The media, print and televised are your biggest detractors, they thrive on negativity. Here in Australia we have just won the right to hunt in State Forests and National Parks. The green movement has been at University for years and are producing journalists that are hostile to what they perceive to be not in their interests. It is mostly a city phenomena because they are removed from the facts of the matter, hunting or flying in our case. We had two Olympians crucified by the media here because they posed with guns in a gun shop in LA, and put it on Facebook. Nothing illegal but because the conservationist minded journos wanted to attack the recently passed law re hunting they demonized the swimmers and the idea of even holding a weapon. I agree that the more positive and educated the general public are the better our chances of a balanced opinion and debate on any matter. There is a huge silent majority out there that are just like us, if balanced facts are available to them then the vocal minority may just have to pull their head in, because their negative rhetoric will not stand up to scrutiny. Inform and educate, find sympathetic media and use them to help the cause.

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:

qmdv wrote:No matter how you handle it, if you are upside down on a remote strip, fly a plane with a come along and rope holding your landing gear in place, or for that matter running out of gas and landing on I-80 , the Feds will find out and want to know the particulars. Keeping it off this forum will not change that and haveing it on this forum will not make it worse.

Good luck

Tim

Its really really a sad day for me to say this, but.........I have to agree with Tim.

It eventually had to happen

Tim

Stol wrote:

Bighorn wrote:

dirtstrip wrote:quote]


X's 10+ Exactly Right!

Walk away from the negative and promote yourself and the activity you believe in, lead by example and educate everyone

Keep it positive and don't cover up the obvious.. There are enough current and retired LEO's on here to ask, but the bigger problem is the coverup... The Husky that hit the trees was witnessed by dozens and photographed... The plane was clearly damaged and it was a reportable"incident".. but it didn't show up on the Feds files. The up side down cub at Lower loon caused damage and that one too was not reported to the feds.... You can bet that sooner or later the feds will find out and evading their process will cause more harm then good. I would bet about every one of us look at the log books of any plane we might buy... I can just see a Husky and a cub for sale in a few years with the term " No Damage History" used in the advertising line..

Rant off...

I sure would not ASSUME from that video that the Husky incident was necessarily "reportable"

Don't know about the one at Lower Loon, but I've seen cubs upside down that we're not "accidents" by definition.

I think looking at these things has a positive effect----as long as the discussion is kept professional. We should all strive to be more professional in our flying----and posting.

MTV

I believe that hiding "incidents" is wrong. Not only because it will mean that people like myself will get a rose-tinted view of flying, but also when dealing with "the public" at large. If everything not explicitly positive is swept, or attempted to be swept, under the rug, general aviation will be viewed with more mistrust when they catch on to this. It's like peeing in your pants in freezing temperatures: It might warm at first, but after a while it will do you more harm than good.

I think it's more important to educate the broader public, rather than attempt to fly under the radar of those already mistrusting of pilots/GA .

Oh, and attempt to clean out the ranks of the dangerous ones, and condemn - in public - what is condemnable behaviour. You know, taking a stand, so the public knows that act X is something that is frowned upon within the community as well.

Twoupfront wrote:Oh, and attempt to clean out the ranks of the dangerous ones, and condemn - in public - what is condemnable

I think you mean "commendable," right? You were saying we should (with some professionalism and courtesy) make sure that we publically "correct" people who do things that are against accepted practice, general wisdom, and collective ethics.

I agree with you. The only way we get to generally acceptaed practices, general wisdom, and collective ethics is by free, open discussion. We also have to admit there is always gray area - and be willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

I come here as a greenhorn - to make contacts and to learn. If I got the sense that things were being withheld from me - within reason - then the wind is out of my sails - and I'm back out hanging at the FBO trying to learn the ins and outs of this backcountry flying business. Maybe we don't want people like me coming in to this game - that's acceptable - but once again GA is shrinking all over - anything that attracts people and gives you the opportunity to educate them and evangelize the positive aspects to the rest of the world has got to be a good thing. And surely, you want people learning from those with the most relevant experience - and this forum seems to bring us together. I'm thankful for that.

