|
-
POSTING RULES

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

01-08-2010, 04:56 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by B25Flyer
Because if it happened to them, then it certainly could happen to me....
|
I reject this idea. Who was the famous guy who flew into a bad thunderstorm in Georgia (?) and died?
I would have to screw up horrendously to have that happen to me.
I have no idea what caused the accidents that result in people saying this, but it probably was not a skill issue.
PS: I don't disagree that some (unknown percentage but probably low) accidents are skills related.
Last edited by Ron Lee : 01-08-2010 at 05:56 PM.
|

01-08-2010, 04:59 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Battleground
Posts: 4,348
|
|
Of course I do...
Quote:
Originally Posted by B25Flyer
Jon,
If you agree that it could happen to you, or someone else with good stick and rudder skills, then don't you believe discussing the factors beyond the stick and rudder stuff is a worthwhile exercise?
Tailwinds,
Doug
|
...and I am glad you are passionate about it!
__________________
Smart People do Stupid things all the time. I know, I've seen me do'em.
RV6 - Builder/Flying
Bucker Jungmann
Fiat G.46 -(restoration in progress, if I have enough life left in me)
RV1 - Proud Pilot.
|

01-08-2010, 09:03 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 358
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Lee
I reject this idea. Who was the famous guy who flew into a bad thunderstorm in Georgia (?) and died?
I would have to screw up horrendously to have that happen to me.
I have no idea what caused the accidents that result in people saying this, but it probably was not a skill issue.
PS: I don't disagree that some (unknown percentage but probably low) accidents are skills related.
|
Ron,
You have picked a perfect example.....
The guy that crashed in the thunderstorm was Scott Crossfield.... He could fly the crate your airplane came in... He flew some of the most dangerous and scary airplanes ever built and he pulled it off, just to get himself killed in a Cessna 210 picking his way thru a line of thunderstorms.....
So how does that happen, and what if Scott could come back and talk to us, what would he say????
I met him a couple of times and he was a class act. I would bet a weeks wages that he would be the first to say that all of us need to be ever vigilant about our ADM and our arrogance. If we think that an airplane can't get us, or if we let your guard down and begin to think we have this aviation thing figured out..... Someone will get hurt....
So what are the traps that catch pilots? They have never changed. Thunderstorms, X-winds, Formation, buzzing, acro, etc, etc, etc.... All of these risks can be managed, what gets us is arrogance....
As pilots we have to have a high level of self confidence to load our family and friends in an airplane built in a garage....
A pilot has to have a high level of self confidence to think that when the engine quits, which it will some day, we can squeeze our airplane into some small pasture, parking lot, or golf course, and then fire up our cell phone and call flight service to tell them we are safe and sound on the ground.....
As pilots we must have that level of self confidence and yet keep that self confidence in check so that we become so arrogant as to think we can handle the thunderstorm that killed Crossfield, or the crosswind that killed several RV pilots last year, or the blown formation joinup that killed another RV pilot last year or do roll at low altitude like a pilot has done a hundred times before at altitude, or a few miles of scuzzy weather to get to the good weather at the destination....
These are the examples of risks where pilots were unable to manage the balance between self confidence and arrogance, last year...
I know what I would call anyone that thinks they have that delicate balance between self confidence and arrogance all squared away.... It isn't self confident....
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
|

01-08-2010, 11:08 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Keller, TX
Posts: 1,553
|
|
I think the Crosssfield accident is also an example of how outcomes can be affected by the quantity and quality of information available. You can sometimes make logical decisions based on bad or limited information and have bad outcomes. Here is a portion of the NTSB report on his accident:
"At 10:18 am, the pilot checked-in with Atlanta Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and was subsequently handled by four sectors. The accident airplane was cleared to 11,000 feet. The pilot was not issued weather advisories or related SIGMETS, according to Atlanta ARTCC voice communications. At 11:09:28 am, the pilot asked to deviate to the south due to weather. Atlanta ARTCC approved the turn to the south, but radar contact was lost at 11:10:02 am at 5,500 feet. Recorded radar data indicate that the accident airplane entered a level 6 thunderstorm prior to the loss of radar contact."
The complete advisory can be found here [url="http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2006/060427a.htm"]http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2006/060427a.htm[/URL
All the flying skill in the world did not save him from a lack of information. I don't know if the 210 he was flying had weather radar or XM Weather.
__________________
RV-8 180 hp IO-360 N247TD with 10" SkyView!
VAF Donations Made 8/2019 and 12/2019
"Cum omni alio deficiente, ludere mortuis."
(When all else fails, play dead.)
|

