Is the number one cause of accidents/injuries low visibilty?

[jesse]

You want to try me for $1,000?



So you don't think that a guy who flies his 340 less than 60 hours per year and takes his FR in a VFR-only Cessna 150 wouldn't benefit from a real check-ride in the airplane he uses for most of his trips, some of which are IFR?

Not really. I'm just not sure why you would make a statement saying that you'd fail 70% of the board and expect yourself to do any better. Perhaps you could tell everyone your source of gypsy magic, because I fail to see how you can evaluate the piloting skills of the majority of this board when you haven't met the majority or flown with them.

Sorry - your statement and challenge are just ridiculous. But if you really want to lose $1,000, by all means, come on up

There is a lot more to safe aviating than the arbitrary standards that are the PTS. If you're able to always fly to the PTS and never make a mistake - I probably should send you my "world greatest pilot" shirt.

FWIW - I've yet to have someone want to do a flight review in a 150 unless that is the airplane they own and fly. Flying a 150 well isn't exactly a piece of cake either. Plenty of pilots used to flight high performance heavy aircraft would be humbled on a tiny runway in a 150 on a windy Nebraska day.

 

[wabower]

Re: Is the number one cause of accidents/injuries low visibility?

Not really. I'm just not sure why you would make a statement saying that you'd fail 70% of the board and expect yourself to do any better. Perhaps you could tell everyone your source of gypsy magic, because I fail to see how you can evaluate the piloting skills of the majority of this board when you haven't met the majority or flown with them.

I didn't say I would fail them, I said they would fail. Their job is to fly the airplane, my job is to record the results. The reason they would fail is because they can't fly to PTS standards. The reason they can't fly to standards is because they put the plastic in their pocket and don't practice. The reason they kill themselves and their families with tragic regularity, and the reason the shiitty record will continue is because they can't perform when the time comes. If they could, they wouldn't crash.

The accident reports make clear that that most are due to the pilots' failure to fly the airplane. Their mistakes are predictable and the the accidents are due to their inability to perform to the standards to which they were once trained.

PGA professionals warm up before each round and practice afterwards because they know it's critical to their performance and longevity on the tour. How many pilots do the same? Which is more important, breaking par or staying alive?

I have no reason to think the overall performance of pilots on this forum (or any other) are any better or any worse than the at-large pilot population, whose performance I have evaluated (in my job as check airman and training center evaluator as well as CFI for FR and IPC) for many years. Simply stated, it's pitiful.

Sorry - your statement and challenge are just ridiculous. But if you really want to lose $1,000, by all means, come on up

There is a lot more to safe aviating than the arbitrary standards that are the PTS. If you're able to always fly to the PTS and never make a mistake - I probably should send you my "world greatest pilot" shirt.

Your attitude is reflective of the problem, and I would expect more of a CFI. First, the PTS standards aren't arbitrary. They are very specific, and representative of the things pilots need to know and do. Which maneuvers or requirements should be removed or replaced with others?


Further, the acceptable tolerances are specific as well. If you understood the tolerances requirements, you would also know that mistakes beyond tolerances do not constitute and automatic failure if the pilot has recognized the error and has makes a prompt and proper correction. If the exceedences continue, however, the pilot will (and should) fail.

Since you obviously don't think pilots should be able to fly to the PTS standards of the rating they hold, to what standards do you think they should be held? Should we just draw them up in the dirt prior to the ride?They are my self-imposed standards, and I won't exercise the privileges if I can't do so. It's not hard, but the skills are perishable. Without practice they will (and often do) degrade to an unacceptable level.

FWIW - I've yet to have someone want to do a flight review in a 150 unless that is the airplane they own and fly. Flying a 150 well isn't exactly a piece of cake either. Plenty of pilots used to flight high performance heavy aircraft would be humbled on a tiny runway in a 150 on a windy Nebraska day.

There are a lot of things you haven't seen yet. Is your position that a 340 pilot will receive sufficient and appropriate training to evaluate his competence in that plane if his FR is conducted in a 150?

BTW, you're right that I shouldn't have posed the question about the bet, since you're not qualified to conduct the ride.

 

[Jim Logajan]

A single general aviation pilot flying non-commercially for 100 hours a year for 160 years and then having a reportable accident would have an accident rate comparable to the statistics in the 2010 Nall Report.

So if you fly 100 hours a year, my advice is to stop flying before your 160th birthday and you'll be OK.

 

[RotorAndWing]

 

[jesse]

Please try and use the quotes feature right. It's really a hassle to reply to your post when you don't properly quote things.

I didn't say I would fail them, I said they would fail. Their job is to fly the airplane, my job is to record the results. The reason they would fail is because they can't fly to PTS standards. The reason they can't fly to standards is because they put the plastic in their pocket and don't practice. The reason they kill themselves and their families with tragic regularity, and the reason the shiitty record will continue is because they can't perform when the time comes. If they could, they wouldn't crash.

The accident reports make clear that that most are due to the pilots' failure to fly the airplane. Their mistakes are predictable and the the accidents are due to their inability to perform to the standards to which they were once trained.

