What’s with these aircraft? Are they hard to fly?
JAM
Former MLB star Roy Halladay killed in plane crash - CBS News https://apple.news/Ah9bDojiDQQ2UHMw4m3pz0g
Printable View
What’s with these aircraft? Are they hard to fly?
JAM
Former MLB star Roy Halladay killed in plane crash - CBS News https://apple.news/Ah9bDojiDQQ2UHMw4m3pz0g
Sad news indeed.
All the evidence is to the contrary. Everybody raves about the handling.Quote:
Originally Posted by jam0552@msn.com
That said, Halladay is quoted as being enthusiastic about low flying, which is not necessarily hard, but is inherently very unforgiving. My father the flight instructor always said to stay three mistakes above the ground, and I don't think it ought to be any different for water.
Quote:
...He took delivery of the A5 just last month and had expressed his joy at flying the plane on his social media accounts, recounting how he loved to fly it low over the water like a fighter plane...
When a plane's test pilot is killed doing a familiarization flight with someone, one probably don't put the airplane in the "not very dangerous" category.Quote:
Originally Posted by jam0552@msn.com
It's not so much how "hard" the plane is to fly. It's more about how much the plane allows you to get into places you might kill yourself. [Sounds like the Icon chief test pilot flew into a cove and maybe piled up trying to turn around. Classic box canyon problem of the mountains, perhaps.]
Since the first press release on this airplane I've been telling flying friends it will eventually earn the nickname "The Widow Maker".
One could see where this aviation product idea was headed.
The Icon is what you get when a Stanford MBA decides he's going to become the Steve Jobs of aviation. Come up with the really "cool" product and be seen as the visionary marketer.
The only problem is he's putting a product on the market that he is marketing as an entry-level product. Which it is far from.
"Forget the BB gun, kid. Here's a 357 Magnum. It's a gun just like the BB gun. Just heavier." It's pretty clear from Day One his market is the lawyer or doctor that decides having a really sexy airplane in the garage is even cooler than having a high end sports car in there. The wealthy non-pilot that is strolling through AirVenture and goes into the Icon Pavilion. After one of the daily "Dog & Pony" shows for the non-pilot, he walks out and says, "I'm learning to fly so I can get one of THOSE. They say it falls under the category called Sport Flying where the license is simpler to get."
The big give-away of who it's really marketed towards is the "folding wings and running it around on a trailer" idea.
"Keep it in your garage". Really?? Who is THAT feature supposed to appeal to but the compete non-aviation person? And Hawkins should know that. He started out in ultralights. 5 seconds of market research would have shown that the FIRST thing you wanted to get away from is having to trailer the damn ultralight to the airport. Recreational pilots don't want to trailer their airplane to the airport. They want to go to the airport, pull the airplane out and go FLY.
The trailerable airplane has only one purpose. So you can stand next to it in the mall parking lot and have all the "little people" ooh and ahh about your "cool airplane" and you being a "cool pilot". Exactly the thing lots of busy, rich non-pilots would want to do. Be a "Big Hat, No Cattle" in aviation. [Cool airplane and no flying experience.]
What experienced pilot really wants to have to trailer his plane to the airport to go fly for an hour?? Of risk the ...."Gee Mister, I'm sorry I ran into your cool little airplane you were trailering. I was texting my girlfriend. Hopefully you can fix what I broke with my fender with that Bondo stuff."]
There is one reason why Icon fought to keep this thing in the Light Sport category. To remove the onerous hour and instructions requirements of a Private Pilot license. Which they know was largely the appeal of it. ["Gee, my non-pilot potential buyer, it has to be EASY to fly. The FAA even thinks so. That's why it's in the FAA's new Light Sport category where you need a fraction of the instruction of a Private Pilot certificate."]
BIG mistake putting a juiced up seaplane in the hands of flying novices like Halliday. The only less restricted flying than ultralight flying is float flying [I say that after 44 yrs of GA, 40 of UL and 400 hrs on floats]. You could get yourself into all sorts of problems doing a lot of low flying in an ultralight. Except the speeds are so slow you don't end up in situations you regret getting into, like flying in a cove like the Icon test pilot and piling up trying to get out of it.
