[RVbySDI]

The point is that arrogance has very little correlation to a person's competence.

Actually I think we are talking about the same thing just in different terms. I agree with your statement about arrogance not correlating with competence. That is why I wrote the equation for a safer pilot and a dangerous pilot the way I did.

competence + confidence ---> safer pilot
competence + arrogance ---> dangerous pilot

A pilot's "competence" generally will not come into question in the same manner as the question of his/her "demeanor" when evaluating whether he/she is a safe or dangerous pilot. Which is why in my equations I totally seperated the idea of "competence" (pilot's abilities) from the idea of "confidence" or "arrogance" (pilots demeanor) by the '+' symbol. By doing so I acknowledge that competence does not correlate with arrogance. Therefore, the two concepts of abilities and demeanor are both integral to making up a safe pilot but also the two concepts must be evaluated on their own merit and then compiled together to yield the final product.

I believe the ultimate issue is what constitutes arrogance as opposed to confidence. That is the distinction I am attempting to make.

Webster defines:

arrogance 1. Over convinced of one's own importance: 2. Marked by or arising from haughty self-importance.

confidence1. Trust or faith. 2. A firm belief in one's own abilities.

Without faith in our abilities (confidence), even though we may possess the abilities to perform (competence), we will not be a safe pilot. However, if we have the abilities to perform (competence) but do so with an air of inflated self-importance (arrogance) we will also end up not being a a safe pilot.

Perhaps it can be argued that this distinction between arrogance and confidence may be viewed as a matter of semantics but I think it is an important distinction.

 

[David Johnson]

"If you don't learn something on every flight, no matter what your experience level is, you are not paying attention."

On that we certainly agree.

 

[David-aviator]

I want to say here that I love flying. I also want to emphasize that I greatly respect the pilots that I have come to call my friends. I value their input with respect and reverence whenever I am talking with one who has a great amount of experience to offer in his advice. However, a statement that starts with "Real pilots . . ." just makes my hair stand on end. What exactly is a "Real Pilot"? Is that opposite of a "Fake Pilot"? If so what constitutes a "Real Pilot", or for that matter, what constitues a "Fake Pilot"?

Steve,

Did not mean to offend anyone and I would never use the term "fake pilot". Anyone who has soloed deserves to be known as a pilot.

There are pilots who dreamed of flying at age 4 and there are pilots who never considered aviation until they graduated from college and were faced with a military obligation - why not become a pilot - the training is on the US Government. There is a profound difference in attitude about aviation from one to the other.

In general aviation there are pilots who bend the rules, push the weather envelope, seldom access the risk of what they are doing, and generally think they know it all. That's my definition of a pilot, not a real pilot. They are dangerous. Also, there are pilots who get their ticket and never fly again or best once or twice a year. They too, are dangerous. Some show up at OSH.

Real pilots are confident, never complacent, know their equipment and their limits, and respect the opinion of anyone who has a good idea whether they agree with it or not. A real pilot is constantly working to get better at what he does. He will never accept the notion that an unintentional stall spin is acceptable for any reason. It is a totally unacceptable attitude and thought process. No military organization or civil airline would ever tolerate such thinking. Nor should it be so in general aviation. I am very surprised at the response of some who seem to think it is OK to stall and spin now and then because of poor taining, lack of attention or what. That's total nonsense.

What we do is inherently hazardous. Unless we maintain a constant proactive thought process focused on safety, such accidents as occurred at OSH this year will continue. Yes, I know, this type of pronouncement has been made in the past and tragic events continue year after year. But we can not give up.

dd

 

[David Johnson]

Perhaps it can be argued that this distinction between arrogance and confidence may be viewed as a matter of semantics but I think it is an important distinction.

Thanks for clarifying, Steve. However, I did understand your distinction and still do disagree with it. Arrogance, self-importance, whatever, is not the mark of a poor or unsafe aviator. That's my point. Arrogance and an inability to learn or make accurate judgements are 2 different things.

That said, I sure have a lot more respect for competent, humble people, but a person's arrogance does not really affect my estimation of their ability and judgement.

Dave

 

[mdredmond]

Steve,

I think in the definition of arrogance, the "over convinced of one's own importance" turns into "over convinced of one's own abilities" - i.e., overconfidence.

Overconfidence leads to complacency & I think that's the real problem.

The thing that fascinates (and scares) me about these accidents is that they often happen to people that by all accounts are good pilots - often extremely high-time pilots. The lesson is that no matter how 'good' you are, you are only a small mistake (or moment of inattention) away from being dead.

 

[RVbySDI]

agreed!