PGA professionals warm up before each round and practice afterwards because they know it's critical to their performance and longevity on the tour. How many pilots do the same? Which is more important, breaking par or staying alive?

I have no reason to think the overall performance of pilots on this forum (or any other) are any better or any worse than the at-large pilot population, whose performance I have evaluated (in my job as check airman and training center evaluator as well as CFI for FR and IPC) for many years. Simply stated, it's pitiful.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here Wayne.

Your attitude is reflective of the problem, and I would expect more of a CFI. First, the PTS standards aren't arbitrary. They are very specific, and representative of the things pilots need to know and do. Which maneuvers or requirements should be removed or replaced with others?

Just because something is specific doesn't mean it's not arbitrary. The PTS is not the end-all-be-all to safe aviating. There is a hell of a lot you can nit-pick about in the PTS if you so desire. I am smart enough to realize that as an instructor I can teach beyond the PTS and I do just that.

Further, the acceptable tolerances are specific as well. If you understood the tolerances requirements, you would also know that mistakes beyond tolerances do not constitute and automatic failure if the pilot has recognized the error and has makes a prompt and proper correction. If the exceedences continue, however, the pilot will (and should) fail.

Okay? I fail to see what you're trying to tell me other then parrot the PTS which I know quite well.

Since you obviously don't think pilots should be able to fly to the PTS standards of the rating they hold, to what standards do you think they should be held? Should we just draw them up in the dirt prior to the ride?They are my self-imposed standards, and I won't exercise the privileges if I can't do so. It's not hard, but the skills are perishable. Without practice they will (and often do) degrade to an unacceptable level.

I never said pilots shouldn't be able to fly to the PTS standard of the rating they hold. In fact, I hold my students to greater standards than the PTS. The PTS is a minimum to me in many aspects.

All I said is that we need to realize pilots will make mistakes and you can't honestly expect every pilot of every certificate level to not slip up now and then and not meet the PTS. How about we identify pilots that can't meet the PTS and we coach them to be able to do so. Unlike you - I realize humans will make mistakes and am perfectly willing to admit I make them too. I'm not about to suggest we ground the entire fleet based on the PTS.

There are a lot of things you haven't seen yet. Is your position that a 340 pilot will receive sufficient and appropriate training to evaluate his competence in that plane if his FR is conducted in a 150?

Please show me where I said that. Because I didn't.

BTW, you're right that I shouldn't have posed the question about the bet, since you're not qualified to conduct the ride.

Say what you'd like about my qualifications - since you've never flown with me those statements are without any value.

Here is the problem - one must realize that there are PLENTY of flight instructors out there that will whip up a flight review or IPC with their pen without much of anything else involved. Many general aviation pilots choose to go that route. It doesn't help them with that decision if you make it seem like you're about to pass/fail them the moment they fly with you. One must treat them with respect (they're successful people that are used to getting it) and help them realize their deficiencies and then positively coach from there until they meet the appropriate standard (which can be quite variable).

What works in the airline world simply will not work in the GA private owner flying around in his Bonanza world. He is not doing it for a living and he is his own boss.

I still can't understand what you're really saying. Are you suggesting that the FAA should implement an annual ride with someone like you whose intent is to look for them to make a single mistake that violates the PTS then ground them?

 

[flyingron]

My favorite was a news report that said the cause of the accident had been determined to be either pilot error, mechanical failure, or the weather. I was beginning to wonder what they'd ruled out? That the crew had been abducted by aliens?

 

[Jim Logajan]

My favorite was a news report that said the cause of the accident had been determined to be either pilot error, mechanical failure, or the weather. I was beginning to wonder what they'd ruled out? That the crew had been abducted by aliens?

They also ruled out that the crew was abducted by people from the future:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097883/plotsummary

(I read the story by John Varley but never watched the movie all the way through when it came out.)

 

[poadeleted20]

From a Law&Order episode:

Medical Examiner: I determined that the caue of death was a cereberal haemhorrage due to impact by the sledge hammer.
Defense lawer: Is it possible that something other than the sledge hammer caued the injury?
ME: The hammer was found by the body, the indentation in the skull matched the hammer, and the victim's blood and hair were on the hammer.
DL: But is is possible that something else caused the victim' death?
ME: Anything's possible. It's possible the death was caused by death rays from Mars. But in my professional opinion based on 30 years' experience as a medical examienr, death was caused by a blow from that hammer.
DL:

 

[wabower]

I still can't understand what you're really saying. Are you suggesting that the FAA should implement an annual ride with someone like you whose intent is to look for them to make a single mistake that violates the PTS then ground them?

I will probably never understand how to use all the stuff on these forums, so don't hold your breath. And in the unlikely event it happened, I'd probably forget before the next time anyway. And digging through a few bad quotes is a pittance compared to digging through endless posts about sick cats and big insects because there’s no way to make them go away.