You can spend oodles of time flying low on floats if you want to. Just like he was probably doing. But that is a potential disaster in a fast airplane. He reportedly like to fly fast and low. A real recipe for disaster for a low-time pilot. Could he have put a wingtip in the water and did a ground loop into it at 100+mph? Time will tell.
I don't care how "easy" anyone says this airplane is to fly. Yeah, of course, it may be "easy" for the licensed pilot they have going out and evaluating the "ease of flying". But the experienced pilot is NOT Hawkin's target market. From Day One it's been the well-heeled NON-PILOT.
Again, anyone can go back and read Icon's marketing pitch on the product from Day One. This thing was marketed, just like Light Sport that it falls into is marketed, as an "easier way into aviation".
What they've been selling with the A5 is the ultimate "Apple-cool iPlane for those with deep pockets". "Learn to fly your own really sexy airplane under this new rule the FAA came up with that doesn't require as much training as everyone had to before."
There will be MANY more deaths of low time pilots until the thing gets a reputation of "The Icon Widow Maker".
Lastly, if you are a pilot and REALLY want to have an A5 but can't quite afford one, just wait.
You'll be able to buy a delivery position from a current holder for a song as Icon ships more of these and more inexperienced pilots kill themselves in them. The news reports say his wife was against him getting it. As they ship more and more novices kill themselves, there will be lots of wives of non-pilot position holders saying, "Sell your delivery position on that thing or I'm leaving!! You take delivery and you are NEVER flying it as long as we're married. Period."
My thoughts.
Today is a very sad day in Toronto and Canada and for me personally. "Doc" as he was known was the greatest Blue Jays pitcher ever and one of the greatest pitchers in MLB history. A future hall of famer. 8 all-star game appearances, 2 Cy Youngs, a no hitter and a perfect game in the playoffs. As great a player as he was, he was a much better human being. Over his 12 years with the Blue Jays, I saw him pitch so many times, he was masterful and he and his wife were involved in community activities.
Doc came from an aviation family. His father was a commercial pilot, an airplane was always part of the family. Doc loved airplanes and loved to fly. He had just received delivery of the Icon only 3 weeks ago. He received delivery #1 of those first 100 special editions that were sold years ago(the ones with the $100K non-refundable deposits). His twitter account posts show many pictures of him and the plane and a post to his dad telling him it flys like a little fighter. There's also a video of him flying with his wife who had earlier expressed not feeling comfortable in a small plane.
No one knows yet what happened. So not appropriate to speculate about the plane. I've expressed my dislike of the company many times on the forum but I like the plane and I'm sure there's nothing inherently wrong with it. The fatal Icon crash earlier this year in California was determined to be pilot error by the NTSB. Don't know what happened with the crash and sinking of the plane off Miami.
I do know something about flying off and on water and I will say that you do things with seaplanes that require greater vigilance, higher concentration, greater focus on outside the airplane awareness and a better assessment of risks. I don't know how many seaplane hours Doc had.
A rhetorical question: Why was he flying a single engine airplane(regardless of being amphibious)10 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico as reported?
Incredibly, he's not the first Blue Jays player to die in the crash of a plane he was piloting. Former Jays pitcher Corey Lidle flew his Cirrus into a Manhattan high rise a few years ago. It's all so very sad.
I admire the airplane itself, but this thing is marketed as a jet ski with wings/water toy. I think the message about keeping it in your garage on a trailer is not to take it to the airport necessarily, but to the boat ramp. the airplanes growing reputation (deserved or not) and the recent price increase may be the beginning of the end. something like half of deposit holders are not pilots (yet)? Inexperience and water flying, stir in a little "hold my beer and watch this"......lot of potential here.
Yep. That's the perfect characterization of their market positioning in the popular press.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey
I, too, love the airplane. I think it is, indeed, a really cool airplane.
The trajectory of the A5 reminds me of the history of ultralights.
I remember clearly truck drivers stopping in at our local Quicksilver dealer in mid-1981 because they saw the earliest model of Quicksilvers flying over the local interstate in our rural area. They'd buy an early Quicksilver kit on the spot, throw it on their semis and take home. [Not something he should have been doing as a dealer.] Quicksilver tried all manner of things to stop this in the marketplace. I remember one idea of withholding the propeller until a buyer got training.