David-Aviator and David Johnson,
I think we can all three say that we agree that as pilots we have an obligation to be competent in our abilities, confident in our abilities and to have an attitude that does not allow us to become complacent in our piloting responsibilities.

Live long and prosper! (Wish I had an emoticon of a vulcan greeting with the spread finger thing)

 

[RVbySDI]

True, So true!

I think in the definition of arrogance, the "over convinced of one's own importance" turns into "over convinced of one's own abilities" - i.e., overconfidence.

Overconfidence leads to complacency & I think that's the real problem. . .

The lesson is that no matter how 'good' you are, you are only a small mistake (or moment of inattention) away from being dead.

Very good point. I think you are spot on in the change of that definition. Overconfidence is definetly what comes up and bites us on the butt when we have that air of arrogance about us.

 

[David Johnson]

I think we can all three say that we agree that as pilots we have an obligation to be competent in our abilities, confident in our abilities and to have an attitude that does not allow us to become complacent in our piloting responsibilities.

Yes indeed. Airmanship.

 

[AntiGravity]

Practice

Not flying: but skydiving. We land our parachutes at 'full drive', flaring at the last moment just as a plane. Many skydivers these days have never had to sink slowly into a tight area, or make a slow flat turn close to the ground. Lack of skill here can kill, and does frequently. I counsel all my students to practice slow flight, stall recognition, stall recovery and high-speed dynamic stalls. Those skills could well save them from injury or death one day. The same will undoubtedly hold true for flying.

Last year, while at a skydiving meet, I noticed that the aero club next door had a Pitts S2B. Since I had heard all the horror stories about spinning, I paid for 45 minutes of pure spin training (and me with very little flight experience). Ok, we didn't let any one spin develop past 3 turns or so, but honestly it wasn't the scary experience I had been led to believe. I didn't much like the inverted spin, but that had more to do with hanging upside down at 6000ft in an open cockpit and no parachute (did have two harnesses though, in case you're wondering). Everythign else was sweet and I am no longer fearful of spins.

When I finally build my RV and get flying it, I will obtain more spin training and then see if I can get an good spin instructor into my RV for more training. Following that, slow flight, stalls, spins and engine out drills will become a regular part of my flying, just as it is with my skydiving. If we don't practice, we may inadvertently make a bad situation worse when we really 'know' better. Instincts will take over, and unless they are tuned they may be wrong.

Funny story; about twenty years ago I was a young lad hanging around my local airfield in England. A student pilot (he was old; at least 40!! Come on, I was 14 at the time, and 40 is old when you're that age!!) had been flying most of the day. Hairing down the exit road in his car he went clean thorugh the gate, across the road and into the field beyond, totally unhurt I might add. Apparently he was unable to gain sufficient airspeed for lift off to clear the gate, despite having pedal to the metal and pulling as hard as he could on the wheel!! It was funny afterwards...

 

[Jekyll]

Jekyll,
Several years ago a highly experienced King Air pilot was in a hurry to get in and land at Sandersville, Ga. after it had been fogged in 'til 10:00 A.M.
He came in from the south onto base and turned hard left on a close in final and BAM, stalled near the threshold with five aboard! It immediately caught fire as it skidded in a 180 degree turn and all managed to bail out although with a few severe back injuries. Experienced pilots DO stall and make other mistakes as well,

Pierre: Sorry, I guess my sarcassm didn't show through clearly. I'm with you on this. Just before sending my post, I deleted some other comments which I'll now add:

Airline pilots have stalled, spun and crashed.
Military pilots have stalled, spun and crashed.
Pipe line pilots have stalled, spun and crashed.
Crop dusters have stalled, spun and crashed.
Air show pilots have stalled, spun and crashed.
Flight instructors have stalled, spun and crashed.

It happens to all types of pilots with all levels of currency, training and skills.

Jekyll

 

[Lux Wrangler]

I think this is a common sentiment, but in my opinion it is wrong.
...The point is that arrogance has very little correlation to a person's
competence. Competence must be ascertained through other, more objective
means. Sorta like the old adage about not judging a book by its cover.

Respectfully,
Dave

Dave;

I think this discussion would benefit from an agreement of definition of terms.
My Webster's defines arrogance as "an unwarranted pride". Therefore, I think that there is a generally accepted correlation between arrogance and a lack of competence. Perhaps you mean to use another word? Otherwise, I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say, but it's hard to know if we do not agree on the meaning of the words

Jim

 

[David Johnson]

Possibly, Jim. I don't feel confused about the distinction between confidence and arrogance. I thought previously given definitions matched my understanding, as does yours. The trouble comes in determining just what "unwarranted pride" is. There's no objective standard, and it will mean something different to different people. A pilot can be arrogant and proud to the point that it makes me want to puke and still be absolutely rational and incredibly competent in the cockpit, from pre-flight weather decision-making to dead nuts, spot-on stick and rudder work. Moreover, their equally competent peers may find them to be absolutely fantastic people. Bob Hoover speaks highly of Chuck Yeager and admits that Yeager's arrogance forced him to demand more from himself, for instance.

