Safety: EAA type accidents

[Bill Greenwood]

Last year the FAA held a meeting with some of the leading folks in the EAA field.

The FAA says that records show that the accident rate for amateur built type airplanes are 600 to 800 % higher than for all gen av accidents.

Now, some if not most of many on this forum may want to argue with these facts or even propose that the FAA should direct their attention elsewhere, and leave us alone.
I hope not,, I hope that our primary reaction is better than that.

I just wrote above, that the facts are that the accident rate for homebuilts is 6 to 8 times higher than all gen av, according to FAA.

That should be a red light to pilots and builders and make us determined to do better. The first step in
improving a problem is to discover and recognize the problem, and not ignore or wish it away.

At this point I don't have any more real info. For instance, I would really like to know fatal accident rates, as I think that is more significant. I'd like to know the details of the categories of causes. The Nall reports from AOPA give these for gen av, but not broken down for EAA types.

Whatever the details, lets all try to be safety concious, and to share with our other pilots, even if sometimes they don't want to hear it.

[steveinindy]

The major problem with determining cause in experimental crashes is that very few of the crashes are thoroughly investigated. A lot of them only get a paragraph or two of description of the wreckage and therefore mechanical issues are likely getting overlooked by the FAA local inspectors assigned to handle the on scene investigations of many of these. Honestly the EAA (and the AOPA for the rest of GA since those are also shoddily investigated) should be pushing the NTSB to have a designated representative involved in the investigation so that more can be learned from them.

[Bill Greenwood]

Steve, i had not read or heard that. Are you saying that the FAA sizes their accident investigation as to the type of plane involved?
That a fatal accident with 4 people in a homebuit would get less attention than if it was one person in a C 172?


Obviously the airlines and really large passenger planes are going to get a lot of attention, as they should.

So often, cause can be seen pretty readill, when the pilot fail in imc wether or low altirude acro.

[Kyle Boatright]

Bill, it is indeed unfortunate that the accident rate is as high as it is in GA - experimental or certified. However, consider this report, which contends that the difference in the accident rate between Homebuilts and certified aircraft is much lower than the figures you listed.

http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/homebuilts_report_wanttaja.pdf

[Kyle Boatright]

Steve, i had not read or heard that. Are you saying that the FAA sizes their accident investigation as to the type of plane involved?
That a fatal accident with 4 people in a homebuit would get less attention than if it was one person in a C 172?



Bill, the answer to this question is "yes".

Since no two homebuilts are alike, it is hard for the FAA/NTSB to get a lot of traction with findings from HB accidents. It isn't like they can issue an AD or anything, like they could on a C-172, where (at least theoretically) there is a huge amount of commonality across the fleet. If the seat rails on one C-172 turn loose unexpectedly, there are 30k other airplanes in the field which are subject to the same problem. Not so (in general) in the HB world, although with the proliferation of Van's designs, there are enough of those in the field where the results of an accident investigation might benefit a thousand or more owners of the same basic airframe.

[Bill Greenwood]

Kyle, The figures that I iisted came from the FAA at that meeting, I didn;'t compile or invent them.

I really hoped that other EAA folks seeing this high accident rate would want to try to find ways to fly safer, more so than trying to doubt the FAA findings. Even if their figures are off by a third, then the rate is 4 to 6 times as many accidents for homebuilts.

They do seem to agree with you that first flights carry a higher danger rate.

[martymayes]

Steve, i had not read or heard that. Are you saying that the FAA sizes their accident investigation as to the type of plane involved?
That a fatal accident with 4 people in a homebuit would get less attention than if it was one person in a C 172?



No, that is not true. The NTSB Aviation Investigation Manual does not have different procedures for certificated vs homebuilt aircraft.

[Kyle Boatright]

Kyle, The figures that I iisted came from the FAA at that meeting, I didn;'t compile or invent them.

I'm certainly not saying you invented those stats. However, I do believe that flawed statistics can misrepresent the facts, and the study I linked paints a substantially different picture than the FAA did in the meeting you attended. One thing you might consider is that whoever is presenting for the FAA is trying to grab your attention. Shocking statistics are a good way to do that, regardless of how well vetted the data is/was.

[steveinindy]

No, that is not true. The NTSB Aviation Investigation Manual does not have different procedures for certificated vs homebuilt aircraft.