[In my view, the infamous 1983 20/20 "Ultralights: Flying or Dying" that rapidly contracted the industry actually saved it. I think if it hadn't scared a lot of the loved ones and friends of the "Honey, I'm going to get me one of them things and teach myself ay-vee-ating" crowd into being against their loved ones owning them, the FAA may have likely tightened up the regs to slow the number of deaths.]
I think just like the ultralight industry's early positioning as being not much more than a "powered hang glider" in complexity eventually put the cap on that industry, Icon's marketing of this as a Light Sport airplane will eventually put the cap on the sales.
Halladay's death is now going to put the term "Icon A5" in the average person's mind. Boasting around the office about this really cool airplane you've ordered called the A5 will make you appear crazy to the people you wanted to think you were cool for ordering one. Among the people that have to support someone's position to buy the airplane [especially the spouse] the A5's growing identity as "dangerous because people are dying in them" will shut down a certain level of sales volume. [Spouses don't dig deep enough to determine whether it's a design flaw or pilot in-experience that is causing the crashes.]
Once the airplane gets even a hint of that reputation, sales will really slow down. Icon will stop meeting the volume projections it had based on being sold into the market as a Light Sport. The investor support the company has been surviving on will disappear. Then it'll fold.
Sadly, the stage was set for that the minute this plane was conceived and the idea was to market it the Light Sport category.
I think the FAA should consider suspending the Special Light Sport certificate (or the weight exemption), pending review.
Three fatalities in 6000 hours is a very high rate per hour.
The safety parachute won't help when below 300 feet. Considering the flight mission is marketed as below 300 feet.
Flying low is risky and should be done by those with more experience, not less.
And the aircraft could have been designed for crashing at low altitude. Like most crop duster agplanes.
For example, the Piper Pawnee, was designed for safety by Fred Weick and has a steel tube frame with the pilot behind the wing.
Really two issues. 1) Adequate pilot experience and training.
2) aircraft certification with a priority for crash-worthiness (instead of "cool" factor). A more appropriate design is needed for this uncharted and obviously risky low flight mission.
I got this from another forum. Supposedly a video of Halladay flying low over the water -- recklessly -- and the wreckage afterwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttf_EzEkxBk
Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. It's way too early to even contemplate this. Unless there's been new revelations I'm not aware of, you don't know and I don't know what type of licence or certificate Doc held. Very few know. His wife knows and Kirk Hawkins knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Berson
This will come out in the ensuing investigation along with the training he received on the Icon type, his time on other type aircraft, his total flying experience, and his water flying time and experience. Let's not make judgements, conjecture or come to premature conclusions based on zero evidence. The high profile nature of this tragedy means that we'll probably have all this info and the cause sooner rather than later.
I just read that he held a multi-engine and instrument rating. And owns a Caravan.
And a witness reported seeing something like a steep climb and turn and dive into the water.
It seems the suitability of the craft for known or unknown low level hazards may need review.
This video is chilling and jaw dropping(because of what we now know) but it doesn't show what caused the crash, only the end result. The sequence of the plane flying ends abruptly just before the plane meets the water. The audio responses of the boat dudes to the plane in flight is based on the fact that they don't know that the plane is a seaplane, a flying boat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark van Wyk
Why do you use the word "recklessly" to describe what you see? Have you ever flown a floatplane or a seaplane? What is it exactly that permits you to say that the flying was reckless? As far as I'm concerned I see nothing that could remotely be described as reckless flying. Any other viewpoints here?
I've played the first 18 seconds over and over again. I see a CONTROLLED descending right hand turn towards the water and a pull up to straight and level flight just above the water. He looks like he's setting up a water landing. What occurred in the next milliseconds resulted in a crash.
There's already so much misinformation and outright lies about the plane, the company and the sport plane category being reported and disseminated by the traditional media as we expect. Tonight I heard a host of one of those entertainment/celebrity shows say, in a voice over on this very video, "The plane was making some unusual and extreme movements..." Pisses me off. 114 years after the Wright Brothers and still this sensationalism. RIP Doc. I was hoping to see you back with the Jays as a pitching coach. Big loss.