I have no problem with a guy who's forgotten more about testing unstable aircraft through all flight regimes than I'll ever know, had his hair catch fire during a bailout, followed by 2 broken legs and then got up to fly as soon as he was out of rehab, thinking he's God's gift to flight. Humility is not a requisite quality for a profoundly qualified aviator, and I submit that arrogance can make them better in some cases.

We're conditioned to champion the underdog...to respect the humble because we can identify with them and fancy them good people. However, an arrogant arse also has the effect of forcing others to measure up to the standard, if they're as good as they believe they are. Some are and some aren't, but their level of arrogance may or may not really be in the way.

I like nice people, and I like people I consider to be rational and analytical. Some of the people I like are arrogant buggers, but they know what the heck they're doing, even if no one else wants to be around them. I hope to heck I'm not seen by others as arrogant because I think it can be a character flaw when relating to others. I just don't think my perception of a person's arrogance is a valid measure of their competence or skill.

Sure don't want to beat a dead horse here, so I'm happy to give it a rest.

Dave

 

[mdredmond]

Therefore, I think that there is a generally accepted correlation between arrogance and a lack of competence.

Oh Jim, I disagree. The arrogant (in any field) are often very competent.

The problem is becoming cavalier or complacent, with an 'I'm too good for it to happen to me' attitude. We are blessed with the emotion of fear, which keeps us out of all sorts of trouble. The arrogant, cavalier or complacent don't have the same level of fear and so lose an important component of their innate 'self-preservation system'. A healthy balance would be enough fear to avoid trouble but not so much that we ever stop experiencing new things and learning from them.

I think it's important that we be clear that the undesirable traits above aren't necessarily present in all of these accidents and it would be extremely unfair for us to judge these unfortunate people. The focus should be on how to learn from these events and keep ourselves and loved ones safe...

 

[David Johnson]

I think it's important that we be clear that the undesirable traits above aren't necessarily present in all of these accidents and it would be extremely unfair for us to judge these unfortunate people. The focus should be on how to learn from these events and keep ourselves and loved ones safe...

Yes. Well stated.

 

[rv6ejguy]

I think it's important that we be clear that the undesirable traits above aren't necessarily present in all of these accidents and it would be extremely unfair for us to judge these unfortunate people. The focus should be on how to learn from these events and keep ourselves and loved ones safe...

I'd second this notion.

 

[Lux Wrangler]

Arrogance: where pride exceeds ability?

Matt:

The arrogant (in any field) are often very competent.

The architect Frank Lloyd Wright built buildings with leaking roofs, cracking or missing foundations and a theater where you can?t see the stage from the back rows. Yet he and many others consider him to be great. I concede that it is possible for pride to exceed ability and yet, with some luck mixed in, greatness result. His devotees point out that these details of Wright?s work are not mistakes, but choices. Perhaps ?real? pilots and ?real? architects do set a high standard. I do not mean to imply that you or Dave's pilot heroes make mistakes. And I agree that the boasting of arrogance does marshal the efforts of others. I do not say that the arrogant are not extremely good in some cases.

Dave:

We're conditioned to champion the underdog...to respect the humble because we can identify with them and fancy them good people.

I agree that some people would do this at their own peril in the cockpit, if confidence is required instead. I do not wish to belabor the discussion after you expressed some reservation and am happy to "give it a rest". My posting was only expressing my confusion that you seemed to be saying that it is a good thing, in the cockpit, when pride exceeds ability.

 

[David Johnson]

Thanks for your post, Jim. It was very well considered.

My posting was only expressing my confusion that you seemed to be saying that it is a good thing, in the cockpit, when pride exceeds ability

Aha. I think that's the point I missed. I understand now and agree that pride exceeding ability is a bad thing, not pride or arrogance in and of themselves. Further, simply meeting or knowing someone for a while is not an accurate way to establish whether their pride exceeds their abilities.

Dave

 

[aerial]

Thanks for the entertaining discussion on pilot confidence and ability. But I am still curious as to where the line is drawn. It would seem to be that this is an increasing measure (confidence and ability).

