"Gotta-get-home-itis"

[Tomo]

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

I'll be quite h'armless if you do that Phil...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Oh, you are a hand full at times Tomo.

 

 

[VFR Pilot]

Sometimes very intelligent people think that they are more intelligent than they really are.

 

Inbilt in their thought process is, I know how to fly, I don`t make mistakes, don`t tell me what to do.

 

Sometimes a slap in the face with some humility is what is needed.

 

Human factors.

 

 

[flyerme]

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.

To quote Forest Gump "Stupid is what stupid does" !!

 

 

[Sapphire]

Sometimes very intelligent people think that they are more intelligent than they really are.Inbilt in their thought process is, I know how to fly, I don`t make mistakes, don`t tell me what to do.

Sometimes a slap in the face with some humility is what is needed.

 

Human factors.

That's the next issue. How do you deal with people who demonstrate they can't drive, fly, etc. Governments look at them as a cash cow by fineing them. The rich can afford their ignorance and keep paying fines. In the case of a pilot who demonstrates he can't fly safely, take away his lic and require him to do his flying course over again-theory, basic flying, navs. That will straighten a few people out with enthusiastic support as well from training organizations, no doubt.

 

 

[facthunter]

Fines apply unequally. To a pensioner they could be a catastrophe, to a multimillionaire they are just an inconvenience As a deterrent they fail the equity test, as well as effectiveness.

 

Retraining as a punishment, has been used in the past. I have been involved with it, not as the one being punished but as an instructor dealing with the person who in this instance was compulsorily required to do 15 hours of dual training. Retraining has the advantage of addressing the particular area of the pilot's deficiency? but the concept of training as a punishment worries me. The person undergoing the "remedial" training has to have the right attitude, to get good results.

 

IF the problem is with his/her attitude in the first place, the "instructor" involved would have to be well qualified indeed particulary in areas of psychology. The personality of the pilot is able to be commented on by the DAME and there is a section in the form, but the instructor has not generally got the skills to do this. NO DAME involvement happens with RAAus people.

 

Suitably trained "mentoring " people/groups might be the answer, otherwise withdrawal of solo flying privileges in bad cases would have to be considered, by any responsible authority involved with risk management.

 

The subject of this thread (get home itis) might only show up once in a lifetime and terminate that lifetime so no need for action there,, but how do you prevent it?. I would suggest that seminars be scheduled, or some equivaent forum (On Line?) and pertinent information be included on these sort of "tendencies". IF one can recognise they exist and that could affect decisions being made, we get somewhere. Isn't this what Human Factors was/is about?. Have we treated that subject as a "tick the box" and nothing after? It's ongoing and relevent. Nev

 

 

[Sapphire]

Training is not a punishment but a means to get satisfactory performance from a pilot. If the pilot does not respond because of psychological probems, then his lic is not re-issued. In addition to the cost of retraining, the pilot can get psychological help at further expense if he pleases. In the end, if he can't perform-he can't fly.

 

 

[facthunter]

How do you test if he is subject to a tendency to get home itis?. How is your recommendation being used in the RAAus scenario?

 

Making a pilot do more training would be seen very negatively by many of the pilots who do not perform well and may be required to do it. Some regard a high number of dual time as indicative of a slow learning syndrome.

 

This is why I don't encourage a rush to solo, or any great inference being placed upon it. Dual time is the most learning intensive time . New conversions (as an example), help as a revision of general flying skills because you have to achieve a good standard on the newer aircraft , over the whole spectrum of it's operation. Nev

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I wonder if "P" plates, and perhaps in the extreme, "probationary pilot" emblazoned all over a new pilot's aircraft for 12 months would help ?? Then good behaviour would be rather important wherever the pilot went. . . . and he might just slot into the habit of doing things correctly !

 

( Only Joking. . .)

