Doug Reeve's Safety Missive

[az_gila]

I agree with and support most of what Doug said in the safety missive. However, turning someone in to the FAA is, in almost all cases, a VERY VERY BAD IDEA. Sort of like playing with fire. How many Joe Private Pilots completely understand the waiver process for pilot and airspace that allows acro flight below 1500'. We are not talking about FAR's, we are talking about waivers of FAR's.
Hypothetical: Joe arrives at a little used public airport just before dark. No one around. He ties down his XYZ Special and gets a ride to a nearby motel. Next day he arrives at the airport and witnesses a pilot flying down the runway 10 feet off the ground inverted. He immediately calls the nearest FSDO and reports the numerous violations. The problem is there were no violations. The airspace and the pilot are covered by two separate waivers. While the airspace is usually not directly over the runway, it COULD BE. The pilot would be in radio contact with a spotter looking for other traffic. The pilot, in this case, holds a ground level waiver.
I had been flying for nearly twenty years before I understood how this works.

So? If Joe has the waiver, he won't be dinged.... correct?

 

[Jerry Cochran]

Godwin's Law

.. now that is funny! Never heard of it before. Thanks Doug!

OT: I figured Godwin?s Law would make an appearance in this thread eventually . ;^) dr]

 

[Sig600]

.. now that is funny! Never heard of it before. Thanks Doug!

Neither had I, I'll have to remember that one!

 

[rvbuilder2002]

Doug certainly doesn't need me or anyone else defending the position he has chosen to take, but I can't resist adding a couple comments of my own.

1. I don't read from Doug's missive, any intent that he expected people to take his personal rules and adopt them as their own... I think he wanted to lead by example and encourage everyone to do a self evaluation, and make a mental commitment to some personal standards (in the context of being a safer pilot).

2. Considering some of the great dialog that has been going on here on VAF regarding safety, I find it rather discouraging that there would so much negativity regarding his intolerance for public display of breaking FAR's

Keep in mind we are not talking about him being upset that someone is breaking one of his person safety rules. People need to make up their own minds whether they do single engine night VFR, or fly behind an auto engine conversion. He is talking about someone violating an FAR and him being a witness of it, or them bragging about it via a video online. He even went so far as to say he will give them a warning in case they were not aware of the regulations. Seems quite reasonable to me.

If the following is personally offensive... well, so be it,
I strongly feel that anyone having a negative attitude towards someone else saying they will turn them in to authorities if they see them blatantly violating an FAR, displays an attitude that is at least partially responsible for the safety record of E-AB aircraft.

Whether you like it or not, anything that any of us do while flying our airplanes, that draws negative attention to our selves; draws negative attention to the entire custom built aircraft community.

For anyone that hasn't figured it out yet.... The way that our government resolves issues of non compliance with rules and regulations, is to make more rules and regulations.

Personally, I like the freedoms I currently have to construct and fly my own airplane (not to mention that my livelihood relies on that industry).

So, add me to your list of FAR tattle tails... I am totally with Doug on this one.
(this is not a one sided matter either. I totally expect people who know me to call me out, if they see me do something against the FAR's)

Bottom Line -
One big step in improving safety is to stop awarding people for illegal and unsafe behavior.
If we would start applying some peer pressure instead of giving the offenders high fives, we would go a long way towards making some measurable improvements.

 

[Buggsy2]

While I agree with most of what Doug has written, I strongly agree with DanH on this point. The problem with the "tattle-tale" approach is that the idea of what is a "reportable" offense is often in the eye of the beholder. Obviously if a drunk pilot is loading his family of 4 into a two-seater airplane, that is something that requires some level of immediate intervention. But things in the real world are rarely that clear cut. For example, there are many pilots out there (including some on this forum) who might watch me lead a flight of 4 into an overhead approach at an uncontrolled field and conclude that this was such a gross affront to safety as to require a similar intervention. "Safety" and the line between safe and reportable conduct is not well defined, and the idea that the proper response is to run to the authorities will do nothing but bring increased, un-needed scrutiny on our hobby.

First, in your example, I--and I think DR--would advocate talking to you first.
But if I were endangered by your unorthodox, maybe cowboy approach to an uncontrolled, public-use field, and you wouldn't hear me out and just blew me off, I might well report it.

Just a few weeks ago we had a local RV fly-in at a nearby airport. Though I didn't see it, apparently a lot of the RVers were doing cowboy, irresponsible stuff in the pattern, endangering skydivers and others in the pattern. Someone at the airport reported this behavior to an RV email list, I forwarded it to the RV club president involved, and he posted a caution to all the club members.

That's the proper first step. I think we all agree on this first step, try to resolve it amongst ourselves first. But if someone continues to be irresponsible, I won't continue to ignore it. I will report it. I won't let a small fraction of jerks potentially ruin what is important to me. Better the FAA get involved at that point, than the general public. Then it really gets out of control.

 

[Buggsy2]

OT: I figured Godwin?s Law would make an appearance in this thread eventually . ;^) dr]

As an old Usenet fogie*, I knew about it, but never thought anybody on these forums would. Thanks Doug.

* I still have saved in my archives the outraged responses to the first-ever commercial spam on Usenet; an Arizona lawyer advertising green-card help. Seems quite quaint and innocent now.

 

[Ironflight]

Doug no offense, but a 1500 hour private pilot has no place TELLING some guys on here how to operate or what is acceptable. I'll take that a bit further and say no one should be TELLING anyone else how to operate. Safety culture is fostered by an open and willing ability to share. Threatening to turn someone into the FAA, especially anyone that works as a professional pilot is a dangerous course of action, for a lot of reasons.

No offense Sig, but I would argue that anyone who is a PROFESSIONAL pilot isn't going to be out there breaking the rules. "Paid" does not equal "Professional", or the other way around - some of the most professional pilots I know are not paid to fly, and some of the most reckless I know have been paid to do so. Professionalism is an attitude - not a question of paychecks.

I have no tolerance for someone who feels they are above the law, and if you are truly not doing anything wrong, then it is pretty easy to explain that, isn't it?

And yes, I would talk to the person first (I have a number of times) - going to the FAA would be a last resort. I've never had to do it.

Paul

 

[Ted Johns]

1. I don't read from Doug's missive, any intent that he expected people to take his personal rules and adopt them as their own...

...

I don't interpret that intent as clearly as you do. Doug's missive is written as "personal limitations" and a "heads up" letter to friends, but the emphasis doesn't seem to be "develop your own limitations" but more one of "you ought to be doing it this way". In posting it in such a prominent manner it sure seems Doug is trying to influence people to his way of thinking. Perception is a funny thing; a noted expert (or a commentator of high repute) posting a strongly worded opinion is likely to have that opinion perceived as a diktat, the same opinion by an unknown is read as mere opinion.

