Reducing the Accident Rate

Apologies for the double post.

Got an error saying post was rejected by server and it disappeared. When I
re-composed and re-posted, the old one reappeared as posted okay...

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

Why else not attend?

I think there is a reasonable subset of pilots who frankly enjoy a bit of
danger; these pilots may be hard to reach in a safety seminar.

Have you ever asked around your airport to see the % of pilots who ride
motorcycles? The percentage is astoundingly high. I think this gives a
bit of perspective as to the risk management profile of some pilots -- not
that
motorcycle riders cannot also be safe pilot, but the huge % of pilots who
ride
motorcycles does suggest there is a certain subset of pilots who are
risk-seekers.


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

www.flyimc.com

"Snowbird" wrote in message
m...

As a matter of fact, our CFI rides a motorcycle. He tries to "manage
the risk" in the same manner he manages flight risks, and do so as
safely as possible.

To what extent is this possible? In aviation the vast majority of the risk
can be managed by the pilot in choosing weather minimums and flight
procedures. In motorcycle riding, there will always remain the major
non-manageable risk that someone will hit the motorcyclist in a much larger
vehicle even if the motorcyclist practices defensive driving. Even worse, a
60 mph collision while riding a motorcycle almost always results in a fatal
or extremely serious injury, whereas there are lots of survival airplane
accidents.


But I do think you've got a fundamental point: if some pilots actually
aren't *interested* in trying to fly as safely as possible, but would
rather perceive flying as a daredevil, risky activity, they aren't
likely to take much from a safety seminar even if they go.

Correct... maybe the motorcycle comparison is a bad one... but in any event
there is clearly a significant group of pilots not particularly interested
in flying safety.

Look at it this way -- Flight Safety used to say (maybe still says?) that no
holder of their "Gold Card" had ever been involved in an airplane accident.
Is that to Flight Safety's credit, or to a large extent does pilot
self-selection play a role?



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

www.flyimc.com

"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

"Icebound" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...


Weather as a factor in about 360, but only about 120 or so "IMC", most
others are wind, carb-icing, and density altitude.

But fatal accidents disproportionately involve weather.

And lots of "power related" accidents are truly fuel exhaustion.

And most power-reltaed "accidents" are not fatals.

Weather and pilot judgment remain the biggest potentially fixable issues.

I also strongly suspect that lots of "power related" accidents are related
to owners who are marginally able to afford to maintain their airplanes
optimally. I wonder how much of supposed turbine engine reliability is
related to the turbine engine itself vs. to open-checkbook by-the-book
maintenance.


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

www.flyimc.com

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

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
Weather and pilot judgment remain the biggest potentially fixable issues.

Frankly, I think that's only true if we accept that the aircraft are
not going to improve. Highway fatality rates have improved
dramatically in the last few decades, and it is generally accepted
that the improvements are almost wholly due to the cars, not the
drivers.

Michael

"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