01-09-2010, 06:37 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 358
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubblehead
All the flying skill in the world did not save him from a lack of information. I don't know if the 210 he was flying had weather radar or XM Weather.
|
Yes he had XM and you accurately highlight another hazard in our business. The information we get from all our electronic gizmos is so precise that we presume it to be as accurate as it is precise....
For example, XM Nexrad data might be couple minutes old when we get it, and add the 5 minute cycle time and it could be 7 minutes old when the next image comes down. The entire life of a thunderstorm cell is about 30 minutes. But the developing stage might only show light precip, or nothing at all on radar. I have been flying next to big cells with nothing depicted on XM and then the next update shows a big red blob.... This was believed to be a factor in Crossfield's accident.
Another example. I have a Zaon, and at first it was connected to my -396 for display.. The problem was on the 396 screen the traffic is displayed very precisely, even though the bearing and range are just approximations. I disconnected the link and now display it on the unit sitting on the glareshield. It justs point a general direction with an estimated range. This is a much better human machine interface (HMI) than that 396 display because of the disparity between the accuracy and the precision.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
|

01-09-2010, 08:29 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 2,333
|
|
Good thread! Crossfield /XM comment:
I also wondered if he had some sort of XM system on board. The NTSB must not have known if he had on-board weather, other than lightning. They were maybe being specific about the panel mount stuff, but it would seem they would have mentioned if he had a handheld XM on board. Only that he had an account:
"The pilot obtained several weather briefings before departure. At that time, the current weather along the route of flight showed significant convective activity and a moving squall line, and the forecast predicted significant thunderstorm activity along the planned route of flight. The pilot also discussed the weather with an acquaintance, mentioning that he might need to work his way around some weather. On the basis of the weather information obtained by the pilot and his comments regarding the weather, the pilot was aware before departure that he would likely encounter adverse weather along the planned route of flight; however, by the time the airplane encountered the weather, the pilot had been airborne for over an hour and had not requested any updated weather information from air traffic controllers. The airplane was equipped with a BF Goodrich WX-950 Stormscope, which has some ability to depict the location and frequency of lightning strikes in the vicinity of the airplane; however, the investigation could not determine if and how this equipment may have been used during the flight. The airplane was not configured to display satellite weather information on its global positioning systems."
Additional detail:
"The pilot had an active weather account with XM Satellite Radio and subscribed to the basic weather package (XM Wx Aviator LT). According to XM Satellite Radio, no outages or interruptions of service were encountered on the day of the accident. XM Satellite Radio does not have the ability to track its product's location or to identify if and when a subscriber accesses or uses its weather products. The airplane was not modified with the required antenna and datalink receiver to display satellite weather information, according to airplane maintenance records and FAA documentation."
__________________
Alex Peterson
RV6A N66AP 1700+ hours
KADC, Wadena, MN
Last edited by AlexPeterson : 01-09-2010 at 08:33 AM.
Reason: Added details
|

01-09-2010, 09:00 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,652
|
|
The many passionate post concerning ADM are thought provoking, and I find myself in violent agreement with much of it. However, if we can put that on the shelf for just a moment, is there anyone out there who thinks stick and rudder skills good enough to pass a checkride or BFR is really "good enough"?
I am passionate about stick and rudder skills because I have grown rapidly over the years while other pilots I know have remained stagnant. I am passionate about stick and rudder skills because I know there are CFI's out there that instruct that the rudder pedals are only to be used on the ground (sad, but true). I am passionate about stick and rudder skills because you can never be "good enough".
It is my belief that superior stick and rudder skills are developed by finding the edges of the performance envelope and getting comfortable there. Increasing the envelope means you have a large margin to go to when operating in your normal environment. As an example, given two otherwise equally qualified pilots and aircraft; one based at a short narrow strip, and the other on a 300x10,000 concrete former military base, who has the upper hand in a "normal" landing scenario? Who has the upper hand in a forced landing scenario? I contend it's the same guy - the one used to flying closer to the limit of the aircraft capabilities.
Perhaps presenting ADM and "skills" as competing with each other has polarized this discussion somewhat. There really should not be two camps, but should be interwoven as two very important aspects of flying safety as a whole. In retrospect, my original delivery method was polarizing and argumentative, however, my original intent was to point out that conventional wisdom, developed by decades of FAA mandated training, seems to focus on risk avoidance at the expense of developing superior stick and rudder skills.
You may have 1000 hours in your RV, but if that time was logged going cross country while on autopilot, all the ADM skills in the world go right out the window if you cannot comfortably fly at minimum airspeed while trying to thread your way into a soccer field after the engine quits.
So to sum up, I think the appropriate response to reading accident reports is a careful evaluation of your own skills rather than a blanket plea to constrict our personal limits. While restraint might be good advice for some pilots, I think most of us would greatly benefit from expanding our knowledge of the airplane. I think most of us need the larger safety margin afforded by knowing the exact size of the envelope, and finally, I know I will benefit from more stick and rudder skills, because I am not yet "good enough".
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.
Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI
RV-8 - SDS CPI
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
1984 L39C
|