Interestingly, one of the reasons Dan Checkoway listed as motivating him to build an RV is that he was tired of A&Ps screwing up his previous plane. I'd fall into that same camp; I don't enjoy paying someone to do something I am much better at doing myself. Not that having another set of competent eyes review critical systems work isn't a good idea, it is! So the cautionary(s) regarding FWF seemed a wee bit jarringly written. It might have been better to simply steal a line from Dirty Harry; "A man's got to know his limitations".

No disagreement regarding flagrant FAR violations, with the caveat that as a low time pilot I might not be confident enough in my FARs to call someone out.

 

[E. D. Eliot]

Respect

Hypothetical here.

So, let's say that the group of flyers observe a pilot flying his/her RV-8 or other aircraft performing a high speed low altitude (10') rolling fly by over the runway at the uncontrolled airport at which we are having lunch. Maybe 1/4 - 1/3 of the flyers think its 'cool'. My limited experience is that its often the most and least experienced flyers who think its 'cool'.

The least experienced in the group -like me- are not respected by the fly by pilot. So if we try to talk to the fly by pilot, he/she just shines us off.

That leaves it to the respected flyers to talk to the offender.

So if a respected flyer or two talk to the fly by pilot, the fly by pilot may or not take it to heart and consider not doing it again. In any case, if someone turns the guy/gal in, the fly by pilot may well 'assume' that the persons who talked to him/her turned him in. Then he/she may seek retribution - and ugly things can happen - bad feelings, bent airplanes, bent noses, lawsuits, changes of assault, etc.

So, practically speaking, where does that leave us? If the fly by pilot won't listen to practical advice and change his/her ways, whats left? I haven't seen an answer here other than reporting him/her.

My opinion, if you purposely violate a FAR you might consider that eventually you will have to pay the price. Its kind of like going way over the speed limit or wildly in and out of traffic in a car - eventually, you will have to pay the price of your actions.

So, in my opinion, if the guy/gal won't listen to the advice offered from respected members of this 'culture' then he/she needs to be turned in. Simple as that.

I fully support Doug's stand, and on top of that, if there is absolute -maybe (photographic) evidence of the rolling fly by, etc., than I would support the FAA taking the guy/gals certificates for life. Yeah, I have been told that there are many pilots flying without a PPC but I don't have a love/hate relationship with the FAA - I think that they are there to help us all fly safer and wiser.

I have on a few occasions been scared and consequently 'mad' when someone performed what I consider to be unsafe flight maneuvers at the airport. And you don't have to be a pilot to recognize what kind of flying could cause a forced landing or worse.

Lets try to clean up our own neighborhood and if it can't be done 'tactfully' then whats left???. Document and notify or???

 

[Danny King]

Going to the FAA

We like to believe that as American citizens we are presumed to be innocent of any charges until proven guilty. That's not the way the FAA works. When a charge is made against a pilot, they will be called in, and will have to prove that they are not guilt of the charges! This has happened to me.

My first passenger was my lovely wife and co-builder. The Doll's total time was 27 hours, which was two hours past the phase one test period. The logbook entries were made and the Doll entered phase two. My wife worked as a teacher so her first ride had to wait for the Saturday morning after the twenty fifth hour. That afternoon I was called by one of the local FSDO inspectors and told of my reported violation. A snitch had reported that I had carried a passenger during the phase one test period. I informed him that my airplane was in phase two and I legally carried a passenger. He said that I must come to his office with all my logbooks and certificates on Monday morning for a hearing.

I reported to his office and proceeded to try to prove my innocents. I ask who charged me with this, and I was told that the snitch program allowed them to remain anonymous. I said: I can't face my accuser? He said no you can't!

The inspector had his eyebrows raised the entire time. What I showed him proved nothing! He decided to give me the benifit of the doubt. It could have just as well gone the other way! I earned my living as an airline pilot for a major airline at that time, and I could have lost my ability to do that for a while. That may have been the only reason I won that day!

The incident ruined what was to be a glorious day of reward for three years of hard work. So, be careful when you call the FAA. Be sure of your charges. I for one, will not help them do their job! Ask Bob Hover.

 

[Jerry Cochran]

Thanks!

Danny brought up that with the FAA you are guilty until proven innocent and won't be able to confront your accuser.

Thanks Danny, you've helped me make up my mind.

 

[apkp777]

At the Van's banquet at Sun and Fun, Van talked about the problem of homebuilt safety recoerds. He also had harse words for wreckless and careless RV pilots. It was his concern that if we did not straighten up the feds might lend us a hand.

I have no problem with D.R.s "personal missive". i don't think it's a one size fits all set of rules, but they are his. At least he is thinking about safety. Sure has caused a stir here. All of us need to understand the we each have a role to represent the homebuilt community. Our actions are sometimes poor displays of a group, who really love flight. I am not afraid of a little in house policing. I admit I have broken some rules. All this makes me rethink my own actions. Thanks for a good discussion.

 

[rv6ejguy]

There have been many perspectives and thought provoking posts presented here.

A lot of people seem upset at Doug's stance on reporting violators. Please read what he wrote. He said he'd talk to you once and if he saw it a second time, THEN he'd report it. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Gives you a chance to reflect on what you did with no consequences. Do you think you should be able to continue breaking the rules and not pay the price? If you do, you are exactly the type of pilot we are trying to reach before you cause an accident and make another addition to our high accident rates.

I'm surprised at the hostility this stance has received. It reminds me of a dog owner who tells you where to go after his dog takes a dump on your front lawn after you politely ask him to clean it up. I'd hoped many of the people here were a little more evolved. What was it that safety studies always uncover as underlying causes to accidents? I think this type of attitude is near the top.

Someone else mentioned Doug might not be qualified with his flight time and experience to make a judgement. I personally think he is qualified but in any case you would have a chance to defend your actions when he talks to you the first time and set him right or explain that what you were doing was indeed legal.

Are we saying here that 1500 hour pilots should just stay quiet when observing a 20,000 hour former military pilot do stupid and obviously illegal things in their RV? If so, you are part of the problem again. I'd hoped this attitude would be gone after years of CRM safety studies and the emphasis for low time right seaters to speak up when their more experienced left seater pulls a Homer. You can learn something from anyone because their experiences will always be different from yours. With a closed mind, you stop learning and complacency sets in.

Lots of high time pilots don't have accidents through lack of skill or experience but do though poor judgment and complacency. Military training or experience in the airlines does not make you immune to accidents as we have seen many times before. Perhaps flying an RV on the weekend is your escape from the structured world of military or airline flying and a chance to let your hair down and have some "fun". You are outside the scan and reach of the day job so it's ok to do that buzz job. Again, you are part of the problem and your arrogance makes you dangerous despite your vast experience.

We all know what happened to Bob Hoover and I read with interest the other posts dealing with what happened after someone called the Feds. We would ALL think carefully before reporting someone I think but if you've already had a talking to by someone on a pilot to pilot basis for something stupid and illegal and you repeat it the next week, sorry, you deserve what comes your way.

