panhandler1956
Well Known Member
This is probably the most powerful post I have ever read on this forum...period!
Good on ya Jon!
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Doug Reeve's Safety Missive
- Thread starter Ironflight
- Start date
This is probably the most powerful post I have ever read on this forum...period!
Good on ya Jon!
Louise Hose
Well Known Member
Agreed
I am so impressed with Doug for sticking by his convictions and Jon for acknowledging his need to occasionally be held accountable. These are two truly brave men. Thank you.
I am so impressed with Doug for sticking by his convictions and Jon for acknowledging his need to occasionally be held accountable. These are two truly brave men. Thank you.
Last edited by a moderator:
As far as I know, the only well-known incident such as this occured last August where an Acroduster collided with a large R/C model at a fly-in in Colorado where an R/C display was taking place. Is this what you're referring to? It was not a "closed" runway, it was a private airport hosting a full-scale fly-in. I saw the video. There was a plane taxiing on the runway immediately after the collision. Yep, pilot committed the crime of performing a low pass. You think he knew about and saw the R/C plane? I think not. I thought the R/C display was very badly managed.
Whether or not you think the pilot is full o' **** (I happen to think he is) here's the NTSB factual:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20100819X52836&ntsbno=CEN10LA487A&akey=1
Thank you John Thocker
This kind of candid sharing is exactly what we need to begin to foster a more professional attitude among our fellow RV bubbas. It is not about clipping wings and playing fun police, it is about using better headwork (and killing fewer friends).
When someone as known and respected in the community as Mutha pitches in, it has value and just maybe begins to get the ball rolling just a bit faster.
Mutual support of higher standards will yield safer flying. Thanks again
This kind of candid sharing is exactly what we need to begin to foster a more professional attitude among our fellow RV bubbas. It is not about clipping wings and playing fun police, it is about using better headwork (and killing fewer friends).
When someone as known and respected in the community as Mutha pitches in, it has value and just maybe begins to get the ball rolling just a bit faster.
Mutual support of higher standards will yield safer flying. Thanks again
flion
Well Known Member
I stand corrected. I had not read anything more on the incident after the videos were posted, when it was my understanding the runway had been closed for the R/C operations. They should have been. It sounds like more than just the biplane pilot was at fault here. Anyway, this is topic drift and doesn't really affect the sense of what I was trying to say.
PS Jon, that was impressive. I hope I can remain humble enough to acknowledge my mistakes in the same way.
Last edited:
Being Visible
Responsibility is one of the things that comes ?being visible? in any profession. For every person posting on this thread, there are hundreds more who are simply reading ? many of them low time pilots/builders/owners who are trying to learn how this whole ?aviation? think should really work. They are looking for examples, people that they want to follow and emulate. People that they can trust. I TRUST Jon Thocker because of his integrity.
Those of us who are more ?visible? than others have the responsibility to be good role models. It comes with the territory. Thirty years of intense Flight Ops training and brutal debriefs have driven the point home to me ? admitting when we have screwed up, learning from it, and moving on to ?do better? is far more productive than holding to a flawed idea that we ?know it all?.
{Today I read the thread about Ted Chang?s in-flight fire and realized that I need to stop putting off buying new extinguishers for our airplanes ? you?d think that 25 years of firefighting would have reinforced the need, rather than making me complacent. Sometimes, we ALL need a kick in the pants! I can do better as well?}
Paul
Responsibility is one of the things that comes ?being visible? in any profession. For every person posting on this thread, there are hundreds more who are simply reading ? many of them low time pilots/builders/owners who are trying to learn how this whole ?aviation? think should really work. They are looking for examples, people that they want to follow and emulate. People that they can trust. I TRUST Jon Thocker because of his integrity.
Those of us who are more ?visible? than others have the responsibility to be good role models. It comes with the territory. Thirty years of intense Flight Ops training and brutal debriefs have driven the point home to me ? admitting when we have screwed up, learning from it, and moving on to ?do better? is far more productive than holding to a flawed idea that we ?know it all?.
{Today I read the thread about Ted Chang?s in-flight fire and realized that I need to stop putting off buying new extinguishers for our airplanes ? you?d think that 25 years of firefighting would have reinforced the need, rather than making me complacent. Sometimes, we ALL need a kick in the pants! I can do better as well?}
Paul
Great post Jon, that took some guts!
On the subject of low, high speed passes, there are many ways these can go wrong, NORDO traffic for one. (it's happened before)
I don't think anyone is talking about about reporting someone spraying crops or doing an 80 knot pass to check runway conditions. I doesn't take much experience to tell the difference here and someone belting along at 200 knots and zooming up isn't checking runway conditions. Doing this at an airport is all about audience and ego. If you want the thrill, do it over an unpopulated area.
If you are legally practicing acro, you might be safer not doing it over an active runway (remember NORDO traffic again) or a place where other airplanes could collide (like an active runway for instance).
For all those pilots who think low passes and low level acro are not too risky, take a look at all the accidents from these activities over the years often with very experienced airshow qualified pilots at the controls. You can also ask why many air forces prohibit non-mission related low flying.
On the subject of low, high speed passes, there are many ways these can go wrong, NORDO traffic for one. (it's happened before)
I don't think anyone is talking about about reporting someone spraying crops or doing an 80 knot pass to check runway conditions. I doesn't take much experience to tell the difference here and someone belting along at 200 knots and zooming up isn't checking runway conditions. Doing this at an airport is all about audience and ego. If you want the thrill, do it over an unpopulated area.
If you are legally practicing acro, you might be safer not doing it over an active runway (remember NORDO traffic again) or a place where other airplanes could collide (like an active runway for instance).
For all those pilots who think low passes and low level acro are not too risky, take a look at all the accidents from these activities over the years often with very experienced airshow qualified pilots at the controls. You can also ask why many air forces prohibit non-mission related low flying.
