AOPA ASF response to ABC Nightline piece - whitewash??

[alfadog]

Just watched AOPA Live and head of AOPA Safety, Bruce Landsberg's, response.

http://www.aopa.org/aopalive/this-week/?cmp=ALTW:L6#ooid=Zia3ZjYToUq3f1W2McsPX0UR8S5GVqEm

Sorry, but it came across as a total whitewash to me. I had not seen the Nightline piece so I looked at that. Yes, it was alarmist (like most mainstream media) but I did not see it as terribly inaccurate in that it was mostly emphasizing that pilots needed more proficiency in stall recovery and other emergency procedures.

"Many Small Plane Crashes Avoidable With Better Pilot Training, NTSB Says"

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/plane-crashes-secrets-staying-safe-avoiding-accidents-18760718

http://abcnews.go.com/US/small-plan...-training-ntsb/story?id=18760176#.UU2aLBzCZ8E

Landsberg's comments came off more as the BS, to me. He disputes the accident numbers on ABC but offers no countering numbers. He says pilots are A-OK with stalls because they receive stall training when they get their license. Pul-leese! We all know that if you don't use it, you lose it. Meaning practice, practice, practice.

I know we are all super-pilots here but I warrant that super-pilots are in the minority of the GA community. I know more than a few casual pilots between my club and the various FBOs I have frequented and most are "fair weather fliers", meaning, strictly IMO, their skills are not up to anything beyond fair-weather flying and they know it. Most of them look at me as some strange bird because of the frequent and intense practice I so love. They just want to go up and look at the pretty scenery or maybe fly for a burger. Nothing wrong with that but the ones I know are not keeping their skills current.

I think the ABC piece highlighted that pilots need more training; I think Landsberg tried to whitewash it all away. Between the two, I prefer the ABC piece.

 

[poadeleted21]

The abc piece was about as bad/dishonest as reporting can get. It seemed like a paranoid 5th grader copy/pasted totally unrelated talking points to arrive at an illogical conclusion.

 

[alfadog]

The abc piece was about as bad/dishonest as reporting can get. It seemed like a paranoid 5th grader copy/pasted totally unrelated talking points to arrive at an illogical conclusion.

That "illogical conclusion" being that pilots make preventable mistakes that could be addressed by more/better training?

 

[KeithASanford]

As bad and inaccurate as the ABC report was, the AOPA response was nothing more than a blanket denial. The fact of the matter is, 11 planes went down. ABC feeds the public's fear of flying GA using a Private Pilot reporting and an "expert" and the AOPA does nothing to stave off the wide spread "I told you GA is too dangerous" panic. How should the GA community respond? Maybe petition the FAA publicly for greater safety requirements in currency? As inconvenient as it might be to some, it probably wouldn't hurt, especially if the incidence of stall spin tragedies decrease. Even if you don't feel it's necessary, action has to be taken to counteract the overreaction by the very naive public every time some pilot who's last spin training was in the 70's kills himself that way.

 

[wabower]

Unfortunately, pilots think of their aviation abilities the in the same way they think about puberty. Once they achieve it, they think they should be allowed to do it however they want for as long as they can get it up (the airplane) without any further training or advice.

The GA accident rating is nothing more than one more piece of evidence in support of the adage "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got."

As bad and inaccurate as the ABC report was, the AOPA response was nothing more than a blanket denial. The fact of the matter is, 11 planes went down. ABC feeds the public's fear of flying GA using a Private Pilot reporting and an "expert" and the AOPA does nothing to stave off the wide spread "I told you GA is too dangerous" panic. How should the GA community respond? Maybe petition the FAA publicly for greater safety requirements in currency? As inconvenient as it might be to some, it probably wouldn't hurt, especially if the incidence of stall spin tragedies decrease. Even if you don't feel it's necessary, action has to be taken to counteract the overreaction by the very naive public every time some pilot who's last spin training was in the 70's kills himself that way.

