Reducing the Accident Rate

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , C J Campbell at
wrote on 7/9/04 9:54 PM:


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.

I'm glad somebody else noticed this. I felt distinctly ripped off after I
brought the book home and discovered halfway through the introduction that
it was a work of fiction. Why the subterfuge? Frankly, I found it to be
false advertising.


There is a real incident where a hunter shot himself down. It may not be as
funny as the story of the drunken hunters, but at least this one really
happened:

NTSB Identification: SEA02LA058.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact
Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, March 25, 2002 in Fort Peck, MT
Probable Cause Approval Date: 9/9/2002
Aircraft: Piper PA-18-150, registration: N22EV
Injuries: 2 Serious.
The pilot was conducting a predator (coyote) control flight over private
rangeland. During the flight, at a reported altitude of approximately 40
feet above ground level (AGL), the passenger inadvertently discharged a
semiautomatic 12-gauge shotgun. The pilot, who was seated in the forward
seat, reported that the gun fired 3-4 times, striking the right wing, fuel
tank and aileron assembly. He reported that the damage resulted in a loss of
aileron and elevator control. The airplane entered a descending turn to the
right and subsequently impacted terrain in a nose-low attitude. The pilot
reported the aircraft was on fire upon touchdown and continued to burn after
the impact. The pilot reported that there were no preexisting mechanical
malfunctions or failures that contributed to the accident.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:

The pilot's inability to maintain aircraft control and foreign object damage
to the aileron and wing. The restricted movement of the flight controls was
a factor.

mandatory continuing education for pilot license.

It works in the medical professions.

It doesn't have to be a seminar, it could be on-line courses.


(Snowbird) wrote in
om:

Hi All,


*snip*


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

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
Call me a skeptic, but I feel this goes along with WINGS
seminars: it's 'preaching to the choir'

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!".

Paul

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)?

I could be wrong - it's been a while - but I don't recall my primary CFI
recommending anything outside of "basic" training. In contrast, my CFII
was a real bear about WINGs programs, extra reading, and such. I bump into
him at a lot of these seminars, so he's taking his own advice.

I don't recall ever bumping into the younger "aviation career oriented" CFIs
- but I admit I've not been looking for the few I still know around here.

- Andrew

smpharmanaut wrote in message 8.51...
mandatory continuing education for pilot license.
It works in the medical professions.
It doesn't have to be a seminar, it could be on-line courses.

There is mandatory continuing ed for pilots in the form
of BFR. Evidently it doesn't suffice.

What form and how much, at what interval, do you suggest?

(Snowbird) wrote in
om:
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

smpharmanaut wrote:

mandatory continuing education for pilot license.

It's called a "flight review". For many of us, it happens once every two years.

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

"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.


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

www.flyimc.com

In article , "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:

"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.

hmmmm, I've attended most of the Wings seminars in the local area
when I can. I also attend the aeroclub's monthly safety meetings
even though I don't have to maintain currency in club aircraft.
I recently bought a (small) motorcycle - but only after
passing a rider safety course.

I'm wondering what riding a motorcycle reveals...

--
Bob Noel

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?

As a low time PP-ASEL, one thing that has helped immeasurably (believe it or
not) is reading the rec.aviation newsgroups.

It's an easy way to tap the pulse of GA.
It's also a great way to see what is important to and getting the attention
of more experienced pilots/owners.

Each time I get in the plane now, I can usually think of something I've read
here that helps me out.

Adam

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 19:59:22 -0400, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:



"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.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.


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

www.flyimc.com


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 are
correct, I believe, that the percentage of motorcycle riders in the
pilot community is greater than it is in the general population but I
suspect that many of those riders are also very safety concious prior
to becoming pilots. The question that I would like to know the answer
to is this; is the percentage of motorcycle driving pilots that
attends safety seminars different than the percentage of motorcycle
driving pilots that do not. I'm not sure that there are any valid
conclusions that can be drawn here.
Rich Russell
P.S. Jay, help me out here.