Look at how many of the reports for GA and especially the homebuilt ones indicate that the on-scene investigation was handled by the FAA FSDO employees and were not investigated by an NTSB investigator except as a paperwork review. I've been on scene for several and have witnessed firsthand how they often approach this with a "Let's get this done and get home" attitude. One of the former FSDO employees up in Michigan once made the comment "We know it's pilot error. This is ****ing pointless" as he got out of a vehicle and walked towards the wreckage. It's that sort of thing which explains how we wind up with reports like:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20091005X51915&ntsbno=ERA10LA007&akey=1
(http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20091005X51915&ntsbno=ERA10LA007&akey=1)
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20090306X40553&ntsbno=ERA09LA182&akey=1 And I quote: "A post crash assessment performed by members of the EAA familiar with the airplane found small contaminant particles within the fuel tank’s drained fitting, which supplied fuel to the engine. The fuel tank was cut opened, the interior was observed deteriorating and flaking apart." They didn't even bother to maintain a chain of custody on the wreckage. If the pilot's friends had wanted to save the pilot's family the knowledge that his negligence cost him his life, they very well could have buried the evidence.

It's not an official policy but we all know how what is supposed to happen and what actually happens are often very different things. If they were following the NTSB regulations (or even the FAA regulations), we wouldn't have a roughly 60% rate of reporting basic and vital information like restraint use. What's funny is that if you go back and look at the local police or coroner/ME reports for a lot of those crashes, you find such information was easily documented if someone was just willing to put the effort into filling in all of the information requested by the investigation documents used by the FAA and NTSB.


So often, cause can be seen pretty readily, when the pilot fail in imc wether or low altirude acro.

Even those crashes need a thorough and complete investigation (including autopsy of all fatally injured occupants because a medical problem with a passenger could explain the pilot's distraction, etc as happened in a couple of cases I know of over the years) especially if you want to identify things that can be readily fixed to improve outcomes in future crashes or prevent them outright such as restraint issues or failures with the seat attachments/adjustment systems. The latter is well documented in the case of the various Cessna aircraft including a crash that happened here locally at Eagle Creek.

[steveinindy]

the study I linked paints a substantially different picture than the FAA did in the meeting you attended

The issue with that, as much as I like and respect Ron Wanttaja (in fact, he's one of the few people in the homebuilt community who I hold in high enough regard to trust most things he tells me with minimal fact checking), he isn't exactly without his biases either. None of us are and if he's working from the same FAA/NTSB data (which he seems to be) then there is a question of who is skewing the data to suit their means. However, as Ron points out, the issue may be simply that the FAA and NTSB are underestimating the homebuilt fleet. It doesn't mean there's anything illicit or untoward afoot, but just that the data set is incomplete and that may be simply because people aren't doing their jobs in documenting things (see my earlier points).

To be honest, the truth is probably somewhere between the two interpretations and may be explained by the way the data sets were analyzed (such as Ron's choice to eliminate training crashes from the control group because of the idea that training isn't done in homebuilts when it actually is but just in a "self-teaching" or at least informal manner in most cases (see page 5 of the report)).

[Bill Greenwood]

just to be accurate, I didn't attend that meeting, I read about it under the safety on the VAN's site.

So, if you and the other guy are correct, the FAA must have skewed, distorted, or even invented the reports. so there must be no problem and if so we as pilots and builders don't need to change anything, least of all our attitudes and platitudes.

This is the opposite of what I believe.

I have only been involved personally with one fatal accident and one non injury taxi accident, and in both cases it seemed to me that they were investigated as needed.

[steveinindy]

just to be accurate, I didn't attend that meeting, I read about it under the safety on the VAN's site.

The VAF Forums is not exactly what I would call a reliable source for safety information given how hostile they tend to be towards any suggestion that the status quo isn't optimal. It's like watching Fox News or MSNBC (respectively) for the rundown on the latest piece of legislation from a Democrat or Republican senator.


So, if you and the other guy are correct, the FAA must have skewed, distorted, or even invented the reports

That's not what I am saying. The data we have indicates problems with the way we build/maintain our aircraft (the rate of engine failure, etc) and operate them (botched flight testing, etc). The issue with the quality of the data is simply a problem with nailing down the degree of those problems. We know they are a problem but a certain degree of probability exists that the problems are worse than what we think they are.