Holding a pilot's license is a privilege not a right. If you can't live by the rules, don't don't whine if you get caught.

RV pilots unfortunately have somewhat of a reputation as arrogant cowboys in certain areas. This probably didn't happen by accident nor is it likely undeserved. True, many GA pilots don't have a clue about aerobatics, military breaks and formation flying and these are all fun and relatively safe activities when done at the right time and place and with the right training but do we really have to wonder why we have a problem? The bigger problem I see however is how to change attitudes within our own RV community.

 

[Toobuilder]

No offense Sig, but I would argue that anyone who is a PROFESSIONAL pilot isn't going to be out there breaking the rules...

If by "rules" you mean FAR's, then I'm going to disagree. I've been around the block enough times to know that any one of us could be violated on any flight. I think the best we can hope for is to just be safe - the particular intricacies of the law be damned. Besides, my definition of "professional" may be vastly different than yours - and I may not be interested in achieving such status in any one else's eyes. I'm really only out to impress myself.

I have no tolerance for someone who feels they are above the law, and if you are truly not doing anything wrong, then it is pretty easy to explain that, isn't it?

You would think so, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, that has proven NOT to be the case time and time again. Following "the law" is certainly not my standard of measure when evaluating a pilot.

When it comes right down to it, I'm pretty anal about safety when there is another person involved - whether passenger in my airplane, fellow airman, or innocent bystander on the ground, but when it comes to me being alone, I think I have earned the right as an adult to perform my own "risk vs. reward" analysis. If I want to fly inverted, 10 feet off the deck for 50 miles across open desert, then who the heck is anyone to question it? I ride motorcycles too fast too, and that will kill me just as dead.

The bottom line is that these "follow the rules or I'll turn you in" discussions are flawed from the start. We all have different reasons why we fly. I'm sure that some people might judge my flying as reckless and deserving of a violation - and I might judge their following rote procedure at the expense of actual flying skill as equally unsafe. I simply don't hold following the rules as the most important element of safety.

 

[apkp777]

If by "rules" you mean FAR's, then I'm going to disagree. I've been around the block enough times to know that any one of us could be violated on any flight. I think the best we can hope for is to just be safe - the particular intricacies of the law be .....

I don't know Mike, i think compliance with all FARs is the minimum requirement for safe flight. I can count on one hand the times I have intentionally violated a FAR. I always feel lousy for doing it. For me it's almost moral law. I want to ask the administrator for forgiveness.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

On the idea of turning in someone to the FAA, is anyone gonna turn in his/her best friend? I just don't see that happening. So if I'm not gonna turn in my best friend (presumably someone I care a lot about), why would I turn in some random person at the airfield?

Will I caution other piliots that when I see them doing something that spooks me? Sure. I've done it more than once and think I've had a positive impact with that approach. "Dude, that low pass with the vertical pull and the push over at the top looks like fun. What happens if the engine hiccups when you're slow at the top? You might want to rethink that.."

Under what situation would I really confront someone? I'd do that to the guy who's loading 5 high school kids into the C-150 for YE rides. Alternately, I'd quietly tell neophytes and unsuspecting potential passengers that they may not want to accept a ride from a certain pilot. I've never done that, but would it I recognized a pilot or his airplane as dangerous/scary/spooky...

I might, just might, turn in someone to the FAA who was belligerantly unrepentant and unchanging in behavior that put others at risk. Putting others at risk is a real line in the sand for me. If you want to kill yourself, you're gonna succeed. Just don't take others with you.

 

[mrreddick]

No offense Sig, but I would argue that anyone who is a PROFESSIONAL pilot isn't going to be out there breaking the rules. "Paid" does not equal "Professional", or the other way around - some of the most professional pilots I know are not paid to fly, and some of the most reckless I know have been paid to do so. Professionalism is an attitude - not a question of paychecks.

I have no tolerance for someone who feels they are above the law, and if you are truly not doing anything wrong, then it is pretty easy to explain that, isn't it?

And yes, I would talk to the person first (I have a number of times) - going to the FAA would be a last resort. I've never had to do it.

Paul

Way to go Paul! I totally agree with your statements. Back when I was president of North Dallas Gliders we had a "professional" airline pilot up in a single place Schweizer. He entered the downwind in front of a student in a two-place Schweizer when all of a sudden he did a roll, at pattern altitude.
We took him aside to talk like everyone says is the first step, his response, "I have to fly by all the rules on my real job, I need to come out here for my release!" So, we released him from the club and never saw him again.

 

[Sig600]

No offense Sig, but I would argue that anyone who is a PROFESSIONAL pilot isn't going to be out there breaking the rules. "Paid" does not equal "Professional", or the other way around - some of the most professional pilots I know are not paid to fly, and some of the most reckless I know have been paid to do so. Professionalism is an attitude - not a question of paychecks.

I have no tolerance for someone who feels they are above the law, and if you are truly not doing anything wrong, then it is pretty easy to explain that, isn't it?

And yes, I would talk to the person first (I have a number of times) - going to the FAA would be a last resort. I've never had to do it.

Paul

Fully agree on attitude vs professionalism. However if you disagree with how someone is operating their a/c and they don't take well to your criticism then that person is probably not someone you'll want to associate with anyway. However it is not your place to threaten their lively hood or possible ability to provide for a family. If they willingly accept the risk themselves and their family, that's their problem. Sure you can worry about the perception of GA or the experimental aviation community they put out, but you can't fix stupid, and they are probably reckless in other aspects of their life too.

Like I said, this is Doug's house, and he's free to moderate it as he see's fit. If guys want to continually shirk the rules, delete their material, maybe even ban them (disassociate). However cultivating a tattletale mindset is a dangerous road to go down. I've noticed a lot of what he's mentioned as far as videos of acro without 'chutes, things like that. All it does is serve to formulate my opinion of the individual. Trying to save people from themselves will drive you crazy. Kyles approach above would be my approach to a given situation.

If you're going to draw the line at legal vs not legal, then we should be turning in everyone that doesn't call flight service and get a full top to bottom weather brief before every single flight, to include NOTAMS, as well as a weight and balance and fuel calculations. Some do, I'd argue most don't, especially for a local day VFR flight.

Flying itself is inherently dangerous. The basic act of taking to the sky requires some level of acceptable risk, where your personal level of risk lies beyond that is yours to decide. Legal isn't always safe, illegal isn't always unsafe. The choice is yours to decide through experience, interaction, and education.

 

[n5lp]

I don't know Mike, i think compliance with all FARs is the minimum requirement for safe flight. I can count on one hand the times I have intentionally violated a FAR. I always feel lousy for doing it. For me it's almost moral law. I want to ask the administrator for forgiveness.

