Reducing the Accident Rate

Richard Russell wrote:

That is an interesting comment. I have driven motorcycles for 35
years and have been flying for 2 years. I attend every Wings (or
other) safety seminar that I can. I think my years of motorcycle
riding have predisposed me to a safety concious attitude.

You *have* to have a safety concious attitude to survive riding bikes for 35 years.
That, plus an accurate understanding that everybody else is trying to kill you.

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

"Michael 182" wrote
I'm not sure I agree with this. Although GA accidents are reported somewhat
hysterically by the news media, have the press reports led to a reduction in
my flying privileges? I don't think so.

I think you are 100% right. The only erosion in our flying privileges
in recent history has been the result of things that happened with
airliners, not GA airplanes.

With regard to insurance, I believe they respond to actuarial statistics,
not press reports.

Rght again, and in reality the stock market has more impact on our
rates than the accident rate.

Safer planes will probably eventually start to make a difference, as the
fleet slowly upgrades. But this will take a long time, both for the
equipment upgrades and the training to use the equipment.

Another good point. Our airplanes are mostly designed to 1950's
safety standards - even most of the ones being built now. There have
been a few minor changes, but only a few. Mostly, that's the fault of
the FAA. It's so difficult and expensive to certify anything really
new that progress has ground to a halt. In fact, I would have to say
that the biggest factor in our high accident rate is the FAA. If we
ever get airplanes that are as up to date as a 1995 Honda Civic, the
situation will improve.

I wonder if this population of "cowboy pilots" is really significant. Sure
we have all run into one or two, but I'm sure the vast majority of pilots we
all meet are safety conscious and reasonably diligent. That said, even if
the cowboys are much more accident prone (which they probably are) the vast
majority of accidents probably happen to normal pilots who just find
themselves temporarily overmatched by some chain of events.

Again, I agree 100%. I know very few cowboy pilots, and most of them
are highly skilled and able to mostly offset their poor judgment with
excellent skill. I knew one cowboy pilot who wrecked an airplane; I
know MANY aviation safety counselors who have. We've all made
mistakes - combine them all into a single flight, and any of us would
have crashed. Both our airplanes and the national airspace system we
fly in are full of "gotchas" and sometimes even the best pilots are
not up to dealing with all the gotchas, especially when the weather
goes bad.

Anyway, FWIW, I suspect that the single biggest factor in reducing accidents
is to increase currency requirements, especially for IFR.

Again, I mostly agree (should I have simply quoted the whole post and
added "me too?"). It's not so much IFR as bad weather - wether you
choose to handle it by flying IFR in IMC or low VFR under IMC, the
workload increases dramatically over what is required to drone along
in clear and a million. Most pilots don't fly often enough to stay
proficient enough for that kind of flying. Restricting those pilots
to bluebird days certainly would lower the accident rate.

That said, I
certainly don't want it to happen - I'll live with the current accident
rates and take my chances.

Thank you for a voice of sanity.

Michael

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:12:41 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



Richard Russell wrote:

That is an interesting comment. I have driven motorcycles for 35
years and have been flying for 2 years. I attend every Wings (or
other) safety seminar that I can. I think my years of motorcycle
riding have predisposed me to a safety concious attitude.

You *have* to have a safety concious attitude to survive riding bikes for 35 years.
That, plus an accurate understanding that everybody else is trying to kill you.

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

You're right on the money with that one. That's exactly the thought
that I ride with, that everyone I see has been given the assignment to
kill me. I commute daily into Philadelphia so a good bit of my riding
is in less than relaxing conditions. I think this mindset helped when
I began to fly. Other habits and skills that keep you alive on a bike
also help with flying, such as being weather concious, leaning into
turns and maintaining separation.
Rich Russell

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Paul Sengupta wrote:

Like I've said before, apparently the opening line for CAA safety
seminars here in the UK is usually "For just turning up tonight,
you're 20 times less likely to suffer a fatal accident before I've
even said a word...ok, you can all go home now!".

So what can be done to encourage more use of the WINGs program (and other
forms of "post-certification education)?

This is the question though. Some people are safety oriented, some
aren't. Those who aren't, those "statistics waiting to happen"...would
attending seminars change their behaviour?

Paul

"Michael" wrote in message
Thank you for a voice of sanity.

Michael

lol - thank you - something I've rarely been accused of...

Michael

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
I think there is a reasonable subset of pilots who frankly enjoy a bit of
danger

I think that subset includes 100% of all pilots that fly for fun
except for some total idiots.

Why do I make the exception? Well, it would take a total idiot not to
realize that every flight, regardless of the manner in which it is
conducted, means some danger. Further, since the flight is for fun
rather than a matter of necessity, the danger is unnecessary. Even if
the trip itself is made for good reason (rather than simply a $100
burger) almost any other means of making the trip is safer.

these pilots may be hard to reach in a safety seminar.