01-09-2010, 09:08 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,868
|
|
Time to address the broader issue
There have been 118 posts on this safety thread to date and predictably not ONE of them has dealt with the issue of poor workmanship and the implications thereof for flight accidents/fatalities. As a group we're all gung ho about preaching good airmanship but obviously much more reluctant to preach the importance of good workmanship based on sound knowledge.
The data within the 2008 Nall report indicates that aircraft "mechanical failures" accounted for more accidents than any other accident type for both GA generally (GA), and for Amateur-built specifically (AB).
For GA generally, 15.8% of all accidents fell into the "Mechanical Failures" category. For AB specifically, 20.8% of all accidents fell into the "Mechanical Failures" category. This data clearly says to me that AB aircraft are substantially more prone to mechanical failure than certificated aircraft...despite the fact that the average age of the certificated GA fleet is perhaps 2 decades older than the AB fleet.
The data confirms that many amateur builders have not developed the skill set to safely instal and subsequently maintain their powerplants.
By comparison "Manoeuvering" accidents (those low altitude stunts largely blamed by many for the poor Amateur-built crash record) accounted for only 6.6% of all GA prangs and only 9.3% of AB prangs.
The famous Dan Lloyd RV10 accident is an incident that fully highlights the problem. In that case the facts when they fully emerged quite clearly indicated that the cause of the fatality was appalling workmanship and flawed design decisions. And yet people continue to throw up the accident as another example of poor pilotage.
I'm coming to the conclusion that it is easier for many people in the RV community to critisise the extent of poor airmanship than it is for them to acknowledge the extent of poor build quality (particularly FWF).
To fly safely you need a safe plane to start with. All the prudent no-go decisions in the world may count for nothing if that single donk up front subsequently quits over inhospitable terrain.
__________________
You’re only as good as your last landing 
Bob Barrow
RV7A
Last edited by Captain Avgas : 01-09-2010 at 05:13 PM.
|

01-09-2010, 09:39 AM
|
|
unqualified unfluencer
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Highland Village, TX
Posts: 4,088
|
|
Bob,
You've echoed several of my beliefs in your reply, which is precisely why I'm so grateful to have a good friend that is an A&P based on my field. I use him to hopefully lower my chance of a mechanical failure forward of the firewall.
- He looks over my cowling every time I take it off (I pay him with lunch usually). And usually he finds something to address that I didn't catch.
- He does the annuals, even though I can legally do them. (I pay him, and he always finds something.)
- He oversees ALL my firewall forward work (I help and always learn something, but I don't feel qualified to be the only set of eyes that decides how things should be under the cowl). Maybe in another decade or so....
I'll work on the lawnmower engine and the scooter's engine, but not the airplane's (without professional help). Too much riding it.
I tell non-flying friends that our family's plane is amatuer built, but the engine is professionally maintained.
b,
d
__________________
Doug Reeves (your host) - Full time: VansAirForce.net since '07 (started it in '96).
- Part time: Supporting Crew Member CAE Embraer Phenom 300 (E55P) @ KDFW.
- Occasionally: Contract pilot (resume).
Last edited by DeltaRomeo : 01-09-2010 at 04:33 PM.
|

01-09-2010, 09:51 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Elkhart, Indiana
Posts: 1,186
|
|
Excellent suggestion ...
That's a good idea, Doug. I've thought about it a lot over the years of building. Yeah, I built the plane ... but I don't know a darned thing about the engine. I hooked wire A to connection B, and everything works ... but that's not exactly peace of mind for me.
I've considered asking the A&P/IA on our field to join me for my first condition inspection. I'd pay him, of course, and would feel MUCH better when I'm done, knowing that someone who knows intimately the innards of an engine has lent a hand.
My only concern is that the time he has visited my hangar and nosed around, he just grins like a kid in a candy store. "Man, I LOVE a brand-new plane ... you should see what I usually have to work on..." 
__________________
Don McNamara
Peoria, AZ
Builder: RV-8 "Smokey"
|
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 12:27 AM.
|