Am I my Brother's Keeper ? ? ?

[M61A1]

Having a wife who is a medical doctor I would suggest that aviation in general (not limiting myself to RA here) has no idea of the concept of what "well-informed of the risk" really means. Don't get me wrong - I hope aviation doesn't go the way of medicine otherwise no-one will be taking anyone flying without a half hour discussion of risk ratios that would satisfy a "Rogers v Whitaker" situation (the Australian High Court case which severely affected the medical world here regarding informed risk and consent). But I doubt that there are actually any non-pilot passengers anywhere who would be considered "well-informed" of the risks in the truest sense.

I should clarify that the example I created was simply for illustration of the logic of regulating certain activities. The regs give people who are thinking of being stupid something to seriously consider, and more importantly, a consequence for continuing on their current path. I didn't really intend for a direct connection with ultralight flying. You're quite right in arguing that further legislation wouldn't prevent an incident involving someone disregarding the current regs, but that's not really my point. My argument is really about the unfortunate and regrettable need for regulations which restrict our absolute freedom in the first place. The real debate lies with "how much is too much?" and that's a very wide-ranging and complicated argument. I agree that some regs are a bit ridiculous, but also that others are necessary and sensible.

I understand what you say about being "informed", I mean it in the simplest way.....what it says on the placard "fly at your own risk", no if's, buts, or maybe's. By simply getting in the seat, they have accepted that.

 

I agree in regard to legislation bit, but my views on "how much is too much", would probably lean more to "we already have too much", or that most of it is inappropriate. Unfortunately we have a government that measures success by how many new laws it passed. I think that while we my need new laws to reflect current technology etc., we don't need more laws. we already have too many. I recall, it was a column in a motorcycle mag, I read about the writer's idea of no more laws, when a new law is made he reckoned they should delete an old law, just to stop them becoming excessive.

 

My main beef with our legislators, is the way they fix a problem, by making a law that will very obviously, have no real effect on the actual problem. But, of course it will fill the coffers, or need some sort of revenue to pay for the administration, or both.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Herein lies the problem....people who run/start clubs, are the sort of people who like to boss other people around, and necessarily so, they're "organisers", I'm not one of them. I have enough other people to fly with, assuming that I want others to fly with.Before anyone has a go about the bossing around comment, have a good hard think about any club you've ever been in...

I have only been associated with four "clubs", three of them flight orientated, and one for "Ham" radio nerds; and I have to say that In my experience, I was never ( no, I won't use the 'B' word Mick. . .! ) pushed around nor mildly bullied at all. OK, the Wee wee was taken on many occasions, you know the sort of light hearted banter designed to make you think a bit, such as the Groupair ( Berwick, Vic) scale of beer bottle "Fines" for doing something daft, like landing downwind, or taxying back to the tie downs with full flaps still deployed, even better. . . taxying out to fly with a tiedown weight still attached. . . [ 48 bottles for forgetting to lower the gear, although I never heard of any member doing that. . . ] or driving an aircraft past the bar window at Moorabbin running your high intensity strobes reflecting off the ground and blinding all the aero-alkies therein ( at night of course ) I strongly believe that he pee-taking approach, by, AND in front of your peers is surely better than being reprimanded by an F.I. ?

 

At my current flying club, we have had at least two pilots over the last ten years who were what I would call, NON - SOCIAL, ie they never mixed with other members, never attended monthly meetings or flying events, just kept very quietly to themselves. Both were killed in aircraft accidents,. . . now I AM NOT for one minute suggesting that their evident lack of interest in any social activities along with the rest of the guys N gals had anything at all to do with their demise, but I if I and many of my friends derived useful information from others of the same bent,. . .then Who knows ?? maybe it might have helped them also . . .. We'll never know. We only get to find out about what strange things dead pilots had been doing prior to becoming dead, when it's too late to make friendly suggestions, advise or otherwise assist.

 

I've been seriously bowlocked by our recently retired CFI on a couple of occasions, but then with over 20,000 hours or more away from the ground,. . . he has more than likely earned the points to have his suggestions taken seriously. . . .me ? I prefer gentle cajoling, and only take the wee wee out of those close friends whom I know will take it the right way and not punch me up the froat. But I still prefer the flying club ENVIRONMENT to watching the "Loners". . . . . . That way, I might be able to suggest something to my Brother to hopefully keep him a bit safer ?

