|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

02-27-2013, 08:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri
Posts: 4,514
|
|
High Road on Accident Speculation
There was a post about an hour ago suggesting this forum consider having a Beech style "crash talk" section on accidents.
DR diverted the message to a private discussion as it constituted a discussion on a rules change which is a private matter here, not a public one.
Unfortunately, I read Jim's message before it was scrubbed and believe it warrants a public response - not on the subject of a rules change - but on the notion that accident speculation can be a learning experience and is justification for the Beech "crash talk" opportunity.
This was my response to the message.
Jim,
I have to respond to your theory on what constitutes a learning experience with regard to accidents.
An accident is a real event involving real people. It is not a class room situation where rampant speculation can harm no one.
In the real world Joe Pilot crashes. Every arm chair, sometimes not nearly qualified, pilot with a computer has an opportunity to contribute to "crash talk" with a theory on what caused the accident. That can not be a learning experience - it is based on speculation, not facts. It may be fun but it is meaningless exercise. The root cause of any accident is determined on facts, not speculation. Only then can something be learned about the event.
What is most troublesome about "crash talk" is such speculation always effects a pilots reputation, many times unfairly, especially so when the facts are yet to be known.
A pilot's reputation is at stake, that trumps "crash talk" speculation. I am surprised such a forum exists, if it does, but then just about anything goes these days so what's new?
dd
__________________
RV-12 Build Helper
RV-7A...Sold #70374
The RV-8...Sold #83261
I'm in, dues paid 2019 This place is worth it!
|

02-27-2013, 11:33 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
|
|
As Doug and others have repeatedly posted over the years, there are *lots* of other forums that allow crash discussion. I have yet to see a thread on one of those forums that didn't quickly degenerate into nitpicking and armchair quarterbacking... "What idiot would do that?" kind of talk.
I would like to see more discussion of RV accidents here, as aviation accidents are a hobby of mine (investigating them, not having them)... But given the performance i've seen on other sites, it's darned near impossible to keep the discussions factual and non-judgemental.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
|

02-27-2013, 11:37 PM
|
 |
Senior Curmudgeon
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dayton Airpark, NV A34
Posts: 15,420
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by David-aviator
What is most troublesome about "crash talk" is such speculation always effects a pilots reputation, many times unfairly, especially so when the facts are yet to be known.
|
Thank you.
__________________
Mike Starkey
VAF 909
Rv-10, N210LM.
Flying as of 12/4/2010
Phase 1 done, 2/4/2011 
Sold after 240+ wonderful hours of flight.
"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."
|