What part of accountability don't you understand? The reason the term "exercising the privilege" is used is that it best defines the nature of the arrangement between the pilot and the issuing authority. Our system of conferring privilege isn’t working, and will never work until we change it.

If you like status quo, then change nothing and you'll always get what you always got. If you think repetition of the same behavior will produce different results, you meet the classic definition of nutty. If you think coaching and gentle persuasion is the answer for strong, successful, ego-driven, opinionated pilots, you need to spend more time with them. Mules can be coached too, but the coach who also carries the 2X4 will get the best and quickest results.

The only thing that matters when a pilot is in the seat is whether they can fly. The only respect to which they are entitled is based on what they earn while in the seat.

I've been forced to send numerous pilots of this ilk home without the rating (or certificate of completion) they sought, simply because they couldn't perform. It wasn't personal nor was it impolite; it was simply because they couldn't fly to the required standards.

The grading sheets included the standards along with my examiner’s notes and video tape of the session (which was destroyed in the student's presence at the conclusion of the de-brief) to confirm the deficiencies. My job was to train to proficiency, but the time was limited to the course they purchased plus some slack if it appeared they might pull it off. When they couldn't do so, they didn't get the piece of paper. Sorry, better luck next time.

Let's say we could breathe life and inject truth serum into the pilots who crashed recently and wiped out most of their families, such as the Cirrus in Chicago, the Commander in Phoenix, the 421 in Alabama, the Baron in Michigan and numerous others, and ask them what they would do differently if they had another chance. What would they say? Would
they brag about how successful they had been in business and how things had to be done the way they wanted, or would they tell us how badly they feel about the horrendous loss they inflicted? Would they complain that they had been over-trained or say their training was a farce? Would they say they had been held to an excessively high level of accountability, or admit they bought the ratings? Would they say they were compelled to endure unnecessary recurrent training or acknowledge that the system is a joke? What would they tell us to change so that other families would be spared the agony that they inflicted? Or would they just blame Bush?

I've been watching this GA pilot comedy routine for 50+ years, and the story never changes. Occasionally we see a glimmer of hope that somebody is working the puzzle (the recent plummet in accident rates after training in type became mandatory for MU-2 pilots being one of them) but nothing that will cause a significant change in our horseshlt safety record.

The real problem isn't the financial success (or lack thereof) of the pilots, or their egos or their attitudes, it's the way we train, the lack of accountability and the rationalization that ensues. This thread started as a discussion about the cause of accidents. We know without question that 90% are due to pilot stupidity, but we are in turn too stupid (or unwilling) to call it like it is and make the necessary changes to improve.

To bring the accident rate closer to acceptability, we need changes in accountability and awareness of consequences. We also need better initial training, better (and mandatory) recurrent training including pass-fail testing and consequences. The day of "your license is good until you die" should disappear, and be replaced with "it's good as long as you can demonstrate that you're capable of using it. If you're not using it, turn it in and we'll reissue it whenever you can fly to the required standards. And BTW, we're not going to give you commercial privileges for demonstrating a chandelle, lazy 8 and a power-off 180 to landing, so forget all that crap. And we're going to test you to the standards of the highest rating you hold, so if you want to fly a sophisticated twin, you'll be required to be tested in one. Otherwise, that rating will be removed from your ticket until you do. You can put all that crap on your office wall if you want, but you're not going to be carrying it around in your wallet thinking you can go fly something that you can't figure out how to start without help. Capiche?

So you think that can’t be done, and that implementing such changes will kill GA. If so, maybe it’s time for it to die, as long as the offsetting result is that pilots and their families continue to live. I’d rather the industry be redefined and shrunk to the number of pilots who can actually fly a lick rather than continue the destruction the way it’s being done now.

 

[bbchien]

Jesse, I generally agree about the 150. I did a GA fam. flight on a Delta captain and I though I was gonna die. He got it trimmed up, but the aircraft is just not terribly dynamically pitch stable (at 60 KIAS) and he wasn't keeping an eagle eye on the ASI.

But Wayne is correct that so long as we produce pilots from the the same method and script, we are going to get the same pilot accidents.

The revolution is going to be in measuring judgement. I sure hope it's like that, as opposed to reacting to bad judgement, as in post idiocy survival accident, the ASI gets the option to proscribe the airman "to solo flight only for a year" or other such tools.

We gotta do something pretty revolutionary to get any change. Wallace Deming taught us that, too. We just kinna forgot.

 

[wabower]

All the talk about judgement is great, but without some accountability nothing will change. If you know up front you'll get a minimum six months off for running out of gas, will your behavior change insofar as being sure you don't?

Training must get better as well. Why are stall-spin and landing accidents still at the top of the list? How about IR as a required element of high-performance endorsement? Can anybody maintain a straight face while saying that the FR requirements are anything other than a joke? We should know by now that pilots aren't going to voluntarily maintain their proficiency without more incentives. Carrots on sticks are are nice, sticks for use on the other end have their place as well. For those who can fly, no changes are necessary. For those who can't, it's time to thin the herd or shape up the stragglers.