 

 

[M61A1]

I have only been associated with four "clubs", three of them flight orientated, and one for "Ham" radio nerds; and I have to say that In my experience, I was never ( no, I won't use the 'B' word Mick. . .! ) pushed around nor mildly bullied at all. OK, the Wee wee was taken on many occasions, you know the sort of light hearted banter designed to make you think a bit, such as the Groupair ( Berwick, Vic) scale of beer bottle "Fines" for doing something daft, like landing downwind, or taxying back to the tie downs with full flaps still deployed, even better. . . taxying out to fly with a tiedown weight still attached. . . [ 48 bottles for forgetting to lower the gear, although I never heard of any member doing that. . . ] or driving an aircraft past the bar window at Moorabbin running your high intensity strobes reflecting off the ground and blinding all the aero-alkies therein ( at night of course ) I strongly believe that he pee-taking approach, by, AND in front of your peers is surely better than being reprimanded by an F.I. ? At my current flying club, we have had at least two pilots over the last ten years who were what I would call, NON - SOCIAL, ie they never mixed with other members, never attended monthly meetings or flying events, just kept very quietly to themselves. Both were killed in aircraft accidents,. . . now I AM NOT for one minute suggesting that their evident lack of interest in any social activities along with the rest of the guys N gals had anything at all to do with their demise, but I if I and many of my friends derived useful information from others of the same bent,. . .then Who knows ?? maybe it might have helped them also . . .. We'll never know. We only get to find out about what strange things dead pilots had been doing prior to becoming dead, when it's too late to make friendly suggestions, advise or otherwise assist.

 

I've been seriously bowlocked by our recently retired CFI on a couple of occasions, but then with over 20,000 hours or more away from the ground,. . . he has more than likely earned the points to have his suggestions taken seriously. . . .me ? I prefer gentle cajoling, and only take the wee wee out of those close friends whom I know will take it the right way and not punch me up the froat. But I still prefer the flying club ENVIRONMENT to watching the "Loners". . . . . .

I really do enjoy flying with a couple of good friends, but every club I've been around, model aeroplanes, motorcycles, photography, has always had at least one clique within, and one or more, who seem to want to be the "boss", regardless of club position, usually causing some degree of infighting. This sort of stuff just annoys me, so I really can't see me starting a club, as was the initial "tongue in cheek" suggestion.

That said, it has occurred to me of late that there may be some benefit in the form a "Drifter Operator's Support Group", like the Thruster people have, since as our support is gone.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I really do enjoy flying with a couple of good friends, but every club I've been around, model aeroplanes, motorcycles, photography, has always had at least one clique within, and one or more, who seem to want to be the "boss", regardless of club position, usually causing some degree of infighting. This sort of stuff just annoys me, so I really can't see me starting a club, as was the initial "tongue in cheek" suggestion.That said, it has occurred to me of late that there may be some benefit in the form a "Drifter Operator's Support Group", like the Thruster people have, since as our support is gone.

The support group thing is a really good idea methinks, we have quite a few here in the UK. Not so much "Clubs" in the normal sense, as most of these user groups are usually well spread out geographically, one of these is the MW aircraft club, based on the stick insect like aircraft designed by a guy named Mike Whittaker, who designed and flew the first of these well within one year for a bet, whilst working on the Concorde design team. They are very basic, make a thruster look cutting edge by comparison ! !

 

Everything hangs onto a single fuselage tube, ( rather like the original side by side thruster ) and they are plans built with many variations of single and two seats, tandem, side by side etc. . . since Mike was the build inspector, there was a lot of variety in the builds. We have 8.5 of these things at our field, and they all fly regularly, ( apart from the .5 one ).

 

With the upcoming adjustments to the current SSDR ( Single Seat Deregulated) rules, there may be quite a few more flying as they are increasing the MAUW to 390 Kgs from the current 115, and removing the mandatory annual permit requirement, requing just a license to fly it and registration with the CAA. This will allow slightly less skinny pilots to convert a 2 seat variant into a single and perhaps stick a 582 motor on it. . [ we have a two seater with a 582 driving a very large prop through a fluid clutch . . . purrs like a diesel that, and climbs like a rocket two-up. ]

 

Most of the early 2 seaters used a 503, and the MW4, now grounded but I had the pleasure of flying it some time ago, this was fitted with a Rotax 377 and had a ford transit universal coupling connecting the complete tail section to the main fuse tube ( worked well, but frightened the CAA ! )

 

I guess your support group could well operate in a similar manner, ie occasional flymeets, and perhaps a useful forum for users / restorers. Let's face it, why not ? there appears to be quite a few specific aircraft forums out there. . . . .