It's all about attitude -
Its probably not news to very many pilots that flight safety is very much about attitude. And its probably not news to many people that leading by example is often the most effective method.
I applaud Doug's efforts to set a good example of how to fly within your personal limitations. Knowing your limitations - knowing what you don't know or knowing what is beyond your capabilities (both personal and equipment) is of supreme importance if you want to become an old pilot.
But I do not agree with the example Doug sets with his aggressive attitude towards reporting violations. We've heard many examples of kinds of behaviors/violations any sensible pilot would report immediately and with a clear conscious. Reporting those kinds of behaviors isn't at issue here to my way of thinking.
Doug has painted a hard line with a very broad brush. What I "heard" him say is one strike and you're out if you post the wrong thing on his website and two strikes and you're out if you violate ANY regulation at his airport. (Doug is right, Google's cache is forever. Doug has now added the word blatant to his original post - I'm glad he decided to modify the statement.)
In my experience one of the quickest ways to get someone's attention is to threaten or challenge them. The problem with threats is that people often react to them with a very closed mind or at least with a very defensive posture. A closed mind will accept no advice.
Aviation will not get safer due solely to regulations and/or threats. Sharing experiences and information is what this website (if not this thread) is all about and also happens to be one of the driving forces behind the fantastic advances in safety over the last hundred years or so.
I don't want to see an example followed to an extreme by the overly impressionable that results in a hostile flying environment where no one wants to admit to or be seen making a mistake. And no, I don't think that will happen due to one man's opinion. But what I do think might happen is for the RV crowd to get a reputation for a certain kind of behavior due to the actions of a relatively few members.
Good judgement comes from attitude AND experience. Take a real hard look at what the professionals (military, airline, corporate, instructors, AOPA, EAA, etc.) have been doing to promote safety. Pay attention to the experience of others. And pick your role models carefully.
To be very clear, I very much appreciate this website (I read the posts here almost every day) and I suspect that Doug had the very best of intentions with regards to posting his missive. I seek not to condemn but to influence his opinion and that of you, the reader.
Its probably not news to very many pilots that flight safety is very much about attitude. And its probably not news to many people that leading by example is often the most effective method.
I applaud Doug's efforts to set a good example of how to fly within your personal limitations. Knowing your limitations - knowing what you don't know or knowing what is beyond your capabilities (both personal and equipment) is of supreme importance if you want to become an old pilot.
But I do not agree with the example Doug sets with his aggressive attitude towards reporting violations. We've heard many examples of kinds of behaviors/violations any sensible pilot would report immediately and with a clear conscious. Reporting those kinds of behaviors isn't at issue here to my way of thinking.
Doug has painted a hard line with a very broad brush. What I "heard" him say is one strike and you're out if you post the wrong thing on his website and two strikes and you're out if you violate ANY regulation at his airport. (Doug is right, Google's cache is forever. Doug has now added the word blatant to his original post - I'm glad he decided to modify the statement.)
In my experience one of the quickest ways to get someone's attention is to threaten or challenge them. The problem with threats is that people often react to them with a very closed mind or at least with a very defensive posture. A closed mind will accept no advice.
Aviation will not get safer due solely to regulations and/or threats. Sharing experiences and information is what this website (if not this thread) is all about and also happens to be one of the driving forces behind the fantastic advances in safety over the last hundred years or so.
I don't want to see an example followed to an extreme by the overly impressionable that results in a hostile flying environment where no one wants to admit to or be seen making a mistake. And no, I don't think that will happen due to one man's opinion. But what I do think might happen is for the RV crowd to get a reputation for a certain kind of behavior due to the actions of a relatively few members.
Good judgement comes from attitude AND experience. Take a real hard look at what the professionals (military, airline, corporate, instructors, AOPA, EAA, etc.) have been doing to promote safety. Pay attention to the experience of others. And pick your role models carefully.
To be very clear, I very much appreciate this website (I read the posts here almost every day) and I suspect that Doug had the very best of intentions with regards to posting his missive. I seek not to condemn but to influence his opinion and that of you, the reader.
Last edited:
Buggsy2
Well Known Member
It already has. How has airline travel become one of the safest modes of travel, in spite of its fundamental dangers? Regulations. To be sure, those regulations came about by decades of careful analysis and thinking about aviation crashes, but ultimately it's the regs that provide the necessary stick to force compliance. Can you imagine voluntary compliance by the many airlines?
Trying not to introduce politics here, but we wouldn't have had nearly the financial crash we did, had some regulation of lending and complex derivatives been in effect and enforced.
I remain with DR on this issue. Every so often in some profession, like medicine or engineering, some grossly incompetent individual is finally outed (usually due to a spectacular death or failure), and the public rightfully asks "Didn't any of their co-workers notice this person? Why didn't they report him or her?" Why not indeed? Because "nobody likes a snitch." And its implied corollary, "everybody wants to be liked."
That's not a professional attitude, it's a schoolyard or ghetto attitude.
Excellent post.
1.) Exactly right. Some individuals may cower in fear, others may take a different posture. If you decide to walk that path, you better be a water walker because you're now under a microscope. Lack of pre-flight? Didn't check notams? Landed after sunset in your day VFR steed? That person is now watching you like a hawk. One or two minor errors with calls to the FSDO, I don't care how minor is going to bring all that unwanted attention on you now. I know I know, some on here will foot stomp that they never break any FAR's. BS. Unless you can regurgitate Part 91 and 61 word for word, you DON'T know what you don't know, and you don't know what rules you may be breaking unwittingly. 95% solution? Probably, but the claimed perfectionists out there are not. Which leads to...
2.) Also correct, I'm either fully involved in, or experienced in most of those examples. About 1,000 dual given as a CFI in college, charter work, EAA YE volunteer, and almost a decade of military flying, and I've NEVER heard anyone say "Fix yourself or I'll report you." Completely the wrong approach, and not how we have ever fostered a culture of safety, and learning.