Jesse, I generally agree about the 150. I did a GA fam. flight on a Delta captain and I though I was gonna die. He got it trimmed up, but the aircraft is just not terribly dynamically pitch stable (at 60 KIAS) and he wasn't keeping an eagle eye on the ASI.

But Wayne is correct that so long as we produce pilots from the the same method and script, we are going to get the same pilot accidents.

The revolution is going to be in measuring judgement. I sure hope it's like that, as opposed to reacting to bad judgement, as in post idiocy survival accident, the ASI gets the option to proscribe the airman "to solo flight only for a year" or other such tools.

We gotta do something pretty revolutionary to get any change. Wallace Deming taught us that, too. We just kinna forgot.

 

[Jim Logajan]

We should know by now that pilots aren't going to voluntarily maintain their proficiency without more incentives.

Make flying cheaper and pilots can then afford to maintain their proficiency. Give them more time away from the rest of their lives so they can practice. All the incentives and threats in the universe do not change the time and financial limits. Pilots are as safe as they can afford.

 

[Morne]

If you know up front you'll get a minimum six months off for running out of gas, will your behavior change insofar as being sure you don't?

So in one breath you bemoan the lack of currency amongst pilots, but in the next you say that those pilots who have PROVEN they need help should be banned from the cockpit for half a year.

I don't know about you, but if I spend more than 2 weeks away from the cockpit I feel like my skills are slipping. Matter of fact, I haven't flown for 3 weeks because my bird is down for paint, so I'm flying with an instructor later this week (in an RG - gonna get my complex endorsement).

A better approach might be to require that a pilot who runs out of gas must file a flight plan for every flight he makes for the next 3 months (first offense). Especially with us Type A folks, having to write it down makes a difference in the consideration given to the matter (the old corporate phrase -are you willing to put THAT in writing?).

As to adding the IR requirement for a high-performance rating - that's loony. Heck, even the current hi-perf is shockingly arbitrary. Think of the Mooney pilots who don't have to get one. Trained in a 172RG did you? Why sure, go fly that Mooney 201 without a care in the world. You want to improve things then try some sort of hi-perf hurdle that incorporates a formula including stall speed/cruise speed/frontal area/wing load/power-to-mass ratio. Even a model specific list would be better.

Forcing people to get an IR is not the answer. Some folks just aren't cut out for it. And I can think of few worse things than a guy who never wanted the IR and thus doesn't stay current, but when "get there-itis" fever shows up he just files and flies because he has a (out of date)certificate that says he can.

I'm not willing to give GA the sort of aggressive chemotherapy you're suggesting. There are BETTER ways to accomplish greater safety.

 

[Ted]

To bring the accident rate closer to acceptability, we need changes in accountability and awareness of consequences. We also need better initial training, better (and mandatory) recurrent training including pass-fail testing and consequences. The day of "your license is good until you die" should disappear, and be replaced with "it's good as long as you can demonstrate that you're capable of using it. If you're not using it, turn it in and we'll reissue it whenever you can fly to the required standards. And BTW, we're not going to give you commercial privileges for demonstrating a chandelle, lazy 8 and a power-off 180 to landing, so forget all that crap. And we're going to test you to the standards of the highest rating you hold, so if you want to fly a sophisticated twin, you'll be required to be tested in one. Otherwise, that rating will be removed from your ticket until you do. You can put all that crap on your office wall if you want, but you're not going to be carrying it around in your wallet thinking you can go fly something that you can't figure out how to start without help. Capiche?

On the whole, I agree with this. I always thought the Commercial rating was quite the joke, and in no way required a pilot to demonstrate that he or she was worthy of flying for hire.

We do have limits in place in licenses in the form of Flight Reviews, which are jokes, but I would see the greater problem being one of convincing flight instructors of this.

So you think that can’t be done, and that implementing such changes will kill GA. If so, maybe it’s time for it to die, as long as the offsetting result is that pilots and their families continue to live. I’d rather the industry be redefined and shrunk to the number of pilots who can actually fly a lick rather than continue the destruction the way it’s being done now.

I used to feel this same way about driving. The reality is the majority of people who are driving have no business operating a blender. The fact that people are continued to allow to drive based solely on whether or not they're caught driving drunk and ability to pass a vision test is nuts. I care less about it now than I used to, primarily because I fly.

The solace I find in flying accidents are precisely that they are the fault of the pilot in most cases. That means that, as the pilot, I have a good chance of making sure that I don't get killed. In a car, it's a lot harder. Deer don't usually find their way into the sky, and mid-air collisions are relatively uncommon compared to hitting other cars.

All the talk about judgement is great, but without some accountability nothing will change. If you know up front you'll get a minimum six months off for running out of gas, will your behavior change insofar as being sure you don't?

I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that if you did something stupid like that, the FAA would likely come and perform a 709 ride. Nevermind the fact that you might die.