More importantly, the way these crashes are investigated is overlooking the things that may be turning what should be survivable crashes into fatal ones such as failures of the restraint harnesses due to inadequate design or substitution of inadequate parts to save time or money.


I have only been involved personally with one fatal accident and one non injury taxi accident, and in both cases it seemed to me that they were investigated as needed.

If you actually get a "real" investigator on scene, things tend to get fairly well investigated since the NTSB guys enjoy their work and are conscientious. When you are dealing with whomever lost the rock-paper-scissors match at the local FSDO to decide who has to go through the motions, then you tend to run into a problem. This is based on being on quite a few crash scenes personally in the course of my research. Letting an often disinterested and probably relatively uneducated government functionary handle it is like allowing an elected coroner whose day job is being a mechanic or accountant actually do the autopsies for that jurisdiction. It's a bad idea because while the really obvious things probably will get noticed, the subtle but vital findings are not caught or will be misinterpreted by the inexperienced/uneducated eye.

[Kyle Boatright]

just to be accurate, I didn't attend that meeting, I read about it under the safety on the VAN's site.




Can you provide a link to the thread you're talking about?

[martymayes]

If you actually get a "real" investigator on scene, things tend to get fairly well investigated since the NTSB guys enjoy their work and are conscientious. When you are dealing with whomever lost the rock-paper-scissors match at the local FSDO to decide who has to go through the motions, then you tend to run into a problem. This is based on being on quite a few crash scenes personally in the course of my research. Letting an often disinterested and probably relatively uneducated government functionary handle it is like allowing an elected coroner whose day job is being a mechanic or accountant actually do the autopsies for that jurisdiction. It's a bad idea because while the really obvious things probably will get noticed, the subtle but vital findings are not caught or will be misinterpreted by the inexperienced/uneducated eye.

Most GA accident investigations, including those involving amateur-built airplanes are "delegated investigations" where the NTSB assigns the investigation to the local FAA office. As I have said before, this is pretty common stuff and in accordance with NTSB SOP. I guess it would be nice if the NTSB had unlimited manpower and budget - they could send a go-team to every accident.

Delegated investigations are not a short cut or deficient in any way. FAA inspectors that investigate accidents are trained and fully qualified to conduct these investigations. Since an FAA investigator has to fully comply with an FAA Order when performing an accident investigation, it's laughable when SGOTI claims that an FAA Inspector is not a "real" investigator on scene and routinely abdigates his professional responsiblities.

Isn't that a personal attack or in legal terms, defamation by libel?

[Bill Greenwood]

Kyle, I read it on www.vansairforce.com (http://www.vansair.com) and then under the safety heading in the left column. You can probably google EAA or FAA about the safety study of am built aircraft also.

Marty, I think your facts are good, but it is way too much to say Steve's opinion is "a personal attack or defamation by libel". He can certainly have his opinion that the FAA investigator is not as trained as the NTSB investigator who is a specialist in accident investigation.

[Bill Greenwood]

Steve, your objection to the FAA or FSDO, not being as through as the NTSB in accident report, is, to my way of thinking, a distincintion without a real operative difference, in many or our type of EAA accident.

Obviously there are sometimes accidents like the Air Tran one in Florida(bad O2 tank) or the DC 10 at Souix City( engine faiure leading to control failure) where the cause is not readliy apparent and is not just plain pilot error.
In these cases the NTSB is needed and can and does do a job almost like a detective solving a crime.
Out of these investigations may also come some new AD or procedure change in design or maintenance or piloting.

I don't think this is the case with many if not most homebuilt EAA type accidents. I think the cause is more likely to be pilot error, possible aggravated by less safe if not unsafe design, and it is not hidden from any investigator. For example, the stall/spin behavior of a fast, high wing loaded plane, vs. a C172

Your idea of better crashworthiness like better shoulder harness or better seats or for airlines better fireproofing or more emergency exits, is fine. Problem is it is often expensive or inconvenient, like having all passengers wear Nomex suits or having a built in fire bottle system in the cabin.Or we could all fly those turbo crop duster AG cat types and survive most accidents.
This focus on design features, AFTER the crash is fine, but is different than trying to avoid the crash in the first place.

These comments from you guys are fine, have some good points, but are along the lines that I was hoping to avoid. They are all pretty much on bending or overlooking the FAA study, or in some way bypassing the accident facts.

