Most of you on this forum will lose a friend/acquaintance/co-worker during your career. I count nine. Nine of the above. Its a sad fact that charter flying is the worst worker-killer of any of the professions, including firemen, logging truck drivers, fallers and scuba divers. The response to all this is not to see who's got the fastest PC-post on the site, or who's got the most-PC-post here either. Some will say that we have a close-knit community and we should reflect this in our platitudes - wrong. In fact this profession has got to be the least sympathetic bunch of competitive yahoos you are ever likely to meet. We eat our young. We discourage, denigrate and put down every member of this group at any opportunity for any reason. The worst hypocrisy I have seen is one PC-poster putting down another because he has written something perceived to be insensitive. Get over it! We are surrounded by accidental death, we will confront it throughout our careers and we will lose people we love. But don't go putting up road-side memorials to those who didn't make it, and don't make the mistake of thinking your platitudes will make a particle of difference to those who have lost their loved ones.
If you are truly concerned with this mayhem, don't write a sympathy note here, go and study the rules - take a look at your own operation and see if you are breaking any of them; watch the weather and learn more about it - most pilots don't really know weather - look at the results of the met sections on the exams you write. Think of your own knowledge - do you really know the limitations section in that manual? Do you understand airframe icing? Have you ever read the entire AIP, or is it something that just annoys you when you have to download it? Do you ever fly hung-over? Is there something in your medical you haven't told the Doc about? Are you fighting with your wife or teenage kids? Is your diet good or are you eating too much KD? How is your instrument scan? Did you pump your floats? Drain your fuel? Check the Notams? Defer a snag?
I don't know how to stop the deaths, to break the cycle. Just remember that the price of ignorance or a cavalier attitude is death. You all know the feeling - you just aren't comfortable. Something is wrong and you just don't feel happy to do the trip. Identify the problem and deal with it - either fix it or if you have no control over it, don't go. Weather, a funny sound in the engine, the passenger is late and you only have 20 minutes 'til dark, you're not sure about the fuel, the weight of the freight, how bad your cold is, how strong the wind is, you all know what I mean.
All of you have had incidents where you narrowly avoided getting killed. Have you learned anything from that? Is there a pattern? I don't mean that engine-failure, but did you deal with it properly? Were you pleased with the way you handled it? Or did you put in the wrong rudder trim first? Ask the hard questions and answer them truthfully. You don't need a degree to be a pilot, but you sure have to be educated.
Do your very best and think of the guy who didn't make it. Don't assume he made a mistake, but try and find out why he didn't come home. Add his accident to the store you keep of all the others and don't do anything like what they did. Death is death whether you were flying or skiing or sitting on the couch surrounded by family - nobody gets out alive, but its your job to stick around as long as you can and to use every bit of skill and knowledge you've gained from those who didn't make it so you don't go too soon.
More Pilot Deaths
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
More Pilot Deaths
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
-
Pilot_adam
- Rank 5
- Posts: 393
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 3:28 pm
- Location: CYHM
-
Jimmy Mack
- Rank 2
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:49 pm
-
Jimmy Mack
- Rank 2
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:49 pm
Hedley, would you care to let me know how many friends someone needs to lose in this industry to justify having ones "knickers in a twist". Apparently more than 9 according to you but is it less than 67?Hedley wrote:You've got your knickers in a twist about 9? Try airshow pilot. The guy that signs off my card has lost 67 pilots he knows so far in his career.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
With proper training, proper maintenance and the ability to assess each situation and decide that what you are about to do can be done safely without any self doubt, then flying should be one of the safest jobs one can have.
There is no need to die for something you love, especially something that should be safe.
Dieing for something you love would be contracting AIDS in a moment of poor decision making.
There is no need to die for something you love, especially something that should be safe.
Dieing for something you love would be contracting AIDS in a moment of poor decision making.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
For Arnie Feast - the pilot I didn't know, and all the pilots averyon here did know.
On the wings of an eagle, These poor bones will fly
Like the wind on the mountain, Like the stars in the sky
For the night's just a passing, From evening to morn
In the midnight of sorrow, Tomorrow is born.
Take a lifetime of sadness, Take a lifetime of years
Throw your cares to the morning, Let the sun dry your tears
For we come without number, And we go without end
On the wings of an eagle, We shall never descend.
