A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Reducing the Accident Rate



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 9th 04, 08:18 PM
Snowbird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reducing the Accident Rate

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
  #2  
Old July 9th 04, 08:44 PM
Bob Gardner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I agree that just about all safety seminars are attended by people who do
not need encouragement to fly safely, and I am at a loss as to how to reach
the others except by person-to-person contact. Few of us are willing to take
the bull by the horns and talk to miscreants, so the next best has to be
calling in the FSDO safety program manager or an accident prevention
counselor. I hope that Jay recorded the clueless VFR pilot's tail number,
name, or whatever in order to pass the info on to someone at the FBO where
he rented the plane and ultimately to his instructor if possible. This was
such an egregious violation that half-measures won't do the job.

Bob Gardner

"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



  #3  
Old July 9th 04, 09:29 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Snowbird" wrote:
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?



Wow, talk about your $64 question!

I dunno Sydney, I think we might have reached a natural, human factors
limit on GA safety under the current regulations: note the more-or-less
flat statistics of recent years. And it really doesn't appear that new
technology is the answer, NASA's pipedreams notwithstanding.

Unless we want to have more stringent rules that further restrict what
private pilots can do, I can't think of a way we can reach the less
safety conscious members of the pilot population, unless it's with
heat-seeking missiles.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #4  
Old July 9th 04, 10:15 PM
Michael 182
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


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.

With regard to insurance, I believe they respond to actuarial statistics,
not press reports. Assuming our collective accident rates don't change there
is no reason to assume insurance rates will change either - unless you are
saying the rates are already prohibitive and we need to lower them.

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.

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)?


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. Which is not at
all surprising. Almost everyone has, at some point, screwed up and cracked
up their car, boat, motorcycle. On a simpler level, we have all missed
appointments, dropped plates and broken bones. Perhaps we are already at the
point of "accidents happen" - it's just that in aviation the accidents tend
cause a higher price.

Anyway, FWIW, I suspect that the single biggest factor in reducing accidents
is to increase currency requirements, especially for IFR. That said, I
certainly don't want it to happen - I'll live with the current accident
rates and take my chances.


Michael



  #5  
Old July 9th 04, 10:31 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't think that I would pay $100 or $200 to attend a one-day seminar run
by 'big names.' I am not convinced that it would be helpful in any way. Of
course, I fly every day, read everything I can get my hands on, and study
the regulations and manuals constantly.

Back in the 1970s I remember an FAA guy saying that we can give pilots the
best equipment, the best training, the best weather information and air
traffic control, but we can't give them good judgment. It is difficult
enough with the dolts posting here who show all the dangerous attitudes:
macho, anti-authority, complacency and all the rest. Some of the guys who
constantly criticize instructors, the FAA, maintenance, and everybody else
really concern me. The "I have ten thousand hours and I don't care what some
pup says" syndrome (even when the 'pup' is more than 50 years old and has
decades of flying experience of his own) is evident here in full force. At
least they appear to care a little bit about flight safety.

I am beginning to think that there really isn't anything you can do with
some people. All this week we have been working with a woman who wants to
commit suicide (she is clinically depressed). What she does is she takes all
her anti-depressant medication with beer. Well, this won't kill her, but it
is likely to lower the oxygen levels in her blood sufficiently to cause
permanent brain damage. Apparently she would rather live the rest of her
life having somebody feed her, wipe her bib, and change her diaper rather
than face her rather minor problems.

I think some pilots are like that. They can't be motivated to even open
their mail, let alone attend a safety seminar. They would rather die. And
some of them will.

I gave a commercial student a stage check -- the final one before his check
ride. He had been very insistent that he is ready for the commercial check
ride and had been demanding that we sign him off for it. His instructor
finally tired of his complaints and sent him to me for the stage check,
hoping that I would reinforce what the instructor had already been telling
him -- that he was not ready. The student did terribly on the oral quizzing,
unable to demonstrate even rudimentary knowledge of aircraft systems, FARs,
or weather. Apparently the only studying he did was to read one of those ASA
oral exam guides and memorize the answers. If you deviated even slightly
from the questions in that book he was unable to answer them.

