"Gotta-get-home-itis"

[Phil Perry]

Just got back from the airfield after signing a navlog sheet for a pilot who was on his final qualifying cross country nav excercise. There was noone else there today apparently, and he had phoned around and finally got to my number. . . .

 

The guy joined the circuit the wrong way initially, but recovered this very well when I mentioned it on the radio ( the place was otherwise deserted ) he carried out a very acceptable landing, and after a bit of a chat, suggesting that in future he should have alook at the sock and the signals square, which was indicating 07RH. . . . I signed his sheet. I put that down to nerves, as he'd only ever landed at our field once before during early training.

 

The Rotax 912S just didn't want to start for his return trip though, and after several attempts over a half hour and a bit of head scratching, it finally started and ran, but with the idle rpm too high at fully retarded throttle, so that he had to hold the aircraft hard on the brakes to prevent it running away.

 

I suggested that perhaps we could tie it down and let our resident engineer have alook at it tomorrow, and I offered to drive him back to his training base ( around 50 Km )

 

He seemed a reasonably intelligent feller, in his mid forties, but he definitely didn't want to leave that aeroplane no matter what. I told him to expect an extended final approach if he couldn't reduce the throttle to idle at his base, and if he was in any doubt at all, to phone his instructor, which he elected NOT to do.

 

He finally departed and I stayed on the radio for a half hour in case it got worse and he decided to turn around and come back. He didn't.

 

I got a phone call from the pilot around an hour after he'd left our place, he said that the base landing was "Interesting" . . . . . He didn't say how many attempts. Dunno about you guys, maybe I'm not as adventurous as I used to be when I were a lad, but why do people take this sort of risk ?

 

Damned If I know Bruce.

 

 

[metalman]

I hope he's learned a lesson, aviation is a hard teacher at times, some of us get to make errors and live to learn ,others are not so fortunate!

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Phil: I just don't get the get-there-itis. It has killed so many people and it's in the news so often.

 

I live near the water and from time to time I see guys in tinnies at the boat ramp, pulling and pulling trying to start their outboard motor. I think to myself, "you're having that much trouble getting it started here at the ramp. What's going to happen when you're a mile offshore and you can't get it started?" I think that's just another form of get-there-itis.

 

 

[Yenn]

Knowing that your revs are too high for an easy landing, I wonder why he didn't just cut the ignition if he was well set up.

 

 

[biggles5128]

Knowing that your revs are too high for an easy landing, I wonder why he didn't just cut the ignition if he was well set up.

He was never going to make a good decision like that when he elected to head off in the first place...

 

 

[facthunter]

It would be a good idea to know WHY the revs were high. Clearly the aircraft is unserviceable by any reasonable assessment.

 

"There are enough unknown hazards in the air without taking a KNOWN one there with you" .

 

"Think AEROPLANE"... Nev

 

 

[Sapphire]

Another one for the never ending preflight check story/

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Knowing that your revs are too high for an easy landing, I wonder why he didn't just cut the ignition if he was well set up.

Agreed Yenn, that may be OK for you and me, I'm sure a lot of other experiencd pilots would use that method, but this bloke, although he was on his final qualifying flight, was still basically a STUDENT, in a rented aircraft.

 

Personally I wouldn't suggest a Deliberate Deadstick landing to someone with limited experience though, I can imagine what the CFI / aircraft owner / insurance company would say if he got it badly wrong. . .

 

I just hope he had a bit of a fright, and maybe, just maybe, he'll think twice in future about stretching his luck.

 

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

One more. . . from a non-fatal accident report - where a 2 seat 3-axis Microlight ( Rans S6 - 503 ) flew into sloping high ground in bad visibility. ( Summer 2007 )

 

Pilot departed the Isle of Man TT flyout from a private airstrip for the Scottish Coast in conditions which were visibly deteriorating, and against much advice from his friends.

 

He managed to get across the 28 Nm of Irish sea, . . but flew at cruising speed ( approx 55 Kts ) into gently rising coastal ground obscured by mist at approx 500 ft AGL and the aircraft flipped over and was destroyed. Fortunately, there was no post - crash fire.

 

The pilot and his young child (10 yrs old ) suffered minor cuts, bruises and abrasions, but survived the impact and were able to extricate themselves from the wreckage.

 

The pilot + child then had to walk a couple of miles until he found a farmhouse to alert the emergency services, as his mobile phone had no signal, but it took the rescuers 4 hours to locate and access the site, which was by then completely enveloped in fog and heavy rain.

