Are pilots over obsessed with safety?

ChitDisturber said:
Well blame it on the generation that was raised by women and/or feminine men.

Many of the folks who had parents where dad could change his own oil and fix things and maybe, god forbid, build something...

It's like asking, when you were younger did you fix your own car, drink out of a hose and were not afraid of a scraped knee, OR did you take you car in, drink bottled water and go to the doc for a runny nose
Just diffrent demographics I guess.
Click to expand...


Not sure I'm getting the correlation between changing your own oil and making bad piloting decisions. Myself, I think changing my own oil would be a waste of time, considering how easily and inexpensively I can get it done at a shop, and haven't changed oil on a street driven car in decades. I did replace my car's timing belt earlier this summer, since the labor charge for that would have been in the hundreds of dollars, but saving $10 on a oil change ain't worth it.

I used to think that it was men of my generation (I'm 55) that dropped the ball on passing down the knowledge on how to work on one's car, but now that I think about it, hardly any of my friends ever did anything to their cars either. Men of my father's generation were much more exposed to mechanical things since many of them worked in gas stations, but growing up in the 70's, I never saw any of them working on their own cars either. I'm beginning to think that the idea that most men knew something about their cars is more legend than fact.

Meanwhile, back to the topic. Statistics say that either GA pilots are anything but obsessed with safety, or that there's a high level of inherent risk in the operation of GA aircraft. My best friend's father was killed in a GA accident in Alaska a few years ago. He was flying with an 83 year old pilot who was from the lower 48, and they experienced fuel starvation trying to reach a destination after landing at an airport that had no fuel. Obviously, this is sample size of 1, but fuel starvation and continuing into inappropriate weather have to be the two biggest killers in all of general aviation.

We could definitely use some better technology in determining how much fuel is aboard. Let's face it, other than when the tanks are full, do we really know how much fuel we have? Unfortunately, as long we are flying around in these 30 and 40 year old airplanes, I don't see much chance of doing something about that. We do have much better weather information available, and hopefully most of us will act on that.

If we get our safety record to where it's similar to what the corporate aviation guys can achieve, then we can start talking about being safety obsessed.
 
FormerHangie said:
We could definitely use some better technology in determining how much fuel is aboard. Let's face it, other than when the tanks are full, do we really know how much fuel we have? Unfortunately, as long we are flying around in these 30 and 40 year old airplanes, I don't see much chance of doing something about that. We do have much better weather information available, and hopefully most of us will act on that.
Click to expand...

Huh. Of course we know how much fuel we have. All it takes is a stick and a watch. It is the human mind trying to bend reality to the mind's desires that is the problem. Technology cannot fix that.
 
I wonder how many here have shoulder belts in their airplane? Extra credit if they added them when they bought the airplane.
 
MAKG1 said:
You're confusing an unlikely event with an impossible one.

Industrial accidents involving fuels and oxygen are mercifully rare, but when they happen, they tend to be catastrophic.

The problem with being lax about the rules is that it works until it doesn't. It may work for years, until it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Here is a fairly recent incident where it didn't work....

Brian
 

Attachments

FormerHangie said:
We could definitely use some better technology in determining how much fuel is aboard.
Click to expand...

Technology can fail. As I understand it we are already seeing a lot of new pilots getting hurt because of over-reliance on their technology without the base knowledge to back it up.

That's fine in a car where you can just coast to the side of the road.. =)
 
One of my best buddy's was a demo pilot for aero commander, a long time CFI and a real pro on weather, bad weather, etc. he taught quite a few real sharp businessmen who became very good IFR, twin pilots but in some instances got thru bad weather due to luck rather than skill as they related their narrow escapes to their mentor. He claimed a real danger was a very sharp individual, successful, in a nice twin, with say 2-300 hours, maybe 60 IFR, that gets into real weather, turbulence, etc. and loses it. Or another, same background, takes off , minimum ceilings, turboprop, wife children inboard, loses engine, misses first approach with one engine feathered at same airport, on next approach, somehow shuts down good engine, wife heard over radio, in background screaming just before impact. My pals rule was: fly instruments 4 seasons four times before taking any passengers along. He further stated that unless you flew instruments once or twice a week you'd be better off on the carrier of your choice. ( personally, I think every aircraft should have shoulder harnesses.)
 