Oh, a wee nip o' whiskey and a decent sense of humor doesn't hurt either...

'Greg

The reasoning evidenced by this thread makes me love this site.

Plain fact, general aviation in all forms is declining at an alarming rate.

Makes me feel good that there's still people out there willing to share reasonable and pragmatic advice to those of us that still consider ourselves students of this thing.

Thanks all!

To play Devil's Advocate for just a moment...

The balance to all of this theoretical and strategic discussion is that recently something happened that we all want to know about, and that most of us were concerned about. As a strange electronic brotherhood, or group of friends (or whatever the heck this BCP thing is to each of us), and where one of our own needed some assistance... I for one think we all now have at least some justification to know about what has happened. Or most of what happened.

I think it's safe to say that enough time has passed, and any minor scrapes that needed to be sterilized to prevent infection has already happened. Many people on this forum had been willing to go out of their way to offer some kind of assistance, and I assume several close by actually did. So like it or not, people are invested in this.

The whole Get Smart "cone of silence" thing is getting a little bit too ridiculous at this stage, is my point.

soyAnarchisto wrote:

Twoupfront wrote:Oh, and attempt to clean out the ranks of the dangerous ones, and condemn - in public - what is condemnable

I think you mean "commendable," right? You were saying we should (with some professionalism and courtesy) make sure that we publically "correct" people who do things that are against accepted practice, general wisdom, and collective ethics.

I meant "condemnable" as in "acts that should receive condemnation". Your explanation is exactly what I meant, so I take it you're pulling my leg in some way?

I agree with you. The only way we get to generally acceptaed practices, general wisdom, and collective ethics is by free, open discussion. We also have to admit there is always gray area - and be willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Yup, there will always be a grey area, but I don't think the grey area involves any and all incidents (i.e. such as doing dangerous "stunts" over or very near crowds, for instance). Not disagreeing, merely expanding. I think that some people have a tendency to want to keep quiet about everything and anything that isn't positive. That to me is not only a dangerous proposition as it halts progress and learning, but it also means that tpilots/GA will look bad whenever something surfaces in the media. The problems, dangers and "bad piloting" (for want of a better term) won't go away if we just ignore it enough.

I come here as a greenhorn - to make contacts and to learn. If I got the sense that things were being withheld from me - within reason - then the wind is out of my sails - and I'm back out hanging at the FBO trying to learn the ins and outs of this backcountry flying business. Maybe we don't want people like me coming in to this game - that's acceptable - but once again GA is shrinking all over - anything that attracts people and gives you the opportunity to educate them and evangelize the positive aspects to the rest of the world has got to be a good thing. And surely, you want people learning from those with the most relevant experience - and this forum seems to bring us together. I'm thankful for that.

Me too. I have only had my first couple of flying lessons, but I think that one of the best aspects of forums - no matter if it's canoeing, white-water kayaking, climbing, diving, or whatever, is best when people can discuss things freely and do not have to constantly battle the ones who cries for silence on every subject that might not reflect absolutely positively on a pilot or GA in general.

In this type of thing there are bad apples, and so is there in any other hobby/work/whatever. That doesn't mean all of them are bad. I mean, a few years ago, someone was out canoeing (in Canada, if I recall correctly), and he activated his PLB. It turns out that the weather was bad, that he had food and water for atleast ten days, that his tent worked, that his sleeping bag was dry, and that he had passed a village around 10 miles further upstream. Yet he felt it was prudent to activate his PLB.
Now, that episode was discussed at length on a few of the forums I frequent. Personally, I don't mind people activiting a PLB, but really, if a little bad weather got the best of him in this fashion, he should never had been out there in the first place.

Of course, that got me thinking about which scenarios I'd use one myself. It had to be something I couldn't get myself out. Yes, it did reflect badly on canoeing in the wilderness, but it also got discussions going as to whether a PLB is a failsafe, or if it's an idiot's "get-me-out-of-here-I-need-ice-in-my-drink".

