Reducing the Accident Rate

"Michael" wrote in message
om...


Frankly, I think that's only true if we accept that the aircraft are
not going to improve. Highway fatality rates have improved

Well airbags in seatbelts are one nice up and coming possibility for a
safety improvement.

Perhaps terrain avoidance systems can help prevent CFIT accidents, but is
that an airplane improvement or a pilot improvement?

Perhaps weather datalink can help reduce weather accidents, but really that
is providing info to the pilot, not improving the airplane per se.

In any event, it will take a really long time for this to trickle down to
the majority of the GA fleet... airplanes have a much longer average useful
life than cars.

Economics has a lot to do with this of course... there is no doubt in my
mind that adding TKS to all GA airplanes would significantly reduce icing
accidents... but that is not practical.

So I do think focusing on pilots is more important than focusing on
airplanes. And weather/judgment by far cause a disproportionate number of
accidents and have for years.


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

www.flyimc.com

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

"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.

Whether the program is done by a "national name" or not, how about a
specific review of accidents related to your airplane type and then a
discussion of how those accidents can be prevented?

This seems to me to be more "doable" than a generic "aviation safety"
program and it also seems to me that this would be more relevant to your
particular type association.



--------------------
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 in message
.51...
mandatory continuing education for pilot license.

After I'd been flying for awhile, I began to notice a disturbing decline in
the proportion of my time spent looking outside (flying VFR). In retrospect,
it's easy to see how that could happen: there's no overt feedback to remind
you that you're doing something wrong when your eyes linger inside the
cockpit, so a bad habit of neglecting the exterior scan can easily creep up
on you.

I made a conscious effort to monitor and correct the problem. But I wonder
what other bad habits might develop unnoticed. I suspect that recurrent
training every two years is inadequate to catch such problems in a timely
manner.

One possibility, of course, is to fly with an instructor (or at least
another pilot) far more often. Another would be to compile an list of bad
habits that can develop in the absence of corrective feedback, and
explicitly monitor for them. Or perhaps it'd be beneficial to videotape
oneself while flying, and review the tape afterwards (perhaps showing
representative portions to an instructor) to watch for any lapses.

--Gary

I began to notice a disturbing decline in
the proportion of my time spent looking outside (flying VFR).


Try covering up most of the instruments. VFR you don't really need much.

Jose


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

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
Well airbags in seatbelts are one nice up and coming possibility for a
safety improvement.

Why go so far? The reality is that a huge chunk of the fleet is still
flying around without shoulder harnesses. Ever wonder why? I don't.
I've installed two sets. Both were ridiculously expensive and poorly
designed. Why? FAA.

Perhaps terrain avoidance systems can help prevent CFIT accidents, but is
that an airplane improvement or a pilot improvement?

It's an airplane improvement. While it's always the pilot's
responsibility to avoid terrain, the truth is that no pilot (suicides
excepted) ever intentionally pointed his airplane at terrain. The
easier it is to maintain situational awareness, the less likely the
pilot is to do it.

In fact, I believe the whole issue of workload deserves a lot more
consideration. The more a pilot has to do, the more likely he is to
make a mistake. Do you realize that every car sold in the past 10
years has highly reliable, very efficient FADEC with single-lever
control? Why are they a rartiy on airplanes? FAA.

Perhaps weather datalink can help reduce weather accidents, but really that
is providing info to the pilot, not improving the airplane per se.

But it is improving the airplane. Pilots do not intentionally fly
into weather they can't handle. They fly into weather they think they
can handle, and they are wrong - IMO usually about the weather, not
their capabilities. The more accurate, timely, and user-friendly the
weather-update system becomes, the less likely pilots will be to make
these mistakes.

In any event, it will take a really long time for this to trickle down to
the majority of the GA fleet... airplanes have a much longer average useful
life than cars.

Why? FAA.

Economics has a lot to do with this of course... there is no doubt in my
mind that adding TKS to all GA airplanes would significantly reduce icing
accidents... but that is not practical.

Why not? Frankly, there's just not that much to the system. Most of
the system cost is regulatory compliance. In other words, FAA.

So I do think focusing on pilots is more important than focusing on
airplanes.

No, I think that's the wrong focus. If we're going to make a major
effort to address a systemic problem, it should be the correct
systemic problem. The FAA.

Michael

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

I began to notice a disturbing decline in
the proportion of my time spent looking outside (flying VFR).


Try covering up most of the instruments. VFR you don't really need much.

The problem wasn't that I was paying too much attention to the instruments.
Rather, I was starting to spend too much contiguous time on other tasks
(tuning radios to initiate flight following or open my flight plan; looking
at charts, etc.) with only a cursory glance out the window. I also noticed
that my visual scan would pause unnecessarily while I was talking over the
radio--kind of like drivers with cell phones, I guess.

--Gary

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

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