What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV Complacency

Cadstat

Cadstat

Well Known Member
I've observed too many RV pilots hanging it on the prop just after takeoff, initiate a rigth turn over the terminal building and rows of hangers. They aren't the only ones showboating over the restraurant and heading south over the river and woods toward the home airport. They may save 30 seconds of flight time but not their lives. The remaining 5000+ ft of runway could come in handy in the event of a loss of power. I believe some RV drivers have grown complacent with the high power to weigth ratio and are lulling themselves into a false feeling of security thinking that prop won't stop 'until I say so'. Over the 40 plus years I've lost a cylinder on takeoff and total power failure twice just after breaking ground. All uneventful with useable runway straight ahead.
 
This is the exact cowboy antics that has been at the core of Dick's regular articles in the Vans Safety Corner.

It often is the core factor in experimental and namely RV accidents.

Generally speaking we do not fly unsafe aircraft. But we do have an element among us that seem to think these antics are ok.

The best thing to do is apply peer pressure. Rules don't work.

Great post, keep the pressure on them, because if too many fools kill themselves and passengers, the FAA, CAA's and CASA's of the world will kill of our industry.

It is that simple.
 
I hope people understand, it's not just RV pilots or pilots of AHB aircraft. I think every segment has its own problems. Often, it extends from whatever capability the aircraft excels at.

I know a number of certified aircraft pilots who regularly fly over gross because, while those airplanes may not be fast, with a long enough runway, they will go and go. I still remember my PPL check ride. I didn't think how stupid and dangerous it might be to complete a flight over gross. It was a cold day, flat terrain, and long runway - we managed just 300FPM.
 
rzbill said:
Yes, I agree. It takes a twin to do that early turn over the tower safely.
Click to expand...

I think an early turn and hanging on the props in a twin (in the event of engine failure) is far more dangerous than in a single engine plane.
 
So why exactly do you believe an early turn is dangerous or even cowboyish?

at some point in the take-off sequence the ruwnay ahead becomes unusable based on altitude, speed, wind, etc... which will be different for each aircraft. At my 4000ft runway I'm at 200ft AGL by 2000ft at 120mph. If my engine quits at that point I am not going to make the runway at safe landing speeds and on the South runway I have a kiddie/dog park in front of me. I'm turning as soon as possible after take-off. If this makes me a cowboy then I'm happy to wear my boots.
 
For those who are so highly safety-concerned, its seems there are much bigger fish to fry than a few RV guys making an early turn on climbout. Ken K is pretty well with it.

Are these guys displaying unsafe behavior by doing the same thing on t/o from a 2000' grass strip w/ trees at the end? Not everybody's at an airport with 6000' of runway in front of them. Are you going to call an RV pilot "unsafe" for flying into an airstrip so short that there are no emergency landing options in front of you on takeoff no matter what you do? Has the FAA identified early turns as a signficant percentage of accidents? Like I said, much much bigger fish to fry.

So it seems some are uptight about the fact that some may fly in a way that could possibly limit their landing options in the event of a power loss. How do you know some of these guys don't have an open area picked out on either side of the runway if something happens. What about the guys who drag in 2 mile 3-degree approaches? Aren't they limiting their landing options close to the ground in the event of a power loss? Yet, the modern training culture praises this as "stabilized" and "safe". A little more focus in the important stuff and a little less "marmishness" would be nice.
 
Last edited:
John R. Graham said:
I think that was a joke.

- John
Click to expand...

Yes it was, kinda'. I will do an early turnout every chance I can get at my 8000' class C tower controlled airport. The alternative is to be vectored to BF Egypt before being allowed to turn to heading.

I understand everybody has different personal levels of risk tolerance. I find this early turn point no different than the arguments about IFR or night or flying over water in singles vs twins. Especially since the argument point was engine failure and inability to return to runway. And yes I do understand the meager single engine performance of twins.
 
Complacency

I thought he was talking about a very low speed climb, steep, "hanging on the prop". A sudden loss of power could be difficult to recover, especially with a lot of nose up trim and there's always the risk of a low altitude stall with fatal results. Starting a turn a little low with 120 on the ASI doesn't sound bad and could be a very good way to depart depending on the airport layout and surroundings. Or am I missing something here?
 
