Learning from NTSB reports

"Ben Smith" wrote
Do any CFI's in the group point their students to the NTSB and usenet
archives?

I certainly don't think much of having my students read NTSB archives.
I've been flying long enough to have had direct, extensive personal
knowledge of a few accidentes that ended up in the NTSB reports. In
every single case, the NTSB report was missing data crucial to
understanding what really happened. Certainly my experience is
limited to just a handful of cases, but I have no reason to believe
the other light GA accidents were investigated any better. After all,
nobody has any particular incentive to cooperate with the
investigation, and many people have good reason to lie or keep quiet.
The resources are just not there to figure out what really happened
when some little airplane crashes.

As for usenet, it's certainly better than the NTSB investigations
because at least most people are telling the truth. However, you have
to understand that usenet aviation groups, like hangar flying, are
primarily for the entertainment of the participants and any education
that occurs is incidental. My experience is that 80% of what you will
hear in hangar flying sessions or read here on usenet is going to be
wrong. The trick is to figure out WHICH 80% - because the other 20%
is stuff you need to know.

Michael

Whoa! Lighten up. Did you read this report?

(Good point of view though for another time

--
Roger Long

Michael wrote in message
om...
"Ben Smith" wrote
Do any CFI's in the group point their students to the NTSB and usenet
archives?

I certainly don't think much of having my students read NTSB archives.
I've been flying long enough to have had direct, extensive personal
knowledge of a few accidentes that ended up in the NTSB reports. In
every single case, the NTSB report was missing data crucial to
understanding what really happened. Certainly my experience is
limited to just a handful of cases, but I have no reason to believe
the other light GA accidents were investigated any better. After all,
nobody has any particular incentive to cooperate with the
investigation, and many people have good reason to lie or keep quiet.
The resources are just not there to figure out what really happened
when some little airplane crashes.

As for usenet, it's certainly better than the NTSB investigations
because at least most people are telling the truth. However, you have
to understand that usenet aviation groups, like hangar flying, are
primarily for the entertainment of the participants and any education
that occurs is incidental. My experience is that 80% of what you will
hear in hangar flying sessions or read here on usenet is going to be
wrong. The trick is to figure out WHICH 80% - because the other 20%
is stuff you need to know.

Michael

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message .. .
I believe that reading accident reports is an important safety activity.
I've learned about a lot of things to avoid and anticipate.

This one is a must read for every pilot. Don't tell yourself you know
better than that. It could happen to anyone.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...12X18632&key=1

--
Roger Long



I'm addicted to NTSB reports too. Here's one we can all have
a good titter at (no fatalities). What can they have been thinking??
Love the sand in the back to make absolutely sure they were
overweight.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X11000&key=1

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/

"Roger Long" om wrote in message
.. .
I believe that reading accident reports is an important safety activity.
I've learned about a lot of things to avoid and anticipate.

This one is a must read for every pilot. Don't tell yourself you know
better than that. It could happen to anyone.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...12X18632&key=1

--
Let this be a lesson to you: Qualifying for the mile high club and simulated instrument
flight do not go together.

Qualifying for the mile high club and simulated instrument
flight do not go together.


The lesson is to read carefully. They thought they were supposed to be doing
STIMULATED instrument flight.

Jose

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

Yeah, but which one could log PIC?


"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

Qualifying for the mile high club and simulated instrument
flight do not go together.


The lesson is to read carefully. They thought they were supposed to be
doing
STIMULATED instrument flight.

Jose

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

Yeah, but which one could log PIC?


Qualifying for the mile high club and simulated instrument
flight do not go together.


The lesson is to read carefully. They thought they were supposed to be doing
STIMULATED instrument flight.


The dog on top, of course.

Jose

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

"Les Gawlik" wrote in message ...
Yeah, but which one could log PIC?


Do you get any logging possibilities for being the sole manipulator of the pilot in command?

Ron Natalie ) wrote:

"Roger Long" om wrote in message
.. .
I believe that reading accident reports is an important safety activity.
I've learned about a lot of things to avoid and anticipate.

This one is a must read for every pilot. Don't tell yourself you know
better than that. It could happen to anyone.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...12X18632&key=1

--
Let this be a lesson to you: Qualifying for the mile high club and simulated
instrument flight do not go together.

I wonder who was wearing the hood?

--
Peter















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article , Peter
R. wrote:

I wonder who was wearing the hood?

Or which one had their hand on the stick?