In the TMZ video, I saw the aircraft on an approximate 60 degree bank about 100 feet above the water. Shortly thereafter the aircraft was reported crashing into the water by the cell phone owner. I also recall ICON petitioning the FAA for a weight increase beyond the light sport 1320 lb. limit. I believe they got the gross weight increased to 1500 lb. but I’m not sure. Could it be that with such a high wing loading and bank angle it entered into a stall/spin? Could it also be that in an effort to increase the gross weight ICON exceeded the designs ability to recover from a deep stall? Admittedly I have no other information on modifications ICON may or may not have made to the original design before petitioning the FAA.
Well, that brings a quick death to your call for the FAA to suspend the Light Sport Pilot Certificate pending review!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Berson
No, I said they should "consider" a review of the Special Light Sport Certificate (SLSA), which is the airworthiness certificate. Nothing to do with pilot certificate. A review of the applicable airworthiness standards should be a part of every crash investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
Or, they could wait till some 30 fatalities occur before issuing special flight training rules as they did in the case of the Robinson R-22 helicopter.
Duly noted, I misunderstood. But I don't think the airworthiness certificate and standards require review because the Icon had 2 fatal events. One was pilot error by a highly experienced chief test pilot(hey, s**t happens) and this one is pending. Way too early to go to such extremes, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Berson
Anger at the media is not warranted, the media didnt cause the crash. We hate to see a loss like this, and the sadness and the feeling of not being able to help is frustrating. And he seems to have been a great guy, only good thing is that his wife or kids were not with him.
When I saw the promo for this plane, it was pretty aggressive with fast low passes near the water and steep banked turns down low, in demonstrating the AOA instrument. If witnesses saw the plane climbing and then dive down, it could be flying outside the norm, or just him practicing landing patterns, in any case, AOA or not, I wouldnt want to bank 60* at 50 ft. if that is what happened. He could have hit the water on a low pass, or bounced a landing or a touch and go, or even a stall, just dont know. With a pusher engine mounted up high, what happens if you add power to go around, does the nose pitch down? Could that have made the contact? It sounds like he had a good bit of pilot training, but we dont know how many Icon water landings. Would it be unusual to land in salt water rather than on a fresh water lake?
That is a preposterous linkage of 2 disparate statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood
Almost true, Bill. But I don't perceive the anger to be because they CAUSED the crash, only because of irresponsible, inaccurate, or sensationalist reporting. As you well know, that's been a problem with (most) media reporting on anything aviation for a long, long time -- they don't understand and/or they don't care.Quote:
Anger at the media is not warranted, the media didnt cause the crash.
Inuss, what are the facts in your opinion? That the pilot hit the water and it was fatal? If we find less than perfect reporting in the gen media or try to nit pick what I or anyone else posted will that change the facts? Make his family any less sad? Will Floats anger at a tv host bring him back?
The media including national tv, reported because he was a sports celebrity. When our friend and EAA member Vlado Lenoch was killed just before Oshkosh, perhaps by hitting a power line, his accident got attention, but not as much nationally. Is his loss any less painful because there was less media?
The greatest ocean liner of its day went to sea with life boats for onlly a 1/3 of its people. No inquiring media to dig up an embarrassing fact and maybe save 1500 lives. Over decades 400 people were killed in V tail Bonanza break ups, which a fairly simple AD could have cured, but any reporting of this fact was met with the same attacks on the media till finally the turning point was reached. Early Cirrus had a lot of accidents, and finally with media attention and better training it has lessened.
Iti is common these days and so hollow to blame the media if one doesn't like the news or especially its reporting of something they'd like covered up, I e the claim of "fake news". One feature of any great country is free press and one feature of a poor one, be it Germany or Cuba is an attempt to limit and control the press.
Actually, it's a problem with media reporting on most subjects. The typical reporter doesn't understand aircraft, trains, spacecraft, the law, teaching, medicine, etc. so a lot of garbage gets published.Quote:
Originally Posted by lnuss
A modern problem is the 24-hour news cycle. There's an insane push to get information out the fastest, and accuracy falls by the wayside. This most recent Icon accident is a classic example, with one new source reporting multiple Mayday calls from the aircraft.....
Ron Wanttaja
Imuss, as for as accutate reporting, its a goal, but a reporter doesnt have to be a CPA to expose Bernie Madoff or a football player to report on OJ much less a burglar to write about Watergate. As for sensational, sure the exceptional is always going to draw more notice. As for iresponsible that would have to be intentional or at least faiing to correct any major errors in a story.