 

Had the pilot been more seriously injured, or disabled then the outcome could have been much worse.

 

The pilot reported later to the AAIB investigators that . . . "HE REALLY HAD TO GET HOME THAT DAY. . . . as it was vital that he got back to work the next morning. "

 

??

 

 

[facthunter]

Logically...should getting home ever be so important as to risk the likelyhood of NEVER arriving home again? Especially if you have others with you. Nev

 

 

[DWF]

"It is better to arrive late than be dead on time."

 

DWF

 

 

[Tomo]

Probably why it was hard to start if it wasn't on idle... I'd certainly want to know why it was running the way it was before I took off. There's quite a difference between a 'knowledgable' decision choice, and a 'I hope it'll be right' choice!

 

 

[kgwilson]

With people in the 2 examples mentioned involved in our sport is it any wonder it is considered dangerous to the great unwashed out there.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's a very good point kg, if you were to take the stupidity and apathy out of the sport, it would be quite safe.

 

 

[flyerme]

That's a very good point kg, if you were to take the stupidity and apathy out of the sport, it would be quite safe.

but Unfortunately there will always be stupid people...

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I find it difficult to accept that "people" generally can actually be intrinsically stupid, . . . . ( well,. . .maybe a few, ) but on balance, perhaps the two guys hereinbefore mentioned were, let's say not actually Stupid in the accepted sense, but perhaps were so tunnelvisionised into getting home that this, in their view, overcame even what more experienced aviators would term basic commonsense ? Perhaps I'm being too lenient in this but I think there has to be a deeper psychological reason when someone who, to all intents and purposes seems to be, on the surface a reasoned person who is suddenly faced with a personal dilemma, then appears to take the wrong path entirely, however odd this it may appear to someone else.

 

We can all stand back and say tut tut, Idiot. . . . but these situations seem to appear with alarming regularity.

 

I blame guys like Mervyn, who really ought to explain all this stuff whilst these people are learning to fly, and then before they take thier final flight test, they should be hit on the back of the head with a cricket bat, and asked to repeat all the standard safety stuff they've been taught. Maybe then, they'll remember the pain before doing something silly. ( Can you get insurance for cricketbattery Merv ? )

 

Incidentally, as an epilog to the two stories I recounted earlier, I found out at the club meeting night that "High revving 912S man" has had the biggest bollocking of his life from the CFI and told that if he wants to continue flying at that particular site, and hiring their aircraft, he had better start acting like a grown up, and sooner rather than later.

 

At the "Flyers Arms" curry do last night, I found out from another pilot at his site that Mr "Fly into the deck in the fog" has never flown since. I didn't know that before, it seemed that the CAA donged him on several charges, one of which was carrying no life jackets and endangering the life of a minor, endangering a passenger and his aircraft whilst flying outside the terms of his licence, amongst other things like flying in IMC etc etc,. I gather that, on balance he decided not to bother any more. It turned out that I had actually met this chap in the past, and he seemed like quite an intelligent man, owned an engineering company, employed people, and had around 120 hours flight experience,. . . maybe it wasn't enough ?

 

So I guess that's a plus for safer aviation perhaps ? ( but that's just TWO out of potentially how many ?? )

 

So what do we do about this people,. . .? do we intervene a little more aggresively when we see someone who is about to do something overtly daft with his aircraft, (Am I my Brother's keeper ) or just tut tut and walk away ? report the bugger to the authorities ? smack him in the mouth and chop his plug leads ?

 

Perhaps we ought to have a poll with all these options and no doubt a lot more funny ones from you lot ( ! )

 

Open to ideas as always. . . .

 

Fly safe . . .THAT'S AN ORDER ! Phil

 

 

[Tomo]

Fly safe . . .THAT'S AN ORDER ! Phil

YesSir!

 

 

[Phil Perry]

That's a very good point kg, if you were to take the stupidity and apathy out of the sport, it would be quite safe.

I think that should apply to driving cars also ? But it doesn't seem that way. . . . .

 

 

[Phil Perry]

YesSir!

Yeah,. . . you take notice lad, otherwise I'll jump down yer Wifi and rip yer bloody arms off ! ( apologies to Aunty Jack )

 

 

[facthunter]

We've gone from falling out of trees and getting hurt when building cubby houses and getting bitten by the neighbours dog to doing most things on line and simulating real experiences. REAL physics apply to flying and a discipline thay many today won't accept as necessary. Their first dose of "reality" on a significant scale may be terminal. They are not stupid as such just not prepared to acccept essential reality to the extent they change their behaviour It's gotta be fun . Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I didn't say anyone was stupid; I used the word stupidity - a big difference.

