Reducing the Accident Rate

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
m...

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.

To what extent is this possible? In aviation the vast majority of the risk
can be managed by the pilot in choosing weather minimums and flight
procedures. In motorcycle riding, there will always remain the major
non-manageable risk that someone will hit the motorcyclist in a much larger
vehicle even if the motorcyclist practices defensive driving. Even worse, a
60 mph collision while riding a motorcycle almost always results in a fatal
or extremely serious injury, whereas there are lots of survival airplane
accidents.


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.

Correct... maybe the motorcycle comparison is a bad one... but in any event
there is clearly a significant group of pilots not particularly interested
in flying safety.

Look at it this way -- Flight Safety used to say (maybe still says?) that no
holder of their "Gold Card" had ever been involved in an airplane accident.
Is that to Flight Safety's credit, or to a large extent does pilot
self-selection play a role?



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

www.flyimc.com

"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 -- not
that
motorcycle riders cannot also be safe pilot, but the huge % of pilots who
ride
motorcycles does suggest there is a certain subset of pilots who are
risk-seekers.


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

www.flyimc.com

"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

"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

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

Michael

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

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

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.

Homebuilts do not have a better safety record.

If you think a safer plane can be developed without FAA regulation, why
don't you buy or build an experimental airplane and install the appropriate
safety equipment so it is safer than your Twin Comanche?


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

www.flyimc.com

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.

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"