Last edited:
Gary Baker
Well Known Member
A Change in Culture
Yes, I can, because I have gone thru such a voluntary change in operations by my airline.
As a 23-year pilot with a major airline, I see this discussion thread as effecting a change in culture, which is very similar to what the airlines went thru in the late 80?s and 90?s, and still continuing today. The culture on the flight deck used to be that the Captain was King and his commands were not to be challenged. This resulted in many accidents. The change in culture in the airlines, now called Crew Resource Management (CRM) or some such verbiage, dictated that the captain is still PIC, but should consider information gleaned from other sources, such as from the First and Second Officer. This change took many years to effect, but there are very few lone wolfs out there now, as compared to the number when I began in the industry. I call them lone wolfs because, even though we have procedures in place, they operate outside of those procedures, which results in the other pilot not knowing how various situations will be handled because the lone wolf makes up his own procedure.
This change in culture in the airline industry came about thru voluntary implementation by the individual airlines, because of many accidents in the 80?s and earlier caused by the King attitude, and the Captain's unwillingness to encourage input or the unwillingness of subordinate crewmembers to speak up. Individual airlines required every pilot to attend ?Charm School? (as it was referred to initially) every year, and after a few years had gone by, the FAA took notice and eventually added CRM to the annual ground school subject matter to be covered. As a result, the last decade was, I believe, the safest in the airline industry?s history. CRM had a major part to do with this record.
This cultural change in how we operated airliners did not occur overnight, as the way RV?s are operated will not change overnight. This discussion begins the change in our RV culture by asking each of us, what kind of a pilot are we? Jon Thocker wrote a very telling response, post #103, in how this thread is changing how he will be flying his RV.
Looking back on the initial classes, we took a test to identify what type of individual we were. Did I want to solve problems by myself or with a group? Did I jump at the first answer in a problematic situation or analyze the situation more? Was I a person who would challenge someone when they were making a decision that might affect safety of flight or would I shy away from confrontation? For me, this analysis was very enlightening.
Many aircraft accidents were caused by knee-jerk reactions. After identifying the type of individual we were and how we looked at different situations, we were better able to learn how to deal with the other personality types that might be in the cockpit with us, or in the RV world, in the airspace with us. First and Second Officers were encouraged to speak up if they felt it was necessary to possibly prevent a bad situation getting worse. Imagine, a Second or First Officer, new to the industry, speaking up to a Captain! That didn?t happen in the 50?s, 60?s or 70?s! Well, it does happen now, but more easily, because the newer pilot is encouraged to speak up when he/she believes it to be necessary and present another idea or more information, depending upon the situation.
This is what I got out of Doug?s Personal Safety Missive. I?m not commenting upon his comment about reporting blatant breaking of FAR?s. I consider that to be an individual choice, which apparently not everyone agrees with.
Every pilot needs to do a review every so often of how he/she operates an aircraft, type notwithstanding. Why not now?
Thank you, Doug, for getting this started.
Yes, I can, because I have gone thru such a voluntary change in operations by my airline.
As a 23-year pilot with a major airline, I see this discussion thread as effecting a change in culture, which is very similar to what the airlines went thru in the late 80?s and 90?s, and still continuing today. The culture on the flight deck used to be that the Captain was King and his commands were not to be challenged. This resulted in many accidents. The change in culture in the airlines, now called Crew Resource Management (CRM) or some such verbiage, dictated that the captain is still PIC, but should consider information gleaned from other sources, such as from the First and Second Officer. This change took many years to effect, but there are very few lone wolfs out there now, as compared to the number when I began in the industry. I call them lone wolfs because, even though we have procedures in place, they operate outside of those procedures, which results in the other pilot not knowing how various situations will be handled because the lone wolf makes up his own procedure.
This change in culture in the airline industry came about thru voluntary implementation by the individual airlines, because of many accidents in the 80?s and earlier caused by the King attitude, and the Captain's unwillingness to encourage input or the unwillingness of subordinate crewmembers to speak up. Individual airlines required every pilot to attend ?Charm School? (as it was referred to initially) every year, and after a few years had gone by, the FAA took notice and eventually added CRM to the annual ground school subject matter to be covered. As a result, the last decade was, I believe, the safest in the airline industry?s history. CRM had a major part to do with this record.
This cultural change in how we operated airliners did not occur overnight, as the way RV?s are operated will not change overnight. This discussion begins the change in our RV culture by asking each of us, what kind of a pilot are we? Jon Thocker wrote a very telling response, post #103, in how this thread is changing how he will be flying his RV.
Looking back on the initial classes, we took a test to identify what type of individual we were. Did I want to solve problems by myself or with a group? Did I jump at the first answer in a problematic situation or analyze the situation more? Was I a person who would challenge someone when they were making a decision that might affect safety of flight or would I shy away from confrontation? For me, this analysis was very enlightening.
Many aircraft accidents were caused by knee-jerk reactions. After identifying the type of individual we were and how we looked at different situations, we were better able to learn how to deal with the other personality types that might be in the cockpit with us, or in the RV world, in the airspace with us. First and Second Officers were encouraged to speak up if they felt it was necessary to possibly prevent a bad situation getting worse. Imagine, a Second or First Officer, new to the industry, speaking up to a Captain! That didn?t happen in the 50?s, 60?s or 70?s! Well, it does happen now, but more easily, because the newer pilot is encouraged to speak up when he/she believes it to be necessary and present another idea or more information, depending upon the situation.
This is what I got out of Doug?s Personal Safety Missive. I?m not commenting upon his comment about reporting blatant breaking of FAR?s. I consider that to be an individual choice, which apparently not everyone agrees with.