Training must get better as well. Why are stall-spin and landing accidents still at the top of the list? How about IR as a required element of high-performance endorsement? Can anybody maintain a straight face while saying that the FR requirements are anything other than a joke? We should know by now that pilots aren't going to voluntarily maintain their proficiency without more incentives. Carrots on sticks are are nice, sticks for use on the other end have their place as well. For those who can fly, no changes are necessary. For those who can't, it's time to thin the herd or shape up the stragglers.

It creates a difficult situation. I think people who have been check airmen perhaps see some of the worst of it, at least from the stories I've heard from check airmen I talk to.

However, I view the biggest problem as having people who are willing to sign the paper for people who can't demonstrate proficiency. When I do flight reviews, I emphasize the areas that kill people, and point out how and why it kills people. Usually they figure out that out pretty quickly, though, after they see where they showed they'd screw up. But...

Make flying cheaper and pilots can then afford to maintain their proficiency. Give them more time away from the rest of their lives so they can practice. All the incentives and threats in the universe do not change the time and financial limits. Pilots are as safe as they can afford.

This has a certain amount of truth to it, but on the whole I don't buy it. What's to say that you need to make practice trips separate from your normal flights? Why do you need to go up and practice power-off landings on a special occasion? You can practice that every time you go out. Are you rusty on instrument approaches and let the autopilot do them all the time? Why make a point of hand flying an instrument approach in when you're coming in VFR? The extra 5 minutes it takes you is significantly less than the hour or more it'd end up taking you to make a special trip.

I do this personally and encourage others to. Whether or not they actually do it is another matter entirely. There are some people who have the attitude that they're good, and know when they need practice. Usually, those people don't have a good idea of their own abilities. Then there are the people who go out and practice anyway. Those people usually do much, much better.

 

[wabower]

So in one breath you bemoan the lack of currency amongst pilots, but in the next you say that those pilots who have PROVEN they need help should be banned from the cockpit for half a year.

It works in many other disciplines, and will work in aviation too. It's called playing time. You want to hog the ball, dribble the floor and take crazy shots? Come sit with me and watch a few games, I'll let you know when you'll get to play again.

I'm not willing to give GA the sort of aggressive chemotherapy you're suggesting. There are BETTER ways to accomplish greater safety.

Post your list that you think is better.

 

[jesse]

This is all a balance. Things aren't going to ever be 100% safe - and at some point in safety, if we try and crank it up higher with stricter penalties and standards all we'll manage to do is kill general aviation.

Yes GA isn't perfectly safe - yes I strive to make it better - but I realize that increased regulation simply isn't the answer (which is essentially what you're suggesting Wayne).

Things really come down to judgement more-so then one's ability to maintain some specific value as per the PTS. The problem is that judgement is extremely hard to evaluate and you won't weed out the folks with bad judgement by grounding a bunch of folks who couldn't do something according to the PTS according to whomever tested them (and there is some variability here).

It's pretty easy for someone with bad judgement to simply lie while being evaluated because the safe "good judgement" answer is pretty easy for most folks to guess. The big question is what they're going to do when they're in the middle of nowhere with no aviation authority figure in sight. The decisions they make there are what truly matters and I don't think anyone has figured out how to evaluate that.

So in one breath we complain about the number of pilots decreasing, airports being taken away, aircraft certification challenges, lawsuits, and then in another breath we complain about how terrible the majority of the pilots are and how we need to weed them out.

 

[Ted]

I'd rather see the regulations we currently have in place used to their intent and see people stop pencil-whipping things. I think that if that happened, there would be improvements.

I see instructors and DEs on both sides of the coin. Jesse and I are both the sort who strive to increase aviation safety, and don't pencil whip. I know we've both told and shown people that what they think they are confident with they actually need a lot of extra work on. I've seen DPEs who give tough, but fair, checkrides that force the candidate to actually work and perform.

I've also seen instructors and DPEs on the other side - the ones who will just sign books and not require much evidence. The latter I believe are the ones who overall create safety issues. As Wayne pointed out, for the people who know how to fly, it's not a problem. For the people who don't, it does.

 

[wabower]

I was asked by the KC FSDO (through one of their DPE's) to participate in the FAA's early efforts to formally address pilot judgement and the other behavioral issues that are known killers. The study group first met in the early 80's and I still have the carbon copy of the initial hush-hush white-paper draft in the garage. After talking about judgement for amost 30 years, it should be clear that:

1. It's a fact that judgement plays a vital role in aviation safety.
2. It's equally obvious that many remain incapable of exercising it.
3. If we want changes in results, we must change both training and accountability. Without consequences, accountability is impossible.

Cleaning up the current mess of pencil-whippers and incompetent instructors is part of the drill. Training, supervision and scrutiny for those people is critical as well. The only recurrent training requirement that's more laughable than the FR is the CFI refresher.

This is all a balance. Things aren't going to ever be 100% safe - and at some point in safety, if we try and crank it up higher with stricter penalties and standards all we'll manage to do is kill general aviation.

Yes GA isn't perfectly safe - yes I strive to make it better - but I realize that increased regulation simply isn't the answer (which is essentially what you're suggesting Wayne).

