PAWG air assets grounded.

[Storm Chaser]

A 500-word AAR about the hows and whys of the incident wouldn't be a bad idea, perhaps to include a "road show"
for units to replace their nightly safety briefing.

One thing that has always impressed me about the RCAF (during my service) is the commitment to not only a safety culture but to a proactive and learning safety culture. 

Each accident that a had lesson or multiple lessons that could be imparted was written up and promulgated to the entire force in their safety magazine.

In CAP, it seems that these accidents and any lessons learned are buried at NHQ.  Perhaps this is because of the litigious nature of American Corporations or perhaps it takes too much effort or perhaps no one in Safety has thought about it.

The other thing that the RCAF did well was run a regular one week Safety Officer course specifically for Aircrew that qualified Aircrew as a Flight Safety Officer.  They got to wear a cool patch and in return were charged to be the focal point fo aviation related safety for each flying unit.

Food for thought in light of these PA accidents. 

Question for NHQ Safety: what could I learn from these accidents that might help prevent me from making the same mistake?

We do the same in the USAF. Every mishap is available for review and many discussed in monthly safety briefings, especially those applicable to the aircraft flown by the unit or related to their mission. We also have a three-week Flight Safety Officer Course (with an even cooler patch ) and a two-week Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course, among other safety courses.

The main difference between the RCAF/USAF and CAP is that the former have full-time dedicated personnel that can make this happen. Whereas CAP depends on volunteers that may not have the necessary expertise or resources to implement a similar program. That said, I agree that a move in that direction would be very beneficial to CAP.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

A jet or an eagle and a chain.  I like the jet.

[Storm Chaser]

I don't know... The jet is cool, but I prefer the eagle.

[Brit_in_CAP]

A 500-word AAR about the hows and whys of the incident wouldn't be a bad idea, perhaps to include a "road show"
for units to replace their nightly safety briefing.

One thing that has always impressed me about the RCAF (during my service) is the commitment to not only a safety culture but to a proactive and learning safety culture. 

Each accident that a had lesson or multiple lessons that could be imparted was written up and promulgated to the entire force in their safety magazine.

In CAP, it seems that these accidents and any lessons learned are buried at NHQ.  Perhaps this is because of the litigious nature of American Corporations or perhaps it takes too much effort or perhaps no one in Safety has thought about it.

The other thing that the RCAF did well was run a regular one week Safety Officer course specifically for Aircrew that qualified Aircrew as a Flight Safety Officer.  They got to wear a cool patch and in return were charged to be the focal point fo aviation related safety for each flying unit.

Food for thought in light of these PA accidents. 

Question for NHQ Safety: what could I learn from these accidents that might help prevent me from making the same mistake?

That makes a lot of sense.

I'd actually like to see a redacted (names removed) report from every incident nationwide distributed to Commanders and Safety Officers.  Would provide a lot of food for thought for safety education sessions, just walking through the accident chains and seeing where the links could have been broken, or alternatively, what benefit justified the risk taken.

+1.

I had a similar experience with the RCAF and I suspect that their work may have influenced the introduction of the CONDOR and MURPHY confidential reporting systems in the RAF, the first for aircrew and the second for ground crew.  These were reporting systems that allowed you to report the near-misses of life in a way that the lessons got passed around properly.  Of course, both only worked well once the forms were moved from the rack outside the supervisor's office...   

That said, both continue to work well for the RAF even though their safety culture generally has had to be rebuilt in recent years.  Separate story for another day.

[SunDog]

"I will be safe"  Really? Not likely or possible. . .and with respect, just ill considered. How about "I won't be reckless-stupid". If you are in a GA airplane, you aren't "safe". It's roughly equivalent to off road motorsports.  CAP mom asks if the O Ride is "perfectly safe", tell her the truth - the drive to the airport was safer.

"I will follow regs". No one does, cause you can't memorize them all. You start breaking them when you
wake up. How about "I'll do my best to follow the spirit and intent of the regs".  Cause if you do bend something,  a broken reg will come to light. It may not be relevant, but count on someone pretending it is.  Regardless, the only person dumber than someone who always breaks the rules is one who never breaks the rules. Heck, even the FAA recognizes this, and has it in the FARS.

"I will not wreck stuff". A promise a carbon based life form can't keep.  We live with limitations of perception. Sometimes we are fooled. . .If you're DOING anything, you might break something - a reasonably prudent and cautious person might break an airplane. And 20/20 hindsight second guessers will see how clearly it could have been avoided. From their arm chair or desk.