 

I don't know the drifter very well mate, I've seen pics, but I guess they were devised sometime after I departed OZ for the UK in 1982. . .

 

Anyway, I apologise to Phil Perry for the thread drift . . .( ! )

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Hmmm. I'd probably count as one of the "non-social loners". However, the same can be said of almost any private GA aircraft owner, or GFA "independent motorglider" operator. One never stops learning, and we all start the learning process by being a member of an aero club, or a gliding club, or whatever, and the learning curve is very steep for quite a while. Peer group overview is very valuable in the period after one first finishes formal training; I did about 600 hours of glider towing, as well as being a member of a gliding club instructor panel, which served that purpose for me.

 

But with increasing experience and knowledge, the rate at which one comes across new things to learn flattens off (tho CASA certainly seem to be doing their bit to maintain it, with continual changes to procedures, airspace, frequencies etc; and there are new gadgets like ipad/Ozrunways coming along all the time). In the '80s, I used to regularly use my Cherokee 140 to do business trips in conjunction with my CAR 35 activity; and that was not subject to peer group overview. So I think the question arises, at what point does one become sufficiently competent / knowledgable to go and do your own thing, in your own aircraft? And to what extent is it valid that "old pilots are more dangerous"?

 

I've seen the attitude problem of people who are, au fond, afraid of flying, but find it psychologically necessary to confront that fear by constantly pushing their limits, or by exhibitionism. I suspect they are more prevalent than is generally realised. I'll give you an analogy: At one stage, in Sydney, we lived on a five acre block well out of town. Next door was a teenager, who had a Torana - which he flogged mercilessly through its gears every morning, from a cold start, to valve bounce in every gear. I cannot stand the sound of machinery in pain, so I could not understand why - until it occurred to me that he had no in-depth understanding of the thing - he'd never worked on a bomb as a kid, or had to nurse it along to keep it going - so he was a bit scared of it, and he was in effect showing it who was boss. Eventually, of course, it expired.

 

There are pilots like that. They are the ones who do not become "old, bold" pilots. There are also pilots who have a great depth of knowledge of their aircraft, who do not have a devil riding on their shoulders; and as a result are relaxed in the air, but alert to the condition of their machine - and quick to respond to its needs. I've now been flying for 50 years - tho not as often as I'd have liked to. I maintain my own aircraft (legally). I've done my share of scud-running, and have no desire or need to do any more of it. I still have things to learn about using OzRunways and the ipad to stay out of controlled airspace. I've done my share of instructing, too. I learn a bit at each biennial. Yes, I did the "human factors" thing when RAA was running it; can't say it really taught me much, but it did put it in new words, and you had to remember the words to pass.

 

When I find I don't know the answer - and that's not uncommon - I go ask. But if somebody tries to appoint himself as my keeper, he'd better be able to justify it.

 

 

[facthunter]

When the shit hits the fan you are on your own so you should have the self confidence in your training and presence of mind to carry it through. Over confidence is BS. but lack of it portends disaster. If you don't accept the buck stops with you don't fly. There are NO excuses. There is a REALITY with lifting off the ground, and getting it safely back there after the mission is done . No one knows what is really happening up the pointy end, unless they have been there. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I've got a fair idea of what was happening up at the pointy end FH, and it wasn't adjusting trim!

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

When the **** hits the fan you are on your own so you should have the self confidence in your training and presence of mind to carry it through. Over confidence is BS. but lack of it portends disaster. If you don't accept the buck stops with you don't fly. There are NO excuses. There is a REALITY with lifting off the ground, and getting it safely back there after the mission is done . No one knows what is really happening up the pointy end, unless they have been there. Nev

Oh, dead right. But that comes with depth of knowledge of the aircraft; there is NO substitute for competence and experience. I've had my share of real emergencies; enough to learn that I don't freak out; and that's an important part of self-confidence. Without a simulator, how can people learn that without high risk? Proper spin training is without a shadow of doubt, a substantial step along the way; so is unusual attitude training - but this needs to be taught in conjunction with a thorough understanding of what the aircraft's flight envelope means; and teaching people to fly with feet and throttle alone is another, and making it a habit to do one's landing without power. Cable-break training in gliders is another. Landing without use of elevator may seem a bit extreme, but if you know you can do it, this can help in a real emergency. One progresses from "freezing" to thinking (for a few critical seconds) in "superconductor mode" - everything happens in slow motion, so you can deal with it. I do not know to what extent everybody has this ability, but I suspect most people do, but are never trained to use it. It involves a few frights - my first was a loose fuel-tank cap banging on the side of my Auster (the amount of noise this can make is astounding); the odd door-unlatch in a Bonanza also helps to develop this facility. As a result, I was able to handle a disconnected elevator later on; I might not have without those early lessons in controlling one's adrenalin flow.