Pilot Arnie Feast, a new employee on February 28, 2005, had little knowledge of the company he was working for and it's attitudes toward safety management. He trusted that the Approved Maintenance Organization was caring for the aircraft, and would have grounded it had there been cause for concern. He may have had faith in Transport Canada's oversight of the company and it's AMO. He certainly took his passengers up, trusting that his dispatcher would act appropriately in the event that they should be deemed missing. But Arnie and his passengers never came home.
About five minutes after take-off the aircraft crash-landed in an area of constanct marine traffic. We know the others all got out despite the damage to the plane. This indicates to us that pilot must have done a great job of the emergency landing under conditions which included glassy water, fog, smoke, and oil on the windshield. The fact that they didn't take any life jackets and the containment of the debris field 830 feet down, tell us that the plane sank fast.
So they knew they were going down, they prepared, they survived, they got out. But no one came to get them. Why not?
It would have helped if they had been able to make a mayday call. The FSS was out of range due to line of sight problems. The dispatch office did not have a radio, so a mayday was out. What was left? Telephones? As with many other locations on the west coast of Canada, satellite and cellular service were patchy at best in the area - assuming they even had time to make a phone call.
The ELT did not go off. Big surprise there.
There were several people who heard the plane’s engine cutting in and out and/or heard the plane hit the water that morning. I guess they were busy to call anyone right away.
At their destination, their absence was noticed, and they called looking for the passengers. Within an hour of takeoff, the dispatcher new the aircraft and its occupants were missing, yet did not call SAR for an additional three hours.
During this time one passenger was slowly drowning in his floater coat. Arnie and the other three passengers have never been found. The TSB have this in the system as a class 5 investigation. No official reports of any kind have ever been issued.
Did you know the Worker's Compensation Act provides that any employer in British Columbia cannot be held responsible in a civil suit for the deaths of anyone deemed working, even if blatant negligence is found to be a contributing cause of death? In a world where the quest for the almighty dollar is paramount, this provides for an environment where an employer can neglect basic safety strategies to save dollars without fear of repercussions. WCB accident investigations are at least very thorough, and they generally issue fines and public notices, and make other recommendations when an employer is found to be at least in part responsible.
However WorkersafeBC is not authorized to investigate accidents regulated by the Ministry of Transportation (or any other federally regulated industry such as those governed by Energy, Mines and Resources). Since TSB has some 220 odd investigators across Canada, for all accidents that fall under Transport Canada‘s auspices, including air, rail, marine and pipeline, the TSB must pick and chose which accidents to fully investigate. We believe this discrepancy in accident investigation policy has resulted in an increased requirement for regulation and oversight in many industries. Fear, ineptitude and plain inertia seem to have resulted in Canada falling far behind current knowledge and technology in many areas of the aviation industry. This has lead, at least in part, to the unnecessary injuries and deaths of men, women and children, most especially here on the west coast where the air taxi industry is an integral part of so many lives.
Last year there were reports that “Tranpsort Canada (TC) will conduct a “full review” of B.C.’s air-taxi industry in the wake of the deaths of 14 people in six accidents over the past 13 months. ” (Source: Vancouver Sun March 18th, 2006)
What happened to that review?
Unfortunately, Arnie had no dependants. No children, no spouse, even his parents had passed away. But he had a sister. One sister. And she had a brother. The passengers all had dependants, so even though they cannot sue either the airline or the AMO because they are protected by the Worker's Compensation Act, they can sue - or attempt to sue - the various various other parties, including Transport Canada. But Arnie Feast's sister cannot sue anyone. She and her brother were both adopted, and with their parents gone, they were all each other had. Yet the Family Compensation Act allows only a child, spouse or parent who was financially dependant on (or had an expectation of receiving financial support from) the deceased to bring a claim for damages arising from death. What about her unnecessary emotional heartache? If this crash had happened in the United States, not only would Arnie's sister have had the same recourse as the passengers' dependants, but the families of all five men on board would have had recourse against the airline and the AMO.
Please make this information known to as many people as you can. If we are going to affect change, we need people to be aware of the problems intrinsic to the system. And if you don't have dependants, you better get busy - just in case tomorrow is the day.
On the wings of an eagle, These poor bones will fly
Like the wind on the mountain, Like the stars in the sky
For the night's just a passing, From evening to morn
In the midnight of sorrow, Tomorrow is born.