Paradoxically, it got a few of my friends to invest in a plb, because it actually worked: He was "saved" within a couple of hours.

Pretty easy to call for transparency from the comfort of our armchairs, especially when it's not your private details and actions being shared with the public and scrutinized by monday morning quarterbacks who make little distinction between fact and speculation.

Sharing in the open resulted in a friend losing his certificate, an admittedly overly harsh response by the FAA who straight up told him they were making an example of him because his act of recklessness was made high profile by a popular Internet forum. Of course his Live to Tell tale was useful and entertaining for everyone, we all learned. He spent thousands getting his certificate back and endured a punishment beyond what was due for his actions.

Frankly, there can be no full disclosure for the purposes of learning while the FAA monitors communications, mining for pilots to violate. It's simply naive and ignorant to expect people to prematurely share and discuss the delicate details of these incidents or accidents prior to settling their matters privately with the authorities and their insurance companies. And even then it's their prerogative to remain discreet about it. Once the danger has passed, and our forum has been used to rescue or communicate for the purposes of saving our own, I will continue to protect members by sequestering private information and details until they give us the okay to release that. When your day comes, you will enjoy the same.

I've always been a proponent of open and honest discussion where knowledge flows freely between us, and learning and betterment of your judgement occur, but not at the cost of throwing our own under the bus. Those who would share, do so of your own free will and to the extent you see fit, and not to rebut rumor, gossip, and speculation. The image and reputation of aviation won't suffer.

Right on Z!

Very well said Z.

To some extent, I think it is either ingrained in us as pilots to know what happened (think about how much in aviation is based on accident analysis...recurrent training, company safety emails, and issues of AOPA Pilot all examine accidents or incidents. No doubt that they are helpful and can teach a lot!) or just morbid curiosity. Regardless of the reason behind the "want" to know, there is a time and a place and it is ultimately the choice of the individual on how much...or little, they want to share to the public. Each, though, should have the time to come to terms with this change in their life and to take care of the huge helping that just found its way to their plate.

Zane,
We haven't met, but if I ever need you to, thanks for getting my back.


For everyone, I've got just two words... NASA FORM No, it's not going to save your ass in the case of a flagrant violation, but it is another way to CYA and share your experience (knowledge which is gained from f'ing up) with others.

Zane wrote:Pretty easy to call for transparency from the comfort of our armchairs, especially when it's not your private details and actions being shared with the public and scrutinized by monday morning quarterbacks who make little distinction between fact and speculation.

I've always been a proponent of open and honest discussion where knowledge flows freely between us, and learning and betterment of your judgement occur, but not at the cost of throwing our own under the bus. Those who would share, do so of your own free will and to the extent you see fit, and not to rebut rumor, gossip, and speculation. The image and reputation of aviation won't suffer.

Thanks Zane!!
I am active in a bunch of pro-access groups from dirtbike to snowmobiles and kayaks. I have seen the results of these "open debates" in person. A picture of a snowmobiler violating a wilderness boundry showed up less than a week later at an open public forum discussing closure of a popular trail system. It was blown up to poster size and had the text from the website thread that was debating ingonoring boundrys in the backcountry. Not hard to figure out how it was perceived by the general public.
Contrary to popular belief, the FAA is not omni-potent. Many accidents go unreported and unnoticed by them. Lets say for the sake of open debate that you fly into a remote strip and manage to poke a branch though one or more of your control surfaces. Some 100mph duct-tape and you are back on your way. By definition you need to report it. Do you want the incident plastered all over a website? If you end up reporting it and feel it would make a good discussion here then it is your decision. No cone of silence or locked pay per view threads. We have no shortage of excellent threads here to inform and educate. We don't need to risk anyone's ticket or loss of access in the name of free speech.

Zane wrote:Pretty easy to call for transparency from the comfort of our armchairs, especially when it's not your private details and actions being shared with the public and scrutinized by monday morning quarterbacks who make little distinction between fact and speculation.