MORE IMPORTANT IN MY MIND, AND THAT OF THE FAA, IS TO FIND WAYS TO DO IT SAFER, SO AS TO HAVE LESS ACCIDENTS.
I WAS UNPLEASANTLY SURPRISED BY THE FAA STATS, AND SORT OF AWAKENED BY THEM. AND IT IS NOT A MATTER OF WHETHER THE EXACT FIGURE IS 800 % MORE OR ONLY 500 % MORE.
If there were only 2 million death camp victims, as some claim, instead of 6 million, it is still a Holocaust.

Maybe my writing was not clear, but nobody has come on this topic and said, Yes,we need to improve and here is a way to do it safer.

I think,that to many, safety is a boring or uncool topic.It's like someone telling me to eat my veggies, and give up donuts. Even here on this EAA forum, we still don't have a category for safety, and if you go on the other Warbird forum there is not one either. I have made that suggestion on both sites and got nowhere.

[Kyle Boatright]

Kyle, I read it on www.vansair.com (http://www.vansair.com) and then under the safety heading in the left column.

There are 698 threads in the "Safety" forum at vansairforce.com. Without a pointer to the specific thread, so we can figure out what was written there, it is impossible to determine if the stats you quoted are well researched figures or if they are something less than that.

I place a lot of value on Ron Wanttaja's write-up. Much more than on 99% of the posts on VAF...

[Bill Greenwood]

Kyle, asking me for directions on an internet site is like asking Madoff about how do be honest. I am bad with computers, don't like em, don't trust em, and they don't like me. Ask me how to fly, or ski, or play or maybe coach football, or where to get good Bar B Q or even Mex food.
And I don't see why you want the ref when it seems you have pretty much made up your mind against it already.


But here it is, and I made a mistake the first time. It is www.vansairforce.com (http://www.vansairforce.com). Then go down the left column to Safety and go to the 3rd line and click on No. 1. That's what I did.

The article is written by Van himself about the FAA meeting that he was one of the attendees.
You may not consider him an expert, or the FAA.

Just as I am writing this there is a discussion on Tv about how people look at politicians and how they vote. And this is really true for almost anything, from which car to buy (I am a Chevy guy or a Ford guy, etc.) to which NFL team you favor. It is not really based on facts, more on opinion.

Most people already have very set opinions, and for instance if they are looking in the paper or on TV or the internet and claim that they are looking for info or learning , that in 85% of the time in fact what they are doing is just looking for something to reinforce what they already believe. If they don't like the message, ie 6 to 8 times as many am av accidents as all gen av, or if the message is a birth certificate that does not fit their prejudice, they just ignore it or even blame the messenger.

I had hoped that we as EAA guys could be a little more open minded than that.

[Jeff Point]

Kyle, asking me for directions on an internet site is like asking Madoff about how do be honest. I am bad with computers, don't like em, don't trust em, and they don't like me.

Gee Bill, with 649 posts, it would seem that you are getting a little more comfortable with computers every day.

While I applaud your efforts to promote safety, I think you started this thread off with a statement that turned a lot of people off and it has drowned out your message. It is not a fact that E-AB aircraft have a 600-800% higher accident rate. The only true "fact" included in your initial assertion is that the FAA claims that this is the case. The oft-cited FAA study is so full of problems and errors and bad logic that it is almost laughable. Other posts on this thread have cited references which address this, so I won't belabor it here.

Contrary to what you assert, yes it does matter if the real number is 800%, 600% or 21.6%. It makes a huge difference. 800% is ridiculously high, and almost demanding of some corrective action. 21.6%, not so much. In fact, given the incredible amount of freedom that E-AB gives to the pilot/ builder, many of us would consider a 21.6% increase in accidents to be a reasonable and fair trade-off for that freedom. Now, that is not to say that we should not all work to be better and safer pilots, so don't try to misquote me, but there is a difference between a slight but acceptable increase in risk, and an off-the-chart, oh my goodness level of risk that the flawed FAA study tries to make us believe.

[Bill Greenwood]

Jeff, I don't have any idea where you get your 21.6% figure.

I should have really expected this reaction, it is human nature it seems, sadly.
In fact if you read the #2 and #3 safety post by "Van" himself , talks about exactly this, that of trying to be safer and not just "nit pick" the FAA stats.