 

[wsuffa]

The ABC piece would reinforce NTSB's recent campaign to set their sights on the GA world.

Whether ABC picked it up on their own from the NTSB statements or whether NTSB fed them is of no consequence: the PR campaign has begun.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Careful boys. More required training might help the safety record, 2 things if they require more you aren't going to like how it shakes out and are free to pursue all the extra training you want. Second more importantly there is no acceptable safety record in modern society, if you buy the abc premise you will lose. 11 in a weekend or one per month could all generate the same news story. Remember what Stalin said, the death of one russian soldier is atragedy, death of a million is a statistic. GA will never be safe enough for modern society, the only defense is people are free to put themselves in harms way because they want to. Proper response to these types is telling them anyone who doesn't support the freedom to fly is a gay retard.

 

[alfadog]

The non-flying public is entitled to a real assessment of any danger to them, not a whitewash by what seems to be a professional apologist. If I thought someone was conducting an activity that posed a danger to myself and/or my family then I would want to know about it. Please do not misinterpret me here, I am not saying that is the case. I am saying that airplane crashes make news, that people on the ground, innocent bystanders, occasionally die from those crashes. And more often there are scary close calls. How many times have we heard "He flew right over my house on the way down..." from eyewitnesses? My point is that I see nothing wrong with ABC trying to make sense of GA accidents and the NTSB position and tailoring that presentation for mainstream media and the non-pilot. This is legitimate news.

You are now free to remove me from your Christmas card list.

 

[alfadog]

Proper response to these types is telling them anyone who doesn't support the freedom to fly is a gay retard.

Gay retards need love too!

 

[wabower]

Acceptable to whom? The problem is that current record simply cannot be defended and Bruce knows it. If it were, he would have had more ammunition for a response.

If the argument is about individual freedoms and the right to die however you want, then the GA position has an element of merit, at least if the pilot is alone in the plane. When he carries passengers, the game changes.

Careful boys. More required training might help the safety record, 2 things if they require more you aren't going to like how it shakes out and are free to pursue all the extra training you want. Second more importantly there is no acceptable safety record in modern society, if you buy the abc premise you will lose. 11 in a weekend or one per month could all generate the same news story. Remember what Stalin said, the death of one russian soldier is atragedy, death of a million is a statistic. GA will never be safe enough for modern society, the only defense is people are free to put themselves in harms way because they want to. Proper response to these types is telling them anyone who doesn't support the freedom to fly is a gay retard.

 

[alfadog]

The situation is food for thought. Here is something we probably rarely think of:

If a pilot is turning base-to-final 400 feet over my backyard where my children are playing, don't I have the right to know that the pilot is adequately trained and current in their skills? I think the non-flying public has the right to ask that question and GA had better have a good answer. I was just disappointed when I heard what answer the man allegedly with the answer had.

 

[wabower]

If they're playing in the front yard, do you have the same right regarding drivers on the street? If you attend a NASCAR race, do you have the same right about the guys who designed the fence?

The situation is food for thought. Here is something we probably rarely think of:

If a pilot is turning base-to-final 400 feet over my backyard where my children are playing, don't I have the right to know that the pilot is adequately trained and current in their skills? I think the non-flying public has the right to ask that question and GA had better have a good answer. I was just disappointed when I heard what answer the man allegedly with the answer had.

 

[hindsight2020]

Acceptable to whom? The problem is that current record simply cannot be defended and Bruce knows it. If it were, he would have had more ammunition for a response.

If the argument is about individual freedoms and the right to die however you want, then the GA position has an element of merit, at least if the pilot is alone in the plane. When he carries passengers, the game changes.

And driving drunk or riding a motorcycle is different how? Oh, that the peanut gallery does that more than fly in private aircraft and thus the latter modes of death is socially accepted?

This has nothing to do with the relative dangers of flying, it has everything to do with the public bully dynamics that the irresponsibility of the many is justified, the irresponsibility of the few isn't. That's so Anti-American in sentiment it's not even funny.