Things really come down to judgement more-so then one's ability to maintain some specific value as per the PTS. The problem is that judgement is extremely hard to evaluate and you won't weed out the folks with bad judgement by grounding a bunch of folks who couldn't do something according to the PTS according to whomever tested them (and there is some variability here).

It's pretty easy for someone with bad judgement to simply lie while being evaluated because the safe "good judgement" answer is pretty easy for most folks to guess. The big question is what they're going to do when they're in the middle of nowhere with no aviation authority figure in sight. The decisions they make there are what truly matters and I don't think anyone has figured out how to evaluate that.

So in one breath we complain about the number of pilots decreasing, airports being taken away, aircraft certification challenges, lawsuits, and then in another breath we complain about how terrible the majority of the pilots are and how we need to weed them out.

 

[denverpilot]

We gotta do something pretty revolutionary to get any change. Wallace Deming taught us that, too. We just kinna forgot.

Outside of aviation, the business world decided to create procedures and processes for awarding Deming awards. (face palm...)

 

[Morne]

Post your list that you think is better.

I already gave some suggestions.

Your mention of "other disciplines" reveals your bias. If we're talking about a "discipline" as in a "profession" then I agree that flagrant violations of the rules should result in suspensions. Threatening a man's livelihood is an effective, if blunt, tool to enforce compliance. But not all of GA is a "profession".

I do not have a commercial ticket. Most of the pilots I know don't have one. We fly for personal and business reasons, not for a paycheck. If you pull the typical PPL license for 6 months there is the very real risk that he'll find another way to accomplish the same mission and simply never fly again. That is a worse outcome than "rehabilitation".

 

[wabower]

Four people died recently in Florida due to a PPL's stupid decisions regarding fuel. Is that outcome better than giving him six months to think about it? What would he say if he were still alive to talk about it? What would his wife and the other couple say?

I do not have a commercial ticket. Most of the pilots I know don't have one. We fly for personal and business reasons, not for a paycheck. If you pull the typical PPL license for 6 months there is the very real risk that he'll find another way to accomplish the same mission and simply never fly again. That is a worse outcome than "rehabilitation".

 

[Morne]

Four people died recently in Florida due to a PPL's stupid decisions regarding fuel. Is that outcome better than giving him six months to think about it?

...and you never have to worry about that guy taking the yoke ever again.

I am not saying do nothing. My proposal simply differs from yours. Repeating the details of a tragedy and showing your idea as the only conceivable fix represents a fundamental failure of critical thinking.

While fuel exhaustion & starvation account for the most numerous accidents they tend to have lower fatality rates than the other causes. Thus, a great many pilots who commit this error will live to learn from it. We must focus on retaining and retraining them.

The question is about the future, not the past. We cannot know how that pilot would have reacted to EITHER of our proposed fixes. We both agree that something needs to be done. So let's focus on that rather than the current broken system and the tragic results that we can both find.

 

[Rneuwirth]

Although many of the responses are interesting, they don't really address what (I believe) was the OP's original question. Since it's something that's been on my mind quite a bit as well, let me re-state it here.

Most of us (excepting any plaintiff's attorneys on the board) understand that there is no such thing as a risk free activity. We also understand that there are obviously risky behaviors (flying drunk, buzzing, continued VFR into IMC, etc.), and some degree of irreducible risk (well maintained engine dies at altitude, other pilots performing stupid pilot tricks in the pattern, etc.) involved in flying.

After 35 years of driving over 20,000 miles per year I have a very good feel for the irreducible risks associated with that activity. As a relatively new Private Pilot, dedicated to flying safely and having studied the typical risky behaviors, if I keep my tanks full, fly a well maintained plane, always brief and file cross country flights, observe the IMSAFE strictures, never fly continued VFR into IMC, what level of residual risk are we talking about?

Every time I begin to feel pretty good about the safety picture, I read of another crash, and I just can't tell from the accident reports whether "that could've happened to me" or not. That's the real question that I have, and the one that I'd appreciate some feedback from the well seasoned and experienced pilots on this board.

Thanks.

 

[wabower]

Some smart guy once said that failure to learn from past mistakes will doom us to repeat them. What does your expertise in critical thinking suggest as a better method of defining the problem?

All I see from you is more pablum and no action. What specific changes should we make? When should we start? Should they be voluntary or mandatory? Should they be toothless like they are now?

...and you never have to worry about that guy taking the yoke ever again.

I am not saying do nothing. My proposal simply differs from yours. Repeating the details of a tragedy and showing your idea as the only conceivable fix represents a fundamental failure of critical thinking.

While fuel exhaustion & starvation account for the most numerous accidents they tend to have lower fatality rates than the other causes. Thus, a great many pilots who commit this error will live to learn from it. We must focus on retaining and retraining them.

The question is about the future, not the past. We cannot know how that pilot would have reacted to EITHER of our proposed fixes. We both agree that something needs to be done. So let's focus on that rather than the current broken system and the tragic results that we can both find.

 

[Morne]

All I see from you is more pablum and no action. What specific changes should we make? When should we start? Should they be voluntary or mandatory? Should they be toothless like they are now?