 

Probably wouldn't help someone with an ingrained problematic attitude issue though . . . . . ( Does it help new drivers I wonder ? )

 

Phil

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm not sure that this is confined to "new' pilots. 100 hours was considered a "dangerous" time for overconfidence and the "it won't happen to me. Crashing is for other pilots".

 

The only 'treatment " I have seen that MAY be effective is to constantly make all pilots aware of the fact that the (apparent) urgency of getting home should not get out of hand and influence their judgement so they ignore the risks that would normally be considered with any decision to fly. The "discipline" needs to be applied. Pilots can be fixated on continuing an approach too where clearly the conditions should preclude it. Many fatal accidents have happened under these circumstances. There is nothing wrong with the aircraft. The decision of the pilot to procede is the direct cause. ( revisit the Hotham Accident where this is covered. ALL dead when they were on a tight schedule of meetings. NO more meetings and no more life for each. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I was lucky enough to have been influenced by Macarthur Job and the old Aviation Safety Digest where no punches were pulled, and the stories were all lessons,

 

so the first time I got into this situation I was mentally prepared.

 

Due to depart on a Sunday to get to work Monday, I told my passenger about the weather forecast, that we may not be back for work, why, and that the decision would be go or no go.

 

When is was no go on Sunday I alerted the Flying Club, my employer, and gave him the safety explanation, and so on for a couple of days.

 

We got back in safe conditions.

 

The reasons I could do this - because I'm a Type A personality and by natural instincts would have tried to force my way through on the Sunday were:

 

1. I had been very well alerted to the fatal downside by the Aviation Safety Digest (The instructors had just said "Never fly into cloud)

 

2. Having been conditioned for this, and knowing I was making the correct decision, I had sufficient authority (courage) to be firm with my passenger and employer (the Club had said, even though I knew it was costing them training money, to take as long as I needed.

 

So I think you can condition yourself very well psychologically to recognise the situation, and err on the safe side. I've even heard pilots say they only ever fly on clear days, and I've never heard anyone criticise them.

 

You might be saying now "Yeah Right, what about when you have two or three bullies in with you, maybe one or two who are pilots, and they are yelling 'Go, go, you'll be right etc'"

 

I agree that's very hard to overcome, and maybe that's where some techniques and training are required.

 

 

[eightyknots]

There are lots of valuable contributions in this thread.

 

The main problem is the enormous get-there-itis urge: How do you counsel normally wise and prudent people that to give place to this urge may result in loss of limb, aircraft or life? Once the preventative (innoculation) is applied to the get-there-itis disease, lives will be saved, planes will be kept intact and insurance premiums will go down.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

I would like to relate a situation that happened to me once while sailing that might shed some light on "get-there-itis". I was in a race in Moreton bay and I could see some weather coming up from the south. I could see rain and there were reports on the radio from others in the race that the winds were coming up. I had very little experience sailing at this stage, so I had a dilemma: Do I wait a little longer to put up the storm gib and reef the main, or do it now and possibly lose time and places in the race? Not knowing what was really going to happen, sailing into a squall, I elected to take a reef in the main and got my wife started pulling down the large gib in preparation to put up the storm gib. I had the main pretty well finished and my wife had the gib down when the weather actually hit. Even with only partial sail up, the boat was a real handful in the wind and rain. The point is that the weather came even faster than I expected and its effects were worse than I expected, and acting earlier rather than later was (fortunately) the right decision, even though it seemed premature at the time.

 

Better to be down here wishing you were up there than the other way round.

 

Another way to say it is, it's better to make a decision or take evasive action before you're actually in the poo, otherwise it's already too late.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There are lots of valuable contributions in this thread.The main problem is the enormous get-there-itis urge: How do you counsel normally wise and prudent people that to give place to this urge may result in loss of limb, aircraft or life? Once the preventative (innoculation) is applied to the get-there-itis disease, lives will be saved, planes will be kept intact and insurance premiums will go down.

this might sound silly, but the airlines have developed virtually a foolproof technique of controlling "get there itis" passengers.