Those people who are "adrenalin addicts" and use extreme sports for that purpose should, I think, be regarded with suspicion in this regard. That's most definitely the wrong reason to go flying. I recall a motoring journalist who categorised cars as either transport or adrenalin pumps; I definitely prefer vehicles (including aircraft) that cover the ground with low adrenalin consumption. There's a medical aspect here, I suspect. People who go in for things like body-jumping may, one wonders, in fact suffer from some sort of adrenalin-deficiency?

 

I chose a PA28-140 in preference to a C 172, decades ago, because the Cherokee had an undercarriage designed for ab-initio training, that would allow it to land in a paddock without much risk; also one could get out of it if it happened to overturn. Such aspects are a useful contribution to peace of mind when flying cross-country, and I had occasion to put it into a paddock once due to weather, and numerous times in the course of doing a job. That does not seem to be a priority considered by most recreational aircraft designers, or by the majority of purchasers. I daresay doing glider outlanding retrieves as a tug pilot sharpened my appreciation of this capability in an aircraft.

 

I think our training methods have a long way to go. Basic training merely supplies a licence to learn - but there is no "organised" follow-on, at least for basic GA and recreational pilots; you're lucky if you manage to learn these things by yourself. I note there are a few "advanced" training courses around; however I do not know to what extent they really cover what is needed.

 

 

[Oscar]

I used to do some car racing - a sport most people consider to be vastly inherently dangerous and taken up by those who had a desire to be nothing more than temporary Australians. I built what I drove, so I had both sides of the desk covered, as it were: my own driving and my mechanical ability / stupidity.

 

I can't readily think of a group of people who exhibited more concern for being 'their brother's keeper' than (most) of my fellow racers. They'd hand out tips and advice (and sometimes quite trenchant criticism) of one's driving, and they'd provide a vast amount of useful advice on how to do the mechanical side safely and competently. The officials not only checked out the mechanical condition of your car, but even checked out that you were properly strapped in ( no loose straps, belted in as tight as..) before you were allowed out on the track while you were sitting in the pits on the exit lane. Once you realised that these people around you genuinely did not want to see your blood spattered around, not have theirs endangered by your driving or your vehicle in extremely close-quarters edge-performance situations, the advice and attention became a most welcome 'second set of eyes'.

 

As for the adrenalin rush thing - in fact, motor racing is the most intense application of self-control I have ever experienced, and you absolutely learn to keep on making judgements, correcting for changing situations etc, on a fractional-second basis - there is absolutely no room whatever for indulging in 'HOLY Shit' and freezing at the wheel while the situation rushes at you and becomes an accident rather than a 'moment'. That sort of forced clarity of thinking comes in handy when you find yourself landing in a glider when the wind has changed 90 while you were on base, and you find yourself touching down on one strip with a fellow glider touching down on the cross-strip and you're both headed for the intersection and going to arrive there simultaneously.. or having the rudder pedals shoot forward out of their lock and out of your reach as you turn final and have some idiot start to walk his glider across your touch-down point...

 

 

[facthunter]

Training is a lot of it. You can't expect to know something you have not been taught. Your attitude and confidence is next to come into play, as part of the total picture..

 

Regarding the brother's keeper thing. I think we SHOULD be. If someone ever came a gutser in aviation where I should have passed on information or checked something and didn't, I would find that very hard to excuse myself for, and have always been that way. Hard on oneself. Yes., but we know aviation is very unforgiving of mistakes or errors. Adrenalin junkies? They are out there, but you wouldn't want one up the front of your passenger jet.

 

Self assessment of performance? Takes a bit of practice and a LOT OF HONESTY. There wjll hardly be a trip where SOMETHING couldn't have been done better, and if you review your own performance effectively you will continue to get something out of the process.. IF you think you are pretty good you won't get a lot better. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Training is a lot of it. You can't expect to know something you have not been taught. Your attitude and confidence is next to come into play, as part of the total picture..Regarding the brother's keeper thing. I think we SHOULD be. If someone ever came a gutser in aviation where I should have passed on information or checked something and didn't, I would find that very hard to excuse myself for, and have always been that way. Hard on oneself. Yes., but we know aviation is very unforgiving of mistakes or errors. Adrenalin junkies? They are out there, but you wouldn't want one up the front of your passenger jet.