ClimbnSink said:
Huh. Of course we know how much fuel we have. All it takes is a stick and a watch. It is the human mind trying to bend reality to the mind's desires that is the problem. Technology cannot fix that.
Click to expand...

That's what we currently have, and it's not working very well.

Palamedes said:
Technology can fail. As I understand it we are already seeing a lot of new pilots getting hurt because of over-reliance on their technology without the base knowledge to back it up.

That's fine in a car where you can just coast to the side of the road.. =)
Click to expand...

All I'm asking for is an accurate way of measuring how much fuel there is in the aircraft before takeoff, and how much was burned during flight. Currently, in many cases we have neither. The crash I mentioned occurred in a Baron. My understanding of the Baron's fuel system is that if it's full to the gills, you have x number of gallons, and if it's only full to the inboard tanks, you have y gallons. If you have something significantly less than y gallons, it's really an educated guess. Low wing aircraft, with their dihedral, are particularly difficult to gauge if they have only a partial fill. This would not be that much of an issue if we could always take off with full tanks, but since our aircraft can't take a full fuel load with a full passenger load, sometimes we don't. So now we use a 1920's era approach of using a dipstick to estimate the amount of fuel. Seriously, there's got to be something better than that. It's way too easy for the pilot to get the answer he wants rather than the answer the dipstick is trying to tell him, not to mention that if the aircraft is not on level ground the reading is very suspect.

There's gotta be a better way. Most of us allow for this by carrying what we think is an additional reserve, but sooner or later, one of us is going to make a misreading that is catastrophic. The airlines manage this much better even though most of their flights have a far smaller reserve than we carry. The Concorde was famously known for its small reserve amount, IIRC is was somewhere around 15 minutes.
 
We have digital fuel totalizers. It is not an information problem, it is a human problem. Your friends knew they were low hence the first landing. Same bad decision as that donald fellow in the CT.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
One of my best buddy's was a demo pilot for aero commander, a long time CFI and a real pro on weather, bad weather, etc. he taught quite a few real sharp businessmen who became very good IFR, twin pilots but in some instances got thru bad weather due to luck rather than skill as they related their narrow escapes to their mentor. He claimed a real danger was a very sharp individual, successful, in a nice twin, with say 2-300 hours, maybe 60 IFR, that gets into real weather, turbulence, etc. and loses it. Or another, same background, takes off , minimum ceilings, turboprop, wife children inboard, loses engine, misses first approach with one engine feathered at same airport, on next approach, somehow shuts down good engine, wife heard over radio, in background screaming just before impact. My pals rule was: fly instruments 4 seasons four times before taking any passengers along. He further stated that unless you flew instruments once or twice a week you'd be better off on the carrier of your choice. ( personally, I think every aircraft should have shoulder harnesses.)
Click to expand...

While his idea is nice, it's just not something that will ever happen. For one, many people can't effectively fly instruments for half of the year in the northern latitudes. For two, saying that you'd fly for 4 years before taking passengers, that sounds rather excessive.

But 200-300 hours in a Twin Commander in bad weather? Yeah, that's a bad idea. There's a lot in between that and CAVU VFR.
 
What he was trying to convey was the ability to fly instruments well until the chips were down. When things go bad, the mental ability to keep focused and not do dumb things that exacerbate the problem, turning it deadly. It's why military cadets start with say 80 students and wind up graduating about 40. In clutch city some just can't function. Low time IFR , especially coupled with low multi engine time can be and have been for many, a poor outcome. By low time I would think in the 1000 hr. range. As for fuel consumption- management, this has to be between the ears problem or unfamiliarity with the aircraft being flown or both. The mindset of "I've probably got enough to get to the next airport" is really a stupid decision. I don't think safety is stressed enough nor are poor decisions. The earlier faa video really stresses this point, and pilot error is truly the main culprit in most accidents. Watch it if you have time. The speaker knows of what he speaks.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
What he was trying to convey was the ability to fly instruments well until the chips were down. When things go bad, the mental ability to keep focused and not do dumb things that exacerbate the problem, turning it deadly. It's why military cadets start with say 80 students and wind up graduating about 40. In clutch city some just can't function. Low time IFR , especially coupled with low multi engine time can be and have been for many, a poor outcome. By low time I would think in the 1000 hr. range. As for fuel consumption- management, this has to be between the ears problem or unfamiliarity with the aircraft being flown or both. The mindset of "I've probably got enough to get to the next airport" is really a stupid decision. I don't think safety is stressed enough nor are poor decisions. The earlier faa video really stresses this point, and pilot error is truly the main culprit in most accidents. Watch it if you have time. The speaker knows of what he speaks.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say here, and especially the part that a number of people just can't perform under pressure.

