Reducing the Accident Rate

Michael wrote:

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
I think there is a reasonable subset of pilots who frankly enjoy a bit of
danger

I think that subset includes 100% of all pilots that fly for fun
except for some total idiots.

You exclude all those that recognize the risk, and accept the risk as
payment for the various benefits, but that would be even happier to gain
those benefits w/o the risk.

[...]
Aviation has inherent risk to it, and those people who are not
comfortable with the added risk soon leave aviation. Those who are
left are comfortable with it.

"Comfort" does not imply "enjoyment".

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote
You exclude all those that recognize the risk, and accept the risk as
payment for the various benefits, but that would be even happier to gain
those benefits w/o the risk.

I sometimes wonder how many of those there really are.

Think about how you feel when you pull off a landing with a lot of
gusty crosswind and squeak it on, right on target. Or when you make
an approach to minimums with the needle(s) dead centered all the way
and the runway is right there. Intellectually, you know that you just
completed an increased-risk operation - and what made it an
increased-risk operation was the increased degree of difficulty. But
you still feel good - you were faced with a challenge and you were up
to it. You wouldn't feel nearly as good making that approach/landing
in calm winds/CAVU.

How many pilots don't feel that way?

"Comfort" does not imply "enjoyment".

I wonder.

In any case - whether they enjoy it or not (and I think most do, at
some level) the fact that they are comfortable with a certain amount
of risk means that most pilots are not too interested in reducing that
risk if it means a reduction in capability. Just say no doesn't cut
it. To have acceptance and value, a safety seminar has to show you
how to reduce risk without reducing capability. That's much harder,
and in my opinion few safety seminars accomplish this. I think that's
why most people don't go.

Most (if not all) pilots I know have been to at least one. They
didn't come back because they were not impressed.

I think the real solution is to have safety seminars that actually
teach you to increase safety without decreasing capability. Then
people will come and pay attention. However, you don't accomplish an
increase in safety without a reduction in capability with rules - you
accomplish it with skill and knowledge. That means we need a very
different method for choosing the people who teach these safety
seminars.

Michael

Michael wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote
You exclude all those that recognize the risk, and accept the risk as
payment for the various benefits, but that would be even happier to gain
those benefits w/o the risk.

I sometimes wonder how many of those there really are.

Think about how you feel when you pull off a landing with a lot of
gusty crosswind and squeak it on, right on target. Or when you make
an approach to minimums with the needle(s) dead centered all the way
and the runway is right there. Intellectually, you know that you just
completed an increased-risk operation - and what made it an
increased-risk operation was the increased degree of difficulty. But
you still feel good - you were faced with a challenge and you were up
to it. You wouldn't feel nearly as good making that approach/landing
in calm winds/CAVU.

In fact, I do feel pretty damned good making an excellent approach under the
hood too. There's less risk, which I like, and there's also the same
satisfaction of having met well the challenge.

I enjoy when I nail a simulated power failure landing too...but I don't long
for real opportunities to test my skills.


How many pilots don't feel that way?

"Comfort" does not imply "enjoyment".

I wonder.

In any case - whether they enjoy it or not (and I think most do, at
some level) the fact that they are comfortable with a certain amount
of risk means that most pilots are not too interested in reducing that
risk if it means a reduction in capability.

Ah, now here we're in complete agreement. I see the risk as payment for the
capability, and the current trade-off is fine for me. Of course, my risk
profile is different from some random other pilot's, but that's each of us
making our own individual choices.

Just say no doesn't cut
it. To have acceptance and value, a safety seminar has to show you
how to reduce risk without reducing capability. That's much harder,
and in my opinion few safety seminars accomplish this. I think that's
why most people don't go.

I think that many don't "spoon feed" this, true. For example, I attended
one seminar which was a dissection of a midair. There was no conclusion
with a set of rules that would reduce risk, but I think that the
presentation and discussion provided useful information. Seeing what
occurred offers us the chance to catch the same pattern, and "break the
chain".

I think a fair number of seminars fall into this category.