With all this I am glad none of my buddies who do fly for ES purposes will never fly with you,  neither would I and I sure wouldn't trust my cadets to your care.  Hate to break it to you but I call BS on this completely.  You can be safe when flying, you can and guess what most of the membership do follow the regs and its good common sense to not wreck things. 

Thank you for leaving the org with these mindsets, we don't need it and are better off without you.  Ciao.

Wow. You missed, or misunderstood, the main points, and had a knee jerk reaction (which is common when having a conversation about safety in this environment). Seriously, did you read that, and think I said it was O.K. to wreck things? Or bust regs?

To recap, I said: Let's not do reckless and stupid acts, let's honor the spirit and intent of the regs, and not fool ourselves about GA flying being inherently "safe". If you disagree with that sentence, stop reading now, as our gulf is too wide. . .

Still here? Then yes, GA flying can be safer, sure. But you're deluding yourself if you think it is without significant risk.  Fly into a popular uncontrolled airport on a pretty Saturday afternoon in the summer?  It's within the regs, but if you don't believe the risk level is way up in that situation, if you think it is "safe", you lack experience or the capacity to evaluate objectively.  Yeah, you can take the Cadets in there with you, because it's "legal".  Dumb, maybe reckless, perhaps stupid. But legal.

Flying single pilot, hard IFR, no AP or wing leveler? Sure, doable, happens all the time, and within the regs; but the possibility of a bad outcome is elevated. Miss that AH failure. . . and if you call that event "safe" I don't want to fly with you - you aren't recognizing facing the facts, or measuring the real risks.

So, I implied that the regs can't cover all situations, as the FAA acknowledges, very specifically, in the FARS. Normal circumstances? Most certainly, follow the book. Handle the exceptions with common sense, talk about the book later. And THINK about what you're doing. . .

Honestly, this bobbing your head like a mechanical duck, in rapt alignment with old-school safety concepts, is self-deceptive. I think that's what ORM was trying for - get some measures, at least tactically, of the risk - because the risk exists. Flying is not safe, though the risks can be mitigated.  Final analysis, you can do everything right and still end up in a smoking hole. 

Look at the last few Flying magazine articles by John and Martha King - they're moving safety into this century, a few words at a time. 

IRT to PA Wing - two bent and one scared in short period? How does PA stack up against the rest of CAP? Do they bend more per flying hour, or less? Middle of the pack?
If PA has a history over a few years of elevated events, maybe they have Wing wide problem - shoot, I don't have a clue, either way.  But if they don't, and it's coincdence that two got bent within a few weeks of each other, than a wing-wide shutdown is kinda dumb. Even counter-productive; pilots and aircrew don't improve their proficiency by NOT flying.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Sundog,

You have a bad habit, or perhaps it's on purpose, of writing the first thing on your mind and writing it in an inflammatory style. 

Then you follow up with a more intelligent, well written, thoughtful narrative after the flames start. Don't agree, then look at your previous posts and their associated flame wars.

So you either have multiple personality disorder, are doing it on purpose, or have frothing mouth (keyboard) disorder. Personally, I think you do it on purpose.  I envision you sitting in front of your computer, manically laughing as you type out your latest screed hoping that Eclipse and others will respond.

So either fly right or be ignored.

Back to CAP Flight Safety and ways we can improve it.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I was active 1985-1987, then became active again on 1997-2004, then became active again on 2011.

Before 2004, the Monthly Safety Briefing was supposed to include a newsletter prepared by NHQ/Safety. This newsletter included CAP air and ground mishaps and incidents. I say again, it was mandatory we discuss that. But when I came back in 2011, this had changed. I do not hear anything about what happened Safety-wise in the corporation. Safety briefings are more to the selection of the unit Safety Officer and in many, many times, no inclusion of what may have contributed to specific corporate incidents. Maybe we have to return to that mandate again...

[A.Member]

Wow. You missed, or misunderstood, the main points, and had a knee jerk reaction (which is common when having a conversation about safety in this environment)...

Just as you missed the facetious nature of my post.   Do you seriously think I was proposing they write sentences on the chalkboard?!

[A.Member]

As to the sharing nature of incidents and creating the ownership, that's a much more effective approach and one that I'd advocate.  We've done it with pilots inour Wing and it's a hellofa lot more effective approach to safety than nearly any other actions the organization has latched onto over the years.   

