about saying 'x is dangerous', it is about seeing what the risks are and making informed decisions. You rightly point to risks that you take on behalf of yourself are not the same as those you might take for your wife or passenger.

Cheers,

Chris
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:36 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.