EAA Safety Pledge?

[danielfindling]

Ok, I was inspired after reading an article in the recent issue of Kitplanes written by the founder of the Vans Air Force which addressed his personal minimums: e.g. No low level high speed flybys, no single engine night flying, no mass formation flying, an A&P does a look over after an oil change, . . .

Why doesn't EAA have a safety Pledge to help promote the safety of General Aviation? (If we have one, news to me)

Sure we have the FAR's but legal and safe are different.

It seems that the EAA is often engaged in a (justified) battle with the bias reporting of GA accidents. For example, if statistics are unfavorably reported by [fill in the blank], an article in Sport Aviation tackles the statistics as bias. When a blog about the dangers of air racing vs. airshows is published, it is removed when our members believe aviation is being thrown under the bus.

I propose EAA encourage more self regulation on flying and maintaining of home-built, warbird, vintage, and general aviation in addition to safety articles and tech counselors (e.g. http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa24.pdf) (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa24.pdf)

How about an EAA safety pledge by members to (your SUGGESTIONS here) without fear that the pledge will become over burdensome Federal regulation etc. What do you think? Make it part of the EAA culture to: e.g. "Fly responsibly, courteously, and cautiously. Set personal minimums and abide by them, and promote EAA and general aviation . . ."

Here are some other examples?
The Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Safety Code: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.PDF
The National Association of Rocketry Safety Code: http://www.nar.org/NARmrsc.html
(http://www.nar.org/NARmrsc.html)




(http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa24.pdf)

[Janet Davidson]

Nice idea, but as with a lot of things like this, those who listen & pledge are the ones who are least likely to need to listen & pledge. They have already taken the necessary steps in self awareness & safety.

[steveinindy]

"D**n it Janet" (sorry....couldn't resist), you beat me to it. I don't see any bias reporting against experimental versus non-experimental GA.



It seems that the EAA is often engaged in a (justified) battle with the bias reporting of GA accidents. For example, if statistics are unfavorably reported by [fill in the blank], an article in Sport Aviation tackles the statistics as bias. When a blog about the dangers of air racing vs. airshows is published, it is removed when our members believe aviation is being thrown under the bus.
I think the bias exists in the eyes of the reader of reports more often than whenever they read something with which they disagree with. It's much easier to scream "BIAS!" than to critically evaluate one's own activities. We do have some increased dangers and splitting hairs (excluding crashes from the test flight period for example; that's only valid if you split out the crashes of similar certificated aircraft in their first 40 hours of operations and compare them to the experimentals) like a lot of us do to make our numbers look better isn't valid statistical analysis on the face of an "apples to apples" standard. It goes back to that old Mark Twain quote about there being three kinds of liars: liars, d**n liars and statisticians.

If we go out with the intention of quashing discussion about the safety issues inherent in our chosen activity ("when a blog about the dangers of air racing vs. airshows is published, it is removed when our members believe aviation is being thrown under the bus") it makes us no better than those you are trying to blast for "bias". Bias is bias whether we choose to agree with it or not. How about scientifically valid arguments being the goal instead of simply making it be whether it serves our ends or not.

Instead of chasing the specter of "bias" how about we actually go after the activities that are causing experimental crashes to be so common. The two such issues that seem to be major problems are botched fuel system construction, installation or maintenance and cowboy behavior (high speed passes, untrained/uncoordinated formation flying, low altitude aerobatics, etc). Instead of splitting hairs and over-compartmentalizing our crashes to make them seem on par or better, let's expend that same energy actually making our aircraft and their use safer than their standard category counterparts.

[danielfindling]

Steve, I enjoyed your Rocky Horror reference.

I think EAA is doing something about home-built safety with the technical counselors etc. I was focusing on the pilot. After I purchased my airplane I read every fatal accident report to help me make better decisions when flying. How many deaths are caused by unintended flight into IMC?

I feel EAA could spend resources improving pilot saftey in aeronautical decision making in the culture of EAA (e.g. The pilot pledge) in lieu of attacking the messenger (the perceived or actual media bias). I believe that the ad hoc and ad hominem undertone of EAA (attacking the media messenger) does nothing to help GA or safety.

I can think of several forums at Airventure where the audience cheers when a speaker boasts of flying irresponsibly but few about staying alive in a single engine airplane. As an aside, I am a newly minted private pilot and I am trying not to hurt myself by developing my own personal pledge. After all, I have three young children and a wife and next to my family, I love flying.

Daniel

[Bill]

Nice idea, but as with a lot of things like this, those who listen & pledge are the ones who are least likely to need to listen & pledge. They have already taken the necessary steps in self awareness & safety.

There is a significant portion of the experimental aviation community who view self awareness and safety as anathema.