...and all I see from you is histrionics and knee jerk reactions.

As to specific changes, why don't you R-E-A-D my above posts. Or is literacy not your strong suit? I made recommendations and am not about to copy and paste them. Scroll up and have a look see, or just hit "reply" and continue with your ranting. Doesn't matter to me either way.

Now shall we continue with the ad hominem or are you willing to R-E-A-D my earlier substantive posts and discuss this in a mature fashion?

 

[dell30rb]

Because the GA safety record is not real good, It is actually somewhat comforting that simple pilot error is the cause of most GA accidents. I have educated myself on accident statistics and I take active steps to avoid putting myself in a risk category.

I'd guess most of the POA members are ahead of the curve as well. Actively reading the forums here and participating in discussion related to flying skills, weather, and accidents does improve your knowledge.

Of course just reading does not help if you don't practice what you learn.

I went straight from my PPL to working on my IR. I enjoy the challenge and I want to go on and get my commercial and CFI. Flying with my instructor regularly keeps me learning and on my toes. I hear instructors on here harp about how 75% of the GA pilots could not fly to PTS standards. Well, I know that I can fly to better than PTS standards, and i'd put my money where my mouth is on that one.

Being confident in your abilities is a great thing for a pilot, but it can lead to recklessness. No pilot is a real pilot unless they take ADM and weather seriously. I get a brieifing if the weather is at all questionable. I have personal minimums (that do not include SVFR Ha) and I stick to them, period.

I thoroughly preflight and that includes w&b and fuel. Obviously fuel management is a problem with GA pilots. Its easy to solve. Just takes some active thought (and simple math) on your part. I personally inspect any airplane I am going to fly. i showed up late for a lesson last week and my instructor said he had already preflighted the airplane and that we had xx amount of fuel and were good to go. I walked around it anyway and discovered one fuel cap was not correctly twisted shut.

I've read alot of accident reports and I do cringe at each one. Its very sad the number of people killed in light planes every year. Fortunately the cause of most accidents is something that is easily preventable. "Can it happen to me?" Yes. "will it happen to me?" Nope. As long as I keep my pro-active approach to safety I fly comfortably knowing that the odds are extremely good against "it" happening to me.

 

[wabower]

I have been attending airplane-crash funerals since 1959 when a Tripacer with four college-age friends aboard stalled and crashed when the college-age pilot tried to takoff from a short grass strip. The novelty has worn off and I'm sick of the do-nothing approach that has led to the continuation of the carnage.

Most of the accident causes are simple to diagnose and the result of pilot stupidity. As you mentioned, if you simply avoid "the big five" you have an excellent chance of dieing from some cause other than a plane crash.

The tough ones are the "there but for the grace of God" wrecks that involved pilots that you know were at the top of their game and better sticks than you could ever hope to be, but they're dead and you're not. Our Cessna 180 group experienced such a crash last summer, when a former navy pilot and current airline pilot fatally stall-spun a cub just after takeoff from his private strip near Denver.

Pete was a good friend who could fly the box they came in, but for some reason he didn't do so that day and he and his passenger paid the price. I've never known exactly what to do or what to think in those situations, other than to review my own practices and try to incorporate whatever lessons can be learned. In this case, there weren't any. I already know that I must maintain flying speed during climb, so about all that's left is to do my best and hope for the best with the knowledge that sometimes it's not enough.

Every time I begin to feel pretty good about the safety picture, I read of another crash, and I just can't tell from the accident reports whether "that could've happened to me" or not. That's the real question that I have, and the one that I'd appreciate some feedback from the well seasoned and experienced pilots on this board.

Thanks.

 

[wabower]

Save the sermon for somebody else. I've been working on GA safetly stuff since 1982. If that's knee-jerk timing in your mind, so be it. And you?

What specific actions or changes do you recommend to reduce the accident rate?

...and all I see from you is histrionics and knee jerk reactions.

As to specific changes, why don't you R-E-A-D my above posts. Or is literacy not your strong suit? I made recommendations and am not about to copy and paste them. Scroll up and have a look see, or just hit "reply" and continue with your ranting. Doesn't matter to me either way.

Now shall we continue with the ad hominem or are you willing to R-E-A-D my earlier substantive posts and discuss this in a mature fashion?

 

[pilot_dude]

Never said it was.....

No, but I was responding to the post that it was. You seemed to want to dispute that. If I read you incorrectly I apologize.

 

[Morne]

Save the sermon for somebody else. I've been working on GA safetly stuff since 1982. If that's knee-jerk timing in your mind, so be it. And you?

What specific actions or changes do you recommend to reduce the accident rate?

If your work on GA safety has been as thoughtful as your writing in this thread then it has been 29 wasted years.

When you respond substantively to the two (2) specific recommendations in post #53 of this thread then I will reply to you. Until then, I am not playing the game of "stroke Wayne's ego".

Enjoy.