Take a lifetime of sadness, Take a lifetime of years
Throw your cares to the morning, Let the sun dry your tears
For we come without number, And we go without end
On the wings of an eagle, We shall never descend.
Pilot Arnie Feast, a new employee on February 28, 2005, had little knowledge of the company he was working for and it's attitudes toward safety management. He trusted that the Approved Maintenance Organization was caring for the aircraft, and would have grounded it had there been cause for concern. He may have had faith in Transport Canada's oversight of the company and it's AMO. He certainly took his passengers up, trusting that his dispatcher would act appropriately in the event that they should be deemed missing. But Arnie and his passengers never came home.
About five minutes after take-off the aircraft crash-landed in an area of constanct marine traffic. We know the others all got out despite the damage to the plane. This indicates to us that pilot must have done a great job of the emergency landing under conditions which included glassy water, fog, smoke, and oil on the windshield. The fact that they didn't take any life jackets and the containment of the debris field 830 feet down, tell us that the plane sank fast.
So they knew they were going down, they prepared, they survived, they got out. But no one came to get them. Why not?
It would have helped if they had been able to make a mayday call. The FSS was out of range due to line of sight problems. The dispatch office did not have a radio, so a mayday was out. What was left? Telephones? As with many other locations on the west coast of Canada, satellite and cellular service were patchy at best in the area - assuming they even had time to make a phone call.
The ELT did not go off. Big surprise there.
There were several people who heard the plane’s engine cutting in and out and/or heard the plane hit the water that morning. I guess they were busy to call anyone right away.
At their destination, their absence was noticed, and they called looking for the passengers. Within an hour of takeoff, the dispatcher new the aircraft and its occupants were missing, yet did not call SAR for an additional three hours.
During this time one passenger was slowly drowning in his floater coat. Arnie and the other three passengers have never been found. The TSB have this in the system as a class 5 investigation. No official reports of any kind have ever been issued.
Did you know the Worker's Compensation Act provides that any employer in British Columbia cannot be held responsible in a civil suit for the deaths of anyone deemed working, even if blatant negligence is found to be a contributing cause of death? In a world where the quest for the almighty dollar is paramount, this provides for an environment where an employer can neglect basic safety strategies to save dollars without fear of repercussions. WCB accident investigations are at least very thorough, and they generally issue fines and public notices, and make other recommendations when an employer is found to be at least in part responsible.
However WorkersafeBC is not authorized to investigate accidents regulated by the Ministry of Transportation (or any other federally regulated industry such as those governed by Energy, Mines and Resources). Since TSB has some 220 odd investigators across Canada, for all accidents that fall under Transport Canada‘s auspices, including air, rail, marine and pipeline, the TSB must pick and chose which accidents to fully investigate. We believe this discrepancy in accident investigation policy has resulted in an increased requirement for regulation and oversight in many industries. Fear, ineptitude and plain inertia seem to have resulted in Canada falling far behind current knowledge and technology in many areas of the aviation industry. This has lead, at least in part, to the unnecessary injuries and deaths of men, women and children, most especially here on the west coast where the air taxi industry is an integral part of so many lives.
Last year there were reports that “Tranpsort Canada (TC) will conduct a “full review” of B.C.’s air-taxi industry in the wake of the deaths of 14 people in six accidents over the past 13 months. ” (Source: Vancouver Sun March 18th, 2006)
What happened to that review?
Unfortunately, Arnie had no dependants. No children, no spouse, even his parents had passed away. But he had a sister. One sister. And she had a brother. The passengers all had dependants, so even though they cannot sue either the airline or the AMO because they are protected by the Worker's Compensation Act, they can sue - or attempt to sue - the various various other parties, including Transport Canada. But Arnie Feast's sister cannot sue anyone. She and her brother were both adopted, and with their parents gone, they were all each other had. Yet the Family Compensation Act allows only a child, spouse or parent who was financially dependant on (or had an expectation of receiving financial support from) the deceased to bring a claim for damages arising from death. What about her unnecessary emotional heartache? If this crash had happened in the United States, not only would Arnie's sister have had the same recourse as the passengers' dependants, but the families of all five men on board would have had recourse against the airline and the AMO.