I intended to build an RV-7 and had already purchased the RV-7 preview plans from Vans. As a participant in the VAF (Vans Air Force) I was intensely interested in the VAF community that I was about to join. There was one thread that convinced me to do something else and that thread was in response to a plea from Van himself for more attention to safety in order to improve the safety record of experimental aircraft.

While there was a lot of discussion, pro and con, about approaches to safety, one post, in particular, convinced me that I did not want to be part of the RV community. In its essence, this post about safety said that if you should happen to report anyone to the FAA for a flagrant safety violation, that you should carefully consider the possibility of retribution for that report. There wasn't even a response, one way or another, to this post. It is unimaginable, for me, to belong to a group that finds this viewpoint acceptable. I sold my RV-7 preview plans and am awaiting delivery of a quick-build kit for another popular experimental kit at the end of February. I have only the highest regard for Van himself, but some of the builders of his kits are incomprehensibly obtuse and will not accept that safety will benefit themselves and the rest of the experimental aviation community.

[steveinindy]

I think EAA is doing something about home-built saftey with the techincal counselors etc. I was focusing on the pilot.
Agreed. I was just saying we should do more as a community to try to correct or marginalize those pilots who are engaging in activities that are frankly unsafe (cutting corners during construction, making design modifications without recognizing the broader ramifications, utilizing substandard parts, etc)



I can think of several forums at airventure where the audience cheers when a speaker boasts of flying irresponsibly but few about staying alive in a single engine airplane

So can I. I flat out got up and walked out of one after hearing such behavior.

[rosiejerryrosie]

We would all benefit from more safe behavior and fewer aircraft accidents. AOPA and the FAASTeam folks are concentrating more and more heavily on safer flying and Aeronautical Decision Making. EAA would be well served to help promote their safety seminars, webinars and on line classes. I, for one, would be more than happy to sign a pledge to not kill myself or anyone else by doing something stupid. I would also pledge to point out to others if they are about to do something that is unsafe (if the pledge went that far).

[steveinindy]

. EAA would be well served to help promote their safety seminars, webinars and on line classes.

That would be a good thing, but it only serves part of the problem since we have the rather unique situation of having a higher than normal rate of mechanical issues that result in crashes. Instead of sweeping these under the rug, they need to be brought out into the harsh light of day and dealt with accordingly. The issues have often never been fully elucidated nor addressed so it's about time we decided to fully look into it.


I would also pledge to point out to others if they are about to do something that is unsafe (if the pledge went that far)

I agree with you on this. It tends to be one of my most common practices. However, you're often met with resistance. That said, I often find when a guy is flying with his wife (not to be sexist, just simply playing the statistics here) talking to her and pointing out that he's about to do something stupid that is going to get them both killed comes in handy. One case that jumps to mind was the guy who was about to take off from KHUF in freezing drizzle in a 172. I politely pulled him aside and suggested he might want to rethink his decision. He told me to go do something to myself that is anatomically impossible and so I reached into my bag and produced a couple of forms for him and his wife. She asked what they were and I told her that I do crash survivability research that relies heavily on autopsy data. If they took off, I'd like to have access to their data because they wouldn't make it to the next county over before their plane was glazed like a donut. Needless to say, I found myself in the position of helping them find a hotel room and giving them a ride to it that evening. I later received a letter from the pilot thanking me for keeping him from being "that stupid".

[Floatsflyer]

Steve, loved your amusing and kick to the family jewels anecdote. Your a brave(and mostly caring) guy to have confronted that couple. It is part of the human condition that we don't take kindly to personal criticsm and take on a defensive, over reactive tone when confronted. Sometimes it's a far worse reaction than just words about anatomically impossible suggestions. Good for you for being proactive, you are a righteous person, you likely saved the lives of those people! They should put you in their will.

[steveinindy]

Your a brave(and mostly caring) guy to have confronted that couple.

You tell anyone else that I'm "caring" and my standing offer to have a beer with any forum member who so desires at AirVenture will be revoked. I do have a reputation to uphold. ;)


They should put you in their will.

What's even funnier is that their letter also included the forms I gave them signed "just in case".

In all seriousness though, I don't want to add anyone else to my database if I can avoid it.

[Floatsflyer]

[QUOTE=steveinindy;8755]You tell anyone else that I'm "caring" and my standing offer to have a beer with any forum member who so desires at AirVenture will be revoked. I do have a reputation to uphold


I'll take that under advisement. As for the beer, pleased to meet you at the Vintage Cafe any time.

[steveinindy]

LOL Sounds like a plan.

[Frank Giger]

Nice idea, but as with a lot of things like this, those who listen & pledge are the ones who are least likely to need to listen & pledge. They have already taken the necessary steps in self awareness & safety.

LOL, there is a lot of "preaching to the safety choir" at FAA safety seminars. The guys and gals that bother to attend are the types that are already thinking safety and wondering how to be MORE safe.