On the contrary - a bit of danger is one thing, but taking large
pointless risks is quite another. It is probably the pilots who are
most aware of the danger who are most careful about managing the
risks. But to reach these people, you have to offer something better
than "Just say no."

Have you ever asked around your airport to see the % of pilots who ride
motorcycles? The percentage is astoundingly high.

Why go that far? Any auto insurance company will tell you that the
safest, most risk-averse drivers are middle aged married women. How
many private pilots fit that profile? The percentage is astoundingly
low.

Aviation has inherent risk to it, and those people who are not
comfortable with the added risk soon leave aviation. Those who are
left are comfortable with it.

Michael

Michael wrote:

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
I think there is a reasonable subset of pilots who frankly enjoy a bit of
danger

I think that subset includes 100% of all pilots that fly for fun
except for some total idiots.

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.

[...]
Aviation has inherent risk to it, and those people who are not
comfortable with the added risk soon leave aviation. Those who are
left are comfortable with it.

"Comfort" does not imply "enjoyment".

- Andrew

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

I'm not sure I take your point, Richard?

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.

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.

FWIW,
Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
Hi All,

Just got back from the national convention of my type
club (insert glowing comments about beautiful planes,
wonderful people, fun activities, helpful FBO here)

So here's a topic related to Jay's thread "Scary". At
the membership meeting, the club's Safety Director rightly
pointed out something many here have commented on: every
GA accident is "news" these days, and if we want to keep
flying (and keep being able to buy insurance) we pilots,
as a group, need to lower the accident rate.

So how? I have a great deal of respect for this man. He's
a stand-up guy, a pilot with breadth and depth of experience,
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".

Call me a skeptic, but I feel this goes along with WINGS
seminars: it's 'preaching to the choir', to a large extent.
Maybe 10 or at most, 20% of the membership makes it to the
conventions. The ones who would pay to take this course
are, like the pilots who show up at the WINGS seminars,
those who have already made a mental committment to recurrant
training and who, if every safety seminar in the country
became extinct, would "roll their own" out of books and magazines
and discussions with pilots and CFIs they respect.

Most of the pilots who are taking off without proper respect
for DA or flying into ice/tstorms/IMC or buzzing their buddy's
house, I think, aren't coming to these things. Maybe I'm wrong?
Maybe they come, and think "oh, well, only ignorant low-hours
pilots have trouble when they try to run cows around with their
plane, I'm a super-skilled high-time pilot so *I* can do it just
fine" (insert analogous phrase about other activities)?

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

The NTSB report

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/ARG0302.pdf

is informative.


Stencil the following into the center of the yoke at the next annual
inspection

"watch your fuel amount, mixture, carb-heat;
keep out of bad weather;
anticipate the wind;
watch your airspeed...
.....and you will avoid a lot of the preventable accidents".

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
Hi All,

Just got back from the national convention of my type
club (insert glowing comments about beautiful planes,
wonderful people, fun activities, helpful FBO here)

So here's a topic related to Jay's thread "Scary". At
the membership meeting, the club's Safety Director rightly
pointed out something many here have commented on: every
GA accident is "news" these days, and if we want to keep
flying (and keep being able to buy insurance) we pilots,
as a group, need to lower the accident rate.

So how? I have a great deal of respect for this man. He's
a stand-up guy, a pilot with breadth and depth of experience,
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".

Call me a skeptic, but I feel this goes along with WINGS
seminars: it's 'preaching to the choir', to a large extent.
Maybe 10 or at most, 20% of the membership makes it to the
conventions. The ones who would pay to take this course
are, like the pilots who show up at the WINGS seminars,
those who have already made a mental committment to recurrant
training and who, if every safety seminar in the country
became extinct, would "roll their own" out of books and magazines
and discussions with pilots and CFIs they respect.

Most of the pilots who are taking off without proper respect
for DA or flying into ice/tstorms/IMC or buzzing their buddy's
house, I think, aren't coming to these things. Maybe I'm wrong?
Maybe they come, and think "oh, well, only ignorant low-hours
pilots have trouble when they try to run cows around with their
plane, I'm a super-skilled high-time pilot so *I* can do it just
fine" (insert analogous phrase about other activities)?

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?



The NTSB report

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/ARG0302.pdf

is information.

Out of 1900 accidents:
The leading cause is power problems 500.
Weather as a factor in about 360, but only about 120 or so "IMC", most
others are wind, carb-icing, and density altitude.
Over a 100 accidents were fuel management.

So the message is not long...have it stenciled into the center of the yoke
at the next annual:

"Watch your fuel amount, mixture, carb-heat;
Do not fly into bad weather;
Anticipate the wind;
Watch your airspeed
.... and you will avoid most preventable accidents"