Sharing in the open resulted in a friend losing his certificate, an admittedly overly harsh response by the FAA who straight up told him they were making an example of him because his act of recklessness was made high profile by a popular Internet forum. Of course his Live to Tell tale was useful and entertaining for everyone, we all learned. He spent thousands getting his certificate back and endured a punishment beyond what was due for his actions.

Frankly, there can be no full disclosure for the purposes of learning while the FAA monitors communications, mining for pilots to violate. It's simply naive and ignorant to expect people to prematurely share and discuss the delicate details of these incidents or accidents prior to settling their matters privately with the authorities and their insurance companies. And even then it's their prerogative to remain discreet about it. Once the danger has passed, and our forum has been used to rescue or communicate for the purposes of saving our own, I will continue to protect members by sequestering private information and details until they give us the okay to release that. When your day comes, you will enjoy the same.

I've always been a proponent of open and honest discussion where knowledge flows freely between us, and learning and betterment of your judgement occur, but not at the cost of throwing our own under the bus. Those who would share, do so of your own free will and to the extent you see fit, and not to rebut rumor, gossip, and speculation. The image and reputation of aviation won't suffer.

So, in short, you're basically saying "shh, don't tell, don't ask, don't say a word. They might be listening".

I actually think that in the long run, that tendency to not share "incidents" will be the death of GA. Not the anecdotal stories of the horrors that happen if you share. The thing is, if people in general won't share any incidents, or at least only the big ones they can't swep under the carpet (i.e. SAR operations or doing something crappy in an airport), the safety and general awareness will not go up. It will go downhill until at some point it's simply unacceptable to the official bodies to be flying anything without a commercial plane & pilot.

We don't live in the 1950's. People have cell phones with video cameras in them nowadays, and they won't hesitate to post them to the net. When that happens (and it does happen. A lot), then if GA pilots try to sweep it under the rug, the more ammo for the naysayers and fearmongering, ignorant public. In fairness, most people doesn't have an opinion on flying, piloting or anything related. If pilots try to sweep things under the rug, those people are easilier swayed by the naysayers, since many pilots seem to think that ignoring things are the best way forward.

It is possible to share knowledge without sharing names. Most airlines have a program that allows/encourages crews to speak up and fess up to mistakes and incidents. These reports are reviewed and later published in a sanitized form. All references to names, places, dates etc. are removed. The information is passed on with the relevant parties remaining anonymous.

The result is that we learn from others without pointing fingers or passing judgement.

They ARE listening and watching. Plenty of evidence to prove it. Somehow I think the overall safety of aviation will improve just fine without full disclosure of every infraction. I have managed to extract plenty of valuable information from this site that had little or nothing to do with anyone getting thrown under the bus. Discression is not what most would call "sweeping under the rug." Do you report all your misdeads? Cheated on your taxes, bumped a car in a parking lot, ran a redlight, minor fender-bender that you settled without a report? The general public has no idea what should and should not be reported to the FAA. Heck, a lot of pilots don't. I doubt they will be too concerned about anything swept anywhere. They are more interested in a good you-tube crash video.

S-12Flyer wrote:They ARE listening and watching. Plenty of evidence to prove it. Somehow I think the overall safety of aviation will improve just fine without full disclosure of every infraction. I have managed to extract plenty of valuable information from this site that had little or nothing to do with anyone getting thrown under the bus. Discression is not what most would call "sweeping under the rug." Do you report all your misdeads? Cheated on your taxes, bumped a car in a parking lot, ran a redlight, minor fender-bender that you settled without a report? The general public has no idea what should and should not be reported to the FAA. Heck, a lot of pilots don't. I doubt they will be too concerned about anything swept anywhere. They are more interested in a good you-tube crash video.

There it is again - "full disclosure".

I haven't pushed for full disclosure at all. It's as if some of you guys think that it's all monochrome: Either ignore it/sweep it under the rug, or have full disclosure.