02-28-2013, 12:24 PM
|
 |
Moderator, Asst. Line Boy
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Flower Mound, TX
Posts: 1,473
|
|
A word from an official card-carrying safety guy
Gang,
I have to agree with Doug on this one, but I do believe discussions on aviation mishaps have a time and place here in the VAF. Key phrase: Time and place.
First, consider my background: I am currently the Director of Safety for Air Combat Command, and the previous Chief of Aviation Safety for the Air Force. I am responsible for executing Safety Investigation Boards for every Air Combat Command mishap. The F-16 that overran the runway at Oshkosh? My staff executed that safety board for my 4-star general convening authority.
Of all the lessons I have learned in my career, and particularly as a flight safety officer, this is the single most important: You NEVER know what you don't know, and without the benefit of all the evidence, no amount of speculation is EVER accurate. Speculation taints investigation boards, inaccurately sways public opinion, feeds media sharks, and ultimately does great harm to an otherwise innocent pilot. I spend a tremendous amount of effort keeping interested parties (including big scary generals and congressmen) OUT of my safety boards’ proceedings.
I have one advantage: Military safety boards are conducted under what’s called Safety Privilege. That’s an extension of presidential privilege granted by the Supreme Court to the Department of Defense for safety investigations…SAFETY investigations, not legal investigations. Under Safety Privilege rules, the results cannot be released to the public: Not that it’s classified secret, but it just can’t be released outside the DoD and the actual parties involved in the type of aircraft or command. Why? Two words: Mishap Prevention. Safety Investigation results can only be used for mishap prevention. Not for punitive or litigation purposes, not for the media, but ONLY for mishap prevention. Knowing these protections are in place helps witnesses (including the pilot) to more eagerly assist the investigation…they will not get hammered for mistakes admitted to this investigation board.
So when the media reports that the Air Force has announced the results of their accident board, they are actually releasing the results of a second independent investigation conducted by the Judge Advocate. Yep, that’s the one that involves lawyers, and is used for media, punitive, and litigation purposes. It doesn’t exist for mishap prevention (it doesn’t even generate recommendations). In fact, the JAG’s accident board exists specifically to protect the Safety Board’s privilege. All military services follow this construct, in accordance with DoD instruction and Supreme Court edict.
So why do I agree with Doug? Because ill-informed and un-informed conjecture is the same as mis-informed conjecture, and it’s all poison. That’s why after two+ years as a member of this VAF forum, you have never seen me write about fresh mishaps. People love to guess and build opinions, but I never pass up a perfectly good opportunity to keep my mouth shut and listen.
I strongly disagree with any sort of discussions about an OPEN mishap investigation.
So when SHOULD we discuss a mishap? Once the investigation has concluded and the results are released, THEN we have an obligation as pilots to discuss the results in the interest of mishap prevention. At that point, nobody has any right to offer conjecture: Comments should be based entirely on the evidence and conclusions captured by the NTSB or FAA investigator’s report, because therein lay the facts. I also submit: Rather than casting darts at what the pilot did, didn’t do, or should have done, we serve each other better by addressing how we can avoid the same calamity if we face a similar situation. What if I face that S-VFR weather in my Skyview-equipped -7A and one of my ADAHRS units has crumped? Would I also flip my -7A on that same grass runway if it’s wet?
Back to my canopy and wiring...
[This thread has been moved to General Discussion so the above post can receive maximum circulation; S. Buchanan]
__________________
Scroll
Sid "Scroll" Mayeux, Col, USAF (ret)
52F NW Regional/Aero Valley Airport, Roanoke TX (home of DR's Van Cave)
"KELLI GIRL" N260KM RV-7A tipper
Catch her on YouTube's "Because I Fly!" channel
Exemption waived.
Proud and grateful 2020 -=VAF=- Contributor
Last edited by Sam Buchanan : 02-28-2013 at 01:07 PM.
|

02-28-2013, 12:59 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shorewood, Il.
Posts: 230
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrollF4
but I never pass up a perfectly good opportunity to keep my mouth shut and listen.
|
An early mentor of mine used a similar statement to this in my education. I have found those that have earned my respect virtually always have this characteristic.
Mark
|

02-28-2013, 01:25 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 590
|
|
I've always respectfully disagreed with this "rule" on here. Four things to consider...
1. When is a good time to discuss accidents? My answer, contrary to some opinions, is when they are fresh...if we wait until the NTSB report comes out, its old news and its never brought up again. The learning oppurtunity is lost.
2. Whats wrong with speculation? It gets me thinking about all kinds of things that could happen when I fly, even if it had nothing to do with the accident...its like accident brainstorming, I've seen ideas come out of these discussions from other people that I never would've considered otherwise. Thats useful.
3. If I have a mishap, I give everyone permission... I want you to disect it, speculate about it and any other possible thing you want if if helps advance your safety. Please learn from my mistake, no offense taken.
4. This all can be done in a respectful way...just mind your manners and the discussion will be just fine.
my 2 cents
__________________
Ron Duren
Mechanical Engineer
"SportAir PhD"-RV Assembly/Composites/Electrical
Denver, CO (KBJC)
RV-7 'Tip Up'
Flying!! as of 3/16/14
IO-375/ WW 200G-CS/ SkyView/ Dual P-mags
N531R "Wablosa" Wings of Red
http://www.ronsrv7project.blogspot.com
|

