VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-28-2013, 02:26 PM
Kahuna's Avatar
Kahuna Kahuna is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gold Hill, NC25
Posts: 2,400
Default

The psychology of forums.
Question.... why, with so many RV based accidents with factual reports to talk about, do folks feel the need to discuss RV accidents with no or limited facts at all?
When you root cause that, id suspect we would learn a lot more about ourselves than we care to admit.
__________________
Kahuna
6A, S8 ,
Gold Hill, NC25
  #12  
Old 02-28-2013, 02:50 PM
scsmith scsmith is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ashland, OR
Posts: 2,574
Default already answered

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahuna View Post
The psychology of forums.
Question.... why, with so many RV based accidents with factual reports to talk about, do folks feel the need to discuss RV accidents with no or limited facts at all?
When you root cause that, id suspect we would learn a lot more about ourselves than we care to admit.
I think this has been answered. It is the freshness of the event.

Oh, and one other thing is missing from the NTSB reports that can be tremendously instructive: photos. With 'fresh' events come media reports that include pictures. Those pictures can be very useful for stimulating discussion, generating insights that are not in the report. (like my example above, I can often recognize a stall-spin by the orientation of the wreckage)

We could try it though. Someone glean through the old stale reports, pull one out that looks instructive, post it, and lets talk about it. Lets see how much educated speculation can fill in the gaps in the report, and provide insight into the chain of events that we can all learn from.

Someone?
__________________
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 02:53 PM.
  #13  
Old 02-28-2013, 05:29 PM
tkatc's Avatar
tkatc tkatc is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV7Ron View Post
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
I agree 100%. If it hurts the pilots feelings, if he/she is alive, then it enforces the point that much more. I am not talking bashing here....I'm talking sound respectful criticism. I learn a lot from this forum besides how to rivet, that's the value of the forum.

On the other hand, I do see how those discussions can turn into a circus side show. That's where our moderators, who do a great job, edit and or close the thread.

my 2 cents
__________________
My ATC opinion is NOT an official FAA recognized opinion, so any advice you get from me is ONLY my opinion.

Track my RV7A!!

Bought my flying -7A
Building an -8! (Fuse)
  #14  
Old 02-28-2013, 06:04 PM
bkc3921 bkc3921 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DuBois,Il
Posts: 144
Default Is there a way?

I may take a little heat for this, but I'm used to it. I agree with the folks that say that "educated speculation' can be beneficial. Aviation and RV people are smart!..Give them some credit for understanding up front that the information is preliminary, lacks specifics, and in fact, may be completely untrue as discussed. Certainly anyone smart enough to build an airplane is not silly enough to believe everything they read on the internet..even on this blog.

About a month ago, I suggested that we begin discussing medical issues..and was promptly "taken to the woodshed"..fear of FAA snooping, release of personal information, etc..and perhaps the criticism was justified..but this I know...we NEED to find a way to discuss crashes, medicals, and the so-called dark side of our passion...because ignoring the issues will not make them go away. We simply need to find a way to do it without slipping into unnecessary personal blame and wildly unsupported speculation.

Perhaps, there could be a "special" blog that requires the moderators to approve the post BEFORE it appears to the public..instead of an instant post that has to be removed later....wish I had a perfect answer..hopefully, someone who is more computer savvy than I am has a suggestion..thanks for listening.
__________________
Brian K. Morrow
DuBois,Il
N433BC RV-7A Flying
RV-12is EMP done, FUSE in progress!..Official Repeat Offender
"Maintain thy airspeed...Lest the earth arise and smite thee..."
  #15  
Old 02-28-2013, 06:39 PM
BHunt BHunt is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrollF4 View Post
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]
Well said, Sir. Thank you.
__________________
Scooby
Harrumph!!
RV-8 IO-390 N788MT
  #16  
Old 02-28-2013, 06:46 PM
Sam Buchanan's Avatar
Sam Buchanan Sam Buchanan is offline
been here awhile
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkc3921 View Post
Perhaps, there could be a "special" blog that requires the moderators to approve the post BEFORE it appears to the public..instead of an instant post that has to be removed later....
Wow....if you think moderators are unpopular now................
__________________
Sam Buchanan
RV-6
Fokker D.VII replica
  #17  
Old 02-28-2013, 07:21 PM
scsmith scsmith is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ashland, OR
Posts: 2,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan View Post
Wow....if you think moderators are unpopular now................
Sam, by and large, I think the moderators are very popular, because very often they do so well.

I've a few times thought, "where is a moderator when I need one" and on a couple of occasions written a PM to a moderator suggesting that a post crossed a line. The response has been very good.