Another view sort of supporting the idea of Icon trying to push this aircraft to more inexperienced pilots.
https://youtu.be/A1AjJ19QqbE
Doesn’t Cirrus do similar marketing? For sure ICON wants to sell its product and they focus on who has the $mack to buy their product. That’s called free enterprise.
A consumer recreational marketing concept led by chief promoter and CEO Kurt Hawkins, a slimy, smarmy, egotistical, narcissist who along with his VP Sales will tell you anything to sell you an order slot. Take away the negative personality stuff of these guys and the marketing was totally original in that sales were taken out of the long time confines of traditional flying/aviation publications and instead promoted with stories and profiles in non-aviation media. That was a very unique, purposefull approach and concept to attract non-flying high energy sports enthusiasts. Cessna or Piper never had free, high profile publicity promotional articles in The Robb Report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
This video is excellent. The host provides a succinct synopsis of SLSA, the Icon company, it's history and mounting problems and the accidents this year. It should be a mandatory syllabus to be seen by the reporting media before they write more Halliday accident stories.
I wish he had talked more about the 2016 controversial new mandatory sales contract Hawkins wanted all buyers to agree to and sign. The host touches on a number of contract changes but neglects to say that the overarching reason for all of it was to completely shift the burden of liability from Icon to the purchaser. It was beyond cynical. They designed a marketing campaign and an airplane to appeal to non-flying jet-ski type yahoos and then realized years later that all these adrenalin junkies might kill themselves in droves, so they better transfer all liability to the newly minted pilots so they avoid being sued out of existence. It's why they placed the flight recorders in the plane-- to provide proof of negligence, wrong doing and error on the part of the pilot. Beyond cynical.
If that’s cynical, are we not ALL cynical? Who among us does not believe that ~80% of crashes are the pilot’s fault? Who among us doubts that manufacturers are frequently sued because of deep pockets even though they did not contribute to the accident? Seems perfectly rational for a manufacturer to seek to avoid liability when they are not at fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
In this case I don't know enough about the facts to say they were right or wrong, Bill, but the reporting I've seen tends to the sensationalist side, though perhaps not as bad as they sometimes do.
Well that’s why crashes should be studied. Some airplane designs seem to cause pilots to make more errors. We can’t put those under the pilot error category even though on the surface, that’s what they seem to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by dougbush
First of all, agree. Manufacturer get sued because they have deep pockets.Quote:
Originally Posted by dougbush
However, getting sued and losing are two different things.
They lose when they are found to be in "the line of causality". If you have deep pockets, I can, indeed, sue you for having a package on the FedEx jet that crashed into my house.
But I won't win unless I can prove your package was in the line of causality. Like you illegally shipping batteries that then exploded, cause a fire and a crash. If your package was a bunch of paper that is not in the line of causality.
So liability has nothing to do with deep pockets. It has to do with your role in contributing to what happened.
Take a look at ICON's promotional video. Roy was flying the plane EXACTLY the way it's promoted in the videos. Low and fast. [Because legally you can fly low and fast on floats in many areas.] As Roy apparently stated publicly;he'd enjoyed flying it "like a fighter". Nothing gives you the fighter feel more than flying low and the ground speeding by. However, also where you have no reaction time.
How many instructors encourage you to roll into a bank immediately after breaking ground with your wingtip about 3' off the ground??? It is part of one of Icon's promotional video
Sadly, Roy was killed using the ICON much like the product is promoted in many of their promotional videos. Killing yourself using the product one one of the way it's promoted? That costs you a TON of money as manufacturer. Car companies get sued if they show a car racing around curves and don't put a disclaimer on their commercial that says "Professional driver on closed course." so they are clear that is NOT the way the car should be operated. Icon never did any of that.
Not a lawyer but took a couple courses on product liability at a Big Ten law school. I think if his wife gets just an average lawyer, Icon's promotional videos will probably cause a jury to give her a massive settlement. Those videos put Icon right in the line of causality because of how Hawkins promoted the product to be used. Exactly the way Roy killed himself with it. [Assuming there was no mechanical issue.]