02-28-2013, 01:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ashland, OR
Posts: 2,574
|
|
source of differing views, an observation:
Here is an observation I have not heard anyone else make.
When discussion develops after an accident, it *can* easily become discussion of a hypothetical event. Indeed, for most everyone with a computer that discusses it, speculates about it, relates similar situations, whatever, it is removed enough from their *reality* that it is essentially a discussion of a hypothetical situation that has learning lessons imbedded in it.
Treating it as a hypothetical event removes essentially ALL of the concerns that are expressed by those that do not want to see discussion of recent accidents. The hypothetical pilot can be bashed, the chain of events can be speculated without polluting any formal investigation, and the discussion has no bearing on the outcome of legal or insurance or estate-related issues connected to a real event.
The other view: the supposedly hypothetical event under discussion will touch close to home for some people with intimate knowledge of a recent real-world event that stimulated the hypothetical one. Some feelings may still be hurt.
So, in approaching it this way, the question still arises, is the benefit of academic discussion as mishap prevention and training offset the potential for hurt feelings?
Is there a way to establish a forum section where hypothetical incidents can be presented and discussed? To the extent that such a hypothetical incident might bear strong resemblance to a recent real-world event, can people mentally partition this well enough so that their feelings aren't hurt?
__________________
Steve Smith
Aeronautical Engineer
RV-8 N825RV
IO-360 A1A
WW 200RV
"The Magic Carpet"
Hobbs 625
LS6-15/18W sailplane SOLD
bought my old LS6-A back!! 
VAF donation Jan 2020
Last edited by scsmith : 02-28-2013 at 02:18 PM.
|

02-28-2013, 01:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ashland, OR
Posts: 2,574
|
|
The problem here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrollF4
Gang,
So when SHOULD we discuss a mishap? Once the investigation has concluded and the results are released, THEN we have an obligation as pilots to discuss the results in the interest of mishap prevention. At that point, nobody has any right to offer conjecture: Comments should be based entirely on the evidence and conclusions captured by the NTSB or FAA investigator?s report, because therein lay the facts.
|
The problem with this, in our context of GA accidents, is that with few exceptions, there are VERY FEW facts in the the VERY cursory NTSB report. There are occasionally even glaring errors.
There may still be very good safety lessons to learn from what "could have happened" that may be beyond the facts presented.
__________________
Steve Smith
Aeronautical Engineer
RV-8 N825RV
IO-360 A1A
WW 200RV
"The Magic Carpet"
Hobbs 625
LS6-15/18W sailplane SOLD
bought my old LS6-A back!! 
VAF donation Jan 2020
|

02-28-2013, 01:52 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 8I3
Posts: 3,564
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scsmith
There are occasionally even glaring errors.
|
And there are some flat-out lies in accident reports. A couple of years ago I was involved in the recovery of a C150 upside-down in a bean field that days beforehand was leaking oil so bad I told the owner, who is an IA, and not a very good one, that something was wrong with it. When it was upside down in the bean field I pointed out to several helpers who were there to flip it back over to tow back to the airport that the quick drain was missing off the oil tank. The airplane simply ran out of oil. I ruined a pair of shorts from getting oil from the belly on them. Guess what the ruling was?
CARB ICE.
It just so happened that the FAA investigator was a friend of the owner and learned to fly in one of his other airplanes.
Since the nosegear collapsed they conveniently said the quick drain was knocked off. If that were the case, there would have still been a piece of it in the tank. That and the person who had removed the quick drain days before told me he forgot to tighten and safety it.
__________________
Please don't PM me! Email only!
Bob Japundza CFI A&PIA
N9187P PA-24-260B Comanche, flying
N678X F1 Rocket, under const.
N244BJ RV-6 "victim of SNF tornado" 1200+ hrs, rebuilding
N8155F C150 flying
N7925P PA-24-250 Comanche, restoring
Not a thing I own is stock.
Last edited by rocketbob : 02-28-2013 at 06:05 PM.
|

02-28-2013, 02:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ashland, OR
Posts: 2,574
|
|
Erroneous reports
A bit of thread drift here, but entertaining.
A couple of years ago, there was a sailplane crash that was ruled an in-flight break-up because the vertical tail was not found at the crash site. Just a quick wikipedia search would have shown them that the particular model of sailplane had a V-tail.
To the point: Pictures of the wreckage sure looked like a stall-spin to me. But what do I know? I was just speculating, all the facts were in the report.
some will disagree, but educated speculation can be very beneficial.
__________________
Steve Smith
Aeronautical Engineer
RV-8 N825RV
IO-360 A1A
WW 200RV
"The Magic Carpet"
Hobbs 625
LS6-15/18W sailplane SOLD
bought my old LS6-A back!! 
VAF donation Jan 2020
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:44 AM.
|