Please make this information known to as many people as you can. If we are going to affect change, we need people to be aware of the problems intrinsic to the system. And if you don't have dependants, you better get busy - just in case tomorrow is the day.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Well Said xsbank,
Those statements are the pillars of my flying. I not only wholeheartdly agree with you but I follow them e v e r y d a y. We have all lost ones close to us, some many, some few but the impact is the same. I've lost a few close friends in the relatively short career I've had of 5 years. Flying is risky and it demands our respect. The amount of descisions a pilot has to make on a good day is quite intimidating but we all make them as naturally as breathing. Everyday learn something, take the time to enrichen yourself because one day it WILL make the difference if you live or die. We are not professionals that have the luxury of time to reference materials such as architects or engineers. Our entire performance is based on skill but mainly KNOWLEDGE. Rules are supposed to confine the idiots to safety, a good pilots sees the rules and beyond. I have seen too many pilots treat flying like a part time paper delivery job. Raise the standard and be careful. It is only a job and nothing is worth even risking 1 % of your life.
A little dramatic but I still love it. Flying is the best JOB out there. But... I do enjoy coming home.
Those statements are the pillars of my flying. I not only wholeheartdly agree with you but I follow them e v e r y d a y. We have all lost ones close to us, some many, some few but the impact is the same. I've lost a few close friends in the relatively short career I've had of 5 years. Flying is risky and it demands our respect. The amount of descisions a pilot has to make on a good day is quite intimidating but we all make them as naturally as breathing. Everyday learn something, take the time to enrichen yourself because one day it WILL make the difference if you live or die. We are not professionals that have the luxury of time to reference materials such as architects or engineers. Our entire performance is based on skill but mainly KNOWLEDGE. Rules are supposed to confine the idiots to safety, a good pilots sees the rules and beyond. I have seen too many pilots treat flying like a part time paper delivery job. Raise the standard and be careful. It is only a job and nothing is worth even risking 1 % of your life.
A little dramatic but I still love it. Flying is the best JOB out there. But... I do enjoy coming home.
-
cumufsumyunguy
- Rank 1
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:24 am
Yes, I see it now...I didn't for a bit...but now it's all clear, sue the whole world. Sue Marconi's estate for the limitations of his radio, maybe even the entire scientific community for not inventing better technology, sue Transport Canada because...well, like you said...because they won't let you sue anyone else, makes sense. Sarcasm aside, who do you think will pay for that, all this suing...it hasn't occured to you that these organizations will pass this cost down to the operator, who will then have that much less money to spend on maintenance thus restarting the cycle. Why do you think a 42 cent bolt costs 25 dollars....because when the bolt breaks, somebody gets to sue for a million..guess what...bolts break! It's in the nature of the bolt, and everything else for that matter. You'd like to affect this change because the Americans can do this, because you'd like to live in a society where a burglar can sue a home owner because of his slippery steps.... and win! In a lot of cases an operator can only be negligent if a pilot overlooks that negligence. You'd have a hard time convincing me that a pilot who took any interest in his job didn't know that his company was cutting corners. Therein lies the responsibility of the pilot, and yeah, I've been there. If that's not the case, then it's called an accident...they happen as unfair and unfortunate as that may seem...why does the whole world have to pay for everyone's hindsight? I would agree that certain changes can/need to be made, but the ability to sue everyone at will probably isn't what this industry is lacking. I'm not insenstive to yours or anyone else's loss, I'm being realistic...who will draw the lines between accident and negligence once the precedence has been set? Who will pay for these costs? Are you aware of the astronomical cost of insurance now, especially to the kind of essential air taxi operators that you're talking about?
Boy have you got me wrong. This is so not about money. Did you even read my post about the Workers Comensation Act and how it's faults provides for an environment where an employer can neglect basic safety strategies to save dollars without fear of repercussions? How many times have you seen a company charged with criminal negligence? As far as the cops are concerned, Bill C45 is practically worthless (http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/c45/).cumufsumyunguy wrote:Yes, I see it now...I didn't for a bit...but now it's all clear, sue the whole world.