Mike didn't say "intentional" violation. I agree that it is virtually impossible to make a perfectly legal flight that couldn't be violated in some way. Did I bank more abruptly than is necessary for normal flight (aerobatics)? Did I check every single piece of information for every single flight (I usually don't even know what I'm going to do or where I'm going to do)? Did I miss something on that last condition inspection? Am I legal with an experimental engine if I didn't satisfy all the ADs for a certified engine? The list goes on and on and on. You can be violated if someone in the FAA decides to do it.


I think this is a different issue than what Doug is talking about. Legality and safety have no necessary connection even though many of the rules are an attempt to improve safety. I think Doug is talking pretty much about things that are both clearly illegal and have a great possibility of being unsafe, not just things that are technically illegal.

 

[Bill Wightman]

Thumbs up!

Doug, all I can say is well done man. You're in it with your head, not your ego.

Safety is an attitude, for sure. Military and airline pilots are constrained by mountains of manuals and company rules but even with that we all know who the good ones are.

You're one of the good ones.

 

[L.Adamson]

If
When it comes right down to it, I'm pretty anal about safety when there is another person involved - whether passenger in my airplane, fellow airman, or innocent bystander on the ground, but when it comes to me being alone, I think I have earned the right as an adult to perform my own "risk vs. reward" analysis. If I want to fly inverted, 10 feet off the deck for 50 miles across open desert, then who the heck is anyone to question it? I ride motorcycles too fast too, and that will kill me just as dead.

Of course, you're totally legal to fly across that 50 miles of open desert.....as long as your 500' from people, vessels, and structures.

But wear your motorcycle helmet at least 50% of the time. That was one of my self rules. Happily, the day I really needed it, was the time it was on! Big deer at 65 mph. However, I still fly over hositle country and water.............., but not at night.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[Mike S]

Bed time.

Does anybody remember the purpose that Paul started this thread for????

Thought so...................

Just drifted a bit???

I seriously doubt any good will come from letting this go on. [ed. I dunno. Haven't seen this much talk about safety and raising the bar on GA's image in a loooonnnggg time. Feels good. dr]

Thanks for all who took the time to offer constructive comments.

 

[apkp777]

Mike didn't say "intentional" violation. I agree that it is virtually impossible to make a perfectly legal flight that couldn't be violated in some way. Did I bank more abruptly than is necessary for normal flight (aerobatics)? Did I check every single piece of information for every single flight (I usually don't even know what I'm going to do or where I'm going to do)? Did I miss something on that last condition inspection? Am I legal with an experimental engine if I didn't satisfy all the ADs for a certified engine? The list goes on and on and on. You can be violated if someone in the FAA decides to do it.


I think this is a different issue than what Doug is talking about. Legality and safety have no necessary connection even though many of the rules are an attempt to improve safety. I think Doug is talking pretty much about things that are both clearly illegal and have a great possibility of being unsafe, not just things that are technically illegal.

Larry, I respectfully disagree. I fly all the time without violating FAR's and am not in fear of a violation. The FAR's are all about Safety and "legality and safety" do have a necessary connection. When you look at CFIT accidents, there was a FAR violation, VFR into IMC, FAR violation. High speed low passes, violation. Almost all accidents are the result of attitudes that produce bad behavior.


I am not saying that I am a "perfect" pilot. I already admitted that I have violated FAR's before. But I use them as protection. They are my "out". If the weather is poor, I can tell a friend "sorry, it's against the FAR's to fly today". If they want to roll, "sorry, I am required to have parachutes", (or in my case, the airplane is not rated for that), If they ask can we fly over their house, "sure, at 500 or 1000' agl".

Here's the FAA's list of Hazardous Attitudes.

The Five Hazardous Attitudes

Anti-Authority: “Don’t tell me.”This attitude is found in people who do not like anyone telling them what to do. In a sense, they are saying, “No one can tell me what to do.” They may be resentful of having someone tell them what to do, or may regard rules, regulations, and procedures as silly or unnecessary. However, it is always your prerogative to question authority if you feel it is in error.

Impulsivity: “Do it quickly.”This is the attitude of people who frequently feel the need to do something, anything, immediately. They do not stop to think about what they are about to do; they do not select the best alternative, and they do the first thing that comes to mind.

Invulnerability: “It won’t happen to me.”Many people falsely believe that accidents happen to others, but never to them. They know accidents can happen, and they know that anyone can be affected. However, they never really feel or believe that they will be personally involved. Pilots who think this way are more likely to take chances and increase risk.Macho: “I can do it.”Pilots who are always trying to prove that they are better than anyone else think, “I can do it—I'll show them.” Pilots with this type of attitude will try to prove themselves by taking risks in order to impress others. While this pattern is thought to be a male characteristic, women are equally susceptible.

Resignation: “What’s the use?”Pilots who think, “What’s the use?” do not see themselves as being able to make a great deal of difference in what happens to them. When things go well, the pilot is apt to think that it is good luck. When things go badly, the pilot may feel that someone is out to get me, or attribute it to bad luck. The pilot will leave the action to others, for better or worse. Sometimes, such pilots will even go along with unreasonable requests just to be a "nice guy."


Here's the FAA's Personal Minimums Checklist, using the P.A.V.E. format

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/guidance/media/personal%20minimums%20checklist.pdf

 

[thevintageflyer]

A fly in the ointment?

So Doug, may we assume you have already reported “So there I was, getting a haircut...” to the FAA?
Or the many other examples you speak of?

[ed. Sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but if it is have I ever reported anyone, the answer is no. dr]

 

[Terry Lutz]

Well done, Doug. Among those military guys and airline pilots you hang around with, there are a few who would stand out as the ops officer you would go to war for, and at the same time, your blood would run cold if he called you on the carpet for buzzing the ramp. I see some qualities in your thinking that many of us have seen in the leaders that shaped our view of airmanship and safety along the way.

While your personal comfort zone may be narrower in places and wider in places than the average RV owner/pilot, at least you have defined the box. You've thought it through and drawn the lines. It's what everyone needs to do. The point for me is that if you draw the lines, a situation can come up where you immediately know where the limit is. Then if there's a good reason to move the line, your risk management task is between the old line and the temporary one.

You have some good personal guidelines, and what I hope is that the rhetoric will settle to the point where others are willing to share their own personal guidelines. There is a lot we can learn from the tremendous wealth of knowledge that flows through your website.

 

[Chris Hill]

Safety and RVs are inherently at odds with each other. I think it’s the personalities that build RVs. For some people flying is a means to an end. It pays the bills, or it gets you one place to another. For others like me, flying is the end to their means. You go to work to make money so that you can enjoy the freedom flight. I think the latter group is naturally less risk averse than the former, so you see them flying ultra-lights, flying high-performance gas guzzlers, and building experimental airplanes. RVs are just one of the most affordable Means AND Ends experimental planes you can build right now.