 

[alfadog]

If they're playing in the front yard, do you have the same right regarding drivers on the street? If you attend a NASCAR race, do you have the same right about the guys who designed the fence?

Of course.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Fortune cookie yesterday: If one slings mud, they lose ground.

Best,

Dave

 

[alfadog]

Fortune cookie yesterday: If one slings mud, they lose ground.

Best,

Dave

Good one!

My fav fortune cookie is one I carry in my wallet, to wit:

A nice cake is waiting for you.

 

[wabower]

And the odds of either are?

Of course.

 

[wabower]

Attempting to hide behind other equally poor records while offering abstract comparisons isn't a viable strategy. Got any others?

In light of the current political and economic situation, how should an "Anti-American sentiment" be defined?

And driving drunk or riding a motorcycle is different how? Oh, that the peanut gallery does that more than fly in private aircraft and thus the latter modes of death is socially accepted?

This has nothing to do with the relative dangers of flying, it has everything to do with the public bully dynamics that the irresponsibility of the many is justified, the irresponsibility of the few isn't. That's so Anti-American in sentiment it's not even funny.

 

[alfadog]

And the odds of either are?

It is not about odds, it is about the public asking a legitimate question following an incident or string of incidents. Let us take your NASCAR example. Perhaps your use of that example was prompted by a recent incident in which 28 fans were injured:

Last-Lap Crash in Nascar Race Injures Fans

There are plenty of races that do not incorporate catch fences and I would argue that spectators at such races accept a certain element of risk. However, I also think that spectators have a reasonable expectation that NASCAR track design will protect them from flying debris. So when that system fails, I think the public has the right to ask hard questions and NASCAR should have good answers. That does seem to be what is occurring:

As Wary Fans Return After Crash, Nascar Plans Safety Review

So, yeah.

 

[wabower]

Does contributory negligence come into play in your assessment? Would spectators be subject to the same risk if the races were in go-karts?

It is not about odds, it is about the public asking a legitimate question. Let us take your NASCAR example. Perhaps your use of that example was prompted by a recent incident in which 28 fans were injured:

Last-Lap Crash in Nascar Race Injures Fans

There are plenty of races that do not incorporate catch fences and I would argue that spectators at such races accept a certain element of risk. However, I also think that spectators have a reasonable expectation that NASCAR track design will protect them from flying debris. So when that system fails, I think the public has the right to ask hard questions and NASCAR should have good answers. That does seem to be what is occurring:

As Wary Fans Return After Crash, Nascar Plans Safety Review

So, yeah.

 

[alfadog]

Does contributory negligence come into play in your assessment? How

What are we discussing here? My point in starting this thread is that a prominent GA spokesperson had, IMO, no cogent response to a legitimate question by the public. Do you disagree with some aspect of that premise? I think the NASCAR example is a good analogue of how to better handle this sort of situation and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

 

[wsuffa]

Second more importantly there is no acceptable safety record in modern society

This ^^^^^ .

Fact is that we are a society that now values zero-risk, zero tolerance. In the words of more than one politician: "If we save the life of one child, it's all worth it". The general public has become accustomed to (and accepting of) any and all limitations on freedoms in order to try and produce zero risk. The goal is not risk management, it's zero risk.

Proper response to these types is telling them anyone who doesn't support the freedom to fly is a gay retard.

That name is uncalled for & has no place here on PoA. Really.

 

[poadeleted21]

That "illogical conclusion" being that pilots make preventable mistakes that could be addressed by more/better training?

I have a feeling they suckered Stowell into talking to them for one.

first, they start off with.

death spiral headed straight down.

That right they ought to sound a 5 alarm on the bull---- detector.

Then they go on.

In fact, while domestic commercial airplanes are on a safety streak of no fatalities in more than three years, small planes average five accidents per day, accounting for nearly 500 American deaths in small planes each year.

Comparing commercial fatalities to GA accidents? Just misleading journalism.