So your boss decides not to get something fixed because he can't afford it. He knows it's important, so he doesn't tell you. He's buddies with the AMO, or maybe he slips the guy a few bucks, so they let it slide. It gets you killed. No one goes to jail, the coroner sees no reason to do an inquest, TSB decides you aren't important enough to do an investigation for cause, and TC is burying their head in the sand hoping no one will notice them. Nobody official does anything and your family is left wondering what the hell happened. They get a pension, but it doesn't replace you. It doesn't stop the kids having problems adjusting, let alone stop your widow from crying herself to sleep every night holding the t-shirt she's never washed. Or, if you were lucky enough to be footloose and fancy-free, well heck, then you aren't worth one red penny.
And that's OK? If you were killed this way tomorrow, would your wife, son, brother, father, best friend, just let it go?
You need to check out http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... highlight= to get a better idea of what happened in our case. There was a most "unfortunate" chain of events (all negligent IMHO) for which every single link, if done with safety in mind, would have changed the outcome of this event.
My husband wasn't a pilot, though he always talked of getting his license and running clients in and out of his dream fishing lodge in the Charlottes. He flew often - as quality control for Interfor he was in and out of camps daily. Every time a plane went down in the ten years we were together he would turn to me and say "I worked with Bob" or "Frank used to fly me in and out of Knight's back in '88". That day was supposed to be an office day, but on the way out the door he got the call. I gave him a kiss, asked if he had his floater coat, told him to stay safe. That floater coat is the only reason we ever found the plane, the only reason we found out he hadn't jumped, but all five guys had gotten out. I bought him that floater coat. I bought it for a reason. I cannot get my husband back. Our three children, who were aged 11, 4 and 2 months will grow up without their father no matter what I do. But I can try to affect change and stop such unnecessary deaths from happening again. I'm doing this for YOU.
Since the coroner has an open file, but does not plan a public inquest, TSB is hardly likely to decry Transport Canada in any official report they eventually come up with to satisfy us, and the RCMP are want absolute definitive proof before going to the crown. The industry isn't willing to talk, because, well heck, they could lose their jobs. How else am I going to get the publics attention, the governments attention, YOUR ATTENTION?
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
I see your point, Widow, but do not necessarily agree with it. The fact that professions are under more and more public scrutiny, and more and more liable to litigation will not make it safer. I think that it eventually creates a false sense of security, and people start acting carelessly, as a result.
I now work in a neck of a wood, where all these security measures are nonexistant, and somehow I see less stupid accidents like we see in North America. A lot of our laws that we think will protect us are just a*s covering.
A couple years ago, I read that 60 people in the US had died as a result of tire punctures in Ford Explorers. I could not believe it was that bad. As more road security measures are adopted, people compensate by acting stupidly, or irresponsively. That seems to follows Darwin's principle.
Fast food outlets have stopped using tooth picks to hold food together, because customers were stupid enough to choke and die, while attemting to eat them.
And so on...
I now work in a neck of a wood, where all these security measures are nonexistant, and somehow I see less stupid accidents like we see in North America. A lot of our laws that we think will protect us are just a*s covering.
A couple years ago, I read that 60 people in the US had died as a result of tire punctures in Ford Explorers. I could not believe it was that bad. As more road security measures are adopted, people compensate by acting stupidly, or irresponsively. That seems to follows Darwin's principle.
Fast food outlets have stopped using tooth picks to hold food together, because customers were stupid enough to choke and die, while attemting to eat them.
And so on...
Success in life is when the cognac that you drink is older than the women you drink it with.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I believe what widow is trying to determine is why there is a lack of " fair " and unbiased oversight by Transport Canada and why there are rogue operators cutting corners and not abiding by the regulations.
You are doing just fine widow, I admire your dedication and your determination to find the truth.
When you have uneven application of regulations one must determine who is getting paid off, either in a material payoff such as money or in some other favour or just plain missuse of power.
Knowing some of the people in upper management in TCCA in this region it is my opinion that you are on to something here widow, eat well, sleep well , we need you strong and alert.
Cat
You are doing just fine widow, I admire your dedication and your determination to find the truth.
When you have uneven application of regulations one must determine who is getting paid off, either in a material payoff such as money or in some other favour or just plain missuse of power.
Knowing some of the people in upper management in TCCA in this region it is my opinion that you are on to something here widow, eat well, sleep well , we need you strong and alert.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Here is something I got from my boating site which is very appropriate here...