The thing that worries me with all of this safety talk is that people will go too far with it. I think that’s what’s really being debated here when you read between the lines. I don’t need anyone to tell me how much risk I am willing to accept. If you go look at the A-B fatalities and accidents, there is a very low percentage of innocent bystanders getting injured (1 in 60 or so). The fatalities are direct participants flying experimental airplanes.

So if you want to be extra safe and not fly at night, or not fly over water, or only shoot the ILS when its 1500 and 3, then by all means, fly in a manner that helps you feel safe. But know that your personal limits arent my personal limits, and I'll decide whats safe for me. 90 degrees of bank in the pattern is standard where I was trained. Sure, it requires extra vigilance, but having some SA is part of being a pilot.

 

[DanH]

While your personal comfort zone may be narrower in places and wider in places than the average RV owner/pilot, at least you have defined the box. You've thought it through and drawn the lines.

Absolutely agree. Defining a set of limits for your personal conduct is a very positive step.

So if you want to be extra safe and not fly at night, or not fly over water, or only shoot the ILS when its 1500 and 3, then by all means, fly in a manner that helps you feel safe. But know that your personal limits arent my personal limits, and I'll decide whats safe for me.

Well said Chris. See, that's my objection to Doug's missive.....it goes well beyond setting personal limits. The fundamental premise is wrong; a letter to others which says "This is what I will do and you should too because I have more experience than you, and if you don't I will police you."

Aviation safety is a lot like drug enforcement. Sure, enforcement works to some degree, but what really works is fostering a mindset that doesn't want drugs.

 

[jrs14855]

safety

I hope no one shuts this down. For a different perspective on this basic subject, go to EAA.ORG go to programs-government advocacy. EAA has taken a suprisingly hard line about the FAA's seriously flawed data that started this whole line of discusssion. I applaud EAA for this. There is no way for anyone, especially the FAA, to come up with any meaningful data regarding GA accidents, because no one, especially the FAA, has any meaningful data about hours flown. I see this as another Randy Babbitt witch hunt. Mr. Babbitt is the consumate politician. I expect to see him run for congess after his FAA term ends.

 

[fatherson]

Old Pilot. Bold Pilot. THAT is the question.

This topic seems to be about Doug's particular RV Safety Culture document, not about such documents in general, so civil criticism of it seems to be fair. And Doug seems to agree, since it was apparently he who re-opened this thread when it was briefly closed, again apparently to encourage more conversation about this topic. (But let's keep it civil, right?)

In the short history of aviation, dangerous "barnstorming" antics have always been with us. And we've been filming such antics nearly since the beginning. Even today, we celebrate the fruits of those antics in officially approved airshows, and it might be unreasonable to expect that if we are going to keep celebrating that daredevil culture (as I think we should), that we also are going to easily reign in newcomers who feel compelled to participate in it. (Also, my libertarian tendencies start tingling a warning when I see anyone trying to prohibit behaviors by others that they celebrate among their friends.)

But.

Doug's document may be the most important lesson I've learned here among many, many countless others. Some of you seem to still consider Doug a low-time pilot. But remember, how we measure such things is all relative, isn't it? He may be a lower-time pilot than you, but I truly am a very-low-time pilot, and I needed to hear Doug's reminder that even with his 1000+ hours, he's still limiting himself from participating in many activities he otherwise could just because he wants to return home each night from his aluminum love to his human love.

Doug's document is mislabeled a MISSIVE, as it's not overly long, nor (in my opinion) overly dogmatic. I hope his document would be better labeled a CREED, as a personal statement of belief:

• PERSONAL - by addressing his thoughts to his friends, he is appealing to them (that's us!) not as an authority in our community, but as someone who cares about them (us!) deeply.
• STATEMENT - this was not some quickly drafted one-off, but a well thought out sequence of words from a gifted writer who still admits he labored over it for months, before publishing it on the most prominent location in experimental aviation today.
• BELIEF - the almost-religious fervor that rests in plain view just between Doug's lines, the explicit mention of prayer for his friends, and his on-going willingness to turn the other cheek while we all rip apart his effort suggest to me that he will not be easily swayed from the thoughts he expressed.

As a creed, Doug's document was a loud, clarion call to me; I'm exactly the kind of neophyte in experimental aviation who dies too often and too early in this sport, and by doing so jeopardizes all of our freedoms to keep practicing it.

And that, my friends, is my real fear: not that Doug's document is so much a CREED, but rather a MANIFESTO--an overtly political call-to-action that if we don't police ourselves and our antics, there might be someone with a badge Doug can sense waiting in the shadows who is itching to lay down the law. (Van's sudden conversion to safety evangelist may lend further credence to something deeper going on under the surface of our hobby.)

Doug's document effectively broke through my thick skull. I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since he posted it. It's insane that I've been debating whether I should keep the broken -9 tail kit I have, or switch to a new -7 or -8 kit to open up a more exciting "mission" profile. Duh! That's a debate for some other pilot, certainly for some pilot with more experience than me. If anything, perhaps I should be debating whether a -12 is a better choice for me than even the -9 is. My only "mission" needs to be to fly, to learn, and to live to fly another day.

Regardless of which plane I ultimately choose, I intend now to become an old pilot, not a bold one. I'm returning to this sport in middle-age with a very different set of life experiences and expectations than I had when I left it as a young adult. As much as it pains me to give in to wisdom, I'm admitting the fact that my daredevil days are over.

I'll leave the "show" to those of you who are actually qualified to perform in it. I'll cheer you on from the sidelines whenever you are performing responsibly, and I'll try to bolster my courage to point out when you're not.

And like Doug, I'll try hard to convince my friends (and my son) by both my words and my example that there's plenty of life to be lived in aviation, plenty of excitement, plenty of fun, without being reckless.

--Stephen

 

[Toobuilder]

...Larry, I respectfully disagree. I fly all the time without violating FAR's and am not in fear of a violation...

This is not a shot against you... but concerning your belief that you fly "clean" on every flight: I doubt it. My point is that we live under a very oppressive and ambiguous set of rules. Some make sense and are grounded in logic; some not so much. Even though you may fly with a clear conscience, I'll bet you could be violated on almost every flight if the Feds were watching. So I think the best we can do is to decide for ourselves which are the really important rules and make sure we follow them. In my case, that "really important" set of rules is the same ones that I follow in my non-flying life - do what you want, but don't hurt anyone else or step on their rights.

The FAR's are all about Safety and "legality and safety" do have a necessary connection. When you look at CFIT accidents, there was a FAR violation, VFR into IMC, FAR violation. High speed low passes, violation. Almost all accidents are the result of attitudes that produce bad behavior.

FAR's are written to address ALL pilots of all skill levels - but unfortunately, we aren't all the same skill level. This means that their value to safety varies greatly. To some pilots Following a particular FAR will save their life, while to another pilot, following that same FAR has no practical use. A low altitude aerobatic waiver for instance - is it the piece of paper the "thing" that makes maneuvering at low altitude safe, or is it the skill of the pilot?