I fear that this latest crash has less to do with the Icon A5 itself and the dreaded LSA curse. I suspected the pilot was rated for "heavy" aircraft and spent most of his time in "long leg" type GA aircraft, which is implied by the multi rating.
Remember when Light Sport rules came out and long time pilots were cracking them up at an alarming rate? The message went out - transition, transition, transition, and bone up on stick and rudder skills. Re-frame your expectations of what the aircraft can do and tolerate.
I did my flight training in a FlightDesign CTLS, and transitioned to a 7AC Champ and now my super light Nieuport 11. The CLTS is a quirky little plane, slick and very unfriendly in cross winds. The Champ is the Black Lab of aircraft - a willing big footed, friendly plane that just wants to go fly and have fun. My Nieuport is something of a high strung terrier.
I've done flight reviews in a C172. What a bus! One has to pay attention, of course, but it's actually easier to fly than light aircraft. And more difficult. One places it into a slip rather deliberately. In an LSA type aircraft, one just suggests a slip and it's there. I suppose the term I'm looking for is "responsiveness," meaning it's very easy to over control and then over correct in an LSA compliant aircraft.
Does the Icon marketing encourage reckless behavior? I'm doubtful. I've seen amazing displays of aerobatics done with a J3 Cub - but I'd never attempt to fly like that in one. It's one thing to see advertising of the aircraft scooping low over the water at cruise, it's another to do so one's self.
For all the denigrating of the Sport Pilot ticket as "easy," it's the exact same as that for the Private Pilot, ending just prior to The Hood and Night Flying, and without a requirement for Tower operations. True the cross country distances are shorter, but I don't know anyone who didn't fly the same as for PPL. Becoming a pilot is serious business, and any CFI worth his ticket is sure to press the point home.
Buzz, you're right on regarding Icon's liability in this. For 100 years, pilots have been taught that low flying is a hazardous activity to be avoided when possible. Now Icon claims they have a "safe" way of doing it...a claim negated by the two first fatal accidents. Maneuvering flight at low altitude has a very high fatality rate...about 67% of the accidents are fatal, vs. 12% of accidents caused by engine mechanical failure. Ain't much you can do to make it much safer.
However, I must gently point out, as far as the "In the line of causality" argument, that juries are involved, and they're often swayed by emotion. There are plenty of examples of large judgements against manufacturers despite the pilot's own contribution to the accident chain.
Ron Wanttaja
When on the radio, I sometimes refer to planes like 172s as "crowd-killers." :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Giger
The problem is, Frank, this isn't just an "aggressive demo" issue. Icon actually refers to "Lowalt" (low altitude) operations, and has guidelines for it. The company actually promotes low-altitude maneuvering as an activity for its customers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Giger
Brrrr......
Ron Wanttaja
Icon actively promotes certain types of flying activities through it's promotional videos and website content. They cannot claim no responsibility or accountability when a customer/owner emulates those activities and expect not to have any liability, despite a one-sided slanted sales agreement. They don't get to have a get out of jail free card. They don't get to suck and blow at the same time.
Many lawyers at the time said who would sign and agree to such a onerous and odious contract? Numerous personal injury lawyers have said the Icon contract will not hold up in court because the one-sidedness of it deems it unenforceable.
I read the low alt guidelines. Seems to be missing most of the hazards, I think.
For example, if Roy was diving to the water the pullout from a dive is a maneuver that needs a minimum radius.
Full back stick can't tighten the radius if done too low.
Once, I almost hit a tram wire at 2000 agl on the Alaska highway route.
There is difficulty seeing the water surface, the problem of illusion of great speed flying downwind, wind gradient, unexpected low level fog on clear days....
and much more, I think.
I agree. I think the biggest hazards that they omitted are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Berson
* The human sensory and cognitive systems are simply not as good as they need to be to dependably detect, analyze, and mitigate all the hazards at the speeds at which they are encountered. Lots of them, no problem. Most of them, sure. But not all; 100% mitigation is simply not in the cards. Even Superman sometimes has a bad day. And it only takes one.
* Results from Dunning and Kruger definitively demonstrate that the human cognitive system is woefully inadequate at assessing its own effectiveness. The first rule of Dunning-Kruger club is that you don't know you are in dunning Kruger club.
But we've known both of those things pretty much since the dawn of human flight. And there's a fix. The fix is margin.
--Bob K.