Self assessment of performance? Takes a bit of practice and a LOT OF HONESTY. There wjll hardly be a trip where SOMETHING couldn't have been done better, and if you review your own performance effectively you will continue to get something out of the process.. IF you think you are pretty good you won't get a lot better. Nev

Who doesn't re-run each flight mentally, and see where he should have done it better? I thought that was a given, but maybe not . . . certification flight testing certainly teaches you to do this - "Did I really hit the test-point correctly - oh, damn, I missed" . . ., etc. Flying a tail-dragger tends to make one self-critical, especially in cross-wind landings . . . One of the things one learns is "Plan the flight and fly the plan" - do not do unnecessary things on the spur of the moment. I've experienced enough really professional aviators to know I'll never be one; but there's a balance to be struck in this, between over-confidence and insecurity; it's a bit like walking a plank between the wharf and a boat. If you are confident, it's not a problem. If you feel insecure, you'll likely end up in the water. False confidence comes from ignorance, as far as I can see.

 

 

[Yenn]

Who says you can't expect anyone to know what they havn't been tought. I thought that was what human factors was all about.

 

I certainly have done things that I havn't been trained to do, just by thinking them through.

 

we should be our brothers keeper, but often brother doesn't want to be kept, so just keep trying to bring some influence on him.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't get you this time Yenn. Have you ever been an instructor?. People can be self taught I suppose but the outcome would depend on the quality of what you had taught yourself but would that apply to learning to fly an A-380 or such?

 

Logically, how would you be entitled to EXPECT someone to know what they haven't been taught? No course I've ever been on would expect that. The reason I mention being an instructor is that you find out what the students don't know sometimes the hard way. It canj be a very steep learning curve for the INSTRUCTOR.

 

I have often said "why didn't you do THIS? " to cope with the situation, with a new student (to me) . Frequently the answer was" I didn't know that COULD be done". Is it the fault of the student that he didn't teach himself? . How can anyone teach themselves something that they don't know, they don't know?

 

Perhaps you can explain your human factors comment more as I can't fathom it. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Who says you can't expect anyone to know what they havn't been tought. I thought that was what human factors was all about.I certainly have done things that I havn't been trained to do, just by thinking them through.

we should be our brothers keeper, but often brother doesn't want to be kept, so just keep trying to bring some influence on him.

Everybody can progress their knowledge by study and thought. However, we don't live long enough to use only that means; therefore it is necessary to accelerate the process by directed instruction. I've just spent about eight hours trying to find the control surface out-of-balance limits for the Blanik. I don't want to be an unnecessary nuisance by being too lazy to go look it up; but I've done that and can't find it. So I've referred the question up the line. If one has to deal with a piece of complex machinery, it's a vast help to have a well-designed course of instruction. But bear in mind, that an ETPS graduate (which I am not) gets told to climb into an unknown jet, fly it, and write an appraisal report on it, with only basic info on its design limits. I had the privilage to know Tom Berry, an aero engineering graduate who was an ETPS graduate. He was called on to collect the first Avon Sabre from CAC, ferry it to Williamtown, and then write the RAAF pilot's notes on it. There are some people of that stature out there, and when they say something, you had better listen. So Yenn is right, in principle, but it's generally less risky to get whatever instruction is available. One learns to discern between good instruction and instruction by rote - and there's too much of the latter about, for my money. When one of the latter starts getting heavy, I'm not interested - tho I'm continually picking up points to think about, from all sorts of people. The old WW2 pilots were marvellous in getting their point quietly across. But people like Tom Berry or Sean or Nardia Roberts are always worth listening to. They tend to be pretty quiet, generally, and there are not enough of them.

 

 

[Yenn]

Facthunter. I wasn't restricting myself to flying when I said I could do things without being tought. Flying in total does need some training, but flying a new type can be done without training. First time you fly a single seater is one example.

 

I have never been a flying instructor, but I have sorted out at least one pilots problems, caused by poor instruction.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes there is some crook instruction. Anyone who teaches by numbers and "rote" alone, is denying the student "understanding" and thereby real control of their aircraft. I have been fairly well served by instructors at the higher level ( more complex ) aircraft where you are usually talking about an "organisation" rather than a particular individual, and had one or two good ones initially which must have carried me through. We really respected the good ones and remain friends ( where they are still around). Teaching someone to fly is a very individual personal thing in some circumstances. Students and instructors vary a lot. Some just won't click . Some pilots think they are dogs gift to everything, and some are great people. Nev