Every pilot needs to do a review every so often of how he/she operates an aircraft, type notwithstanding. Why not now?Thank you, Doug, for getting this started.
jetjok
Well Known Member
Caveat: This post is not intended to target any one individual, but only to reference their statement(s). Additionally, I am fully aware that there are folks on this forum who have first hand knowledge of incidents/accidents that I may refer too. It is not my intention in any way to cast bad light on the pilots/builders involved.
Also, punctuation, grammar, and composition is not my strong suit, and I apologize in advance!
1. Lest anyone believe that keeping the FSDO's phone number on their speed dial is the best method to increase safety, that is incredibly flawed logic. The FAA has become strictly an enforcement agency of subjective opinions by many inspectors who have no real knowledge or experience in the areas that they govern. If there ever was a group of individuals who need to police themselves, it is the FAA.
A previous comment was made that there are many inspectors who are dedicated to improving safety and welfare of those who own, operate, and build aircraft, which by proxy increases the safety of the public in general. There can be no dispute that this is a true statement. However, there is the opposite side of the coin with inspectors that have an axe to grind, have limited experience, or have no real inclination to increase the standards and safety for those of us who fly. It is this group that really has no purpose in our ranks, especially in an enforcement role. There seems to be no mechanism or inclination for self policing within the FAA, and therefore we all suffer.
Many of the posts favoring the "drop dime" mentality cite examples of the most egregious behavior that should precipitate a call to the FAA. However, where does it stop? Who among us is uniquely qualified to set the level of the bar for all situations and contingencies?
2. A week or so ago, there was a thread started in the wake of Administrator Babbit's "you fix it, or we will fix it" comment. As could be expected, the conversation became broad and vociferous about if it could be done, and if so, how to define and accomplish an across the board improvement of safety in the ranks of AB aircraft and pilots. I for one, thought that at least in the RV community, we have not only the skills to define the goals, but the people to implement such changes. I truly believe that at least in the RV community, we can make a difference. The issue becomes how to set the standards, provide the guidance, and the most difficult of all, deal with those who don't seem to want to "do the right thing".
Quite a while ago, during a discussion of an RV event (LOE?), the thread drifted to a heated discussion about an RV that was obviously not up to accepted standards. What I found very disappointing was that it was apparent that none of our more experienced and qualified members took a moment to speak to the owner/builder to set up a time to meet with him to discuss the issue with this plane!
3. There are many people in our VAF ranks who have the skills and personalities to work in our group to improve the quality and skill set of the builders and pilots alike. One possible option might be to form a group that is respected and highly skilled, that we could use to further this cause, and maybe even elevate it to a level that would become the "Flight Safety" of the RV group. The insurance companies, parts and accessory vendors, etc., could be made aware of the existence of this group with an accompanying lobby for rate/price reductions to those who have participated. Of course it would be optional to participate, but certification of membership, training, inspection, etc. could be advantageous to both the consumers and suppliers alike. Another opportunity would be to align with the folks who offer builder classes, to offer reduced rates in return for a membership and commitment to work with our VAF group.
Additionally, we could take a lead from other owners groups to have designated folks available at group meetings to discuss changes in accepted procedures, and even to allow owners to submit their aircraft for a "once over" by a knowledgeable individual.
On the operational side, perhaps we could organize forums during selected events to discuss issues pertaining to safe operations, and unique flight characteristics of our RV aircraft. As we all know, the RV is a very capable aircraft in all flight regimes. However, that makes it also very unforgiving in others. It would be quite advantageous to have information flowing from very experienced pilots (it does not have to be RV's) to less experienced pilots.
I am a member of the the group that represents the pilots at my airline. We have a public forum similar to this, and found that there was a problem when trying to convey information. What we found was that the information that we were trying to put forth, was being diluted and lost by public comments. We finally made a section of the forum, where pertinent information could be posted i.e. an operational matter of the plane in a certain regime, that was not open to public response. If a member wanted to comment, he/she could start their own thread in the appropriate forum. This ensured that useful information was available to the membership.
It would be a major undertaking, that would require a tremendous amount of time and resources by a group of volunteers, but I for one believe that we would all be better off.
4. Some would say that "we already have DAR's and Tech Reps", and that is their job! Well, unfortunately it doesn't always seem to work out. Just this past week, I reviewed a very troubling NTSB report of an RV accident that occurred a few years ago. The plane was operated from the initial flight in a condition that was without a doubt unairworthy, yet it received certification. Clearly I do not profess for know all the details, but some DAR signed this plane off, just as the one referenced above was possibly signed off. Please don't take this as an indictment of DAR's, as I am very aware that we have several in our group that are very diligent in their duties. However, it is clear that not all DAR's have what could be termed acceptable standards.
In closing, I would like to submit that all of us, especially those of us who are multiple builders, professional pilots and maintenance techs, have a responsibility to speak up when we see something happening that doesn't pass the "sniff test". The truly sad statement about the above referenced accident, was that the builder/pilot was well known to other RV/AB builders, who in retrospect really wish that they had just "said something". I think that as a group we can go a long way to alleviating a future occurrence, and we would all sleep better at night.
Food for thought, I hope.
Also, punctuation, grammar, and composition is not my strong suit, and I apologize in advance!
1. Lest anyone believe that keeping the FSDO's phone number on their speed dial is the best method to increase safety, that is incredibly flawed logic. The FAA has become strictly an enforcement agency of subjective opinions by many inspectors who have no real knowledge or experience in the areas that they govern. If there ever was a group of individuals who need to police themselves, it is the FAA.
A previous comment was made that there are many inspectors who are dedicated to improving safety and welfare of those who own, operate, and build aircraft, which by proxy increases the safety of the public in general. There can be no dispute that this is a true statement. However, there is the opposite side of the coin with inspectors that have an axe to grind, have limited experience, or have no real inclination to increase the standards and safety for those of us who fly. It is this group that really has no purpose in our ranks, especially in an enforcement role. There seems to be no mechanism or inclination for self policing within the FAA, and therefore we all suffer.