Bill Dicus said:
I thought he was talking about a very low speed climb, steep, "hanging on the prop". A sudden loss of power could be difficult to recover, especially with a lot of nose up trim and there's always the risk of a low altitude stall with fatal results. Starting a turn a little low with 120 on the ASI doesn't sound bad and could be a very good way to depart depending on the airport layout and surroundings. Or am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

You're an acro guy, so "hanging on the prop" means as you describe, like the guys do in the monoplanes at airshows. I don't think the OP meant the same thing, since jist of what he was commenting on was the early turn. By "hanging on the prop" I think he meant a climbing turn. I've NEVER seen an RV do what acro/airshow people consider "hanging on the prop". But I've seen a bunch of them gain a little speed on t/o and pull up into a climbing turn. Not the same thing as you're thinking about.
 
rzbill said:
I understand everybody has different personal levels of risk tolerance.
Click to expand...

Yes we do. The problem is that in this once free country we are no longer free or much less free to kill or harm ourselves then we once where, now for some reason we must be protected from ourselves at all costs, all our freedoms seem to be less important then saving just one life. I long for the cowboy days where we could fly how we want and if we got killed brush the scrap off into the ditch and everybody carry on how they wish,,, never to be again.

Frankly it's total BS for the FAA to come down on Van's and the industry to make experimental aviation safer when it's most often the pilot that caused the problem/problems, the pilots are the FAA's responsibility not Van's, But I guess we are living today so we have to live the PC life style.
 
Russ McCutcheon said:
Frankly it's total BS for the FAA to come down on Van's and the industry to make experimental aviation safer when it's most often the pilot that caused the problem/problems, the pilots are the FAA's responsibility not Van's.
Click to expand...

Stalls are probably enough of a factor that the addition of a stall warning device makes sense. Beyond that, I can't think of a modification needed to make the airplane "safer." I will note that I do not have a stall warning device in my 6A and I do not feel "unsafe" because of it.

On the other hand, pilot error is by far the largest problem when it comes to RV aircraft accidents/fatalities.
 
Ron, if you remember back to when we set up RVflightsafety.org I had completed a study of the kinds of accidents that were the greatest number and easily identified low fruit to prevent. VFR into IMC could be done in anything. A small number of mechanical matters, and some that should have resulted in a safe outlanding but didn't.

The one thing that stood out was antics such as unbriefed, unqualified, low-level showing off. It was underpinned by attitudes of
The problem is that in this once free country we are no longer free or much less free to kill or harm ourselves then we once where, now for some reason we must be protected from ourselves at all costs, all our freedoms seem to be less important then saving just one life. I long for the cowboy days where we could fly how we want and if we got killed brush the scrap off into the ditch and everybody carry on how they wish,,, never to be again.
Click to expand...

Now don't get me wrong, that is just using his vocal reaction as a classic example. The problem is in many accidents other victims bite the dust as well. Your freedom to wipe yourself stops with you. Not someone else.

As for the thread start, it was about Vx climb and turn over buildings, restaurants and maybe houses. This is increasing risk in an environment where recovery is limited at best and the collateral damage risk is high. Even if nothing goes wrong it is noisy and annoys the neighbours and we all need less noise complaints.

If this your strip in the middle of your 500 acres out in the bush somewhere, knock your socks off, just don't kill any passengers. But when the strip and the adjoining property are owned by others have a little respect and fly accordingly.

Rant Over.....for now!
 
oh so wrong...

Name but a few sparsely located Outlying Fields (OLF in Navy terms) I cannot remember ANY GA airports in which I wasn't flying over a highway, busy intersection, shopping mall, residential area, playground, football field or some other place populated by the innocent ground dwellers. No matter which direction we fly, somebody is going to be at risk..no question about, it early turn or not.

The OP and follow-on post generalized a specific circumstance, formulated a judgement and then applied it to an entire group of people...I call process foul.
 
RV10inOz said:
The problem is in many accidents other victims bite the dust as well. Your freedom to wipe yourself stops with you. Not someone else.
Click to expand...

This is another problem, actually if your referring to a passenger in my little experimental airplane that has placards all over it stating it is experimental and 99.9% of the time my passenger knows me and he is never paying or allowed to pay for the ride, he is responsible for deciding to take the risk of flying with me in this little airplane built in a garage piloted by a private pilot, he knows it?s not a American Airlines 737, if your passengers don?t know this then you should educate them before the flight.

As for people on the ground, I never see this being a problem with GA accidents, I?m sure it has happened and could happen but you take your chances when you wake up in the morning, I hear a lot more stories on the news where the people are sitting on the couch and someone drives a car thru the house.
 
