Lauren Paine article in SA

[luddite42]

Originally Posted by ccsmith51

Someone radioed "RV's go home."

Your burst his "backcountry aircraft" bubble. He probably couldn't land his 180 anywhere shorter than Johnson Creek.

[Epepperman]

An airplane cannot be associated with a pilot. The airplane is a machine that does not think. If Mr. Paine associated RV airplanes as bad in his article, shame on him.
People are discourteous at the grocery store. Does that make them all bad.
People are people and we cannot expect them to change their little minds about a machine.
Carry on

[ExtraKatana]

I get the point of the article but the bold generalized statement "Their all like that" dilutes the point. The statement in my opinion is a character flaw. Super cubs have often skimmed along the water with their bushwheels and landed in places with passengers at speeds that would make an RV Pilot question Bernoulli's Principle. To say however, "All Super Cub Pilots are Wreckless" would be just as bold a statement and equally untrue. I think Super Cubs are cool.....just about anything with wings is. Courtesy and common sense is important for sure. I think I know the great event the article refers to and I've never seen an RV there in the past 5 years....and I think that's about how long it's been going. Hmmm.

[Alan Carroll]

Originally Posted by HackerF15E

I disagree -- it all falls under the concept of "airmanship". We are talking about decisionmaking and judgment. We are talking about flight discipline.

Unfortunately, this is a topic that non-professional aviation has to struggle with every handful of years; most professional aviation has a set of standards and expectations that come with the job that -- generally -- are followed lest the pilots lose that job. Unfortunately, in non-professional aviation (e.g. GA flying, amongst other areas), we come from varied backgrounds, with varied levels of training, varied levels of experience, and varied beliefs about levels of what constitutes safe behavior in an airplane. Because of those variations, it is nearly impossible to have a single, understood standard/example of what "normal" behavior is, especially as pilots progress into flying more and more high performance airplanes that are capable of more high performance things.

The warbird community has struggled with this over the years, especially as the "old guard" of former professional military pilots who were the standard-bearers in the warbird community has died off and been replaced by a large number of non-professional pilots whose actual professions afforded them the wealth to own/operate high performance airplanes. Pilots who have not been trained formally or mentored by pilots with experience high performance flying (the same stuff mentioned in the article -- formation, aerobatics, low-level flying) unfortunately sometimes make the decision to have a go at it themselves. Or, alternately, they've been trained and mentored on how to do this stuff, and they still make the decision to engage in risky or illegal behavior anyway because of the laundry list of "hazardous attitudes". There was a point about 5-6 years ago where every single fatal warbird accident that year was a result of pilot error, and most of it from guys saying "watch this!" and doing things that were far riskier than circumstances dictated or were above their heads trying to do something their training or experience could not support. The warbird community continues to struggle with this today, even having self-identified the issue and having taken steps to tighten up their own training and self-enforcement of good decisionmaking.

Either way, it constitutes bad decisionmaking, bad judgment, bad airmanship. Some (most?) pilots strive to learn and achieve excellence in these areas...but some don't. Some just want to go have a thrill, and think that they're good enough to make it work without killing or injuring themselves or others.

In my opinion, if your take-away from the article is that the author is unfairly pointing a finger at RV pilots, then you've gleaned entirely the wrong thing from it. Such an article should, instead, cause us to look at ourselves and our fellow pilots, and examine if we have those same thoughts and behaviors. He's right that no pilot thinks of himself as dangerous, and none of us wake up in the morning and think, "hey, let's go out and do something stupid today!" Often we can't see it from inside the fishbowl -- sometimes it takes us stepping back and examining things from the outside to see these things. Sometimes it takes a friend, a fellow pilot, a mentor, or even a stranger to comment on what they think of your airmanship and judgment for us to realize that we may be slightly off the ranch.

It has to start with each of us wanting to be good airmen and both learning and exhibiting good judgment and decisionmaking. It extends to when we see bad judgment or poor airmanship out of fellow pilots, having the guts to go speak to them about it.

This strikes me as very perceptive post that really gets to the heart of the matter. Its possible to take away more than one thing from the SA article though. I completely agree that we each need to critically examine our own behaviors and those of our fellow pilots (doing the former is much difficult than the latter). No doubt this was the main point. However I also think that singling out specific groups dilutes that message.

Thanks.