I don't now own an RV or a homebuilt, don't have one for sale or expect to, so I don't have an axe to grind or a pocketbook to protect.

And to be accurate, in my opening post, I twice very clearly wrote "according to the FAA", so to use your own words, "don't try to misquote me". I got this from the post by Richard Van G, owner of the largest of the homebuilder companies. I never guaranteed these figures, maybe both the FAA and Van are wrong, and maybe homebuilder pilots can and should keep on doing the same things.
I just hope they don't take any Young Eagles or family members with them.

Finally, I have never counted my posts( or anyone else's), don't know how many I have. But if you think 641 is too high, what is your approved number?

[Jeff Point]

21.6% was a number I just made up for the purpose of illustration, it has no basis in reality, so don't hold me to it. However, I'd bet a six pack that it is closer to reality than 800% that you refer to again and again in your posts as being the gospel truth.

Challenging grossly inaccurate and misleading stats is not nit-picking.

[Janet Davidson]

Whatever the details, lets all try to be safety concious,

Not to belittle the discussion about the accuracy of the numbers, but just as important is the "how to" encourage everyone to be more "safety conscious"?

For starters, how would you define "safety conscious"? How can everyone go about improving their safety consciousness?

The video AOPA posted on their email this week was very thought provoking, as well as being profoundly sad. The gentleman involved is taking a strong & brave step to use his terrible experience to try to improve safety consciousness in others. Tragically, he has first-hand experience of what can happen in the worst case scenario.

Perhaps an SMS (Safety Management System) system program (or app?) that those who wish to can apply to their individual situation? Perhaps all the pilot license curriculum/practical test standards, from Private through ATP, and flight reviews, should require pilots to do more research into the CRM/SMS type situations. Having said that, while a well taught CRM course is a thing of beauty, a poorly taught one is a waste of time & oxygen. There are so many seminars & presentations held around the country, available to anyone who takes the time to go along, yet I wonder how many do actually attend. It would be interesting to know what the number is as a percentage of the total pilot population? Can these all be done as webinars as well?

I once visited the AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Branch) hangars in Farnborough. The wrecks we were shown ranged from the Lockerbie 747 (Pan Am 103) to a composite glider that had disintegrated after a lightning strike. Both those examples, of course, were not based on the PIC making a wrong decision, but on external factors. All the other wrecks were caused by poor judgement - a Jet Provost whose pilot had buzzed friends a bit too low, once too often (dust & a small part of the tail surfaces was all that was left on that one); a Grumman Tiger whose pilot had lost control trying to practice cross wind landings when not current enough & ended up embedded in the side of a Shorts 360. On some wrecks there was still blood visible. It was not nice & clinical like a photo or a video on a screen. I felt that if more people were to visit these places, perhaps the AAIB (& the NTSB) would have fewer wrecks to deal with.

The NTSB investigators, and the FAA folks who also research the accidents, must just scratch their heads in wonder at the decisions some of the pilots have obviously made to get them into the predicament which has brought them to the site of the accident. What could be done to help change that decision making process?

[Bill Greenwood]

Janet, congrats you are the first one on this topic that actually gets to how to be safer.

On the same site as the one about Van and the FAA meeting, there is the next two by Van that talks about how to make flying safer for RVs. So go www.vansairforce.com, then to the topic Safety on the left side, then down to the 3rd line and essay 1, 2, and 3.

[Bill Greenwood]

Jeff, for someone who writes not to misquote you, you are pretty loose with your standards on that. Nowhere did I ever write that the 600 or 800 % statistics were the" gospel truth", not one time, much less "again and again".

And I did not make up any of the statistics. You can believe the FAA or not, you can dislike or disrespect the FAA, and will likely have many who join you; but don't try to make it that I said something I didn't. That's just not honest, not a fair way to have a discussion.

I personally think or at least guess that the FAA facts are somewhere in the ball park, and I want to fly safer and encourage others to do the same. If we are successful in flying safer and the FAA stats are somewhat inaccurate, what harm is done? Rather than tarnishing the reputation of homebuilts, including R Vs, having a better safety record will enhance this. And if the FAA stats are right on, then for sure we need to make some changes.

By the way, if you did even read the part by Van about the FAA meeting, the next section which I didn't yet mention is that if homebuilt folks don't improve on their own, the FAA can and will make new regs. Hey, that should be fun for all, eh?

