PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Bob Noel on December 31, 2016, 10:18:13 AM
-
(I'll let people guess why I won't bother asking this question over in POA...)
So, apparently some people believe that we shouldn't accept minimum standards.
Why?
After all, what is the definition of "minimum standard"?
-
Minimum standards are specified in the FARs. One reason (most) U.S. airlines are as safe as they are is that they routinely exceed these standards. Some of those higher levels are even specified in their OPSPECs.
The airlines with the most safety issues seem to be shooting for only the minimum standards.
Here's an example: When I was training for the Private, my CFI held me to Commercial standards regarding altitude, airspeed, and a few other things.
Another example: FAA medical will accept a rather high A1C, but that level is not really healthy. So some good AMEs advise trying to achieve a lower reading.
-
I understand why exceeding standards can be good.
But if the minimum standard isn't good enough, then why have it?
-
I understand why exceeding standards can be good.
But if the minimum standard isn't good enough, then why have it?
If the minimum standard isn't "good enough", it needs to be raised, not eliminated.
-
I understand why exceeding standards can be good.
But if the minimum standard isn't good enough, then why have it?
Because perfection, while a nice goal, is generally unachievable.
-
Unfortunately a large part of general aviation pilots refuse to even accept the minimum standards given. The aviation boards have pilots continually bitching and moaning about the regulations and how they should be done away with.
And unfortunately the accident rate of general aviation reflects this attitude.
-
If the minimum standard isn't "good enough", it needs to be raised, not eliminated.
I think the point he is driving at is that minimum standards are acceptable to whoever set the standard. if you insist that everyone do better than the minimum then you are really demanding a new minimum, which must then also be unacceptable.
Yuo are allowed to exceed the minimum if you choose. I do not think you can condemn someone else who does not.
-
Yup are allowed to exceed the minimum of you choose. I do not think you can condemn someone else who does not.
Of course not. Nor should someone be condemned for shooting higher.
-
clarification:
No one should make the mistake of assuming I'm critical of people wanting to be better than the minimum standard.
I'm questioning the apparent attitude of some that won't accept the minimum standard.
-
clarification:
No one should make the mistake of assuming I'm critical of people wanting to be better than the minimum standard.
I'm questioning the apparent attitude of some that won't accept the minimum standard.
Bob, dont takenthis too personally, but get a life.
I respect Doc Bruce and i like his avatar. It is inspiring.
-
By definition a "minimum standard" should be an acceptable level of performance.
For example, the Private Pilot ACS requires +/- 100 ft altitude maintained during steep turns (and other stuff). That is the minimum standard. Someone can wildly vary 99 ft up and 99 ft down, but if they don't break 100 either way then they have passed the standard. You might make a claim that someone whose altitude varies by 198 ft while doing a steep turn doesn't meet the intent of the standard and you might be right, but you cannot say they were worse than the standard. 99 ft in each direction is defined by the FAA as acceptable performance.
But if I know, I probably won't fly with them until they get better than that.
-
Bob, dont takenthis too personally, but get a life.
I respect Doc Bruce and i like his avatar. It is inspiring.
Gee, why would I take that personally? ::)
I also respect Doc Bruce, dispite his apparently fragile ego.
-
Gee, why would I take that personally? ::)
I also respect Doc Bruce, dispite his apparently fragile ego.
Bob, I'm sorry. I respect you too. I just don't understand your problem with "(don't) accept minimum standards".
It is like "don't accept mediocrity". It means to strive for better. How can you possibly disagree with that?
Yeah, Doc Bruce probably has a fragile ego. But that comes from putting up with too much stupidity for too long. Eventually, it becomes hard to take.
-
I remember a line from the TV series "Friday Night Lights." Coach Taylor is counseling a star football player who is frustrated about the coach's high standards.
Coach's words: "I didn't say you had to be better than everyone else. I said you had to try. It's in the trying."
-
Unfortunately a large part of general aviation pilots refuse to even accept the minimum standards given. The aviation boards have pilots continually bitching and moaning about the regulations and how they should be done away with.
And unfortunately the accident rate of general aviation reflects this attitude.
The accident rate of GA declined for many decades and has pretty much reached an equilibrium. It doesn't appear to be trending worse - or better. A few graphs from around the net:
(https://res.cloudinary.com/the-news-hub/image/upload/q_60,f_auto/v1427301889/rskogaqnbbjxa6m7oc8q.jpg)
Not sure what to make of the decline before WWII followed by an uptick - maybe data is suspect?
(https://www.aopa.org/images/asf/spin_4.gif)
Interesting trend on accidents caused by spins.
(http://www.langleyflyingschool.com/Images/Flight%20Operations/Accident%20Rates,%20Langley%20Flying%20School.gif)
Ran across the one above after I wrote the paragraph below about my own suspicion. They seem to attribute the decline to technical advances.
(http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/us_carrier_accident_rates.png)
The above is an interesting graph - important to note that the vertical axis is logarithmic, so the GA accident rate isn't that close to air carriers! (Article it was part of is here: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/03/09/early-aviation-safety-space-tourism/ (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/03/09/early-aviation-safety-space-tourism/))
I suspect the gradual reduction in the accident rate is mostly due to improved aircraft design - particularly in handling since there are not a lot of obvious improvements in training that occurred. In fact the most peculiar aspect of the accident rate is that its decline was relatively steady.
...
As to "not accepting minimum standards" the first thing that comes to my mind is "what standards are you talking about and what motivates the concern?" Otherwise it seems to boil down to an attempt at a witty variant of "always strive for the best." Nice and vague and useless.
-
One reason for the declining accident rate of GA directly correlates to the declining activity of GA.
There are still those in GA that cry and moan at every regulation as "unnecessary". There are those that currently bitch about the new third class requirements that are coming out soon as too intrusive. Fact of the matter is many GA pilots, once they get a private pilot certificate are never required to demonstrate proficiency again. Now you can counter that with the "annual flight review" but face it, most of the time that's a buddy deal on a Saturday afternoon joy ride.
Then you have those with an instrument rating that barely got through the check ride, given by an "easy DPE" and they don't bother with proficiency checks or even keeping current on instruments. Then you have the multi engine guys that never practice engine out once they have the rating.
The reality in GA is it's easy to stay under the radar and below minimum standards for years, if not a life time. Part 91 GA for the most part is on an honor system and their are a bunch of folks that aren't honorable.
-
One reason for the declining accident rate of GA directly correlates to the declining activity of GA.
That might be a reason for a declining accident total (if in fact it declined), but not for a declining accident rate.
-
That might be a reason for a declining accident total (if in fact it declined), but not for a declining accident rate.
l
Agreed. When I got my ticket in 1994, the emphasis was on stall/spin avoidance, and I think that has helped in overall accident stats. Also weather was taught in depth. I think these two areas have helped a lot, but that is just speculation on my part, but if you look at one of the graphs above, the stall/spin declined significantly.