"I would not classify coastal cruising in a trawler a dangerous avocation or extreme sport, but it does have its risks. When you think about the fuel on board (diesel, OB motor gas, propane, chemicals), the large amount of power (GB is building 50' boats with 1,000 HP now), weather related incidents and the risk of injury, drowning and asphyxiation then maybe it is more extreme than we care to admit.
I was tied at Charleston’s City Marina for the night. For those who have not been there, the marina is on the Ashley River and strong tidal currents run parallel to the 1,600 foot face dock called the Mega-Dock. Boats docked on the inside of the dock share a very narrow channel – so narrow a 50’ boat can barely do a U-turn to exit and might have to back down its length with million dollar yachts on both sides which is especially challenging in the current.
My first mistake was believing the dock attendant when he said slack tide would be at 7:00 a.m. the next morning. I had electronic navigation that provided exact tide and current information. My second mistake was not testing for the current, but rather assuming it was slack tide. My third and worst mistake was being totally unprepared when I attempted to pull away from the dock and execute a U-turn only to find a strong flood-tide current running against the boat.
We were immediately swept sideways toward the closed end of the inside channel with our bow and stern only a few feet from the boats docked along each side of the channel. I was so shocked by the unexpected current I simply lost control of the situation causing significant damage to another boat and some to ours. It was a painful experience I will never forget, but a lesson learned as well. I have been in and out of Charleston’s City Marina numerous times and had come from Beaufort the day before which can be just as dangerous where we made a flawless exit under similar conditions. I have been operating boats in tight quarters for 50 years. I failed to properly execute the maneuver because I was unprepared. In fact, my success at Beaufort may have lead to my arrogance the day following. Louis Pasteur once wrote, “Luck tends to follow those who plan ahead”.
Laurence Gonzales explains “panic” in his book Deep Survival as the emotion of fear taking over logic. It can cause even the best pilots in the world to crash-land on a Navy carrier deck despite years of training and experience. It causes SCUBA divers to remove the regulator from their mouth when they are 200 feet underwater because the need to gulp air overtakes reason. Climbers have been known to walk right off the side of a mountain. In fact even training can be detrimental as it was when NY fire fighters told people in the World Trade Center to remain in their office and wait for rescue. Some 200 workers who had a choice to go up or down the stairs ran up to get away from the smoke (and died). Sometimes what we have been taught is wrong. Sometimes what has worked before doesn’t work the next time.
The fact is that most of us are amateur boat operators, not trained full time professional captains (who also make serious mistakes). Many of us are past our “prime” of nanosecond reaction time and loss of total concentration at the helm is a common occurrence. Situational awareness can fly out the window because we choose to ignore the subtle signs of danger as NASA has done on more than one occasion with far more resources than we have. Constantly playing “what if?” as a defense gets in the way of the pleasure of cruising.
Boating accidents and for that matter almost all accidents are often a result of a “chain of events” leading to catastrophic failure (Titanic and Andrea Doria to name a few). If we can break the chain we may be able to prevent or mitigate the catastrophe.
Gonzales states that frequently the problem is what pilots call “destination fixation”, an expected outcome based upon what the pilot wants or expects to happen despite circumstances (time, weather, fatigue, malfunctioning instruments, etc.) to the contrary. As a woodworker I know the basic rule of “measure twice and cut once”. In fact, I have been known to measure four times and still cut it wrong because I was so focused on the measurement I wanted I ignored the measurement I was getting. The head of the underwriting department for a major insurance carrier once told me they would insure a professional pilot at standard rates who flew private business aircraft, but not executives who were also licensed pilots even if they had the same flight hours. “Why”, I asked? He answered, “Professional pilots focus on flying, but the executive focuses on the meeting he is flying to”. Are we any different?
While virtually all accidents are preventable in theory, they still happen and often the victims are not part of the equation. Most “incidents” are small and of little consequence, but every so often they are catastrophic. For boat owners they generally fall into four categories; collision, weather (including sea conditions), injury (including drowning) and fire. Often they occur in combination (chain of events). Unfortunately time at the helm is not in our favor. In fact, a new boat owner may be at less risk because his sensory perception is at a high level (situational awareness) and he knows his experience in minimal. As we gain more experience we can become obsessed with the outcome we expect and block out the circumstances surrounding us which might be telling us to watch out. When ships began to use Radar, collisions actually increased. Did Titanic’s captain think higher speed was acceptable because the ship was unsinkable?