 

[Ted]

When you respond substantively to the two (2) specific recommendations in post #53 of this thread then I will reply to you. Until then, I am not playing the game of "stroke Wayne's ego".

Wayne doesn't need PoA to stroke his ego. But after over 50 years of attending aviation funerals and seeing examples of poor airmanship from a number of different realms, I don't blame him for being a bit biased.

 

[Morne]

But after over 50 years of attending aviation funerals and seeing examples of poor airmanship from a number of different realms, I don't blame him for being a bit biased.

To be clear, I am NOT saying that we should do nothing. Not at all. I'm just waiting for him to reply to substantive recommendations I made.

I don't know Wayne at all. Frankly, I don't much care about his credentials. Because all he has shown me in this thread is that he'd rather browbeat someone whose solutions don't jive with his idea than discuss things in a mature fashion. You can be 17 or 70, that's just juvenile behavior.

I've seen enough internet bullies to recognize a flame war instigator when I see one. The topic at hand is immaterial, the approach to the conversation is what I am criticizing.

 

[dell30rb]

I've seen enough internet bullies to recognize a flame war instigator when I see one. The topic at hand is immaterial, the approach to the conversation is what I am criticizing.

Maybe you should report this to the Obama's. Last time i checked they were on a crusade against bullying. They can probably help you out.

 

[ronnieh]

Rneuwirth, I am not sure I meet your requirements for seasoned and expeirence. I do not consider myself a high time pilot at all in fact perhaps just out of the infant mortality crowd. I am just south of 7000 hours PIC with about 4500 in multi's. For the last 3 years I have been privaledged to fly a corporate twin turbine. I no longer instruct, in fact my instructor ratings are no longer current.
Having said that I do have a comment or two. Low time private pilots in small single engine planes is dangerous and will remain dangerous. IMO most of these pilots do not know, what they do not know. I have read so may posts on here that leave me scratching my head. I wonder if the poster a while back ever wondered why special VFR is called SPECIAL VFR. If for routine use why not call it routine VFR or perhaps normal VFR. I read about iceing encounters in single engine aircraft. One poster wants his IR "just in case". That is scary. One person suggests the requirement of filing a flight plan for every flight for 6 months. Perhaps the poster intends for the flight plan to be folded in half and set on it to provide some extra padding when he hits the ground? Flying to PTS standards? Not sure that doing S turns along a road or turns about a point or figure 8's is going to help that much.
A student pilot is taught how to get a plane up and back down in one piece if nothing goes wrong. Very basic navigation and almost nothing about judgment. The planes used for training are very basic with almost no systems to worry about. The engine either runs or it don't.
Fuel exhaustion: I have no answer. Perhaps this is just a way of thinning the heard. Somewhere on this board I read "stupidity kills, just not often enough to do any good". Fuel starvation, could be caused by mechanical malfunction. Perhaps more training is needed in understanding systems.
Again, bottom line is we are talking about low time VFR pilots trained to a minimum standard, turned loose on the world. If you survive the first 2000 hours your chances improve.
Yes, do all you can. Preflight, fly good equipment, stay out of weather, stay as proficient as you can by flying often. Ask questions, learn from the so called experienced pilot. But, never forget it is dangerous. JMO.
Edit: Also, how much judgement do you think a CFI with 300 TT can teach. In fact how much knowledge of flying does any 300 hour pilot have? The new private pilot can not know more than the pilot teaching him, can he? The problem is complicated and there is no simple answer. I am sure there could be improvements in the way new private pilots are turned out. It will not be one simple answer. Again, IMO.

 

[Rneuwirth]

Ronnie:

I understand and respect everything that you've said. However, using myself and my situation as an example;

I live on the High Plains of North Eastern Wyoming. The vast majority of true IMC days are not appropriate for a single engine non-FIKI plane. Yet this is where I do the majority of my flying, and will do my IFR training. I clearly understand that the "book learning" with regards to weather and weather patterns that is part of flight training doesn't begin to qualify one for flying true IMC conditions everywhere in the country, yet one needs to begin somewhere. Thus I plan to continue my IFR training in "simulation mode", and take further training elsewhere as time, money and opportunity allows.

We were all once 16 year olds behind the wheel of a lethal weapon, yet survived to become (hopefully) more seasoned and appropriate drivers. I'm looking for a personal path to follow that will allow me to look back 10 years from now at my flying with that same degree of satisfaction.

 

[ronnieh]

Which is what I said. Continue on. Learn and be careful.
BTW, where in Wyoming? I was in Thermopolis for Thanksgiving. Landed at Cody but have been into Worland.

 

[Rneuwirth]

I'm in Gillette. Took my check ride Worland.

 

[ronnieh]

Rneu, I sent you an email or at least I tried.

 

[wabower]

Hopkins' "Recurrent Training" article in Jan 2012 Flying Magazine addresses the training issue including comments on the judgement issue. Interesting stuff. Flying haters should be aware that some of the words contain more than two syllables.

 

[Jaybird180]

What can the FAA do about pencil-whippers? IMO that person should be eliminated from the ranks of aviation same as any other liar.