In contrast to actual accident/incident discussion, look how long the threads went on discussion about 'the impossible turn' back to a runway after engine failure, and about 'overhead pattern entry'. Those were discussions that brought a lot of wisdom (on both sides of each issue).

If we convert fresh incidents to hypotheticals, couldn't we do the same thing, i.e. conduct discussions that bring a lot of wisdom?
__________________
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
  #18  
Old 02-28-2013, 08:08 PM
Ironflight's Avatar
Ironflight Ironflight is offline
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 12,256
Default Nothing New Under the Sun...

Guys, (and gals) I have made aviation my life, and have studied mishaps for over forty years. With incredibly few exceptions, it is incredibly difficult to find a new way to crash an airplane. It has pretty much all been done before. I don't think that have ever seen a truly novel or new accident report here or on the FAA database with regards to RV's since Doug started the site in 2005.

Why do I bring this up? There is just no need to rapidly speculate on the immediate causes of incidents here. From mechanicals (loose fittings, worn parts, fuel line contamination) to weather related incidents (VFR into IFR, bad judgement about the airplane's capabilities or the pilot's abilites) to Stupid Pilot tricks (aerobatic that end up minus six feet AGL) - it's all been done before. If you want to talk about it, talk about old stuff. Subscribe to the NASA Ames distribution list that reports the results of all those "get out of jail free" forms and start a discussion about those incidents - they are really good, and you're free to bring them up in the safety forum.

There is just too much overhead about trying to speculate about the cause of a recent accident. In my old job, we had a saying - "The first answer is ALWAYS wrong". And with very few exceptions, that was true. It's easy to say that pilot's shoudl take their lumps - but based on heresay, speculation, and mis-information? Come on, let's just go get some pitch forks and torches and roast the fellow - the effect is the same.

There are exceptions to the rule - if a generic "fleet" problem is uncovered that can affect everyone, asnd is truly new, I think that is imortant to uncover. But that is extremely rare. Most incidents are repeats of stuff that have been happening for years. That information is out there - if you're truly concerned about safety and learning lessons from mishaps, you'd be reading it right now.
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
  #19  
Old 02-28-2013, 08:14 PM
Sam Buchanan's Avatar
Sam Buchanan Sam Buchanan is offline
been here awhile
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scsmith View Post
Sam, by and large, I think the moderators are very popular, because very often they do so well.

I've a few times thought, "where is a moderator when I need one" and on a couple of occasions written a PM to a moderator suggesting that a post crossed a line. The response has been very good.

In contrast to actual accident/incident discussion, look how long the threads went on discussion about 'the impossible turn' back to a runway after engine failure, and about 'overhead pattern entry'. Those were discussions that brought a lot of wisdom (on both sides of each issue).

If we convert fresh incidents to hypotheticals, couldn't we do the same thing, i.e. conduct discussions that bring a lot of wisdom?
Steve, you are correct, for the most part I think the level of moderation on this forum is appreciated. There are instances where a poster or two doesn't think any moderation is proper (when it is their post that has crossed the line) but that is the exception rather than the rule.

In spite of what some think, the mods don't edit or delete very many posts. Mostly we just move posts to parts of the forum that are most appropriate and eliminate posting errors such as duplicates. My response was to the suggestion that we select which posts are allowed to be published. That would put the mods in a very difficult position where we would most likely make a lot of posters mad and the quality of VAF would suffer.

Even though several suggestions have been made, we keep coming back to the fact Doug has created an excellent environment for civil discussions. This forum is different from most aviation forums in the quality of discourse and civility.

Doug's definition of what he wants his forum to be has worked extremely well. I had some doubts at first, but it turns out he had remarkable vision.
__________________
Sam Buchanan
RV-6
Fokker D.VII replica

Last edited by Sam Buchanan : 02-28-2013 at 08:29 PM.
  #20  
Old 02-28-2013, 08:34 PM
RV8R999 RV8R999 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: na
Posts: 1,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrollF4 View Post
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]

Agree the investigators conducting a mishap board should be insulated from and avoid the pull to speculate beyond the supporting facts...but the truth of the matter is all mishap reports end in speculation. Some are supported by more facts than others but all have a degree (most often significant) of speculation. i've chaired too many mishap boards, lost pilots i've trained and commanded over my nearly 30 years active duty Navy and not one mishap board, with 1000's of man-hours expended exhaustingly investigating, collecting and analyzing facts ended without a degree or speculation - not one. The NTSB reports are even worse.

Even if the speculation is off and unsupported, it has no way to truly harm anyone. If the NTSB is trolling VAF for information we have bigger problems. Nobody forces the folks involved in the mishap to read the posts either..

Keep the language civil and express your theory, even if it is whacked beyond belief, rest assured somebody smarter and better looking will quickly square you away!
Closed Thread



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 08:44 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.