Personally, I'm a big chicken when it comes to flying. If I wouldn't play 18 pulling a cart on a golf course in the present weather I won't fly over it.

On homebuilts, I'll gently disagree with Steve's stance, even though I understand it. Occupational hazard; he looks at an aircraft and sees a wreck. As I build my plane I think in terms of why something will work - and then try to shoot it down; the decisions I've made that are off plans aren't compromises but a different approach.

Usually it's an over-build of a part, though, and I talk to the designer of my plane about them.

On safety over all, I'll trust Randy Babbitt's observation that it's not the builder that usually wrecks, but the second or third owner of the experimental aircraft. That makes a lot of sense to me, as maintenance and inspections may be a mystery for a custom built aircraft.

I've put down some maintenance checks on areas that aren't intuitive on my list that will wind up in the POH based on build decisions and specific concerns I have based on being intimate with the construction. I'm not sure that most builders actually write down extra checks they know they need to make.

[edit]

When deciding on my aircraft, I did a bunch of research on safety not just for the particular model, but similar types - and not just in NTSB reports but on self-admitted incidents from pilots that didn't make the grade for FAA or NTSB involvement. Turns out they're really safe - one fatality that happened on the first flight takeoff due to PIO.

Ground straps coming loose, clogged fuel filters, and Ye Olde Ground Loop are the main culprits; owing to slow speeds and the tendency for tube and gusset construction to crumple make them amiable to pilot surviveability when making an opportunistic landing. Based on that, it pointed out some areas of specific concerns on my build.

[steveinindy]

On homebuilts, I'll gently disagree with Steve's stance, even though I understand it. Occupational hazard; he looks at an aircraft and sees a wreck. As I build my plane I think in terms of why something will work - and then try to shoot it down; the decisions I've made that are off plans aren't compromises but a different approach.

You're kind of correct on that. I actually look for something that is practical for the purpose it is intended and then try to figure out how to make it crash survivable. However, you are spot on when it comes to my tendency to look at any aircraft I see and try to figure out how it would react in various impact configurations. It's a quirk....humor me. ;)


On safety over all, I'll trust Randy Babbitt's observation that it's not the builder that usually wrecks, but the second or third owner of the experimental aircraft. That makes a lot of sense to me, as maintenance and inspections may be a mystery for a custom built aircraft.

Then might I ask how that stands up to the standard "Once you get past the first forty hours..." response whenever safety of experimental aircraft is brought up. I would tend to agree that there is a secondary spike in accidents whenever pilots are transitioning from one aircraft (or class of aircraft) to another.

[Frank Giger]

On the first 40, I think it should be given a special notation to keep the data pure.

Test flights are, well, test flights. As a builder it would be much more useful for me to know what causes wrecks during testing versus what causes wrecks once it has been established the plane is "good to go," as one speaks to construction and the other to maintenance and design.

Let's say that Cessna had wrecked their first Skycatcher (which had a big EXPERIMENTAL decal on the side). Let's say they wrecked it three times as they found problems or the limits of the operating limitations (IIRC, there's a very good reason for why one should follow the INTENTIONAL SPINS SHOULD NOT BE ATTEMPTED placard in them).

It probably would mean absolutely nothing to the safety of the production Skycatcher, assuming that they worked the bugs out.

However, those four wrecks would be listed in the experimental category and lumped along with the fellow that used substandard materials or techniques - or went from a C172 to a 3/4 scale Fokker Eindecker without proper transistion training.

In the homebuilt world, every single plane is a one off test platform! Some are less "testy" than others, like the RV's with pre-punched panels and if-it-doesn't-line-up-it-ain't-right design (which is why they have such a good track record), but one still has to remember the nature of the beast.

I know of at least one aircraft that wound up grounded permanently at the 20 hour mark because it was a monster to fly, and another that didn't make it to a hundred before it got hung from a museum ceiling for the same reason.

I want to know what problems are during testing (where they're expected) and what problems came later on.

Steve, I'm with you that we should definately be our own worst critics and that there is room for improvement on safety. Part of that should be stressing transition training, which also means reaching out to the larger GA community.

When I was in primary training in a FlightDesign CTLS and struggling through crosswind landings some wag at the airfield made some disparaging remarks about my less than stellar performance. Well, I took it in stride - man, I did everything but bend the bird!

The next week the same guy walked up and apologized to me. My instructor took exception to his comments and had him go around the pattern a few times after I left, and he learned the difference between a C172 and a twitchy little LSA first hand - and I gather it was a very sobering experience.

"If you can land that [censored] you can land anything," he said.

LSA transition training is one of the areas we're falling down on as well, but that's another thread....

[steveinindy]

When I was in primary training in a FlightDesign CTLS and struggling through crosswind landings some wag at the airfield made some disparaging remarks about my less than stellar performance. Well, I took it in stride - man, I did everything but bend the bird!

