ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (06/07/85)
Jeff Williams made the following comment in another context: 4. Annual participation in the Pilot Proficiency Program - the record speaks for itself as to the decrease in accidents for pilots who participate While I don't doubt for an instant that participation in the Pilot Proficiency Program has a strong negative correlation to accident rates, that does not mean that there is a direct causal relationship! Putting it differently: suppose we know that people who participate in PPP stay out of trouble. Mightn't it be that the sort of person who participates in PPP is also the sort of person who knows enough not to do stupid things? One must be very careful about trying to draw statistical conclusions about a self-selected sample.
bob@ulose.UUCP ( Bob Bismuth ) (06/08/85)
> Putting it differently: suppose we know that people who participate > in PPP stay out of trouble. Mightn't it be that the sort of > person who participates in PPP is also the sort of person who > knows enough not to do stupid things? > > One must be very careful about trying to draw statistical > conclusions about a self-selected sample. On the face of what you suggest, I'd agree - those who try to better themselves are generally those who don't wind up in the trees or smeared over the side of a mountain. However, having recently attended an FAA Air Safety Seminar, I'm not sure this is true. I went along with a genuine interest in learning of what I could do to improve my flying. I was disapointed to find that the safety talks only covered pratices which I already thoroughly follow. I thought the presentations very childish, almost scolding in nature. I was going to write the whole thing off to a wasted day when I looked at the audience. Most of the pilots there were really learning something for the first time. I concluded that the FAA, with offers of door prizes, reduced insurance rates via the wings program and the ultimate prize, rides in a P51 and Vampire, had actually got hold of some of the ears they wanted to pour words into. It was a pity that people who appeared like sensible sorts needed this sort of reward to sit and listen to what was, on the whole, good pilot sense and good common sense. I fly most of the time VFR in a craft without any electronic navigation, with only 1 gyro (turn/slip) and a compass to show me the way. Couple to that a lack of flaps, 65 hp and a tailwheel, and you have the formula for sharpening your pilot skills. Cross countries are fascinating - you have to be continually weather conscious, really be capable of pilotage and know the winds like the back of your hand (particularly close to the ground). Though I try never to relax my vigil, to me those things are second nature. Not apparently to those who attended the safty program. Makes me wish the FAA would subsidize instruction schools who use J3 Cubs, Aeroncas, Luscombes, Cessna 120/140's or even (yes Jeff) Funks. I've heard that sentiment echoed by old-timers and until I'd tried flying Classics never realized why. One question I do have is for the CFI's out there. Participation in a Safety Seminar needs to be followed by 3 hours of dual to get start the wings program. None of the local CFIs I know really know what that dual is supposed to cover. Does anyone out there know? It's covered in AC61-91c (or b - not sure which), but I don't have a copy. -- bob (decvax!ulose!bob)
cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) (06/10/85)
> Jeff Williams made the following comment in another context: > > 4. Annual participation in the Pilot Proficiency Program - > the record speaks for itself as to the decrease in > accidents for pilots who participate > > While I don't doubt for an instant that participation in > the Pilot Proficiency Program has a strong negative correlation > to accident rates, that does not mean that there is a direct > causal relationship! > > Putting it differently: suppose we know that people who participate > in PPP stay out of trouble. Mightn't it be that the sort of > person who participates in PPP is also the sort of person who > knows enough not to do stupid things? > > One must be very careful about trying to draw statistical > conclusions about a self-selected sample. I agree that the program may be a success because of the type of pilot that participates. What my argument is: I don't want a pilot flying for me that does not see the advantages to the PPP, and who does not see the need for annual refresher training. As a company, I can insist on "stacking the deck" in my favor by allowing only those pilots who are demonstrably safety conscience fly for company business. jeff williams AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!cfiaime
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (06/10/85)
> I agree that the program may be a success because of the type of pilot > that participates. What my argument is: I don't want a pilot flying > for me that does not see the advantages to the PPP, and who does not > see the need for annual refresher training. As a company, I can > insist on "stacking the deck" in my favor by allowing only those > pilots who are demonstrably safety conscience fly for company business. And my argument is that the PPP may not have any effect by itself, so requiring it might not do any good. If someone wants to fly and is told he must jump through a particular hoop, he'll probably jump. That doesn't mean any of the training is going to stick. Our flying club requires annual check-rides and pushes safety in other ways, but that didn't stop one member from taking off without an instrument ticket into a 600 foot overcast (fortunately, he made it back). That particular member was obviously a loon, but it didn't show up in any of his training. I'm even more worried about this scenario: I'm running a company that lets people fly on company business only if they meet the requirements I've set. Now, an employee, on company business, bends an airplane. It's clearly his fault, but he sues me, saying I should never have let him fly and that my rules are too lax. I don't want to have to defend that lawsuit. For that reason, I think that the most reasonable attitute to have toward employees who want to fly on company business is the same attitude most companies have toward those who want to drive: it's YOUR life and YOU get to decide how to get there. I am not going to do anything to keep you out of trouble, or to get you into it. Incidentally, it might interest you to know that IBM encourages employees to fly light airplanes on business trips by offering to pay mileage as if the employee had driven or coach airfare (I think times number abord), whichever is MORE.
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (06/12/85)
> However, having recently attended an FAA Air > Safety Seminar, I'm not sure this is true. > > I went along with a genuine interest in learning of what I could do to > improve my flying. I was disapointed to find that the safety talks only > covered pratices which I already thoroughly follow. I thought the > presentations very childish, almost scolding in nature. I sure have to agree. I used to attend those things religiously, but after 3 years and a dozen sessions I realized that I hadn't learned a thing I didn't know before I went in, so I quit going. The last straw was when our old Accident Prevention Specialist (or whatever his title is) retired and was replaced by a very boring and preachy fellow. -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug ^^^^^--- soon to be CalComp