Comparing 121 operations to a guy flying a Cessna 150 is like comparing a a trip in a Greyhound bus to riding a street bike.

Then we have

A twin-engine jet crashed into a house in South Bend, Ind., killing two on Sunday

and

While a twin-engine turbo prop in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., killed three when it crashed into an auto pound.

are spins and spin training really a problem in twin engine rigs that burn JETA?


Then they say

More private pilots are in the air now than ever, and the leading cause of death is pilot loss of control.

Which is just a flat out and out lie by an order of magnitude. Pilot numbers are on a steady decline. And sure "loss of control" may be the final "cause" but being somewhere you shouldn't comes before the "loss of control". They make it sound like we just putt along and the plane just randomly gets away from us. No mention of not being able to control it because you're getting bounced around with zero visibility by being illegally in a cloud. or can't control the throttle because it's out of fuel. Just plain ole stupidity that every pilot already knows and no amount of spin training is going to fix.


Then they go into spin training in small GA aircraft? Do what? I assume they did this because "death spirals" and lack of stick and rudder skills are more interesting to the uninformed reader than "ran out of gas" or "illegally flew into clouds"

Yeah most accidents are preventable. If they asked me I'd recommend keeping fuel in the tanks and staying out of IMC when flying VFR. I don't think inadvertent unrecoverable spin are the cause for the aluminum rain.

Not saying spin training is a bad thing, but it's not what's ailing us and argument they gave was all over the place and didn't lead to the conclusion they came up with.

If you don't feel comfortable with your stick and rudder skills or the weather conditions, stay on the ground or take someone who does, but don't go barking that everybody else needs more training because idiots fly into IMC and run out of fuel.

 

[alfadog]

Fact is that we are a society that now values zero-risk, zero tolerance. In the words of more than one politician: "If we save the life of one child, it's all worth it". The general public has become accustomed to (and accepting of) any and all limitations on freedoms in order to try and produce zero risk. The goal is not risk management, it's zero risk.

Straw man argument. It is not about zero risk, it it about what level of training and recurrent training should a GA pilot have. What are the problem areas. We accepted a "limitation on freedom" when we required pilots to have licenses. Would you undo that?

 

[poadeleted21]

Straw man argument. It is not about zero risk, it it about what level of training and recurrent training should a GA pilot have. What are the problem areas. We accepted a "limitation on freedom" when we required pilots to have licenses. Would you undo that?

Here's your training course, no charge for it.

- Don't run out of fuel.
- Don't fly VFR into IMC.

Done.

 

[alfadog]

Here's your training course, no charge for it.

- Don't run out of fuel.
- Don't fly VFR into IMC.

Done.

OK, send that along to Landsberg so that he will have a better answer next time.

 

[nddons]

Hey, at least AOPA has some foresight! They did that show on March 21, 2012, because they thought ABC would do their hit piece in 2013.

Miraculous.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

First off the accident they show is not about stall recovery. There is no possible stall recovery in that scenario. The way to have avoided that accident is to have not over loaded the airplane in the first place.

Second, we are given stall training. and bit less spin training.

It might be great for anyone who is interested to take acrobatic training but to make that part of the basic PPL is unnecessary.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Years ago when young and idealistic, I took the time to explain a very complex tax shelter to a reporter from the WSJ. In the course of a couple hours, I explained how four critical assumptions of a restructuring had little or no chance of occurring. Like re-arranging the deck chairs on Titanic. In the paper, the ONLY thing attributed to me was that quote. No credit for all the time I took or expertise. Last time I gave a substantive interview with the mess,,,,uh press.

Best,

Dave

 

[ClimbnSink]

For everyone that buys into ABCs premise, what is the acceptable rate of GA crashes? We'll assume 11 in a weekend is too many so it should be less then that. Numbers please.

 

[poadeleted21]

For everyone that buys into ABCs premise, what is the acceptable rate of GA crashes? We'll assume 11 in a weekend is too many so it should be less then that. Numbers please.

