Reducing the Accident Rate

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.

Michael, I sometimes feel like I must live in a parallel universe
to you. In your universe, the FAA is the root of all evil, their
employees are all bureaucrats without technical understanding, all
accident investigations are worthless, WINGS and other safety seminars
are useless, and CFIs are almost uniformly incompetent.

In the world I live in, things aren't nearly so black-and-white.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message ...
"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.

For our type anyway, supposedly the accidents can be traced to pilot
judgement.

It's a pretty simple aircraft to maintain, anyway, Sen. Inhofe's propeller
notwithstanding. That was a simple case of his A&Ps not following the
maint. manual procedure, not of insufficient money on maint.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...

For our type anyway, supposedly the accidents can be traced to pilot
judgement.

No doubt pilot judgment is a major cause of accidents.

It's a pretty simple aircraft to maintain, anyway, Sen. Inhofe's propeller
notwithstanding. That was a simple case of his A&Ps not following the
maint. manual procedure, not of insufficient money on maint.

It may be a simple airplane to maintain, but does that mean there are not
accidents due to insufficient maintenance? Even something as simple as a
worn tire can lead to an accident. Lots of "simple" airplanes are flown
well beyond TBO or have pencil-whipped annuals or even pencil-whipped engine
overhauls.

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

www.flyimc.com

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

(Snowbird) wrote
Michael, I sometimes feel like I must live in a parallel universe
to you. In your universe, the FAA is the root of all evil, their
employees are all bureaucrats without technical understanding, all
accident investigations are worthless, WINGS and other safety seminars
are useless, and CFIs are almost uniformly incompetent.

Well, I'm glad you used at least one qualifier - almost uniformly - to
describe my world. You should have used more, because really you came
up with a straw man argument.

In the world I live in, things aren't nearly so black-and-white.

Nor are they in mine. Do I think the FAA is the root of ALL evil?
No, but I think it's the single biggest safety problem in personal
aviation. That's not to say there are not others, but it makes sense
to tackle the biggest problem first. Do I think all FAA employees are
bureaucrats without technical understanding - no, but that's the
majority. Interestingly, there is at least one person I know who has
a lower opinion of FAA engineering competence than I do. He designs
electronic components for GA aircraft for a living. I've bought some
of them, and I'm way more impressed with them than I am with anything
the FAA ever did. Do I think ALL accident investigations are
worthless? No, but given the ones where I have first hand knowledge,
it's clearly more the rule than the exception. Do I believe ALL WINGS
and other safety seminars are useless? Clearly not, since I've
mentioned that there were at least a couple I attended where I learned
useful things. That doesn't change my opinion of the majority of
them. Do I belive CFIs are almost uniformly incompetent? No, I
belive the level of incompetence is highly variable, a minority are
actually competent for the kind of instruction they do, and a tiny
percentage are actually very good.

But just because it's never all black or all white, it's a mistake to
say it's all shades of gray. At some point you have to say it's close
enough to black or white. The FAA's long term contribution to
personal aviation safety has been overwhelmingly negative. Does it
mean the FAA never did anything positive? Of course not. Is it
different for commercial aviation? Maybe. Probably. I don't care.
We're not discussing how we can reduce the accident rate in commercial
operations but private ones, therefore for the purposes of this
discussion only the FAA's impact on private operations matters.

You can't fix the problem unless you correctly identify it. One of
the first rules of fixing problems in large groups is this - if the
problem is widespread, it's a problem with the process, not the
people.

Michael

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
It may be a simple airplane to maintain, but does that mean there are not
accidents due to insufficient maintenance?

I think that's really the wrong question. The right question is - are
the majority of the accidents due to insufficient maintenance? Is it
the single biggest cause? Second biggest cause? Or is it down in the
decimal dust?

My experience suggests decimal dust.

Michael

Andrew Gideon wrote
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.

Or maybe it calls into question the entire concept of "motive."

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?

You can't. In reality, you don't know - and neither do I.
Motivations are things that psychologists spend a lot of time arguing
about, and they have yet to reach consensus. What chance do we have?

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

Obviously, accuracy is important.

I would argue that accuracy is not only important but essential, and
an inacurate report is worse than useless - it is actively dangerous.
I would further argue that distorting the facts of an accident to
advance an agenda is never justified. However, I know it happens -
and therefore I distrust the reports. Given my experience and that of
others, I consider the distrust justified.

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

Well, isn't flying a light plane on a long overwater leg dangerous
behavior? Or are you suggesting it's safe? See the problem here?

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.

Think instrument rating. It gives you capability you didn't have and
teaches you skills and (hopefully) knowledge new to you. But it also
encourages you to operate in weather you would otherwise avoid. Is it
safety training? Is it advanced training? Is it encouraging
dangerous behavior? You will find many, many pilots who consider
single engine IFR dangerous behavior.

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?

Sure it was. But would I have flown the Gulf anyway?

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

I'm not enough of a fool to believe a two hour seminar on anything of
any complexity can ever be complete. And in truth, it was complete
enough.

Suppose I put on a seminar about how to scud run...
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.

Then by that definition, any skill/knowledge training is safety
training.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

My experience suggests decimal dust.

I think it is hard to know how many accidents are due to maintenance issues
by reading NTSB reports, just like they are inaccurate for other reasons
you stated.

It is one thing for the NTSB to determine that an airplane was "airworthy"
and "in annual." It is another to hangar fly and hear stories of engine
failures in an airplane where it is local knowledge that a given mechanic
does pencil-whip annuals or that a given airplane owner often cut corners on
maintenance.

Anecdotally I hear about a lot less engine failures among people flying
engines within TBO by hours and also under 10 years old than with older
engines... it would be interesting to tabulate the data someday in a
statistically valid manner.


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

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
My experience suggests decimal dust.
I think it is hard to know how many accidents are due to maintenance issues
by reading NTSB reports

I concur, and do not base my opinion on NTSB reports.

Anecdotally I hear about a lot less engine failures among people flying
engines within TBO by hours and also under 10 years

That's because few airplanes reach hourly TBO within 10 years. My
experience indicates that those engines fail about as often - there
are just fewer of them.

it would be interesting to tabulate the data someday in a
statistically valid manner.

Yes it would. The very fact that the manufacturers COULD do it if
they chose, and choose not to, indicates that they don't want the
facts known. That suggests to me that the failures (a) happen far
more often than is generally believed and (b) are not prevented by
regular factory overhauls.

Fundamentally, I think most failures are a design problem rather than
a maintenance problem. So why are we still using clearly obsolete
designs? FAA.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...


Fundamentally, I think most failures are a design problem rather than
a maintenance problem. So why are we still using clearly obsolete
designs? FAA.

What piston engine design would be more reliable? (Economics make turbine
engine comparisons unfair, even if turbines are more reliable -- and I am
not certain that they are.)

I have experienced a lot more engine problems driving cars than flying
airplanes for sure.

Experimental airplanes do not seem to have any lower incidence of engine
failures anecdotally, nor do I recall reading any data to suggest there
exists a more reliable experimental piston engine design.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com