Many of the posts favoring the "drop dime" mentality cite examples of the most egregious behavior that should precipitate a call to the FAA. However, where does it stop? Who among us is uniquely qualified to set the level of the bar for all situations and contingencies?
2. A week or so ago, there was a thread started in the wake of Administrator Babbit's "you fix it, or we will fix it" comment. As could be expected, the conversation became broad and vociferous about if it could be done, and if so, how to define and accomplish an across the board improvement of safety in the ranks of AB aircraft and pilots. I for one, thought that at least in the RV community, we have not only the skills to define the goals, but the people to implement such changes. I truly believe that at least in the RV community, we can make a difference. The issue becomes how to set the standards, provide the guidance, and the most difficult of all, deal with those who don't seem to want to "do the right thing".
Quite a while ago, during a discussion of an RV event (LOE?), the thread drifted to a heated discussion about an RV that was obviously not up to accepted standards. What I found very disappointing was that it was apparent that none of our more experienced and qualified members took a moment to speak to the owner/builder to set up a time to meet with him to discuss the issue with this plane!
3. There are many people in our VAF ranks who have the skills and personalities to work in our group to improve the quality and skill set of the builders and pilots alike. One possible option might be to form a group that is respected and highly skilled, that we could use to further this cause, and maybe even elevate it to a level that would become the "Flight Safety" of the RV group. The insurance companies, parts and accessory vendors, etc., could be made aware of the existence of this group with an accompanying lobby for rate/price reductions to those who have participated. Of course it would be optional to participate, but certification of membership, training, inspection, etc. could be advantageous to both the consumers and suppliers alike. Another opportunity would be to align with the folks who offer builder classes, to offer reduced rates in return for a membership and commitment to work with our VAF group.
Additionally, we could take a lead from other owners groups to have designated folks available at group meetings to discuss changes in accepted procedures, and even to allow owners to submit their aircraft for a "once over" by a knowledgeable individual.
On the operational side, perhaps we could organize forums during selected events to discuss issues pertaining to safe operations, and unique flight characteristics of our RV aircraft. As we all know, the RV is a very capable aircraft in all flight regimes. However, that makes it also very unforgiving in others. It would be quite advantageous to have information flowing from very experienced pilots (it does not have to be RV's) to less experienced pilots.
I am a member of the the group that represents the pilots at my airline. We have a public forum similar to this, and found that there was a problem when trying to convey information. What we found was that the information that we were trying to put forth, was being diluted and lost by public comments. We finally made a section of the forum, where pertinent information could be posted i.e. an operational matter of the plane in a certain regime, that was not open to public response. If a member wanted to comment, he/she could start their own thread in the appropriate forum. This ensured that useful information was available to the membership.
It would be a major undertaking, that would require a tremendous amount of time and resources by a group of volunteers, but I for one believe that we would all be better off.
4. Some would say that "we already have DAR's and Tech Reps", and that is their job! Well, unfortunately it doesn't always seem to work out. Just this past week, I reviewed a very troubling NTSB report of an RV accident that occurred a few years ago. The plane was operated from the initial flight in a condition that was without a doubt unairworthy, yet it received certification. Clearly I do not profess for know all the details, but some DAR signed this plane off, just as the one referenced above was possibly signed off. Please don't take this as an indictment of DAR's, as I am very aware that we have several in our group that are very diligent in their duties. However, it is clear that not all DAR's have what could be termed acceptable standards.
In closing, I would like to submit that all of us, especially those of us who are multiple builders, professional pilots and maintenance techs, have a responsibility to speak up when we see something happening that doesn't pass the "sniff test". The truly sad statement about the above referenced accident, was that the builder/pilot was well known to other RV/AB builders, who in retrospect really wish that they had just "said something". I think that as a group we can go a long way to alleviating a future occurrence, and we would all sleep better at night.
Food for thought, I hope.
accident
Jetjoks post sounds hauntingly familiar to an accident report that I reread a few days ago for at least the third time. The pilot was observed by the FAA, who initially inspected the airplane, to be at a very minimum, mildly confused, and more likely unfit to hold a medical. This is the "good guy" side of the FAA. They could have and probably should have taken steps to ground the guy and force an extensive physical/mental evaluation.Instead they did nothing beyond denieing the airworthiness.The "Bad guy" side of the FAA almost certainly would have grounded the guy. I think in this case they would have saved the guys life.
Jetjoks post sounds hauntingly familiar to an accident report that I reread a few days ago for at least the third time. The pilot was observed by the FAA, who initially inspected the airplane, to be at a very minimum, mildly confused, and more likely unfit to hold a medical. This is the "good guy" side of the FAA. They could have and probably should have taken steps to ground the guy and force an extensive physical/mental evaluation.Instead they did nothing beyond denieing the airworthiness.The "Bad guy" side of the FAA almost certainly would have grounded the guy. I think in this case they would have saved the guys life.
where's the link?
Doug's missive was mentioned at EAA chapter 105's meeting at Van's. I looked for it on the VAF site and found this thread but the link in the first post goes nowhere. Where is it?
Doug's missive was mentioned at EAA chapter 105's meeting at Van's. I looked for it on the VAF site and found this thread but the link in the first post goes nowhere. Where is it?