I'm too new to the aviation world to judge, but in my other experiences, such as surfing, men go through varying measures of confidence as there ability increases. Your confidence and ability ultimately gets tested when you go someplace like Hawaii in the winter. All the talk stops at that point and you go through a humbling (and violent) experience. She has power to humble. In that venue I have found that the humblest men have the greatest ability. Speaking of guys like Darrick Doerner. I would think the ultimate test of ability in GA would lead you to get into aerobatics.

 

[N112B]

Incipient or "Insipient"?

The real problem is stalling while in an uncoordinated turn. In a normal stall, your wing stalls near the root first - that turbulent air hits the tail and gives you whatever buffet you're going to get, depending on the plane.

In a skidded turn, the stall happens further out on the wing and there's no warning at all - the turbulent air 'misses' the tail. Worse, the first part of the wing to stall is right out there near the inside wing's aileron, so you basically lose that too.

The point is that even in a plane that usually gives lots of warning before stalling, you likely won't get the same warning in an uncoordinated, turning 'traffic-pattern-type' stall.

See very cool video here.

mdredmond has it correct but your results WILL vary.

I was out bangin? the sticks today in my RV-7A, powered by a Superior XP-IO360-B1AA2 with a Hartzell blended Airfoil Constant Speed Prop, at close to aerobatic gross, with my good friend Pete Eslick, when I remembered this discussion on what started out as the problems associated with an uncoordinated turn to final, stall and spin mishap. So I wanted to see what happens in MY plane when N112B is put into that situation.

We picked a heading of 090 for our imaginary runway in the sky. Flying due south on base, I slowed the plane to flap speed, put in 20 degrees of flaps and continued slowing to about 60 knots while maintaining altitude. Starting my final approach turn to 090, I pulled the power, kept reducing the bank and airspeed, and continued increasing the amount of left rudder, just as one might do in a base-to-final overshoot. At this point I have a considerable amount of right aileron, lots of left rudder deflection, and not much airspeed.

?INCIPIENT SPIN?.

At an indicated airspeed of around 45 knots the left wing gave 2 distinct buffets, (shutters), that I could easily hear, Bang!Bang! The nose immediately yawed to a new heading of 360 and about 80 degrees pitch down. Before I could give opposite rudder, the left wing had dropped 90 to 120 degrees. An incipient spin. I neutralized the stick and flew out of this ?knife edge? while losing 200 feet total. Same consistant results everytime when the stall/spin was corrected immediately after the first indication. Pretty much a non-event at a safe altitude in MY plane.

?INSIPIENT SPIN?.

So we tried it again hoping to produce more dramatic results, this time by holding left rudder well into the stall/spin to see what would happen if a pilot who got here, ignored all clues. The plane did everything quoted in the above paragraph during the incipient phase, but Bang!Bang! the wings rolled over 180 degrees before I stopped the spin. So now we are upside down with the nose at roughly 80 degrees pitch down. An inverted dive. But instead of pulling on the stick to come out of the inverted dive, we rolled the plane to wings level in the same direction the plane was already rolling, then broke the dive. N112B lost a total of 500 feet in that maneuver and we pulled maybe 3 G?s at most.

Incipient spins? No Problem!
Insipient spins? Big Problems!!

I think it?s interesting that there was very little notice given by my plane before the stall/spin. My airplane seemed easily controllable throughout the maneuvers and only 200 feet was lost when the correct inputs were made at the first sign of a problem in MY plane. YOUR RESULTS WILL VARY.

....Isn?t it great having an aerobatic airplane that can help you get out of trouble as quickly and comfortably as it moves you across the country??..!!!!

 

[mdredmond]

Thanks, N112B, for the post - very interesting.

Now... Would one of you RV-9 drivers go out there and do the same thing? I wanna know what the -9 does in the same situation and I'd like it to be your plane, not mine.

Thanks!

 

[pierre smith]

Spins

Matt,
The RV9 is as strong if not stronger than a Cessna spam can which are certified for spins....both Skyhawks and 150's and I've spun both. We are not recommending that you spin your 9. As I understand it, the 9's will recover from spins albeit not as quickly as the 6 or 7. The suggestion is to explore the entire envelope which includes cross-controlled stalls since that is what seems to have happened in the case of the Europa.

I was giving some transition training a few weeks ago and the ball was way off to the right as we approached the stall ( he was not correcting for P-factor) and I mentioned it to him. About that time it paid off with a very noticeable left wing drop. As a fairly high time and aerobatic pilot, he rolled out of it and said "Dang, I didn't realize that it would do that!" We repeated the maneuver and he kept it coordinated that time and the result was a definite shake and tremble but a nice level break. Lesson learned....good.

My suggestion is for you guys to go up to 2500 feet or better and try just a little ball deflection into a power off gentle stall and learn your airplane in increments that don't require toilet paper afterwards.
Regards,