|
-
POSTING RULES

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

04-12-2011, 09:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Harrison, ID
Posts: 153
|
|
Risk Management and Accountability
Bump probably unnecessary on this topic....I flew to Helena today and received my temp. Experimental Repairman, and could not get this safety thread out of my mind.
In a former job I assisted in introducing risk management and accountability into a group of individuals whose culture was of competence, confidence and independence, and which just like our group of experimental aircraft builders and pilots, had that image reinforced with every successful mission they completed, despite occasionally what they considered acceptable failures, and which acceptability was placed in dispute by those who were being held accountable for the entire operation. Unhappiness and resistance aplenty. The chief obstacle became defensiveness, which is exactly the same reaction that I, MontanaMike, have been experiencing regarding this safety problem, and hopefully coming to grips with, in the best interests of this group.
AOPA and probably even the EAA do not have accurate hours of successful experimental flight hours, I know they do not have any idea that I flew 125 hours this past years without an accident, most on untrackable auto fuel, but the AOPA Nall Report statistics being inaccurate is not a defense. Several of my early flights did not make me proud, nor did they necessarily reflect well on the RV community, but I do not consider anything I did "stupid". My deficiencies were not purposeful, so my defensiveness kicked in and the shields went up. Yet I know that if I have an accident, some on this site will call me stupid. I repeat,--- an "accident". This name calling has no place in the safety discussion.
With the high-speed employees I refer to above, I had complete authority to accompany the accountability for which we as management were being held. However, in this experimental world, imposition of the many great suggestions discussed here has to be voluntary, unless they are imposed by the factory as a condition of kit sales, or by the FAA in a blanket manner. In my view, the DAR Inspection and Repairman Application experiences are a great place to start a builder on a safer path. As Repairman, I would like to have access to all available RV equipment and airframe failure information, as the DARs also should, and not just factory letters. Alan Carrol posted 152 fatal RV accidents over 35 years, not including non-fatals, so there is a huge database available for research. This RV-specific information would be helpful in addressing the 25% Dan referred to.
I know at least one builder who is not flying, and many including myself have found themselves in this dangerous situation due to financial or logistical factors. I tried to cure this defect by spending 20 hours with Seager, with a little success, yet how many identify this problem for themselves and get right with currency and proficiency during the excitement of completing ther build? After 125 hours in the 6, I can testify that this is not an aircraft for anyone who has let their flying skills deteriorate. Has this been an accident factor? Is that information available?
I applaud those who have volunteered to work on this issue. We should all drop the shields and do something, anything, to help. I surrender.
Sorry for the rambling, it has been a long winter.
Mike Bauer
RV6 N918MB
|

04-12-2011, 09:31 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brisbane Qld. Aust.
Posts: 2,271
|
|
My 20c worth from down under, should get me 21cents of yours nowdays!
Take all the Experimental accidents, remove all the prangs which were attributable to CFIT from weather, and all the handling issues where it was certain not to be a unique handling fault, and lump them all onto the GA statistics. Then compare.
Why? Because the folk who are killing themselves by means of fuel running out then stall and spin or VFR into IMC etc etc etc, those same accidents would have occured in a C172/PA28/V35B.
Only then can you truly see what dangers lurk statistically in Experimental.
Anyone got the data to manipulate properly?
|

04-13-2011, 08:32 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,378
|
|
Regulation
In the US, only the Nuclear Power industry is more regulated than aviation. The FAA, as always, will do what they feel necessary and as usual we will react as we feel necessary. I do think it odd that skydiving has minimal regulation and fatalities are quite common yet there is no rush by regulators to fix it or else. Perhaps because it usually only involves one soul and seldom damages property. Are skydivers besieged by personality analysis? Of course not. Their mistake is accepted as their mistake and jumps continue. The public does not write their congressman and complain about skydivers. They DO complain about the possibility of a "homemade" airplane hitting THEIR house. All federal agencies are reactionary. Like other agencies they are influenced most heavily by professional lobbyists. Our best hope is the EAA. Rather than try to convince each other that we can solve this internally, I suggest we all push the EAA to build a consensus with the FAA. Mr Hightower needs to be involved of course as I would suspect he already is. The EAA has served us well in the past on this subject and I trust them to do so again. AOPA on the other hand is a waste of time.
|

04-13-2011, 09:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: pittsburgh pa
Posts: 533
|
|
this remains a great thread
yes there are a lot of people with habits that will be hard to reach, but just look at two other current threads on this board - the "turn back one" and the "approach speeds" one.
If these don't illustrate the value of putting out some well researched and proven standards for emergency procedures and standard ops, I don't know what ever will.
How many accidents avoided and lives saved might such an effort yield?? Don't really know. One or two a year would be great. And the other more intangible benefits are many. It's all good.
By the way Montana Mike, anyone with a grass strip and a Montana "Trout Creek" address would be a very welcome voluntary addition to our effort.
Fly on
__________________
Gary Reed
RV-6 IO-360
WW 200 RV now an Al Hartzell for improved CG
|

