Paul has it right on. In my 25 years of Naval Aviation the vast majority of mishap reports list as 'a' primary casual factor some form of failure of judgement of the Aircraft Commander, PIC or entire crew. What we've learned is that an awful lot of mishaps occur with some of our most skilled aviators at the controls because their judgement didn't match their skill (at the time) and they couldn't recognize the delta. You could be the absolute best stick in the business and still end up a lawn dart if your judgement is out to lunch, however; if your judgement is keen and your skill is mediocre your chances of survival are much, much better. One of our biggest killers and I believe for GA pilots as well is COMPLACENCY which everyone of us capable of falling victim too.
Our mishap rates have steadily declined over the past 20 years.....
FWIW
Ken
Interesting post, Ken. It wasn't always like that in the Navy or Air Force.
A very good friend resigned from the Navy over safety issues in the '60's. He was an A4 pilot with a couple cruise experiences and the accident rate in that airplane was very bad. To quote regarding the design of the A4 -
"The Skyhawk was designed by Douglas Aircraft's Ed Heinemann in response to a U.S. Navy call for a jet-powered attack aircraft to replace the older AD Skyraider.[1] Heinemann opted for a design that would minimize its size, weight, and complexity. The result was an aircraft that weighed only half of the Navy's weight specification. It had a wing so compact that it did not need to be folded for carrier stowage. The diminutive Skyhawk soon received the nicknames "Scooter", "Kiddiecar", "Bantam Bomber", "Tinker Toy Bomber", and, on account of its nimble performance, "Heinemann's Hot-Rod"."
The airplane was so light, it did not have a battery. If the alternator failed at night, the flight was over and that's exactly what happened to his commander during a night launch, the carrier ran over him and that was it. Was the A4 fleet ever grounded because it was not designed to be a night fighter - I don't think so.
The point here being, there was a time when decision making for the pilot was out of his hands. You were along for the ride like everyone else. Same was true in the USAF. It was very difficult to get anyone's attention above the local level because upper level policy and design matters were like in concrete. The KC-135 water wagon lost more thrust with a loss of water injection on one side than if an engine failed, but no one wanted to discuss the matter notwithstanding that the electric water pumps failed more often that did an engine.
What does that have to do with the subject of RV safety? Not much, actually, except to show that looking to the military for guidance has its limitations. It was my experience the mission always took precedence over safety. During peace time, safety was on the surface but when the shooting starts, the mission comes first even to the extend of one way missions. Crews and aircraft were expendable when Russia was the enemy.
I maintain the focus here has to be on basic flying skills because so many guys do not fly enough to stay proficient. ADM is important, no question, but we do not have the luxury of class room training as do military and airline operations. I dare say, unless the pilot is a current CFI or a professional in the military or commercial transportation, he does not know much about ADM. How could he with the cost and time constraints of training for the typical new pilot?
When I do a BFR with anyone the emphasis is on basic flying skills. There simply isn't enough time to get into ADM at the expense of passing up an opportunity to work on flying the airplane safely.
At the same time, I hopefully understand what the limits are (granted, they're lower than those of the other RVs). Most important is not to exceed them or my own capabilities.
