Reducing the Accident Rate

I just got done reading a book called "They Called It Pilot Error"
and boy are we in trouble if some of the knuckleheads that
are in this book are in any numbers out there. Gladly, most
of the really stupid ones died in the accidents mentioned in
this book, but you know if those existed, theres 10x that many
that just havent crashed or had close ones yet.
Pilots on drugs and alcohol, with expired licenses/medicals,
blatantly breaking reg after reg, making up their own
approaches and rules, and of course the comical one about
those drunk dudes shooting holes through their own wings.

They have to really skew the averages, so I dont see any
hope of reducing the accident rate as long as these boneheads
are among us. And of course the media jump on these stories
like flies on sh*t, which of course they themselves are.
On this recent really long trip I took, I got flight following
everywhere that I wasn't IFR, and I heard a lot of 'lost' sounding
pilots on freq, not literally, but as if they had no clue as to
what they were up to. And controllers having to repeatedly
ask them. And of course while on the sector I hear stuff
that make me wonder how fun can it possibly be for this
pilot who sounds as if he's 100 miles behind the airplane and
no clue what's right ahead of him (hills/weather). I brush
some of that off as poor radio technique or nerves, some of
it, not all of it.

I dont see the rate going down, not with an aging fleet, and an
aging group of pilots. Mathematically, isnt that impossible
anyway? Less airplanes and even with a level number of
crashes? Assuming the airplanes involved are no longer in
service?

Anyway, I'm rambling, and the only accident rate I care about
is my personal rate. But check out that book, it's pretty sad,
and of course the author and NASA rep seem to have an
axe to grind.

Chris

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message
link.net...
I just got done reading a book called "They Called It Pilot Error"
and boy are we in trouble if some of the knuckleheads that
are in this book are in any numbers out there.

The only knucklehead in the book that is really out there is the author, who
despite his claims to being an experienced pilot manages to confuse an HSI
with the attitude indicator, does not appear to understand the goals of
fundamental flight training, and generally seems to know little about
aviation except for a few buzzwords that he does not really understand their
meaning.

All the stories are fiction, though some of them are kind of fun to read.
The only place you will find where he admits that the book is entirely
fiction is an oblique mention of it in the introduction. You will not find
any of the incidents in the NTSB database.

in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 7/9/04 9:54 PM:


All the stories are fiction, though some of them are kind of fun to read.
The only place you will find where he admits that the book is entirely
fiction is an oblique mention of it in the introduction. You will not find
any of the incidents in the NTSB database.

I'm glad somebody else noticed this. I felt distinctly ripped off after I
brought the book home and discovered halfway through the introduction that
it was a work of fiction. Why the subterfuge? Frankly, I found it to be
false advertising.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 7/9/04 9:54 PM:


All the stories are fiction, though some of them are kind of fun to
read.
The only place you will find where he admits that the book is entirely
fiction is an oblique mention of it in the introduction. You will not
find
any of the incidents in the NTSB database.

I'm glad somebody else noticed this. I felt distinctly ripped off after I
brought the book home and discovered halfway through the introduction that
it was a work of fiction. Why the subterfuge? Frankly, I found it to be
false advertising.


There is a real incident where a hunter shot himself down. It may not be as
funny as the story of the drunken hunters, but at least this one really
happened:

NTSB Identification: SEA02LA058.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact
Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, March 25, 2002 in Fort Peck, MT
Probable Cause Approval Date: 9/9/2002
Aircraft: Piper PA-18-150, registration: N22EV
Injuries: 2 Serious.
The pilot was conducting a predator (coyote) control flight over private
rangeland. During the flight, at a reported altitude of approximately 40
feet above ground level (AGL), the passenger inadvertently discharged a
semiautomatic 12-gauge shotgun. The pilot, who was seated in the forward
seat, reported that the gun fired 3-4 times, striking the right wing, fuel
tank and aileron assembly. He reported that the damage resulted in a loss of
aileron and elevator control. The airplane entered a descending turn to the
right and subsequently impacted terrain in a nose-low attitude. The pilot
reported the aircraft was on fire upon touchdown and continued to burn after
the impact. The pilot reported that there were no preexisting mechanical
malfunctions or failures that contributed to the accident.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:

The pilot's inability to maintain aircraft control and foreign object damage
to the aileron and wing. The restricted movement of the flight controls was
a factor.

mandatory continuing education for pilot license.

It works in the medical professions.

It doesn't have to be a seminar, it could be on-line courses.


(Snowbird) wrote in
om:

Hi All,


*snip*


Anyway, here's the question: how DO we reduce the accident
rate? How do we preach, not just to the choir, but to the
80-90% of pilots who *don't* attend WINGS seminars or other
recurrant training?

Cheers,
Sydney

smpharmanaut wrote in message 8.51...
mandatory continuing education for pilot license.
It works in the medical professions.
It doesn't have to be a seminar, it could be on-line courses.

There is mandatory continuing ed for pilots in the form
of BFR. Evidently it doesn't suffice.

What form and how much, at what interval, do you suggest?

(Snowbird) wrote in
om:
Anyway, here's the question: how DO we reduce the accident
rate? How do we preach, not just to the choir, but to the
80-90% of pilots who *don't* attend WINGS seminars or other
recurrant training?

Cheers,
Sydney

smpharmanaut wrote:

mandatory continuing education for pilot license.

It's called a "flight review". For many of us, it happens once every two years.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

"smpharmanaut" wrote in message
.51...


It works in the medical professions.

No, it doesn't "work" in the medical profession.

Most doctors are self-motivated and attend CME courses out of their own
interest.

Those docs who are not interested in CME have lots of ways to go on a ski
vacation and get credit for the CME course anyway.

The same happens with CFI renewal courses right now and would happen with
mandatory pilot CME -- those who would benefit don't need the mandate.



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

www.flyimc.com

Of course it will only work for those motivated to continue learning.
Still, it will at least provide continued exposure to information for
those that are motivated, and hopefully even those not so motivated will
benefit from that exposure. In my profession, you can pick and choose
which CE's to complete. Some are brainless, some are challenging. Some
are not applicable to a particular branch of the profession.

I'd like to have access to standardized lesson plans for CE in piloting
that would be applicable to my level of flying (single engine, light
aircraft). I know it would help me.

Now there will be those that will go for the brainless, easy lessons.
"You can lead a horse to water..."

I think it would be an economic way to improve pilot skills.



"Richard Kaplan" wrote in
:


"smpharmanaut" wrote in message
.51...


It works in the medical professions.

No, it doesn't "work" in the medical profession.

Most doctors are self-motivated and attend CME courses out of their
own interest.

Those docs who are not interested in CME have lots of ways to go on a
ski vacation and get credit for the CME course anyway.

The same happens with CFI renewal courses right now and would happen
with mandatory pilot CME -- those who would benefit don't need the
mandate.



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

www.flyimc.com

smpharmanaut wrote:

Now there will be those that will go for the brainless, easy lessons.
"You can lead a horse to water..."

Or, as one of Heinlein's characters succinctly put it, "You can lead a student to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think."

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.