[...]
I think the real solution is to have safety seminars that actually
teach you to increase safety without decreasing capability. Then
people will come and pay attention. However, you don't accomplish an
increase in safety without a reduction in capability with rules - you
accomplish it with skill and knowledge. That means we need a very
different method for choosing the people who teach these safety
seminars.

I think I'm seeing what you mean. In your experience, seminars often
present rules of the form "thou shall not". I've been to some, but I've
also been to some which draw no such simple conclusions, and that simply do
provide knowledge (perhaps from the mistakes of others).

Still, I'm going to take this perspective to the next few seminars, and see
if I note more of what you're describing.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote
You wouldn't feel nearly as good making that approach/landing
in calm winds/CAVU.

In fact, I do feel pretty damned good making an excellent approach under the
hood too. There's less risk, which I like, and there's also the same
satisfaction of having met well the challenge.

Ah - but do you feel AS good? Is it really the same? Sure, it's
still a challenge - but I don't think you can compare the feeling you
get after you land out of an ILS in 200 and 2000 RVR, where you roll
out and still can't see the far end of the runway, and doing it under
the hood - even to 100 ft.

I enjoy when I nail a simulated power failure landing too...but I don't long
for real opportunities to test my skills.

I doubt anyone does - but when it happened to me, I did feel really
good about having nailed it - much more so than when I do a practice
one. Of course I also felt like a real idiot for having put myself in
that situation too, since I had no options. The approach to mins
didn't bother me at all because I knew I had plenty of fuel to reach
much better conditions.

Here's the difference - an engine failure is a genuine emergency, and
nobody I know wants one of those. A real approach to minimums? We
all know it's an increased-risk operation, but I know more than a few
people who seek it out, for "training value" and we think nothing of
it. In fact, we consider it good training. When I intentionally
choose the lowest local ceilings and visibilities for instrument
training, is that about enjoying a bit of danger or providing the
best, most challenging training available? And how do you separate
the two?

I think that many don't "spoon feed" this, true. For example, I attended
one seminar which was a dissection of a midair. There was no conclusion
with a set of rules that would reduce risk, but I think that the
presentation and discussion provided useful information.

Did it? Did it even provide correct information? I once went to a
seminar that dissected a crash. I knew the pilot, and I knew how it
happened. The seminar was very interesting, in the sense that a work
of fiction can be interesting. It had nothing at all to do with what
really happened.

That's almost beside the point, though. Assuming the information
presented was accurate, there is clearly value in examining past
accidents. But is a safety seminar the best venue for this? I would
suggest that it is not - that the optimal venue is hangar flying.

I think I'm seeing what you mean. In your experience, seminars often
present rules of the form "thou shall not".

Either that or quite obviously imply them.

I've been to some, but I've
also been to some which draw no such simple conclusions, and that simply do
provide knowledge (perhaps from the mistakes of others).

I've been to a couple like that. There was one on flying over the
Gulf and the Caribbean by a guy who does it every year. I learned a
lot. But flying over the Gulf has inherent risks, and while I suppose
if you're going to go anyway you're better off going to the seminar
than doing it cold, I can honestly say that all his seminar did was
encourage me to cut across the Gulf when the opportunity presented
itself. Turned out that there were things he didn't cover and there
were a few tense moments there. I suppose he did a good enough job,
since I'm still here and would go again (doing it a bit differently
this time) but I can't in good conscience call it a safety seminar.

Michael

Michael wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote
You wouldn't feel nearly as good making that approach/landing
in calm winds/CAVU.

In fact, I do feel pretty damned good making an excellent approach under
the
hood too. There's less risk, which I like, and there's also the same
satisfaction of having met well the challenge.

Ah - but do you feel AS good? Is it really the same?

I believe that I feel better after the safer approach, as I don't have to
feel the same risk factor leading into the completion. But to be honest, I
really cannot say. I've not been able to perform a side-by-side
comparison.