One of the things that my instructor did well and that I've since put into other students I've had is to try to teach decision making. It's hard to do, but one thing you can do is to put students in scenarios while flying and talk through the options. It seems to have worked for me and my students.
 
I flew with him quite a bit, sometimes in pretty bad weather, usually in a turbo commander. I realized that Clint Eastwood was right....." A mans gotta realize his limitations" . It was not my bag. I just could not handle bad weather, turbulence, being banged around like he could. If I had insisted, I probably would have done myself in along with wife or others. He retired with 16000 hours in many types. I always remember what bob Hoover said....." When something bad happens in the air, it's never just one thing, it's usually about three things, so one has to be on them quickly, correctly." Maybe not an exact quote but very close.
 
Last edited:
Consider the crash in Clarence n.y. February, 2009, Pilot had flown for some time. Had failed several checks but was allowed to continue. On this flight in a newer bombardier 400 he and a very inexperienced co pilot managed to turn an uneventful 1 hour flight into a catastrophe. Reacting to a stall warning both he and the co pilot, excited and reacting poorly did everything wrong. Pilot error personified. Killed 49 people plus one on the ground. Totally avoidable accident.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Consider the crash in Clarence n.y. February, 2009, Pilot had flown for some time. Had failed several checks but was allowed to continue. On this flight in a newer bombardier 400 he and a very inexperienced co pilot managed to turn an uneventful 1 hour flight into a catastrophe. Reacting to a stall warning both he and the co pilot, excited and reacting poorly did everything wrong. Pilot error personified. Killed 49 people plus one on the ground. Totally avoidable accident.
Click to expand...

In one post you suggest that someone shouldn't fly passengers in IMC without 4 years of experience. Then that some people will panic. Also that a person has to know their limitations because pilot error is often the cause of accidents.

Sounds like we should leave this stuff to steely eyed professionals, who have handled proven real emergencies without panicking, have thousands of hours of IMC time and more CAT 3's than they can count, and have perfect backgrounds.

This thread is about obsession, so I get it.:wink2:
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Consider the crash in Clarence n.y. February, 2009, Pilot had flown for some time. Had failed several checks but was allowed to continue. On this flight in a newer bombardier 400 he and a very inexperienced co pilot managed to turn an uneventful 1 hour flight into a catastrophe. Reacting to a stall warning both he and the co pilot, excited and reacting poorly did everything wrong. Pilot error personified. Killed 49 people plus one on the ground. Totally avoidable accident.
Click to expand...

Both the pilot and co-pilot had over 2,000 hours there. What they lacked was foundation, which the new rules may help somewhat, but I doubt it. They need to be flying old clapped out piston twins with half of the systems inop in storms and ice to get a good foundation. But not many people do that anymore.

I'm not entirely sure of your point here. We know it's unrealistic to have 10k hour pilots flying all aircraft. Just won't happen. The bigger problem as I see it is a lack of good foundation-building jobs, like hauling checks. Even flying 1900s or Dash 8s is seen as beneath the new pilots who really need that foundation building experience.
 
denverpilot said:
Ha. So Diet Coke is effeminate? I never knew. I was always pretty sure it was an equal opportunity addiction. ;)
Click to expand...

Diet Coke? I don't think so. Tab? Definitely!

Clark1961 said:
Yup, a real man would at least have a diet beer! :D
Click to expand...
This is the beer you guys need:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hello-kitty-beers-splash-asia-133425095.html

On the last trip to China, our group manager brought some back. We had to dare and place bets on who would drink it! It's really fruity-tasting. :rofl: :vomit:
 
rpadula said:
Diet Coke? I don't think so. Tab? Definitely!


This is the beer you guys need:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hello-kitty-beers-splash-asia-133425095.html

On the last trip to China, our group manager brought some back. We had to dare and place bets on who would drink it! It's really fruity-tasting. :rofl: :vomit:
Click to expand...

Nasty. I believe we need a Safety Meeting somewhere they serve Guiness to push the awfulness from our minds. Otherwise the trauma may inhibit our ability to fly instruments without at least four years of experience in all four seasons. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top