I know a friend of mine who took a former WWII fighter pilot up for a ride in one and let him land it. His response was apparently "That bird is a ***** to land". It's a heck of a statement coming from someone with as much experience as that guy had (he had accumulated 30,000+ hours before he retired from flying). The only thing anywhere near that light I have flown was an ultralight and the difference between that and the 172s and Comanches I had been used to was enough to increase the "pucker factor" quite significantly.

[danielfindling]

Any traction or ideas for an EAA safety pledge?

[Racegunz]

Well if the pledge includes having an A/P check my routine maintenance work before I fly count me out I know several, only one of which would I let turn wrenches on my plane and only if I am present. I don't have any thing positive to say about that part of the pledge, and what's wrong with single engine night flying?especially VFR??????
I'm not into the drama that seems to plague most aviators but I want to come home and fly again many many times, I think that what Frank experiences described with the "airport expert" is a factor that tends to discourage newer pilots from asking for help when in doubt for fear of being put down. Better than any pledge could ever be, if you really care about safety in experimental homebuilts is encouraging the tech counselor program and offer your help (not just disparaging comments) to new builders.

[Frank Giger]

Race, I've been uniformly welcomed by the community of aviators - I think he was just jumping the gun on the friendly razzing and came off harsher than he meant to. I really believe he was aiming at my instructor more than me.

The cool thing is when the Champ is on the ramp ready for me (Jim having a student earlier or putting gas in it) and some twin engined IFR twenty-something pilot is giving it the hairy eyeball - and then find out he's not going anywhere for an hour. Welllll....let's do a half hour hop around with some touch and goes for some honest stick-and-rudder work.

Big smiles and a light bulb over their heads. "I understand the low and slow now...."

I'll throw some water on the Safety Pledge if I can.

Safety should be inherent in the mission and (more importantly) the culture of the organization. I'm always leery of any company or club that has to put things they should be doing anyway on a poster ("People First," "Do the right thing," etc.) - if one has to constantly remind folks of such things that means they're not doing them in the first place.

[danielfindling]

I'll throw some water on the Safety Pledge if I can.

Safety should be inherent in the mission and (more importantly) the culture of the organization. I'm always leery of any company or club that has to put things they should be doing anyway on a poster ("People First," "Do the right thing," etc.) - if one has to constantly remind folks of such things that means they're not doing them in the first place.

Frank,

Thanks for the comment, I agree that a mission statement etc. is meaningless unless it is part of the culture of the organization. My feeling is that the EAA culture may be promoting the opposite. As I mentioned on a previous post:

I can think of several forums at Airventure where the audience cheers when a speaker boasts of flying irresponsibly but few about staying alive in a single engine airplane.

When I purchased my airplane, I promised my wife, I would not take the children flying. I am hopeful that she will change her mind one day, but I understand her reservation. After all, this is my dream, not hers. For curiosity's sake, what are your ADM limits? Do you feel the culture of EAA promotes the opposite or am I alone on this issue?

Daniel

[Frank Giger]

I've never been to Oskosh, so I can't speak to it - for me the EAA is the local chapter and other members from different chapters, and I'll bear witness that safety is the thing that gets asked and talked about first and most about builds and flying.

Pitfalls and hazards are grist for the conversation mill, and not in a bragging sort of way. We tend to talk about when things could have gone badly and how we got out of them.

My personal limits are simple - if I wouldn't play on the golf course pulling a cart for 18 in the weather I won't fly over it in an airplane. Not to say that I haven't had weather turn to the yuck and put my chicken butt on the ground with all haste, mind you.

[Racegunz]

I can say this, safety is about the most talked about subject with my Chapter and most of the pilots I know,sometimes so much so I wonder if any of them ever actually enjoy flying. Never yet have I heard anyone bragging about doing anything against any regs or good sense. I guess I'm in good company. My personal safety minimums? They have to do with weather (like Frank's) but maybe not as extreme, I like a crosswind once in awhile to stay sharp. Being familiar with your airplane is a big factor for me that's why I gave up on other people's experimentals and am completing my own.

[steveinindy]

My personal safety minimums? They have to do with weather (like Frank's) but maybe not as extreme, I like a crosswind once in awhile to stay sharp. Being familiar with your airplane is a big factor for me that's why I gave up on other people's experimentals and am completing my own.

Mine are a little more encompassing of IFR operations. Basically:
-Nothing within 30 miles of any sort of convective activity
-No approaches that are below 100 feet ABOVE the published minima (single pilot IFR operations)
-No approaches "just to take a look" (I know some GA pilots who like to shoot an approach they know is below minima)
-On the ground with no less than 1/4 of a tank even if it means stopping short of intended destination for fuel

Those are the big ones. I can give you the full list if anyone is interested.