[ed. It's on the front page in my signature block, Randall. Yellow arrow below. br,dr]
Last edited by a moderator:
bkc3921
Well Known Member
Random thoughts
I have no problem with DR's missive...Obviously, the most controversial plank is about calling the Feds. Please remember that he said the violation must be blatant (and presumably dangerous, as opposed to something more "administrative")..AND that it would not be reported until after it was brought to the offenders attention. Works for me. I read every post on this topic, and the statement I disagree with the most was "not your place to threaten their lively hood [sic]"..and if they take a risk it's "their problem"....Like H-E-Double Hockey Sticks it is!...I have invested a fortune (for me, time and money) in my RV..If the FAA curtails my ability to use it freely, or if insurance gets so high a normal person cannot afford it all because a handful cannot follow the rules, it certainly does affect me! Just a couple of other points: You have to start somewhere. When I grew up, it was unheard of to report a drunk driver..Now it is commonplace, and attitudes have changed...enforcement DOES make a difference in behavior...And (a little off topic)..it has been very interesting to observe the perceived status that comes with the term "high time pilot"!..Just because someone has a lot of hours does not mean they are necessarily safer..perhaps just luckier!..Personally, I would rather fly with a mid or low time pilot..someone who still respects gravity, attention to detail, prior planning, and the humility to believe they "do not know it all"....Experience (hours) often leads to complacency. Give me a pilot who is still scared.
I have no problem with DR's missive...Obviously, the most controversial plank is about calling the Feds. Please remember that he said the violation must be blatant (and presumably dangerous, as opposed to something more "administrative")..AND that it would not be reported until after it was brought to the offenders attention. Works for me. I read every post on this topic, and the statement I disagree with the most was "not your place to threaten their lively hood [sic]"..and if they take a risk it's "their problem"....Like H-E-Double Hockey Sticks it is!...I have invested a fortune (for me, time and money) in my RV..If the FAA curtails my ability to use it freely, or if insurance gets so high a normal person cannot afford it all because a handful cannot follow the rules, it certainly does affect me! Just a couple of other points: You have to start somewhere. When I grew up, it was unheard of to report a drunk driver..Now it is commonplace, and attitudes have changed...enforcement DOES make a difference in behavior...And (a little off topic)..it has been very interesting to observe the perceived status that comes with the term "high time pilot"!..Just because someone has a lot of hours does not mean they are necessarily safer..perhaps just luckier!..Personally, I would rather fly with a mid or low time pilot..someone who still respects gravity, attention to detail, prior planning, and the humility to believe they "do not know it all"....Experience (hours) often leads to complacency. Give me a pilot who is still scared.
Last edited:
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
Interesting, you believe that high time pilots do not pay attention to details? Typically it is that attention that allows a pilot to become high time without killing themselves or bending metal.
bkc3921
Well Known Member
@Ryan
Don't want to hijack the thread, but I feel there is not always a direct correlation between high hours and skill/safety. Some pilots fly thousands of hours without an engine failure, near miss, lost radio, etc. (lucky them!)..Sometimes their ability to work through an emergency never gets tested. I don't mean to imply that all high time pilots are "careless"..but it is undeniable that familiarity is a two-edged sword. I am a retired police officer with over 40 thousand traffic stops. If the truth be told, I was probably safer in the 1st 10K than he last 30K...it is a constant battle to keep your edge...I believe it is the same with pilots, and that is why we need to be humble and willing to constantly train. Hours, ratings, and courage are fleeting..but gravity is forever..! ...Just my 0.02.
Don't want to hijack the thread, but I feel there is not always a direct correlation between high hours and skill/safety. Some pilots fly thousands of hours without an engine failure, near miss, lost radio, etc. (lucky them!)..Sometimes their ability to work through an emergency never gets tested. I don't mean to imply that all high time pilots are "careless"..but it is undeniable that familiarity is a two-edged sword. I am a retired police officer with over 40 thousand traffic stops. If the truth be told, I was probably safer in the 1st 10K than he last 30K...it is a constant battle to keep your edge...I believe it is the same with pilots, and that is why we need to be humble and willing to constantly train. Hours, ratings, and courage are fleeting..but gravity is forever..! ...Just my 0.02.
Let me know how that works out for you.
Statistics, insurance companies, and common sense would disagree with your logic. 2000 1.0's, over and over in the local operating area also do not correlate with say 2000 hours of Part 135 single pilot night frieght operations.
To that end, next time you step on a commerical flight, poke your head in the front and tell the 20K hour Captain you'd feel better if he stepped out and allowed the 21 year old, 500 hour F/O at the regional down the terminal to drive the ship instead.
Last edited:
I think folks need to take the emotion out of this and realize that what is being said is that lots of hours in the logbook are Not a guarantee of good judgment. "bkc" is not saying that experienced pilots are all bad, he's saying that some have proven to be so. Take a look at the RV accident reports and you'll see that high time paid pilots do account for a fair number of accidents, as do the rookies. Experiened pilots make mistakes, as do the rookies.
As long as the experienced pilots are 100% certain that they can't have an accident, they are - sure enough - going to be potential causes for accidents... just as the inexperienced ones are. Admitting that it CAN happen to you is a valuable first step in accident prevention....and in the end, that is really what this thread - and Doug's "missive" - is all about, in my opinion.
Paul
As long as the experienced pilots are 100% certain that they can't have an accident, they are - sure enough - going to be potential causes for accidents... just as the inexperienced ones are. Admitting that it CAN happen to you is a valuable first step in accident prevention....and in the end, that is really what this thread - and Doug's "missive" - is all about, in my opinion.
Paul
****
Paul, you hit the nail on the proverbial head again..
It you don't learn something on almost every flight you ain't tryin..
I've been pushing these things around for many many years and I still am amazed at what I'm learning in this business. There are a LOT of smart folks doing this and we have to admit we are human and humans are going to mess up.
Keep the blue side up,,(Mostly) and be safe out there.
Paul, you hit the nail on the proverbial head again..
It you don't learn something on almost every flight you ain't tryin..
I've been pushing these things around for many many years and I still am amazed at what I'm learning in this business. There are a LOT of smart folks doing this and we have to admit we are human and humans are going to mess up.