I'm not saying I want the tail number or real name of anyone. I really don't care. And I don't necessarily want the place either (although, in some instances it will be good - i.e. low hanging, unmarked wires, a fence across a strip, whatever).

What I really think is counter productive is the false dichotomy of "either it didn't happen - whistle -", and on the other hand "we need to know everything about the person".

That hasn't been my point (and I doubt anyone else's point). My point has been that trying to ignore things, thinking that that might help, while the people who dislike GA and the authorities overseeing GA gets all the say, informed only by the naysayers.

It really doesn't matter that XX has a "perfect record" if it only means he's better at hiding incidents from the public and authorities. If that's the bar to reach, and the general public begin to grasp that the only "good pilot" is one that hasn't been caught yet, GA is dead and gone.

S-12Flyer wrote:They ARE listening and watching. Plenty of evidence to prove it. Somehow I think the overall safety of aviation will improve just fine without full disclosure of every infraction. I have managed to extract plenty of valuable information from this site that had little or nothing to do with anyone getting thrown under the bus. Discression is not what most would call "sweeping under the rug." Do you report all your misdeads? Cheated on your taxes, bumped a car in a parking lot, ran a redlight, minor fender-bender that you settled without a report? The general public has no idea what should and should not be reported to the FAA. Heck, a lot of pilots don't. I doubt they will be too concerned about anything swept anywhere. They are more interested in a good you-tube crash video.

I do know some of the staff at the BLM office in Vale, OR office keep an eye on this forum.

S-12Flyer wrote:Contrary to popular belief, the FAA is not omni-potent. Many accidents go unreported and unnoticed by them. Lets say for the sake of open debate that you fly into a remote strip and manage to poke a branch though one or more of your control surfaces. Some 100mph duct-tape and you are back on your way. By definition you need to report it. Do you want the incident plastered all over a website? If you end up reporting it and feel it would make a good discussion here then it is your decision. No cone of silence or locked pay per view threads. We have no shortage of excellent threads here to inform and educate. We don't need to risk anyone's ticket or loss of access in the name of free speech.

Whoa there! Slow down. Lets be careful about what we say is reportable and what isn't. I'm no aviation lawyer, but here is what Part 830.2 says:

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,” as defined herein.

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.

So, puncturing skin/fabric is not substantial damage and does not require an accident report. Neither is it a reportable incident since it does not involve one of the listed major incidents (830.5):

(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed serious incidents occur:
(1) Flight control system malfunction or failure; (a flight control may have been damaged but it did not malfunction of fail)
(2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness;
(3) Failure of any internal turbine engine component that results in the escape of debris other than out the exhaust path;
(4) In-flight fire;
(5) Aircraft collision in flight;
(6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less....

There are more, but they are not applicable to the type of aircraft most on this site fly. I don't mean this as an attack, I just don't want people to be misled into false reporting.

BTW, reports go to the NTSB, not the FAA.

If there are any lawyers out there who can speak to the above, please do (especially if I'm in the wrong here!).

58Skylane wrote:
I do know some of the staff at the BLM office in Vale, OR office keep an eye on this forum.

Yup, and they will also read the posts pushing to hide incidents and so on.

I used the example earlier of peeing one's pants. Think about that again. The more the "community" (i.e. GA) is seen to be trying to avoid detection, trying to circumvent rules, and in general trying to push for not following the rules, the more enforcement and even more rules will be the result.

It's like crapping in one's own nest.

ADDED:
If the community is seen as utterly incapable, and most importantly; unwilling to self-regulate at any degree, I can't see how this hide-it-if-you-can isn't going to be the downfall of GA.

As for "Not-being-there", that's a problematic suggestion at best. If only the people there had anything to say, there would be no such thing as "human error", "misjudgement" or anything of the kind. We would all be masters - Except some of us would be idiots (I count myself in that category so far), and a few would actually be "Masters". Oh, and younger people with few hours behind them would be even less prone to "Human error" than more experienced and older pilots with lots more experience under the belt.