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

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

"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

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

"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

Bob Noel wrote:

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.

Is management the same as avoidance? The layman probably wouldn't say
so. The goal isn't part of the "management" equation. How you get there is.


Jack

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.

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.

"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