[6 Gun]

Ok I'm sorry about making the Super Cub guys mad I didn't know they were still mad its been about 5 years since I took off from Johnson Creek and climbed over the mountain on takeoff. I heard they were so mad they were cussing.Dang I'm so sorry.
Bob

[Epepperman]

Sounds like the article should have been submitted to Psychology Today.
Human nature cannot be changed. We all do stupid things, mindless at times, and those actions that do not kill us enable us to learn. Attaching any of this to a particular airplane is wrong

[HackerF15E]

Originally Posted by Epepperman

An airplane cannot be associated with a pilot. The airplane is a machine that does not think. If Mr. Paine associated RV airplanes as bad in his article, shame on him.
People are discourteous at the grocery store. Does that make them all bad.
People are people and we cannot expect them to change their little minds about a machine.
Carry on

Correct, but I think you're missing the very next step in the logic train, which is culture.

Culture *does* largely dictate the types of behaviors that are being discussed.

Groups of people (in this case, groups of pilots) who gather together generally have common views about things like good airmanship, and types of aircraft also impact the types of flying that these groups do. The local 172 club probably isn't out teaching each other baby acro or having FFI formation clinics. These groups of mostly like-minded aviators with similar aircraft types and capabilities will tend to develop similar attitudes about things -- that's just natural human social behavior. Weather that's 3 or 4 guys that get together at the local airport on the weekends or up to your local EAA chapter, these social groups have a tremendous impact on pilots ideas about safety or what's acceptable.

Like it or not, the capabilities of RVs lead to certain types of flying that pilots can (and do) perform with them. Just the same that the local moped club probably doesn't get as many speeding tickets as the guys in the local "Fast and Furious" car club.

So, while the type of airplane you own/operate certainly does not dictate a particular type of behavior, the social groups a pilot associates with certainly do influence airmanship. The fact that we're all here on this VAF social group based on a particular type of aircraft is just one small example of that, too.

And, in my opinion, that's exactly the antidote to the hazardous attitudes and poor airmanship the article is alluding to -- social groups that teach and expect good airmanship, and exercise peer pressure to help correct pilots they see whose behavior isn't safe or courteous.

[David-aviator]

There is nothing new with this thread.

Many none experimental pilots are biased, some experimental pilots are jerks and so are some spam can guys.

Pilot attitude is a factor in some accidents, no question about it.

Changing pilot attitude with warning flags is the challenge. Human nature being what it is, the only thing that works is a big stick. In commercial world threat being fired works. In general aviation threat of certificate action or surviving a crash sometimes works.

Lectures from other pilots usually fall on deaf ears.

[DanH]

Originally Posted by HackerF15E

So, while the type of airplane you own/operate certainly does not dictate a particular type of behavior, the social groups a pilot associates with certainly do influence airmanship.

That's a valid point, for sure. I might take out "social" just for clarity; it can be any group; GA, air carrier, ultralight, or military.

The RJ accident Bill referenced is a good example. The report says investigators heard about an unofficial "41,000 Club" among the airline's pilots. That club probably extended to other carriers too; pilots talk. Despite all of us having had the same motherly advice about jumping off bridges, what our peers do does influence our thinking.

I'll offer another observation. I have observed a significant difference in my own risk tolerance, based on the presence of passengers. I am admittedly less safety conscious when solo, and away from anything that might risk others. When flying kids, for example, I get extremely conservative. When flying with a qualified pilot, I remain more conservative than when solo, but tend to inquire about his/her risk tolerance, and act accordingly.

Yeah, I've thought about it. I can't find much against accepting a level of solo risk beyond what is strictly necessary. I don't mean stupid. I mean managing risk vs reward, leaving an out, gaining an edge, you know, thinking about it before doing it. Then I take the risk. You can't extend skills without pushing limits.

Kids? It just means I'm not a psychopath. Really.

It's the third category where I've gotten in the most trouble. Not with ordinary passengers, for whom I am expected to do all the critical thinking. It's those rides with other pilots. Fact is, the closest to dead has been when flying with the most experienced aviators. It's a variation of the social interaction problem noted above; after all, the other guy is more senior, more experienced. I allowed myself to accept his assessment of risk, when in fact he hadn't actually made any thinking assessment. After a few hard lessons, I stopped paying attention to cockpit seniority, or who owns the airplane, or whatever.

The lesson works both ways. If you fly with me, and you don't like something, say so. I'm good with it.

[edneff]

Originally Posted by DanH

The lesson works both ways. If you fly with me, and you don't like something, say so. I'm good with it.

This bears repeating. A good code to follow.