His flying was the same. Although the clouds were reported as 1200 few and
4900 broken, it was easy to see that the 'few' became scattered to broken
the moment you left the vicinity of the airport in any direction. He did not
know how to start the Cutlass properly, missed or screwed up several other
checklist items starting the engine, did not know how the GPS worked but
attempted to program it anyway, taxied with the mixture full rich and then
did not know how to clear the resultant fouled plug, then departed straight
into the clouds. As he was starting to enter the clouds he turned to me and
said, "What do I do now?" He stopped being pilot in command! He did not
leave himself an 'out' if he got into trouble. I had to take over the plane
to keep him from going VFR into the clouds, and then direct him back to the
airport which was less than a mile away. The interesting thing was that
there was plenty of room to deviate around the low clouds, but he did not
attempt to do this, nor did he try to fly to a clear area. Instead, he
departed straight for the heaviest and thickest clouds in the area and did
not deviate at all because he had not planned for it. Overall, I found his
performance very disappointing. On the ground he refused to admit that he
had made any errors and offered all kinds of excuses.

I think that is part of the real problem. Some people just don't accept the
idea of being pilot in command. They can't control themselves, let alone an
airplane. They blame everybody else for their problems. They think the FAA,
the instructors, the FBOs, the mechanics, the government, and the 'system'
are all incompetent. After I explained to this student that he was in real
danger and just why, and told him that I expected that he know how to fly an
airplane instead of passing a test, he showed some change of heart and a
determination to study harder. I hope he meant it.


  #6  
Old July 9th 04, 10:43 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think that is part of the real problem. Some people just don't accept
the
idea of being pilot in command.


Wow, ain't it the truth -- in all aspects of life.

There are drivers, and there are the driven.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #7  
Old July 9th 04, 10:56 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dan Luke wrote:

Unless we want to have more stringent rules that further restrict what
private pilots can do, I can't think of a way we can reach the less
safety conscious members of the pilot population, unless it's with
heat-seeking missiles.


Maybe. But I'd start with a different question: why don't those that don't
attend WINGs programs (and the like) attend WINGs programs (and the like)?
I find myself astonished that so many don't (is the 80-90% number
accurate?).

Perhaps I'm just lucky, in that I'm located in an area where seminars are
plentiful and frequent. Attending seminars was just a natural thing to do,
even if only as an opportunity to hang out with pilots. Perhaps this isn't
so everywhere?

Why else not attend?

- Andrew

  #8  
Old July 10th 04, 02:00 AM
SeeAndAvoid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I just got done reading a book called "They Called It Pilot Error"
and boy are we in trouble if some of the knuckleheads that
are in this book are in any numbers out there. Gladly, most
of the really stupid ones died in the accidents mentioned in
this book, but you know if those existed, theres 10x that many
that just havent crashed or had close ones yet.
Pilots on drugs and alcohol, with expired licenses/medicals,
blatantly breaking reg after reg, making up their own
approaches and rules, and of course the comical one about
those drunk dudes shooting holes through their own wings.

They have to really skew the averages, so I dont see any
hope of reducing the accident rate as long as these boneheads
are among us. And of course the media jump on these stories
like flies on sh*t, which of course they themselves are.
On this recent really long trip I took, I got flight following
everywhere that I wasn't IFR, and I heard a lot of 'lost' sounding
pilots on freq, not literally, but as if they had no clue as to
what they were up to. And controllers having to repeatedly
ask them. And of course while on the sector I hear stuff
that make me wonder how fun can it possibly be for this
pilot who sounds as if he's 100 miles behind the airplane and
no clue what's right ahead of him (hills/weather). I brush
some of that off as poor radio technique or nerves, some of
it, not all of it.

I dont see the rate going down, not with an aging fleet, and an
aging group of pilots. Mathematically, isnt that impossible
anyway? Less airplanes and even with a level number of
crashes? Assuming the airplanes involved are no longer in
service?

Anyway, I'm rambling, and the only accident rate I care about
is my personal rate. But check out that book, it's pretty sad,
and of course the author and NASA rep seem to have an
axe to grind.

Chris


  #9  
Old July 10th 04, 05:54 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message
link.net...
I just got done reading a book called "They Called It Pilot Error"
and boy are we in trouble if some of the knuckleheads that
are in this book are in any numbers out there.


The only knucklehead in the book that is really out there is the author, who
despite his claims to being an experienced pilot manages to confuse an HSI
with the attitude indicator, does not appear to understand the goals of
fundamental flight training, and generally seems to know little about
aviation except for a few buzzwords that he does not really understand their
meaning.

All the stories are fiction, though some of them are kind of fun to read.
The only place you will find where he admits that the book is entirely
fiction is an oblique mention of it in the introduction. You will not find
any of the incidents in the NTSB database.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
AmeriFlight Crash C J Campbell Piloting 5 December 1st 03 03:13 PM
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 41 November 20th 03 06:39 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Piloting 25 September 11th 03 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.