Just so you understand, I always try to fly safely and learn from others screw-ups, I just don?t think we should give up our freedoms to protect ourselves from ourselves, or be forced to give up our freedoms because someone else did something that got himself killed, even if he did it with a passenger on board.
 
I shall save the world by convincing everyone to do it my way!

Signed,

The All American Do-Gooder


***the above was posted mostly in jest and should not be taken as my desire to outfly my ability nor that of my aluminum steed. :)
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
RV10inOz said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
Great post Chris, well said.

Freedom is not FREE

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.
Click to expand...

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 :rolleyes:
 
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
 
rzbill said:
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.
Click to expand...


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. :eek:

Life is risky. A full life, a little more so.
 
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.
 
chrish said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ronschreck said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
One problem I see is that if you get away with something you are said to have assed the risks and made good decisions based on your capability and that of your craft and the guys that died did not, the problem is, the guys that died thought they had assed the risks and had it figured out too but in the end it did not work out how they thought it would. Do we want to remain free to make these decisions or should we lose our freedoms because a minority of pilots made the wrong decisions? If the guys died doing something legal we should not change the rules to keep you from doing the same thing, if the guy died breaking the rules we should not be held to account for his decision. We can’t save everyone and we should not be trying to.

I understand this is not how it works in this day and age and that we are held accountable for what others do, I already basically said that. My point is that we as a society should recognize we can’t save everyone from everything and we should not be judged based on the actions of those who died, if that would give us all more freedom to kill ourselves one way or another I am fine with that.
 
Russ McCutcheon said:
One problem I see is that if you get away with something you are said to have assed the risks and made good decisions based on your capability and that of your craft and the guys that died did not, the problem is, the guys that died thought they had assed the risks and had it figured out too but in the end it did not work out how they thought it would. Do we want to remain free to make these decisions or should we lose our freedoms because a minority of pilots made the wrong decisions? If the guys died doing something legal we should not change the rules to keep you from doing the same thing, if the guy died breaking the rules we should not be held to account for his decision. We can?t save everyone and we should not be trying to.

I understand this is not how it works in this day and age and that we are held accountable for what others do, I already basically said that. My point is that we as a society should recognize we can?t save everyone from everything and we should not be judged based on the actions of those who died, if that would give us all more freedom to kill ourselves one way or another I am fine with that.
Click to expand...

I like your thinking Russ. Just imagine what a hero I would be if I had an engine failure at night, in the weather, in mountainous terrain and greased it in on a rain swept stretch of road! On the other hand, if a Mack truck happened to meet me going the other direction I would be branded as a foolhardy idiot. Timing is everything!
 
ronschreck said:
I like your thinking Russ. Just imagine what a hero I would be if I had an engine failure at night, in the weather, in mountainous terrain and greased it in on a rain swept stretch of road! On the other hand, if a Mack truck happened to meet me going the other direction I would be branded as a foolhardy idiot. Timing is everything!
Click to expand...

Excellent points from you and Russ, both. The old saying, a pat on the back and kick in the a$# are only 6 inches apart...
 
Hello Kettle... Pot calling!

It strikes me as funny that we as a community look inward and assign various opinions about our fellow members. Some are "heroes" and some are "cowboys". Yet if we step up one more level, the general population thinks we are ALL nuts because we fly "little airplanes". The fact that we screw the airplanes together in our backyard makes even the most professional pilots among us look like Darwin Award candidates.

Whether you’re discussing horses, guns, motorcycles, fast cars, powerboats, free climbing, mountain bikes, running with the bulls, or a host of other activities, people have been attracted to “risky” behavior (and getting grief from the do gooders) since the beginning of time. In this perspective, the fact that “RV Joe” flies differently than RV Fred” is hardly worth discussing. At this point, the only value of discussion is for the entertainment of disagreement.
 
ronschreck said:
I like your thinking Russ. Just imagine what a hero I would be if I had an engine failure at night, in the weather, in mountainous terrain and greased it in on a rain swept stretch of road! On the other hand, if a Mack truck happened to meet me going the other direction I would be branded as a foolhardy idiot. Timing is everything!
Click to expand...

On unrelated note was that you Ron who had full electric failure in a kerosene burner trapped on top back in the days? A transport of sort came to your rescue? I forgot the details but I remember position lights :)
 
Vlad said:
On unrelated note was that you Ron who had full electric failure in a kerosene burner trapped on top back in the days? A transport of sort came to your rescue? I forgot the details but I remember position lights :)
Click to expand...