I'm all for giving a fellow pilot a "tune up" if they are going to hurt someone else, but I strongly believe in personal freedom - to include the freedom to violate the rules and kill yourself in an airplane, car, motorcycle, boat, base jumping, free climbing, or juggling chainsaws.

 

[apkp777]

... I strongly believe in personal freedom - to include the freedom to violate the rules and kill yourself in an airplane, car, motorcycle, boat, base jumping, free climbing, or juggling chainsaws.

Michael, I too believe in personal freedom, the same freedom that you have to break the rules also enables you to abide by them. I am sorry, I just don't see the FAR's as being that complicated. And I am certainly not comfortable with everyone making up their own set. I do follow the FAR's. I always assumed it was the right thing to do. I have been a pilot for 24 years and an A&P for 22 and it's worked out well for me so far.

 

[John Clark]

Juggling

In my case, that "really important" set of rules is the same ones that I follow in my non-flying life - do what you want, but don't hurt anyone else or step on their rights. <SNIP>

I'm all for giving a fellow pilot a "tune up" if they are going to hurt someone else, but I strongly believe in personal freedom - to include the freedom to violate the rules and kill yourself in an airplane, car, motorcycle, boat, base jumping, free climbing, or juggling chainsaws.

I do understand your point but the problem is that there are some people out there that are juggling chainsaws in a crowded room. "Don't hurt anyone or step on their rights" is is hard to accomplish. When someone augers in solo in the middle of nowhere there will be collateral damage to the whole group. Public perception, insurance rates, and legislation can and will be affected.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[dabney]

Following the FAR's

I support and happen to agree with DR's personal safety habits/practices. I don't consider the FAR's onerous and impossible to adhere to. I am just your average pilot flying a properly maintained RV6A and I can fly from California to Oshkosh and back and not break any FAR's even if a guy from the FAA was watching me the whole way. I don't understand at all the many comments that everybody violates an FAR ever time they go flying. Nonsense! Aerobatics is not my interest but I respect those pilots who have the training and experience to safely do it. But if you perform aerobatics over a populated area you are a reckless pilot IMHO and deserve any sanctions that may come your way. Not even the great airshow pilot Sean Tucker is allowed to perform aerobatics over a populated area, why should you??

I have witnessed the terrible aftermath too many times of someone's blatant disregard for the "rules, law, FAR's" that resulted in the death of someone minding there own business along for the ride or not evenly involved in the activity itself. And yes, I would "snitch" if I observed such a blatant disregard of the FAR's that safety was compromised. Maybe that person who flies recklessly can be stopped before they kill some one else.

 

[Jerry Cochran]

The attitude that...

...it's OK to fly inverted 50' off the desert floor for 50 miles troubles me only in this respect. Even though you have put only yourself in physical danger, if you kill yourself you will have caused great grief to family and friends but have also damaged the reputation of Experimental Aviation and effected our insurance rates. That's pretty selfish IMO.

I think this discussion has been great and I applaud all the participants.
It shows me that peer pressure right here can be a really good thing. Maybe lots better than those FAR's

 

[Pmerems]

Nomex?

Doug covers the use of Nomex appearel.

He mentions to his passengers the fact that fuel lines run under their legs.

If I were a new passenger I would be a little concerned that the pilot is that concerned to be offering up Nomex.

A few questions:

1. Cessna's and Grumman's have fuel lines running throughout the cockpit. Do we really think that our RV's are a higher risk of a cockpit fire then GA?

2. Other then the RV-10 the burned on the ground a few years ago have there been any reported cockpit fires in RV's. I have read about fuel odors in the cockpit but what about fires?

[ed. Yes, less than a week ago. I've noticed I've become more selective about how/when I offer a ride over these past few years. Since I fly 4-5 times a week and need to wear pants and a shirt anyway, I just go ahead and wear something more fire resistant. And I know I'm one of the only folks doing this. The Amanda Franklin recovery blog influences my thinking, I guess. dr]​

 

[gereed75]

This is a truly great discussion

and touches on many facets of safety in our community and I appauld Doug for starting it and all those who have contributed. My contribution is a little word association:

reckless......................................................careful
un-safe.......................................................safe
amatuer.......................................................professional
no standards.................................................Doug's standards

I suspect that all of those reading this far into this thread are well right of center on the matrix above.

Whether you agree with all details of Doug's standards or not, I think we all can agree that much good will come from an effort to move those who are way on the left side more towards the right. The FAA says we got to make the effort or they will. Van is already working on it. It will benefit us all to help him.

Professionals set sensible standards and take pride in themselves and in their peers when operating to them. You gonna help by being more professional ??? or are you gonna just hang out and hope nothing happens bad to those way out left (when they biff) and to us in the middle (when FAA steps in)?? Doug chose. Good on him.

Fly on

 

[Brantel]

Staying out of this one!!!!

 

[algrajek]

No Flying at Night???

I agree with most of what Doug says , and usually stay out of these things, but.....
If you don't trust your engine at Night, don't fly it during the day EITHER!
I have flown over 200 hours at night, single engine flying freight.
The airplane dosn't know its night time. and if it fails during daylight hours it is still the luck of the draw. I am sure you will fly the plane over big cities during the day or over water?
Nordo

[ed. It's not the night - it's the no-lights, skinny runway I have to land at when I'm done flying. If I was based at a field with more lights I'm sure I'd feel different. dr]​

 

[humptybump]

Pre-flight brief

When I was in primary flight training for my PPL, we were taught to always recite a pre-take off brief to any passenger we might have. In addition to explaining the seat belts and door operation, we would explain the procedure in case of cockpit fire on the ground.

Add to this my brother, who flew in the Navy, explaining why they only wore nomex and natural fiber next to their skin.

I agree with Doug's clothing choice. I've always worn long pants and cotton shirts but I will consider upgrading to long sleeves.

Thankfully, my brother bought me my own nomex overalls when I "earned my wings". I'v used it in open cockpit flying and will give have it on board when I start flying the RV.

I also want to thank (the person early on in this thread) for recommending the post-flight check. I really like the idea of establishing the "re-stocking" checklist - oil, towels, batteries, etc that might get used up on a flight / trip. It's like an extended squawk sheet.

 

[algrajek]

Gotch ya.
Thanks
Al

 

[java]

...it is not your place to threaten their lively hood or possible ability to provide for a family...

Does the professional pilot breaking the regs not have any responsibility for threatening his own livelihood!?! Maybe if his livelihood and family is that important to him he should show better judgement. Maybe if he can't / won't, he needs to find a new profession. I know I wouldn't like to ride behind a pilot who flouts regulations and then tries to place the burden for his transgressions on someone who has the intestinal fortitude to call him on it.

 

[bizjet]

java, it's not about breaking the regs. It's about Doug Reeves, or any other individual deciding on his own what is right, or wrong - safe, or unsafe. Back in the day we used to call this kind of behavior being a 'busybody'. That is annoying, but harmless. Calling the Feds based on one's personal opinion is not harmless.