One of the greatest dangers is trying to meet a schedule which we allow to take priority over our situational awareness. A good rule taught by survival training experts uses the acronym STOP which stands for Slowdown, Think, Observe and Plan. These same experts tell us the “Rambo’s” are the most dangerous because of their overconfidence and tunnel vision. If every time we step behind the helm a few butterflies start to flutter inside us we should be thankful - if they don’t, perhaps we should take warning. As Pogo once said, "I have met the enemy and it is us"."
Many thanks to Mike Negley
"I would not classify coastal cruising in a trawler a dangerous avocation or extreme sport, but it does have its risks. When you think about the fuel on board (diesel, OB motor gas, propane, chemicals), the large amount of power (GB is building 50' boats with 1,000 HP now), weather related incidents and the risk of injury, drowning and asphyxiation then maybe it is more extreme than we care to admit.
I was tied at Charleston’s City Marina for the night. For those who have not been there, the marina is on the Ashley River and strong tidal currents run parallel to the 1,600 foot face dock called the Mega-Dock. Boats docked on the inside of the dock share a very narrow channel – so narrow a 50’ boat can barely do a U-turn to exit and might have to back down its length with million dollar yachts on both sides which is especially challenging in the current.
My first mistake was believing the dock attendant when he said slack tide would be at 7:00 a.m. the next morning. I had electronic navigation that provided exact tide and current information. My second mistake was not testing for the current, but rather assuming it was slack tide. My third and worst mistake was being totally unprepared when I attempted to pull away from the dock and execute a U-turn only to find a strong flood-tide current running against the boat.
We were immediately swept sideways toward the closed end of the inside channel with our bow and stern only a few feet from the boats docked along each side of the channel. I was so shocked by the unexpected current I simply lost control of the situation causing significant damage to another boat and some to ours. It was a painful experience I will never forget, but a lesson learned as well. I have been in and out of Charleston’s City Marina numerous times and had come from Beaufort the day before which can be just as dangerous where we made a flawless exit under similar conditions. I have been operating boats in tight quarters for 50 years. I failed to properly execute the maneuver because I was unprepared. In fact, my success at Beaufort may have lead to my arrogance the day following. Louis Pasteur once wrote, “Luck tends to follow those who plan ahead”.
Laurence Gonzales explains “panic” in his book Deep Survival as the emotion of fear taking over logic. It can cause even the best pilots in the world to crash-land on a Navy carrier deck despite years of training and experience. It causes SCUBA divers to remove the regulator from their mouth when they are 200 feet underwater because the need to gulp air overtakes reason. Climbers have been known to walk right off the side of a mountain. In fact even training can be detrimental as it was when NY fire fighters told people in the World Trade Center to remain in their office and wait for rescue. Some 200 workers who had a choice to go up or down the stairs ran up to get away from the smoke (and died). Sometimes what we have been taught is wrong. Sometimes what has worked before doesn’t work the next time.
The fact is that most of us are amateur boat operators, not trained full time professional captains (who also make serious mistakes). Many of us are past our “prime” of nanosecond reaction time and loss of total concentration at the helm is a common occurrence. Situational awareness can fly out the window because we choose to ignore the subtle signs of danger as NASA has done on more than one occasion with far more resources than we have. Constantly playing “what if?” as a defense gets in the way of the pleasure of cruising.
Boating accidents and for that matter almost all accidents are often a result of a “chain of events” leading to catastrophic failure (Titanic and Andrea Doria to name a few). If we can break the chain we may be able to prevent or mitigate the catastrophe.
Gonzales states that frequently the problem is what pilots call “destination fixation”, an expected outcome based upon what the pilot wants or expects to happen despite circumstances (time, weather, fatigue, malfunctioning instruments, etc.) to the contrary. As a woodworker I know the basic rule of “measure twice and cut once”. In fact, I have been known to measure four times and still cut it wrong because I was so focused on the measurement I wanted I ignored the measurement I was getting. The head of the underwriting department for a major insurance carrier once told me they would insure a professional pilot at standard rates who flew private business aircraft, but not executives who were also licensed pilots even if they had the same flight hours. “Why”, I asked? He answered, “Professional pilots focus on flying, but the executive focuses on the meeting he is flying to”. Are we any different?