04-13-2011, 11:12 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lake Country, B.C. Canada
Posts: 2,416
|
|
When do we start 'self-regulating'?
It is heartening to see that after 14 pages, the interest in safety hasn't waned.
I am absorbing all the comments, and see a common thread where we want to know what is killing GA, and A/B pilots specifically. Do the stats tell the whole story?..even if we had extensive and accurate ones?
As others way smarter than I have noted, Cockpit Resource Management, or risk management, sounds like airline talk, but in many ways, we practice this every day when we get in a car and drive to work. ( we ensure we have enough gas, and air in the tires before hitting the freeway at 70 mph!)
I think we also need to look at pilot behaviour and decision-making, 'judgement', in addition to stick& rudder and weather coping skills. Some of these can be taught, some perhaps not.
When I look at the dozens of YouTube videos, which are out there for all to see, it concerns me.
The pilot may in fact be supremely qualified, in a well-maintained craft; It is not a criticism of the individual, but our community as a whole when we fail to address actions that could just as easily end up as a fatal accident, as a super-cool video.
I think we've all seen them. Examples? A very highly skilled pilot crankin' & bankin' down a river below treetop height. I would hate to see this end with him clipping the mast of an unseen sailboat, or catching a zip-line cable that some kids strung across the river. Aerobatics in and thru clouds. Amazing short landings, but approaches that are only a few feet above the scrub brush. There are no margins of safety in any of these operations; they are all right at the edge of the envelope.
At best they could end up as an insurance claim that raises rates for all of us. At worst, property damage and/or the injury or death of the operator or persons on the ground, with the expected regulatory backlash.
__________________
Perry Y.
RV-9a - SOLD!....
Lake Country, BC
|

04-13-2011, 12:49 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 1,324
|
|
How will it play at the hearing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy1963
It is heartening to see that after 14 pages, the interest in safety hasn't waned.
I am absorbing all the comments, and see a common thread where we want to know what is killing GA, and A/B pilots specifically. Do the stats tell the whole story?..even if we had extensive and accurate ones? <snip>
|
The fixation on stats by some concerns me. Yes, we need to gather information to help understand the issue, but they will never tell the whole story. I really get the feeling that there are people that are in denial and/or think that they can get off the hook by "proving" that it doesn't apply to them. News flash! We are all on the hook here. If changes aren't made the FAA, or worse, the insurance companies, are going to fix the problem their way.
The video issue has always chapped my hide. People post some really stupid aeronautical acts on YouTube. In my early airline training a ground instructor, discussing planning and risk management, said "Just ask yourself how it is going to sound at the the hearing". Think how you would feel when your video is played for the administrative law judge at your revocation hearing.
John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
|

04-13-2011, 04:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WA State
Posts: 192
|
|
I think we all have to be a little careful here. Let’s not forget that the FAA is asserting specific statistics as a justification to indict the A/B community and threaten its existence! Given this context I do not see how it is a fixation or a denial to ascertain how complete and/or accurate these statistics are. Nor should we imply anything less than sincere motives to those daring to raise legitimate questions. I for one have several questions.
Despite the fact that the fatal accident rate for A/B today is generally consistent with what it has been historically, why has the FAA only now (in 2011) decided that this rate is “inexcusably high and must be improved”? On this question Van opines as follows: “When our A-B community was very small, our accident numbers then were not as noticeable; not high enough to noticeably affect the overall tally. Now that we are becoming a larger portion of GA, our numbers are becoming too noticeable. This probably explains why the FAA, AOPA, etc. are now becoming more concerned and involved.” Is this the FAA’s sole motivation? Perhaps - although Van seems to couch this reasoning with a “probably”. As was previously mentioned by an earlier post, aviation is one of the most highly regulated activities in the U.S. The “they were always a bunch of unsafe yahoo’s, but now there’s just too many of them to ignore” argument doesn’t strike me as plausible in such a heavily regulated environment.
It’s no secret that A/B has enemies. Just a couple of years ago the FAA aggressively sought to limit A/B by altering the 51% rules in draconian fashion. They would have been successful if not for the well organized political response/resistance they received. And it’s heartwarming to lean that AOPA (GAMA’s mouthpiece) has now become “concerned and involved” regarding the serious safety issue posed by A/B. I’m sure their “concerns” are completely unrelated to the fact that the dramatic growth of A/B over the last 20+ years has come at a painful expense to certified aircraft sales. If A/B activities and influence decline, would theirs not surely rise?
Look, I believe that everyone involved in A/B wants the accident rate to go down, and I’ve not seen anyone on this thread say anything to the contrary. After all, every life is precious, and who has more of a stake in safety than those actually risking life and limb? I fully support these discussions and ideas to enhance safety across the board. But I also find the timing and actors involved with this “assault” on A/B more than coincidental, and as a result a political response may be appropriate and necessary IN ADDITION to increased safety awareness and activities!
__________________
Will McClain
N954WM (Reserved)
Last edited by WhiskeyMike : 04-13-2011 at 05:11 PM.
|