Keep the blue side up,,(Mostly) and be safe out there.
RV7Guy
Well Known Member
Good one
Very true. I remember having to fly a commuter from Bismark ND to Minneapolis, Summer time with weather. While waiting outside (pre 9/11) the small airport a car pulls up and out jumps a "kid" with lunch bag and full Captains uniform on. I'm thinking, "this is my pilot." It was. After buckling in, the F/O gets on and it's a chick pilot. I see her struggling with the seat and say, "is this all the farther it will go?" I'm thinking I can take them if they do anything stupid. The flight was fine but I wasn't comfortable.
On the flip side, we've got an airline pilot in the neighborhood that is a complete psychopath. Probably 20 years with this carrier. I won't name the airline but when I have to fly this airline, I check to see who the pilot is. If it was this guy, I'd get off. This is one of those situations that, heaven forbid, he has an event, people will come out of the woodwork to comment on some of the bizarre schtuff he has done. Kind of like the Tucson shooting deal where the suspect was a known nutball ahead of time but nothing was done.
Bottom line, we are all responsible for safety. This has been a great discussion to create dialogue and bring an awareness of safety issues.
Very true. I remember having to fly a commuter from Bismark ND to Minneapolis, Summer time with weather. While waiting outside (pre 9/11) the small airport a car pulls up and out jumps a "kid" with lunch bag and full Captains uniform on. I'm thinking, "this is my pilot." It was. After buckling in, the F/O gets on and it's a chick pilot. I see her struggling with the seat and say, "is this all the farther it will go?" I'm thinking I can take them if they do anything stupid. The flight was fine but I wasn't comfortable.
On the flip side, we've got an airline pilot in the neighborhood that is a complete psychopath. Probably 20 years with this carrier. I won't name the airline but when I have to fly this airline, I check to see who the pilot is. If it was this guy, I'd get off. This is one of those situations that, heaven forbid, he has an event, people will come out of the woodwork to comment on some of the bizarre schtuff he has done. Kind of like the Tucson shooting deal where the suspect was a known nutball ahead of time but nothing was done.
Bottom line, we are all responsible for safety. This has been a great discussion to create dialogue and bring an awareness of safety issues.
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
Actually Paul, what he said (word for word) is "Personally, I would rather fly with a mid or low time pilot..someone who still respects gravity, attention to detail, prior planning, and the humility to believe they "do not know it all"....". No reading between the lines needed here.
Fair enough Ryan - I guess how you interpret his words depends on what you call low or mid time. We have many 30,000 hour pilots here that would consider 15,000 hours "mid-time". You can argue the exact words used on every single post here on the forums, but I prefer to try and understand what the person is trying to say. He doesn't say "Everyone with high time is an accident waiting to happen", which appears to be how you took it. I am probably misinterpretting you.
I think that dialog clears up the meaning for everyone.
Paul
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
I usually just let people's posts speak for themselves.
bkc3921
Well Known Member
Holy Moley
Sorry guys.. I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest..the way my comments were dissected, I feel like I'm back in court again..(lol!)..Paul Dye (as usual) is on the right track!....Again, all I am trying to express is that a lot of hours does not always equate to good skill and judgement...And I agree with jrs...98%..but not 100%!...For example, I still remember Air Florida Flight 90..where a captain with 8300 hrs, 2300 jet time, and 1750 hrs in type dumped his 737 in the Potomac and killed 78 people..all because he flew a lot in Florida and forgot to switch on the deicing equipment in the cold DC winter....My point: Nobody is bulletproof!...Please don't read any more into it than that.. I am NOT saying experience doesn't count..but if we prepared and planned for every flight like we prepared for our FIRST flight, I believe we would all be better off. I Hope that doesn't offend any of you high-time guys..I just want everyone to be safe.
Sorry guys.. I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest..the way my comments were dissected, I feel like I'm back in court again..(lol!)..Paul Dye (as usual) is on the right track!....Again, all I am trying to express is that a lot of hours does not always equate to good skill and judgement...And I agree with jrs...98%..but not 100%!...For example, I still remember Air Florida Flight 90..where a captain with 8300 hrs, 2300 jet time, and 1750 hrs in type dumped his 737 in the Potomac and killed 78 people..all because he flew a lot in Florida and forgot to switch on the deicing equipment in the cold DC winter....My point: Nobody is bulletproof!...Please don't read any more into it than that.. I am NOT saying experience doesn't count..but if we prepared and planned for every flight like we prepared for our FIRST flight, I believe we would all be better off. I Hope that doesn't offend any of you high-time guys..I just want everyone to be safe.
RV10inOz
Well Known Member
Yep, and a lot of 30,000 hr Jet guys who flew B7X7's for all that time, build an RV and start flying it like an FA18 pilot...........well they are 30,000 hour pilots when flying IFR on holidays with the wife/husband on board, but they are 0-200 hour pilots when they try to be a Top Gun.
Hours in the log book only show you what you know and have done, not always relative to what you are about to do!
Hours in the log book only show you what you know and have done, not always relative to what you are about to do!
Exactly right... but, this is not an issue about hours in the logbook, it's about flying your a/c within it's limitations. The RV-7A with the inflight breakup is a perfect example, as well as an example of not understanding exactly what he was asking of his a/c pulling lead pursuit with his camera. And I'm speaking from a standpoint of your example (6 years of F-18 experience).
Know your limitations, and equally importantly your a/c. Make sure one dosen't surpass the other.
BKC, sorry to dog hump on you but if you're going to summarize an example you need to be accurate on your facts. Palm 90 didn't get "dumped" into the drink because he "forgot" to turn on the de-ice. There were a lot more factors than that (and it was engine anti-ice). It's been a while, but from memory...
1. The CVRS did not accurately record with 100% certainty what was said in the checklist WRT to engine anti-ice position at start-up.