Regards,

Bill

 

[luddite42]

When someone augers in solo in the middle of nowhere there will be collateral damage to the whole group. Public perception, insurance rates, and legislation can and will be affected.

I really don't think the FAA gives a rat's rear if you kill yourself alone in an airplane. All FARs are designed to protect passengers, people, and property on the ground. If the FAA cared that much about solo pilots killing themselves, airshows would be LONG out of business. Where's all the clamor for shutting down airshows?

I don't mind one person expressing their own safety beliefs, but I've got a big problem with someone reporting to the authorities behavior that involves risk to no one but the pilot alone. And as far as low passes go, someone please clarify for me what FARs are broken when someone performs a low pass at an airport in an unpopulated area, with nobody on the ground in the area, and at a distance greater than 500' from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Anyone who is so against low passes (from a purely safety standpoint) to the point of reporting folks to the FAA should be lobbying to do away with the option for waivered airspace (airshows)...unless of course they feel the paper the waiver is written on will cushion the impact of aluminum with earth. Anybody ever done a pass to check/clear for deer at dusk? Should crop sprayers be put out of business? Is it the fact that low passes are usually such non-essential "show off" maneuvers that so irks some people? How is it that you're stroking your ego? I mean what skill are you showing off? Your ability to fly an airplane within a few feet of the ground? For 99% of us, getting in an airplane and taking off is completely non-essential in the first place. Are you vehement anti-low-passers going to start hanging out at fly-ins and attempt to violate folks left and right? If I stay in ground effect to build speed for a little too long on takeoff before climbing out, will I get a chewing from the anti-low-passers? Are we seeing gray yet?

 

[kevinh]

java, it's not about breaking the regs. It's about Doug Reeves, or any other individual deciding on his own what is right, or wrong - safe, or unsafe. Back in the day we used to call this kind of behavior being a 'busybody'. That is annoying, but harmless. Calling the Feds based on one's personal opinion is not harmless.

If the well-intentioned person sees something wreckless enough to call the feds, then the feds will do an investigation and based on the investigation they will decide what is next. This seems no different then calling the cops when you see a drunk driver.

---

If I see someone driving drunk, I call the police.

If I see someone flying after drinking, it is quite appropriate to call the FAA (though I would talk to the pilot before making such a call).

If I see someone doing low altitude acro and risking my local field, it is also appropriate to call the FAA. I'm sure there is some small chance that person has a waiver making such operations legal - if they have such a waiver then there will be no problem with the FAA. The odds are high though the person was just being reckless and risking (at the very least) the good relations with the houses near the field.

 

[java]

java, it's not about breaking the regs. It's about Doug Reeves, or any other individual deciding on his own what is right, or wrong - safe, or unsafe. Back in the day we used to call this kind of behavior being a 'busybody'. That is annoying, but harmless. Calling the Feds based on one's personal opinion is not harmless.

Regards,

Bill

But if it were a clear and obvious disregard for a regulation in place for safety?

See, that's the problem with these online discussions. Positions get taken thinking we're all talking from the same perspective, when that is not necessarily the case.

I agree with your point completely because you added the words, "...on one's own personal opinion..." and, "...deciding on his own...". No one has the right to call the Feds on what they "think" is the right or wrong way to fly. They do if they observe disregard for the regs the Feds have been asked to enforce on behalf of the public. As with many things in life, the black and white are easy. It is the grey that becomes difficult.

 

[thevintageflyer]

Glad you asked...

So Doug, may we assume you have already reported “So there I was, getting a haircut...” to the FAA?
Or the many other examples you speak of?

[ed. Sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but if it is have I ever reported anyone, the answer is no. dr]

I was referring to a video recently posted on this forum. I guess it doesn’t matter which one; I have no desire to actually put the person that posted it on the spot. I enjoyed the video. It seemed popular and enjoyed by many others at the time. In fact, a few that made humorous comments about the video, have also jumped on the band wagon blasting people for doing so in this thread. By the way, someone else on the forum did address the issue at hand within the video, quite tactfully I thought.

You are entitled to your viewpoint, but… as respectfully as I can manage to say this, I don’t agree. This is your forum and your rules. I want to ensure that I completely understand them. The issue for some (me included) is the following:

• If I witness you blatantly breaking the FARs in the USA, I will bring it to your attention. If I see you doing the same thing a second time I will report you to the authorities. If you post a video of yourself blatantly breaking the FARs somewhere and link to it in my forums, I will delete the post and immediately forward the YouTube link to the appropriate authorities.
Friends or not, we have to police ourselves better in general aviation. When you signed that pilot card in your wallet you agreed to fly by the rules.

This includes:
o Video of acro with a passenger and no chutes.
o Dodging in and out of clouds when it's obvious you're VFR
o High speed low passes.
o Acro where you can see dozens of houses in the shot.

That’s a very zero tolerance attitude. You have given me reason to be very cautious, at least with what I post on this forum. Does it apply to the ones that are already out there? Or just from this point forward?

Don’t get me wrong, I feel you mean well and actually care very much. There are many of us that share your concern as evidenced by the discussion. There are also many of us that have concern about reporting such events, whether witnessed or through video links.

My opinion (and there are others that seem to share it) is that we should work together to improve our safety record within the amateur built community. If we are the problem, then we also have the power to be the solution. How do we do it? Peer pressure? Positive role models? Honest, open discussion?

If we begin to routinely report one another, then we will no longer trust one another.

 

[John Clark]

Hanging around

Luddite: First, I'm sure that at some level the FAA does care if you kill yourself alone in an airplane. It messes up their statistics and, surprising as it may be to some, I know several feds that really do care about the well being of the pilot group. My point was that even in your example the issues caused by such a crash are far reaching and never good for the hobby.

As I said in earlier post, a low pass in the middle of nowhere, with no one around is a non issue, no harm, no foul, unless you crash. In my experience the "look at this" behavior seldom crops up in the middle of nowhere with no one watching. It usually takes place where FAR ? 91.119 applies.

None of this is about "hanging around fly-ins to violate people". This discussion is about working on the poor safety record of EAB aircraft and heading off additional restrictions.

On the subject of airshows, even though it is way off the original topic, yes there has been some "clamor for shutting them down". Having helped produce several airshows in the past I have experienced both the general public's pressure and the high cost to insure such a venture. Like it of not, insurance carriers are very good at figuring odds.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

I really don't think the FAA gives a rat's rear if you kill yourself alone in an airplane. All FARs are designed to protect passengers, people, and property on the ground. If the FAA cared that much about solo pilots killing themselves, airshows would be LONG out of business. Where's all the clamor for shutting down airshows?