04-13-2011, 06:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,378
|
|
Nailed
And it’s heartwarming to learn that AOPA (GAMA’s mouthpiece) has now become “concerned and involved” regarding the serious safety issue posed by A/B. I’m sure their “concerns” are completely unrelated to the fact that the dramatic growth of A/B over the last 20+ years has come at a painful expense to certified aircraft sales. If A/B activities and influence decline, would theirs not surely rise?
Unfortunately, I think W/M has it nailed. If you will remember, AOPA/GAMA was "heartwarmly" opposed to the new LSA category for the very same reasons. EAA came to the rescue then and they did again with the 51st rule. Very nice post...thank you.
Pete
|

04-13-2011, 06:12 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ruston, Louisiana
Posts: 879
|
|
Exactly how I was feeling!
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyMike
I think we all have to be a little careful here. Let?s not forget that the FAA is asserting specific statistics as a justification to indict the A/B community and threaten its existence! Given this context I do not see how it is a fixation or a denial to ascertain how complete and/or accurate these statistics are. Nor should we imply anything less than sincere motives to those daring to raise legitimate questions. I for one have several questions.
Despite the fact that the fatal accident rate for A/B today is generally consistent with what it has been historically, why has the FAA only now (in 2011) decided that this rate is ?inexcusably high and must be improved?? On this question Van opines as follows: ?When our A-B community was very small, our accident numbers then were not as noticeable; not high enough to noticeably affect the overall tally. Now that we are becoming a larger portion of GA, our numbers are becoming too noticeable. This probably explains why the FAA, AOPA, etc. are now becoming more concerned and involved.? Is this the FAA?s sole motivation? Perhaps - although Van seems to couch this reasoning with a ?probably?. As was previously mentioned by an earlier post, aviation is one of the most highly regulated activities in the U.S. The ?they were always a bunch of unsafe yahoo?s, but now there?s just too many of them to ignore? argument doesn?t strike me as plausible in such a heavily regulated environment.
It?s no secret that A/B has enemies. Just a couple of years ago the FAA aggressively sought to limit A/B by altering the 51% rules in draconian fashion. They would have been successful if not for the well organized political response/resistance they received. And it?s heartwarming to lean that AOPA (GAMA?s mouthpiece) has now become ?concerned and involved? regarding the serious safety issue posed by A/B. I?m sure their ?concerns? are completely unrelated to the fact that the dramatic growth of A/B over the last 20+ years has come at a painful expense to certified aircraft sales. If A/B activities and influence decline, would theirs not surely rise?
Look, I believe that everyone involved in A/B wants the accident rate to go down, and I?ve not seen anyone on this thread say anything to the contrary. After all, every life is precious, and who has more of a stake in safety than those actually risking life and limb? I fully support these discussions and ideas to enhance safety across the board. But I also find the timing and actors involved with this ?assault? on A/B more than coincidental, and as a result a political response may be appropriate and necessary IN ADDITION to increased safety awareness and activities!
|
Bill,
I agree with you 100%
__________________
Mark Burns
Ruston, Louisiana
RV-7A N781CM 1,650+ hrs
FFI FL-24
A&P
|

04-13-2011, 06:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 358
|
|
Whiskey Mike,
If you think the AB crowd is under assault, come visit the Warbird World... The FAA is actively pursuing the Warbird community...
One of the areas where they are really turning up the heat is operating limitations. Anyone certifying a new Exp/Exhibition Warbird going forward will have some draconian operating limitations. These new operating limitations preclude landing at airports in congested areas... To land at an airport in a congested area requires a special operating limitation issued by the local FSDO and in some cases has been a one way in, one way out with no pattern procedure....
I predict this is one of the ways they will come after the A/B community. Anything we can do to keep our freinds alive will also make ourselves a smaller target and demonstrate some efforts to improve our situation will give EAA ammunition when they are fighting our cause in DC.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
|
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 12:42 AM.
|