My word, what a memory you have! I was flying and A-7D and a C-130 led me down to a safe landing. All I saw of him for most of the trip was his right wing position light.
 
chrish said:
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.
Click to expand...


A big problem with snap judgements and over generalizations are the assumptions made by the ground observer that the pilot in question did not assess the risk, prepare for the manuever, or is unqualified to execute it.

"He who does not risk, cannot win!", John Paul jones.
 
RV8R999 said:
A big problem with snap judgements and over generalizations are the assumptions made by the ground observer that the pilot in question did not assess the risk, prepare for the manuever, or is unqualified to execute it.

"He who does not risk, cannot win!", John Paul jones.
Click to expand...

I see it the other way. It is not a problem to discuss preparation, decision making and self discipline on the ground. Such discussion is an important way to help encourage a safety culture. It is a safety culture, more so than rules, that will keep people alive to enjoy their aviation pursuits. The real problem is people not realising the consequences of their actions, and that is a safety issue.

Another example: An inexperienced pilot sees an inspiring handling display at an airshow. He thinks to himself, 'I have the same aircraft, I think I will give that a try'. Without experience and training, he goes out and tries to do the same thing and exceeds either his ability or that of the aircraft and crashes hurting himself and possibly others. Some might say that it is his right, he should have the freedom to make those decisions and if he makes a poor choice, such is life. I argue that there should be a system/culture that says - sure you can do that, however, this is the training required, this is how you do it safely and this is how you do it responsibly. Such a system does not reduce personal freedom, it just allows us to learn from the mistakes of those that have gone before us.

As for not discussing differences in how different pilots fly, sorry, I can't agree there. I have been a professional aviator for over 29 years, and every time I fly I critique the guy I am flying with and myself. This does not have to be a negative thing, or even a verbal discussion, but I do ask myself 'how could I have done that better' or if the other guy was flying 'why did ho do it that way' etc. I see discussions such as we are having now as a way of improving the safety knowledge base of all involved in that discussion. My background is military transport and training, then airline flying. Most of my single engine time is jet or turboprop with an ejection seat. I would expect that there will be considerations for flying an RV (when I eventually build mine) that I will gain through discussions like this, that I had not thought of. Those discussions will, I hope, make me safer. I would also expect that there may be some professional training and human factors issues that I might be able to bring to the discussion that may assist someone else.

I agree that endeavours that involve some degree of risk are exciting and lead to a more interesting and fulfilled like. Sport aviation is such a pursuit and I agree you cannot legislate all of the risk out of it. However, I think there is a big difference between doing something that involves risk and being reckless. With education we can enjoy the thrill while reducing the chances of something going wrong.
 
chrish said:
...As for not discussing differences in how different pilots fly, sorry, I can't agree there...
Click to expand...

Discussion is good, but unfortunately, there is very little of that in threads like this. These threads are about passing judgment, and that is a waste of time in the big scheme of things. OTOH, if we were discussing how to properly execute a steep climbing turn at midfield - then there would be some value.

IIRC, George Carlin has a joke that essentially says: anyone who drives faster than you is a maniac, but anyone slower is a moron...

...seems to apply here.
 
Missed point

chrish you missed my point. I'm talking about the RV pilot on the ground who sees an airborne RV do something the he doesn't like or understand (ahem Overhead) and says "'that guy is an idiot and a cowboy and RV pilots are complacent and we must form a peer review committee and immediately exert our collective pressure to abate this overly risk seeking behavior as it is our moral imperative to do so otherwise our insurance rates will triple, the FAA will ban EAB aircraft and most certainly the sky will fall....."

That guy needs to stay on the other side of the ramp if its me he's talking about cause it ain't gonna go well if he pulls that cr*p....

A healthy debate on the merits, legality and technique of any given aviation activity is beneficial and should be encouraged but at least be open minded enough to accept the behavior discussed may have operational merit under proper circumstances and the PIC of the aircraft is in best position to make that call -reg violations excluded. That's what 30 yrs of military and GA flying taught me anyway...it's possible however I'm out to lunch.
 
"I think there is a big difference between doing something that involves risk and being reckless."

Ha! Sorry, but that statement made me chuckle a little bit. It reminds me of when somebody tells somebody to use some common sense. You do realize there is no such thing?
 