While virtually all accidents are preventable in theory, they still happen and often the victims are not part of the equation. Most “incidents” are small and of little consequence, but every so often they are catastrophic. For boat owners they generally fall into four categories; collision, weather (including sea conditions), injury (including drowning) and fire. Often they occur in combination (chain of events). Unfortunately time at the helm is not in our favor. In fact, a new boat owner may be at less risk because his sensory perception is at a high level (situational awareness) and he knows his experience in minimal. As we gain more experience we can become obsessed with the outcome we expect and block out the circumstances surrounding us which might be telling us to watch out. When ships began to use Radar, collisions actually increased. Did Titanic’s captain think higher speed was acceptable because the ship was unsinkable?
One of the greatest dangers is trying to meet a schedule which we allow to take priority over our situational awareness. A good rule taught by survival training experts uses the acronym STOP which stands for Slowdown, Think, Observe and Plan. These same experts tell us the “Rambo’s” are the most dangerous because of their overconfidence and tunnel vision. If every time we step behind the helm a few butterflies start to flutter inside us we should be thankful - if they don’t, perhaps we should take warning. As Pogo once said, "I have met the enemy and it is us"."
Many thanks to Mike Negley
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Free advice for all you people complaining about your high risk line of work:
1) if you think a flight is dangerous, walk away from it
2) if you think a company is dangerous, walk away from your job
3) if you think your occupation is dangerous, walk away from it and get a new one.
Who is holding a gun to your head? It's all about free will, baby. I guess you'd all prefer there wasn't any.
FWIW I'm an airshow pilot - I routinely fly surface-level aerobatics. In close formation. Inverted. I also ride 300 kph literbikes - on the street. I also race a 46 foot catamaran offshore boat. Any ONE of those three activities would, I am sure, blow your straight-and-level-with-nothing-around-for-thousands-of-feet mind.
I'm also a lot older than 99% of you (except .) so even though you think I'm probably a lot dumber than you, the convergence of the central limit theorem indicates otherwise.
Make your choices with your eyes wide open, and try accept the consequences gracefully. For my epitaph, I am wavering between, "No Regrets" or "I told you I was sick".
1) if you think a flight is dangerous, walk away from it
2) if you think a company is dangerous, walk away from your job
3) if you think your occupation is dangerous, walk away from it and get a new one.
Who is holding a gun to your head? It's all about free will, baby. I guess you'd all prefer there wasn't any.
FWIW I'm an airshow pilot - I routinely fly surface-level aerobatics. In close formation. Inverted. I also ride 300 kph literbikes - on the street. I also race a 46 foot catamaran offshore boat. Any ONE of those three activities would, I am sure, blow your straight-and-level-with-nothing-around-for-thousands-of-feet mind.
I'm also a lot older than 99% of you (except .) so even though you think I'm probably a lot dumber than you, the convergence of the central limit theorem indicates otherwise.
Make your choices with your eyes wide open, and try accept the consequences gracefully. For my epitaph, I am wavering between, "No Regrets" or "I told you I was sick".
Enough already. I also have lost many friends in this industry. But the abuse of our passenger's blind trust has to stop. I mean no disrespect, and I'm sure each pilot was a good man, or died doing what he loved, but this provides no solace to the friends and family of the deceased passengers. XSbank, Hedley, Cat Driver, and Doc all provided excellent posts on this site. What dosen't get done today will get done tomorrow or whenever the weather gets better. Again I do not mean to preach or exhibit disrespect, it's just not worth it.
Surely you don't disagree that an employer should not be immune from litigation just because he's an employer?Expat wrote:I see your point, Widow, but do not necessarily agree with it. The fact that professions are under more and more public scrutiny, and more and more liable to litigation will not make it safer. I think that it eventually creates a false sense of security, and people start acting carelessly, as a result.
If you, as an employee/employer fail to do something you are regulated to do, and someone dies as a result, you are gonna be in big shit unless the person(s) that die(s) happen to be working or on their way to work ... then it's a freebee guys. Seriously. Do you get this point? If you've got a regulator that will recommend criminal charges you may get busted but you can't get sued. If you've got a regulator that buries it's head it the sand, you get off scott free.
That needs to change.
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
-
Bookem Lou
- Rank 3
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:31 pm