 

[Everskyward]

For everyone that buys into ABCs premise, what is the acceptable rate of GA crashes? We'll assume 11 in a weekend is too many so it should be less then that. Numbers please.

Since you are into finding that number, why don't you go first. How many would be too many?

 

[pilot_dude]

What is the AOPA thing you're talking about? Wait, I seem to remember a couple decades ago when there was an organization with those letters that had an interest in 100LL jocks.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Since you are into finding that number, why don't you go first. How many would be too many?

I don't buy ABCs premise, one crash is too many for their agenda. I'm guessing no one will posit an acceptable number because we know deep down there is no number above zero that passes. Ramping up the right amount of the right training to reduce accidents at an acceptable cost is all nice to talk about, but as long as one plane crashes. For any reason, GA loses. Freedom is the only defensible excuse.

 

[Everskyward]

I don't buy ABCs premise, one crash is too many for their agenda. I'm guessing no one will posit an acceptable number because we know deep down there is no number above zero that passes. Ramping up the right amount of the right training to reduce accidents at an acceptable cost is all nice to talk about, but as long as one plane crashes. For any reason, GA loses. Freedom is the only defensible excuse.

So you don't have a number in mind either.

 

[ClimbnSink]

So you don't have a number in mind either.

Reread my post, I wrote for everyone that buys into ABCs premise, I don't buy into their premise. However I do have a number it is the numeral 8 laying on its side, there is no level of GA carnage that bothers me.

 

[Everskyward]

Reread my post, I wrote for everyone that buys into ABCs premise, I don't buy into their premise.

That's obvious.

However I do have a number it is the numeral 8 laying on its side, there is no level of GA carnage that bothers me.

OK, but I'm not sure how many people you will find to agree with you. We'll see.

 

[wabower]

My response was to your theory that "GA owes me a duty about airspace over my back yard." My response is that GA doesn't owe you squat. If you incur damages as a result of some event that was the result of an airplane flying overhead (maybe a blue waste-water bomb from a 121 carrier) your beef is with the owner/operator or the airplane, not with some some segment of the industry.

What are we discussing here? My point in starting this thread is that a prominent GA spokesperson had, IMO, no cogent response to a legitimate question by the public. Do you disagree with some aspect of that premise? I think the NASCAR example is a good analogue of how to better handle this sort of situation and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

 

[douglas393]

Pick an activity that involves machines and then find me one that has a perfect safety record. They could have been talking about scuba diving, skiing, motor cross, bicycle riding, boating, running, walking, or even shopping. They all involve risks and every year people die from them.

Life is about taking chances, and limiting the risks of those chances. Every breath we take, and every step we take is full of risk. Would it be nice if the fatality rate of GA was zero, sure, I think we can all agree on that. Unfortunately, there is only one way to do that, and I for one would be very unhappy with that solution. When we fly we take a risk that something unexpected is going to happen, and we train and educate ourselves to deal with the unexpected should it occur and minimize the risks as much as possible. Can we all gain something from additional training, probably, and so most of us do that.

How about the media concentrating on the numbers of flights that occur on a daily basis that end successfully, and what GA offers the country. But then again that would probably be a positive article and we all know negative articles sell better.

 

[alfadog]

My response was to your theory that "GA owes me a duty about airspace over my back yard." My response is that GA doesn't owe you squat. If you incur damages as a result of some event that was the result of an airplane flying overhead (maybe a blue waste-water bomb from a 121 carrier) your beef is with the owner/operator or the airplane, not with some some segment of the industry.

Oh really?

So if some factory poisons the water and kills your children, and those of all your neighbors, you feel that that should be OK as far as a regulatory framework is concerned provided that you have recourse against the corporation for your dead children? They should be able to kill just as many as they like so long at we can go after them. And when the shell corporation folds without liability to the principals, you can bury your children with the squat that any sector of industry owes anyone. Heaven forbid anyone should be regulated.

Because that is the proximate and "logical" extension of your argument.