Let's give the FAA credit for one thing in this; instead of a bunch of desk lawyers imposing hard and fast regulations on our EAA types, they are seeking input from people like Van and Paul P.

[steveinindy]

Steve, your objection to the FAA or FSDO, not being as through as the NTSB in accident report, is, to my way of thinking, a distincintion without a real operative difference, in many or our type of EAA accident.

It is a huge difference. This is probably one reason we find so many of the FAA handled crash sites wind up with "undetermined reasons" involved. If we are having problems with the engines or the fuel systems and it is going unrecognized then that significantly contributes to the prevention of crashes.


This focus on design features, AFTER the crash is fine, but is different than trying to avoid the crash in the first place.

You have to do both. Because of the very nature of many experimental designers, builders and pilots, you'll probably never significantly reduce the human factors issues that lead to many crashes. We are simply all too often the "infallible alpha male" who doesn't want to think he can fail. I mean, the attitude is often "I built a **** airplane! I am the master of all things aeronautical!". Take a hard look at a lot of the folks we rub shoulders with and you'll see the dangerous attitudes that were so well discussed by Tony Kern in Darker Shades of Blue are frighteningly common.


AND IT IS NOT A MATTER OF WHETHER THE EXACT FIGURE IS 800 % MORE OR ONLY 500 % MORE.

The bigger question is "What is really causing that disparity? Is it mostly truly human factors problems or are there flaws in either the designs or the execution of those designs?". If someone is doing a crappy job looking at the wreckage and doesn't really care, then you're getting false data.


Maybe my writing was not clear, but nobody has come on this topic and said, Yes,we need to improve and here is a way to do it safer.

The problem is that when people make suggestions, those who will be effected by them tend to get really defensive and often hostile. That's one reason why I don't go over to VAF anymore. However, here are my recommendations towards preventing crashes.
1. Require a 'biennial' flight review or a 'test piloting for dummies' course and check ride immediately prior to beginning the flight test period
2. Revamp the FAA inspection process prior to issuance of the airworthiness certificate include provision of proof (such as a video tape, etc) showing the engine has been shown to work in both a nose high and nose low condition with the fuel tanks at low levels as well as full.
3. Require more stringent ground run requirements for modified or unproved engines. This would include many of the VW and Corvair conversions as an example. Every engine of this type should be treated as suspect until proven otherwise. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with the concept but one needs to be very certain that everything works like they believe it will before betting one's life and the reputation of general aviation and experimental aviation upon them. One of my friends is a very big advocate for them but advises that any such engine be built, inspected and tested "like you would a handled poisonous snake: very careful"


I think,that to many, safety is a boring or uncool topic.It's like someone telling me to eat my veggies, and give up donuts. Even here on this EAA forum, we still don't have a category for safety, and if you go on the other Warbird forum there is not one either. I have made that suggestion on both sites and got nowhere.

The problem is that it's not so much considered boring or uncool but rather that it requires one to be introspective and self-critical.


oh my goodness level of risk that the flawed FAA study tries to make us believe

You show me a study that isn't somehow flawed and I'll show you how you're not reviewing it intensely enough. No study is perfect but just because we don't like what the FAA has to say about us does not give us carte blanche to throw out the study and simply view it as "flawed". Not that I think you're suggesting that but we have to be careful using phrases like "flawed study" because people get the wrong impression when they aren't imbued with the ability to critically evaluate or the desire to vet what they are told.


However, I'd bet a six pack that it is closer to reality than 800% that you refer to again and again in your posts as being the gospel truth.

No offense but if you seriously believe that then prove it in a way that doesn't include unrealistic exclusions of subsets of aviation etc.


The NTSB investigators, and the FAA folks who also research the accidents, must just scratch their heads in wonder at the decisions some of the pilots have obviously made to get them into the predicament which has brought them to the site of the accident. What could be done to help change that decision making process?

I find that asking pilots (and their passengers) to sign medical/autopsy releases for use in crash survivability research when I see them about to do something exceptionally stupid (like the Cessna 172 pilot who was about to taxi out for takeoff in freezing rain as an example) tends to be a good way to make them reconsider their thought processes. However, I know this wouldn't work as a wider practice. Then again, if anyone wants to sign a release just in case, let me know. ;)