[...]
Here's the difference - an engine failure is a genuine emergency, and
nobody I know wants one of those. A real approach to minimums? We
all know it's an increased-risk operation, but I know more than a few
people who seek it out, for "training value" and we think nothing of
it. In fact, we consider it good training. When I intentionally
choose the lowest local ceilings and visibilities for instrument
training, is that about enjoying a bit of danger or providing the
best, most challenging training available? And how do you separate
the two?

To my mind, easily.

[...]
I once went to a
seminar that dissected a crash. I knew the pilot, and I knew how it
happened. The seminar was very interesting, in the sense that a work
of fiction can be interesting. It had nothing at all to do with what
really happened.

Lacking the direct knowledge you had, I cannot say. Since the pilots didn't
survive in the example I used, we all knew that some guesswork was involved
on that side of things.

That's almost beside the point, though. Assuming the information
presented was accurate, there is clearly value in examining past
accidents. But is a safety seminar the best venue for this? I would
suggest that it is not - that the optimal venue is hangar flying.

Hanger flying wouldn't have easily afforded the recordings, video and audio,
that were presented.

That said, of course informal discussions are good too.

[...]
I've been to a couple like that. There was one on flying over the
Gulf and the Caribbean by a guy who does it every year. I learned a
lot. But flying over the Gulf has inherent risks, and while I suppose
if you're going to go anyway you're better off going to the seminar
than doing it cold, I can honestly say that all his seminar did was
encourage me to cut across the Gulf when the opportunity presented
itself. Turned out that there were things he didn't cover and there
were a few tense moments there. I suppose he did a good enough job,
since I'm still here and would go again (doing it a bit differently
this time) but I can't in good conscience call it a safety seminar.

I'm not clear on your point, here. What would you call it?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote
When I intentionally
choose the lowest local ceilings and visibilities for instrument
training, is that about enjoying a bit of danger or providing the
best, most challenging training available? And how do you separate
the two?

To my mind, easily.

Then spell it out for me. Which am I doing, and why?

Lacking the direct knowledge you had, I cannot say. Since the pilots didn't
survive in the example I used, we all knew that some guesswork was involved
on that side of things.

But there's a difference between guesswork and outright twisting of
the facts to support a point. John Galban posted an interesting story
about how the latter happened with regard to an accident he was
involved with.

I've been to a couple like that. There was one on flying over the
Gulf and the Caribbean by a guy who does it every year.
I can't in good conscience call it a safety seminar.

I'm not clear on your point, here. What would you call it?

Advanced training? Encouraging dangerous behavior? It all depends on
your point of view.

Going across the Gulf is really not for the novice pilot, IMO. First
off, it's not really something you do in a single engine airplane
(since an engine failure leaves you basically no chances at all - the
route I flew had me 50-120 miles from land for over 2 hours) so as a
minimum you're looking at being a twin pilot. Second, even in a twin,
there are issues. You are out of RADAR contact for hours, and have
only very limited radio contact (relays via airliners passing
overhead). There is effectively no way to update the weather picture,
so you have a greatly increased likelihood of encountering adverse
weather, while at the same time greatly reduced options for both
landing and ATC assistance. It's all doable, but my point is that
really the safest solution is not to do it. When you have a seminar
that basically tells you how to do it, it's hard to call it a safety
seminar.

Suppose I put on a seminar about how to scud run. I might include
tips like not flying at the bases of the clouds, where the vis is
worst. I might cover route planning - instead of the usual
VFR-direct, how to choose roads to follow for supplemental nav, being
prepared for obstructions, etc. I would likely cover low altitude
diversions - how to get to a nearby airport in a hurry. I might cover
emergency procedures - off field precautionary landings with power and
how to choose a field, an emergency instrument climb and what to
expect from ATC, etc. I might discuss various techniques for slowing
the plane down - when a notch of flaps might be appropriate, for
example. I've been there and done that, and if you're going to scud
run, I assure you that you're way better off going to this seminar
than just doing it cold and figuring it out as you go along. But
would it be a safety seminar?