 

I'd classify flying along with your gear hanging in a crop and hitting a stump, or flying in and out of trees and houses and along the top of a canefield and hitting a SWER, when in both cases you know your minimum height is 500 feet as stupidity as against smart.

 

 

[Bandit12]

I find it difficult to accept that "people" generally can actually be intrinsically stupid, . . . . ( well,. . .maybe a few, ) but on balance, perhaps the two guys hereinbefore mentioned were, let's say not actually Stupid in the accepted sense, but perhaps were so tunnelvisionised into getting home that this, in their view, overcame even what more experienced aviators would term basic commonsense ? Perhaps I'm being too lenient in this but I think there has to be a deeper psychological reason when someone who, to all intents and purposes seems to be, on the surface a reasoned person who is suddenly faced with a personal dilemma, then appears to take the wrong path entirely, however odd this it may appear to someone else.

Right on the money Phil - we use words like "stupid" to describe people who have been "smart" enough to earn the money to pay for lessons, have picked up the physical skills while doing so, and demonstrated an adequate knowledge of the theory to pass a test (in most countries I guess) before getting a licence or certificate to fly. So they aren't "stupid". If you can answer the questions of why some people choose to use recreational drugs, why others choose to drink alcohol and drive, and others choose to smoke, then maybe we will get a little closer to answering why some pilots will take risks like these.

 

Tunnel vision is definately a contributor - with a little outside pressure it is easy to lose sight of the bigger picture. "It won't happen to me" seems to be a fundamental human condition that affects most of us to some extent, at least in some areas of our lives. My lovely wife and I have a little sideline business in the motorcycle apparel game, and some people were generally concerned when I said that if you ride long enough, you will probably have an "off" at some time. Acknowledging that it can in fact happen to you is an important mindset to have. Some people fly along without a care in the world, and others are scanning for places for an emergency landing all the time. One will be a lot less shocked and probably more likely to have a good result than the other.

 

 

[johnm]

forgive me father cause I have also sinned

 

'this fly safe' message is important and I remember about 30 years ago in NZ I flew say a hundred miles from home and on the return journey next day I picked my mate up - say 50 miles from home in the ag C152.

 

we both probably had 130 hours each

 

It was flat cropping land (in the hawkes bay valley) and my copilot said he would like control and immedialtely attacked a crop - I think we were cropdusting ............... we could have been top dressing - both trades we aspired to .......... but never got any apprentiship

 

sit was a big crop - I'd estimate 20 to 40 acres and we did one application run - in the direction of home - at probably 20 - 50 feet

 

trouble was - with 20 / 20 hindsight we did not know what we were flying into - we did not know what was ahead (even if we were allowed to be there in the first place)

 

................... luckily, there were no wires and we climbed back up to safe cruising height - our first (and only) pretend ag operation completed - but were we STUPID. That one application run that we did could have been very violent & tragic

 

as mentioned above I reckon it was that tunnel vision - I have never or will ever do that again

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Well, I guess that in some instances John, gentle "Pressure" from friends, ( I won't call them "Peers" as this should mean that they are at least your equal in training and intelligence ) can, in some instances lead a pilot into stretching the envelope over and above what he normally would. . . I'd be surprised if quite a few have not experienced this over time. I was once threatened with legal action by a passenger after I elected to divert when I wasn't happy with the deicing kit on the aircraft during a transit leg in and out of IMC conditions. This bloke said I'd caused him to miss an important meeting, and I'm talking about a PRIVATE flight where he had just tagged along for a sodding free ride ! I'm sure others have experienced situations of a similar nature, but nearly always from those who do not understand flying, or don't want to know. . .

 

I guess the trick is to recognise this for what it is, and stick to your plan, even if you lose a friend or make someone unhappy !

 

 

[Sapphire]

Terms are thown around but how do you define illogical behavour-stupid, tunnel vision, crazy. I put people into three catagories, those who think logically and make few mistakes, those who make lots of mistakes and if they survive, learn from them, and lastly the no hoper catagory, makes any mistakes that can be made and learns nothing from them. From that you can see lots of people are making lots of mistakes. The easiest place to see them is on the road. Every week in my town there are several auctions of damaged cars, each auction of a couple hundred cars. Most tell a story of an event that occured because of illogical behavour. I would not define them as "accidents" as an accident occurs when all logical precautions are taken. How does this apply to flying? The next time some illogical pilot threatens your life with his standard of flying, put him in one of the above catagories.