2. The ramp was covered with snow/slush
3. They powered back from the gate (per SOP, against OPLIM) to assist the tug
4. The were de-iced prior to departure
5. Departure delays resulted in expiration of their de-ice (by a small amount, don't remember exactly)
6. It was a PT 5 (IIRC) EPR probe that was frozen over (assesed as a result of the power back)
7. The result was engine indications at takeoff power that were exactly what they expected to see (needle clock position), with EGT running slightly cold
8. With the EPR probe ice-over, takeoff power indications actually only yielded about 70% thrust
9. Had they aborted the takeoff, an Eastern Airlines 727 touched down behind them while they were still on the takeoff roll
10. The only thing that would've saved them is firewalling the throttles
11. There was no system in place to to annuciate the exsitence of engine ice
My point? Hours and complacency had very little, if anything to do with it.
bkc3921
Well Known Member
I'm throwing in the towel
Not too many "big picture" guys on this blog, it seems. I was chastised for my incomplete Florida 90 summary. I suggest people read the actual NTSB summary and judge for themselves.
.....This discussion has completely drifted away from Doug Reeve's post..and I do not want to dilute his message by further engaging in a high-hour vs. low-hour "who's safer" contest....the subject matter is far too important and serious. Therefore, I'm taking the high road and throwing in the towel. Go forth, fly, be safe, and log those hours. DR and Paul Dye: Keep doing what you are doing...you have it right.
Not too many "big picture" guys on this blog, it seems. I was chastised for my incomplete Florida 90 summary. I suggest people read the actual NTSB summary and judge for themselves.
.....This discussion has completely drifted away from Doug Reeve's post..and I do not want to dilute his message by further engaging in a high-hour vs. low-hour "who's safer" contest....the subject matter is far too important and serious. Therefore, I'm taking the high road and throwing in the towel. Go forth, fly, be safe, and log those hours. DR and Paul Dye: Keep doing what you are doing...you have it right.
palm 90
Regarding Palm 90, the EPR guage is the primary means for setting power. It is unlikely the small amount of ice had any significant effect on any thing but the EPR reading. N1, N2, fuel flow and EGT would ALL have been abnormally low if any one had looked at anything except EPR. This crew was by no means experienced by airline standards.
Regarding Palm 90, the EPR guage is the primary means for setting power. It is unlikely the small amount of ice had any significant effect on any thing but the EPR reading. N1, N2, fuel flow and EGT would ALL have been abnormally low if any one had looked at anything except EPR. This crew was by no means experienced by airline standards.
The old hours business.
The important thing to realize is that the value of hours decreases as they accumulate. Is a 20 hr pilot twice as good as a 10 hr pilot? Probably. Is a 20,000 hr pilot twice as good as a 10,000 hr pilot? No.
After a certain point, what determines how good you are on a certain day has little to do with your total time - the curve has flattened off, with hours on the X axis, and ability on the Y axis.
What determines how good you are on a certain day, is how much you have been flying in the last month, and specifically the last week.
You can take a 10,000 or 20,000 hour pilot, and if he hasn't flown for a year, you can watch him fly, and think, "Gosh, he's a pretty good pilot". However, he will make all sorts of little mistakes - which he will probably get away with - which he is aware of, even if you aren't. They will p1ss him off.
However, take that same high-time pilot and get him 20 hours of stick & rudder time in the last week, and he's going to be pretty sharp.
There are of course, always exceptions to the rule. There are some clumsy high time pilots whom you wouldn't let push your lawnmower for various reasons.
A lot of time spent watching an autopilot fly an aircraft in a rigid environment is no guarantee of good stick & rudder skill, or good judgement.
The important thing to realize is that the value of hours decreases as they accumulate. Is a 20 hr pilot twice as good as a 10 hr pilot? Probably. Is a 20,000 hr pilot twice as good as a 10,000 hr pilot? No.
After a certain point, what determines how good you are on a certain day has little to do with your total time - the curve has flattened off, with hours on the X axis, and ability on the Y axis.
What determines how good you are on a certain day, is how much you have been flying in the last month, and specifically the last week.
You can take a 10,000 or 20,000 hour pilot, and if he hasn't flown for a year, you can watch him fly, and think, "Gosh, he's a pretty good pilot". However, he will make all sorts of little mistakes - which he will probably get away with - which he is aware of, even if you aren't. They will p1ss him off.
However, take that same high-time pilot and get him 20 hours of stick & rudder time in the last week, and he's going to be pretty sharp.
There are of course, always exceptions to the rule. There are some clumsy high time pilots whom you wouldn't let push your lawnmower for various reasons.
A lot of time spent watching an autopilot fly an aircraft in a rigid environment is no guarantee of good stick & rudder skill, or good judgement.
apkp777
Well Known Member
Back when I was a 250 hour private pilot, I had an engine failure shortly after takeoff. 200 of those hours were recent in the plane I was flying (Cherokee 140). To my right was my good friend and 10k hour United Airlines captain. I asked him "do you want to take it?" His response was clear and simple. "you have more experience than I do".
I have to say that I am very impressed with high time pilots. As a CFI, I get the opportunity to fly with all sorts of pilots. Both experienced and not so experienced. It's always clear who has RECENT experience. There are some low time pilots who are very, very good pilots (I believe I have made quite a few).
It's my opinion that those who follow the rules (FARs) stand to fair much better than those who do not. To me it's just simple, keep current and follow the rules.
I have to say that I am very impressed with high time pilots. As a CFI, I get the opportunity to fly with all sorts of pilots. Both experienced and not so experienced. It's always clear who has RECENT experience. There are some low time pilots who are very, very good pilots (I believe I have made quite a few).
It's my opinion that those who follow the rules (FARs) stand to fair much better than those who do not. To me it's just simple, keep current and follow the rules.