RV8R999, like most things, there is a large grey area, but overall, I agree with you. There will still be, however, be extremes of behaviour that will make you ask the question 'What were you doing', especially if it involved a breach of airmanship that impacts a third person's safety. I also think it can make a difference who says something. For example, when in the military I would often be the 'duty instructor' sitting in the tower behind the ATC officers. If I saw something I did not like, I would call the student on it.

artrose, you are right about the comparison to common sense. I tried to pick my words carefully, with reckless being 'the carrying out of an action without thinking about the consequences'. I hoped that conveyed my thoughts adequately, but perhaps there is someone out there who might be better able to articulate those thoughts.

Cheers,

Chris
 
Last edited by a moderator:
By definition, "extremes" of behavior are rare...

...But how often are threads started simply because someone saw something being done that the observer "didn't like"?

BIG difference.
 
What I would like to see is fewer fatalities. Anyone can read where the problem areas are. Some are nebulous (maneuvering) and tell me nada.

Every fatality is someone's son, husband, father, friend. I doubt that there are many people who die flying who want to leave loved ones behind to suffer the anguish of their loss.

Several years ago at the LOE fly-in in Las Cruces, a non-RV aircraft was reported to depart with two people on board and flew into a storm cell of some sort. Not long afterwards, smoke from the wreckage was observed. Two fatalities. Again, the report was that one person on that plan had a daughter and that that day was her birthday. It was a needless accident since they could have left sooner, later or the next day and made it home safely. Instead, two families had to deal with their deaths.

I have done things that others may consider risky. Beaucoup parachute jumps, rafting, scuba diving, flying to the Bahamas and Cayman Islands, blind dates.

But I have my limits. No mountain flying at night. I don't press fuel reserves. I avoid unreasonable get-there-itis. Weather can halt a trip easily and does often.

In the past there was a long thread about overhead approaches. Personally I do them on occasion. I like watching them. Some would look better if they added smoke but I digress.

If our RV pilot community would just think about their flying and avoid grossly stupid actions, especially where they put others at risk; think about their family and friends before allowing the chain of events to get them killed then the smaller issues about whether an overhead approach is good or bad or an early turnout is good or bad may become trivial.

Most of these fatalities are preventable. Being a better pilot so that you do not become a fatality does not mean that you can't enjoy your plane.

Let's enjoy our planes, live to see those we love at the end of the day and quit worrying if we enjoy flying in a manner that is more fun than a Cessna 172.
 
Last edited:
Toobuilder said:
Discussion is good, but unfortunately, there is very little of that in threads like this. These threads are about passing judgment, and that is a waste of time in the big scheme of things. OTOH, if we were discussing how to properly execute a steep climbing turn at midfield - then there would be some value.

IIRC, George Carlin has a joke that essentially says: anyone who drives faster than you is a maniac, but anyone slower is a moron...

...seems to apply here.
Click to expand...

VERY well said!!

Interesting to me that nobody is too excited over the 5-6 million auto accidents each year but 70-ish GA accidents are cause to eliminate aviation.
 
For me, this thread is about perceptions. A non-pilot type would see a climbing turn after lift-off overflying the airport buildings as, "neat-o, that is so cool". Pilots, who are trained in standard pattern procedures would say, "that is not cool and contrary to what we have been trained."

I saw this at my home airport and thought "not cool" regardless of the fact that I knew the pilot and that he is very skilled.

I saw this again from a departing RV at SNF a couple years ago. The departure procedure states that aircraft maintain runway heading for 3 miles after departing. This particular RV turned almost immediately after breaking ground and flew overhead as we were at the HBC area getting packed up. Maybe the RV had clearance to do that but I doubt it.

So, I think that although we may be skilled and have capable airplanes, we need to be aware of the perceptions we create when we do what is unexpected or non-standard. Small planes and their pilots don't need any more negative press.
 
Last edited:
tongue in cheek

Overheard at the airport:
observer 1: Why do those Rocket guys always climb out so steeply?
observer 2: Because they CAN!

Let's face it fellas: our planes' power to weight ratio could be described as "Adequate Overkill". Some, like the Rockets and Rocketized-RVs, have what could be called a bit more than adequate. Some of you may already know this...you know who you are.

So, what may look like a VERY steep climb could actually be a simple Vx exercise.:D Heck, in some cases, it could be a Vy exercise!:eek:

Perception.

Come to think of it, a 65HP Cub (low fuel, single pilot) would be 'adequate' on a 30F day with 15KT down the runway!

My hope is that those 'practicing' such maneuvers know how critical it is to get the nose down if the fan coughs...

Carry on!
Mark
 
Scrambled Brains

Man, after reading all this I don't know where I stand on anything.

Keep the blue side up,,, most of the time and think safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top