Reducing the Accident Rate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Michael) wrote:

[snip]
Why? FAA.

[snip]
Why are they a rartiy on airplanes? FAA.

[snip]
Why? FAA.

[snip]
In other words, FAA.

[snip]
it should be the correct
systemic problem. The FAA.

wow! no other causes?

hmmmm, if the FAA is the problem, then
why aren't aircraft in other nations safer?

--
Bob Noel

Two reasons:

1. Most nations fly planes designed to meet FAA regulations or planes built
in the US which obviously implies they are built to meet FAA regulations.
2. Most nations pattern their aviation agency after the FAA.

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.

Michael wrote:

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.

All of the improvements in automobile safety come with a weight penalty. There's not
a whole lot of room to improve aircraft in this way without cutting the carrying
capacity of each plane by significant amounts.

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

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)

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message ...
"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
and a long-time CFI. But his "solution" is to have a one-day
course, associated with the National Convention, in which
pilots pay a hefty fee ($100-$200) for 'recurrant training'
done by "national names".

I think perhaps a much more relevant and successful approach would be to
have this course be relevant to your specific airplane type.

Well, I'm hazy on the details, but I think the idea is to somehow have
it be more "Grumman Specific".

The thing is:
1) something like 10% of the membership attends the convention
2) of that 10%, I think the fraction likely to pay $100 to attend
a safety seminar are likely to be the fraction most interested
in safety/recurrant training in any case.

Our type club already has an excellent pilot familiarization program
taught by type-familiar CFIs all over the country. I believe many of
the accidents involve pilots who either don't avail themselves of the
program, or who did so years ago (and have forgotten or gotten rusty
on what they learned).

I don't have great ideas, just the hunch a safety seminar may be a
good and useful thing, but I don't think it's going to address the
overall accident rate for our type (or any type) too much.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...

I don't have great ideas, just the hunch a safety seminar may be a
good and useful thing, but I don't think it's going to address the
overall accident rate for our type (or any type) too much.

This is true of most recurrent training. It can be extremely helpful to
increase airplane utilization and/or improve safety for the self-selected
group which chooses to attend, but that is probably not a large enough group
from which to gather statistics. But addressing the overall accident rate
would require addressing pilot attitudes and also would probably require a
more realistic assessment by pilots of how much money they should spend on
maintenance -- both are uphill battles not likely to be won in a safety
seminar.


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

www.flyimc.com

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
All of the improvements in automobile safety come with a weight penalty.

In other words, everything weighs something. That's actually not true
- software weighs nothing.

In any case - today's cars are both safer AND lighter than they were
40 years ago, or even 20. I suppose they could be lighter still if
they weren't any safer, but obviously if you allow modern technology
to be used without having to prove to a federal bureaucrat who doesn't
understand it that it's acceptable, you can reduce weight AND improve
safety.

Michael

Dave Stadt wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
hmmmm, if the FAA is the problem, then
why aren't aircraft in other nations safer?

--
Bob Noel

Two reasons:

1. Most nations fly planes designed to meet FAA regulations or planes built
in the US which obviously implies they are built to meet FAA regulations.
2. Most nations pattern their aviation agency after the FAA.

Most nations built their agencies long before the U.S. had anything of the sort. Even
if your argument were true in all respects, we can simply check out the safety record
in the former Soviet Union. Their agencies and aircraft were developed completely
independently of ours.

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

Bob Noel wrote:

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.

Is management the same as avoidance? The layman probably wouldn't say
so. The goal isn't part of the "management" equation. How you get there is.


Jack

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
Most nations built their agencies long before the U.S. had anything of the sort. Even
if your argument were true in all respects, we can simply check out the safety record
in the former Soviet Union. Their agencies and aircraft were developed completely
independently of ours.

While the Soviet Union existed, it had absolutely no crashes of
privately owned aircraft at all. Not one.

Michael