Michael

Suppose I put on a seminar about how to scud run. [...]
been there and done that, and if you're going to scud
run, I assure you that you're way better off going to this seminar
than just doing it cold and figuring it out as you go along. But
would it be a safety seminar?


Yes. It might save your butt one day. Distinguish between attitude and
ability. Seminars that increase ones ability to do something that, under at
least some circumstances are dangerous, are still useful. They should perhaps
come with a part that indicates when not to do this, since it is certainly the
case that the more you hear how to do something, the more acceptable the
something becomes.

How about the new icing seminar? It gives lots of information about flying in
icing conditions, and may well save somebody's butt. And here in the
northeast, icing is hard to avoid. Is =that= a safey seminar?

Jose





--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Michael wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote
When I intentionally
choose the lowest local ceilings and visibilities for instrument
training, is that about enjoying a bit of danger or providing the
best, most challenging training available? And how do you separate
the two?

To my mind, easily.

Then spell it out for me. Which am I doing, and why?

I cannot tell you which you're doing laugh. I do that for the training
(it's the model introduced by my CFII). Others may do it precisely for the
"thrill". Yet we end up doing the same thing, which makes discerning the
motive a little tough.

Obviously, you've nothing but my word that I'm not a thrill seeker. And you
can even believe that I'm insufficiently self-aware, and that I've merely
hidden my thrill-seeking tendencies from myself. How could I argue with
that?

But I don't think it the case.

Lacking the direct knowledge you had, I cannot say. Since the pilots
didn't survive in the example I used, we all knew that some guesswork was
involved on that side of things.

But there's a difference between guesswork and outright twisting of
the facts to support a point. John Galban posted an interesting story
about how the latter happened with regard to an accident he was
involved with.

That's true. More, there've been a number of posts on rather...liberal
descriptions in NTSB reports.

Obviously, accuracy is important.


I've been to a couple like that. There was one on flying over the
Gulf and the Caribbean by a guy who does it every year.
I can't in good conscience call it a safety seminar.

I'm not clear on your point, here. What would you call it?

Advanced training? Encouraging dangerous behavior? It all depends on
your point of view.

You'd call the talk given by that guy "encouraging dangerous behavior"? I'd
agree that that would not be a "safety seminar".

Could you also call it "advanced training"? That would imply that it's
providing useful information, but information not applicable to safety.
Okay...I can see that, and I can even see that such things are useful.

Still...anything which helps one fly is going to aid safety, no? I mean, if
you were planning to fly the Gulf anyway, wasn't the information provided -
even if incomplete - useful?

Or is the problem that he made it seem complete, which tempted you to do
something you'd otherwise not?

[...]
Suppose I put on a seminar about how to scud run. I might include
tips like not flying at the bases of the clouds, where the vis is
worst. I might cover route planning - instead of the usual
VFR-direct, how to choose roads to follow for supplemental nav, being
prepared for obstructions, etc. I would likely cover low altitude
diversions - how to get to a nearby airport in a hurry. I might cover
emergency procedures - off field precautionary landings with power and
how to choose a field, an emergency instrument climb and what to
expect from ATC, etc. I might discuss various techniques for slowing
the plane down - when a notch of flaps might be appropriate, for
example. I've been there and done that, and if you're going to scud
run, I assure you that you're way better off going to this seminar
than just doing it cold and figuring it out as you go along. But
would it be a safety seminar?

I'd vote "yes". It's another tool in my belt. It's *my* choice whether or
not to use it, but your seminar would sharpen that tool.

I think of stall practice as similar to this. I've *no* intention of
stalling while (for example) making a base-to-final turn. Practicing so
that I can recover quickly from a stall isn't going to change that.

Or health insurance. I've no plans to get sick, and I do certain things to
preserve my health. Having insurance doesn't alter than behavior.

- Andrew

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

accomplish it with skill and knowledge. That means we need a very
different method for choosing the people who teach these safety
seminars.

Or choose what seminars you go to.

For example the Forums at Oshkosh often serve this purpose.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com