An AAR review doesn't have to be lengthy but must demonstrate some self-reflection, describing the situation and outcome along with potential alternatives that could've resulted in avoidance of the issue.  This could be shared via e-mail distribution, monthly safety brief, etc.  Also concur that this should be driven at a National level and should replace much of the silliness we do under the false guise of 'safety'.  None of those, including mandatory groundings are effective at influencing change - and isn't that what we're really after?

[jeders]

I envision you sitting in front of your computer, manically laughing as you type out your latest screed hoping that Eclipse and others will respond.

1) if I can't get this Monster off my keyboard, you owe me a new one. 2) Please oh please, someone turn this into a gif/graphic/meme, the idea is just too funny.

[SunDog]

Wow. You missed, or misunderstood, the main points, and had a knee jerk reaction (which is common when having a conversation about safety in this environment)...

Just as you missed the facetious nature of my post.   Do you seriously think I was proposing they write sentences on the chalkboard?!

Nah, I didn't think that. I thought you considered adherence to those simple bromides to be effective safety measures. 

[SunDog]

Sundog,

You have a bad habit, or perhaps it's on purpose, of writing the first thing on your mind and writing it in an inflammatory style. 

Then you follow up with a more intelligent, well written, thoughtful narrative after the flames start. Don't agree, then look at your previous posts and their associated flame wars.

So you either have multiple personality disorder, are doing it on purpose, or have frothing mouth (keyboard) disorder. Personally, I think you do it on purpose.  I envision you sitting in front of your computer, manically laughing as you type out your latest screed hoping that Eclipse and others will respond.

So either fly right or be ignored.

Back to CAP Flight Safety and ways we can improve it.

That (safety improvement) was the point - real stuff, not regurgitated pablum.  Feel free to not read anything you like, of course.

[MajorM]

Somewhat recently I saw an AAR come across a wing-wide listserv from a pilot.  The email recounted a recent mishap, outlined the causes, and the lessons learned from the incident.  My assumption is that it was in response to a dinged up aircraft that the pilot was responsible for.  I remember thinking at the time that it seemed like a fitting consequence as well as a valuable learning tool for others.

[SunDog]

Excerpted from Flying, Martha King (link below)

. . .Based on John's and my experience, I think we in the aviation community can do a far better job of thinking about risk and expressing ourselves. I suggest that we change our vocabulary, including banning the words "safe" and "safety" for two reasons. First, when we use those words, we usually don't mean them. And second, they don't really give us any useful guidance.

We say things like, "Safety is our No. 1 priority." If safety were our No. 1 priority, we'd never fly. Or we say, "We will never compromise safety." Getting into any moving vehicle, especially an airplane, is a compromise with safety. Absolute safety is unattainable. So when we say these things, they cannot literally be true.

All of this clichéd talk about safety comes across as insincere hypocrisy.Plus, it is bad management because we are setting unattainable goals. Telling someone to have a safe trip is a nice, courteous expression of good will, but it is lousy advice. It is literally impossible and gives no advice that can be acted on. Better advice would be to suggest doing a good job of managing the risks of a flight.

Of course, the other words that were frequently used with us that I believe were not helpful were "judgment" and "decision making." Although they refer to components of risk management, I don't think using these terms will be helpful with other pilots either.

I believe these words will not be well received by the recipient and are not likely to produce positive results. Aviation tends to attract competent, achieving individuals who naturally believe they already employ good judgment and decision making. They are unlikely to heed an (often younger) instructor who tells them he or she will teach them judgment and decision making. Their reaction is more likely to be, "I don't think so, kid." Additionally, the term "decision making" tends to imply that you get to a fork in the road and then make a decision. I would like to see us be far more proactive than that and anticipate that fork before we ever get to it.

Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/proficiency/sky-kings-speaking-dangerous-pilots-differently#olimrxwaDGcP4jKT.99

[abdsp51]

Wow. You missed, or misunderstood, the main points, and had a knee jerk reaction (which is common when having a conversation about safety in this environment). Seriously, did you read that, and think I said it was O.K. to wreck things? Or bust regs?

To recap, I said: Let's not do reckless and stupid acts, let's honor the spirit and intent of the regs, and not fool ourselves about GA flying being inherently "safe". If you disagree with that sentence, stop reading now, as our gulf is too wide. . .