I don't mind one person expressing their own safety beliefs, but I've got a big problem with someone reporting to the authorities behavior that involves risk to no one but the pilot alone. And as far as low passes go, someone please clarify for me what FARs are broken when someone performs a low pass at an airport in an unpopulated area, with nobody on the ground in the area, and at a distance greater than 500' from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Anyone who is so against low passes (from a purely safety standpoint) to the point of reporting folks to the FAA should be lobbying to do away with the option for waivered airspace (airshows)...unless of course they feel the paper the waiver is written on will cushion the impact of aluminum with earth. Anybody ever done a pass to check/clear for deer at dusk? Should crop sprayers be put out of business? Is it the fact that low passes are usually such non-essential "show off" maneuvers that so irks some people? How is it that you're stroking your ego? I mean what skill are you showing off? Your ability to fly an airplane within a few feet of the ground? For 99% of us, getting in an airplane and taking off is completely non-essential in the first place. Are you vehement anti-low-passers going to start hanging out at fly-ins and attempt to violate folks left and right? If I stay in ground effect to build speed for a little too long on takeoff before climbing out, will I get a chewing from the anti-low-passers? Are we seeing gray yet?

 

[CFI1513840]

It's Complicated

Doug should be commended for having the courage of his convictions. His Safety Culture wasn?t presented as dogma, only his own personal limits, but ones that make good sense and gave us all something to think about.

The most controversial item seems to be the one about reporting a violator the second time around. I think many of us would be inclined to look the other way, as I?m sure we have all done. Perhaps like me, you are fortunate that someone else looked the other way on certain occasions. At some point I went from being bold to old and I?m happy to say I?m still flying. There was a certain amount of luck involved.

Danny King?s posting illustrated the worst case scenario for reporting violations. I can?t help but wonder if there wasn?t a grudge factor involved in his case.

Clearly, if someone witnesses a violation of FARs that is a threat to life and limb, it should be reported, but there is a big grey area in between. Where do you draw the line? It?s a matter of degrees, but any ?hotshot? flying antics can eventually lead to dire consequences. By the way, this is not an activity that is confined to A-B aircraft. There are idiots out there flying all different types of aircraft.

There is also the causal effect to be considered, producing consequences that range from the abhorrent accident rate of A-B aircraft to the threat of greater regulation and even the loss of our A-B privileges. I would not fault anyone who in clear conscience exercises what they feel is their moral obligation to report an FAR violation and certainly wouldn?t consider it ?snitching?.

 

[flion]

Personally, I like Doug's stance. While his minimums aren't mine, they reflect thought about the risks. Some of my minimums are probably more strict, due to my lack of experience. Others are probably more lax, again due to experience levels. I've flown at night from Sedona to Flagstaff; I don't think I'm materially worse off. Even in daylight there's not much choice if something goes south. But not flying is not, for me, an acceptable way to minimize the risks; instead I pay more attention to maintenance and my physical/mental state. But I wholly agree with the philosophy behind Doug's rules.

The big thing people seem to be taking exception to is that he says he will report to the authorities (we seem to assume that is the FAA) repeat violators and those who post their own violations on the forums. Well, I doubt either of those is a hard and fast rule. I expect that if you made a mistake, felt bad about it, and posted it here in the spirit of helping others avoid the mistake, you would be neither deleted nor reported. But the spirit of what he was trying to express (how can you ever cover all the bases in a few paragraphs?) is very simple, direct, and useful.

If someone is operating in a knowingly reckless manner, don't you have a responsibility to speak up? If they don't know, wouldn't you give them 'a word to the wise'? By extension, if they are knowingly operating in an illegal manner, don't you have an obligation to act? Better they answer to the FAA than St. Peter; the laws of nature are often irrevocably enforced.

But I didn't take away from Doug's missive that he would be surveying the aviation community with binoculars and notebook; marking down every infraction he could find. I took it that he would, if he noticed a problem, talk to the person involved. Only if it seemed that something truly unsafe were continuing would he involve others. I don't, for example, think he would start to stage interventions for those who use alternative engines. And as for those who post their stupid tricks on the forums (though I can't think of examples - we seem to be a fairly sane bunch), they have already shown, twice, that they have no sense - first when they did the stunt and second when they were still proud enough to brag about it. That kind of ongoing bad sense should be corrected quickly.

I think, on the whole, we all agree with Doug to an extent. Some of us are more inclined to sit back rather than act but I've seen a few times where someone (usually a newbie) has posted a really bad idea. It gets squashed really quickly, resulting in the person either being educated and going forward wiser and safer or abandoning the forums (and one hopes, building - but we never know). There will always be Darwin Award winners in every endeavor but I don't think it's right to just stand by and watch the show without trying to stop them.

That said, there's always a need for the risk-takers, the ones who push the envelope. But there's a difference. While many may have thought that Burt Rutan was crazy at the start, his risks weren't grandstanding and definitely not in the same class as the nut who did a low pass over a closed runway and collided with an R/C aircraft. The former I might argue the merits of composites with but would respect his reasoning; the latter I would report in an effort to protect him and others. If we can agree there is a spectrum of risk then we can agree that perhaps Doug has the right idea and that we should not be passive what goes on in our community.


[ed. Spot on, and thank you. dr]

 

[jthocker]

I thought I should post a private message I sent Doug on Friday.

Originally Posted by jthocker
Hi Doug,
Many years ago when I had my first RV4 I did some pretty crazy things until my partner in crime(an RV4 owner also) and I were given an "unofficial" talking to by the local FED. He was and is a great guy and a fellow QB! He appealed to us that, we were professional pilots and should know better than to be doing what we were doing. We got a heads up from Martha Lunken (former FED now writing for FLYING) that Bob wasn't going to violate us, he just wanted to chew our As#$%'s. I sat quietly and listened to what he said and reflected that he was right. My partner argued that we were legal! 3 years later my partner was dead, killed in our "joint" RV4 from doing low level aerobatics.
Imagine my red face when I got to the bottom of your safety missive! For a few seconds I was "ticked off", then I became mortified that I'm being used as an example of an unsafe pilot! A review of my actions gives me pause, to realize, that I needed another talking to all these years later.
Thanks Doug!!!
Best regards,
Jon


As a professional pilot and airline captain I pride myself on being safe, and adhere to the regulations and company procedures that keep me and my crew safe. In my professional flying, I strive for "perfection", not only for my own personal satisfaction ,but also for the approval of my peers.
My mother's advice many years ago, "That it takes a bigger man to admit when he's wrong", has served me well throughout my life. So I will stand up and say, I have been guilty of setting a bad example for the RV community. I have posted some video's of mine and other's flying that, at the "least ", showed a lack of judgment.

FLYING AN RV IS INTOXICATING! The overconfidence that it can inspire, can lead you to forget rules and common sense, BEWARE!
Van is right, that we need to "Police" ourselves.
Sometimes an "intervention" is necessary!
I personally will try to provide a better example to the RV community!

Best Regards,