Still here? Then yes, GA flying can be safer, sure. But you're deluding yourself if you think it is without significant risk.  Fly into a popular uncontrolled airport on a pretty Saturday afternoon in the summer?  It's within the regs, but if you don't believe the risk level is way up in that situation, if you think it is "safe", you lack experience or the capacity to evaluate objectively.  Yeah, you can take the Cadets in there with you, because it's "legal".  Dumb, maybe reckless, perhaps stupid. But legal.

Flying single pilot, hard IFR, no AP or wing leveler? Sure, doable, happens all the time, and within the regs; but the possibility of a bad outcome is elevated. Miss that AH failure. . . and if you call that event "safe" I don't want to fly with you - you aren't recognizing facing the facts, or measuring the real risks.

So, I implied that the regs can't cover all situations, as the FAA acknowledges, very specifically, in the FARS. Normal circumstances? Most certainly, follow the book. Handle the exceptions with common sense, talk about the book later. And THINK about what you're doing. . .

Honestly, this bobbing your head like a mechanical duck, in rapt alignment with old-school safety concepts, is self-deceptive. I think that's what ORM was trying for - get some measures, at least tactically, of the risk - because the risk exists. Flying is not safe, though the risks can be mitigated.  Final analysis, you can do everything right and still end up in a smoking hole. 

Look at the last few Flying magazine articles by John and Martha King - they're moving safety into this century, a few words at a time. 

IRT to PA Wing - two bent and one scared in short period? How does PA stack up against the rest of CAP? Do they bend more per flying hour, or less? Middle of the pack?
If PA has a history over a few years of elevated events, maybe they have Wing wide problem - shoot, I don't have a clue, either way.  But if they don't, and it's coincdence that two got bent within a few weeks of each other, than a wing-wide shutdown is kinda dumb. Even counter-productive; pilots and aircrew don't improve their proficiency by NOT flying.

No I read what was presented and you have by your own admission/confession admitted to breaking regs and that it was ok to do so.  Again I would not trust any of my buddies, my cadets or I to fly with you in any regards. 

[Eclipse]

Complacency and an arrogance about "knowing better" are the kinds of things that get people killed.

"Not possible to be safe, follow the regs, or keep stuff from being broken."

What a pile of nonsense - the kind of thing someone who knows "of" something" but has never actually done it would say,
and further, the kind of thing that should generate x-members if said in the precense of someone with authority and
you were bing serious (though you say that train has already left the station, so be it).

Following simple rules and procedures, and keeping your head in the game you agreed to play, instead of
distracting yourself with mental hoops and trying to game the system to prove you are better also the kinds of things that get people killed.

Sundog, you've proven Mission Pilot correct.  You're simply interested in saying whatever will push people's
buttons, whether it makes sense for an adult to say it or not.

[SunDog]

Hush now, talk safety. . .I got your point of view. No point in us talking further. Read the AAR post, good stuff.

[PHall]

Hush now, talk safety. . .I got your point of view. No point in us talking further. Read the AAR post, good stuff.

Attempting to disengage now are we?  Dude, you made your mess all by yourself. Own it and move on.

[SunDog]

Hush now, talk safety. . .I got your point of view. No point in us talking further. Read the AAR post, good stuff.

Attempting to disengage now are we?  Dude, you made your mess all by yourself. Own it and move on.

More trying to be polite; it's a mess I embrace,  glad to own.  Maybe other, open minds, will give some of it consideration, see what might make sense, and drop what doesn't.  You got a specific point to address, spit it out, we can talk.  Something other than re-re-quoting a missed point? Or a pedantic tirade against what wasn't said. . .?

Should I re-re-peat? Flying has significant risks, can't be made "safe".  Regs are good, except when they aren't. Be smart enough to know when.  Good, careful people will still somtimes break things.  I'm good with owning that. . .move along now, nothing else to see here. . .

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Should I re-re-peat? Flying has significant risks, can't be made "safe".  Regs are good, except when they aren't. Be smart enough to know when.  Good, careful people will still somtimes break things.  I'm good with owning that. . .move along now, nothing else to see here. . .

The point is not about the resigned attitude of "Flying... can't be made safe" but about the reduction of risk otherwise know as Risk Mitigation.  These are lot's of resources available on the web.  Here is one:

http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/newspics/1108-TOP-TEN-WAYS-RISK.pdf