Stumbled upon this, damn good video for the new age stuff we see today.

Where's the backcountry flying or aviation content? The only reason the borderline Karen bitching video is allowed is because of a loose thread about floatplane complaints.

Zzz wrote:Where's the backcountry flying or aviation content? The only reason the borderline Karen bitching video is allowed is because of a loose thread about floatplane complaints.

All over

I mean on other groups I’ll read of a pilot, or watch a pilot, do something that just requires a slightly beyond fresh PPL skill set, say just side stepping to another parallel runway, landing a small GA plane with 1300’ of hard dry runway, folks will tear them down as “unsafe”

Many call backcountry flying stupid because of the “risk”

Being “safety” first and insanely risk adverse seems to be infecting aviation, and in the type of flying we do, it can actually be LESS safe to be that obsessed with “safety” as the hysteria can lead to hesitation, which often leads to devastation

The spirit of backcountry is that of exploration and pushing the limits of man and his machine, the safety fetish isn’t conducive with this, and the push towards said fetish is going to be taking more and more people away from back country flying, as well as many things like camping, exploring, hunting, and other activities and lifestyles that go along with our little hobby here.


If that makes sense

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Zzz wrote:Where's the backcountry flying or aviation content? The only reason the borderline Karen bitching video is allowed is because of a loose thread about floatplane complaints.

All over

I mean on other groups I’ll read of a pilot, or watch a pilot, do something that just requires a slightly beyond fresh PPL skill set, say just side stepping to another parallel runway, landing a small GA plane with 1300’ of hard dry runway, folks will tear them down as “unsafe”

Many call backcountry flying stupid because of the “risk”

Being “safety” first and insanely risk adverse seems to be infecting aviation, and in the type of flying we do, it can actually be LESS safe to be that obsessed with “safety” as the hysteria can lead to hesitation, which often leads to devastation

The spirit of backcountry is that of exploration and pushing the limits of man and his machine, the safety fetish isn’t conducive with this, and the push towards said fetish is going to be taking more and more people away from back country flying, as well as many things like camping, exploring, hunting, and other activities and lifestyles that go along with our little hobby here.


If that makes sense

That may make sense in your world. Some of us come from the world of working airplanes in the backcountry, as in off airport, not for fun (though it often is) but to get work done.

Ignore safety in that world and you may soon be out of business or fired. Airplanes are expensive. The recreational aviator can afford to have his/her airplane down for repairs occasionally, the for hire person is going to miss some income.

But, that doesn’t imply that working pilots don’t take risks, they do, but they’re maybe a bit more calculated risks.

So, a “safety culture” is not about always saying no. It’s about assessing the risk, deciding how to manage that risk, then proceeding, or going to the next gravel bar.

A recreational pilot (and, I do NOT use that term in a derogative sense. I’ve known some recreational pilots who are shit hot pilots and very skilled) has the luxury of failing a landing attempt. If they break the plane, the consequences may not be as grim. Some coffee money gets spent on repairs.

But, regardless of why you’re flying, you need to operate within the confines of your own safety culture. That doesn’t mean accidents won’t happen, BTW. It means you evaluate the risk of a particular operation (trip in weather, landing on a ridge, etc) and make a conscious decision whether you can operate there, within reasonable risk, based on YOUR skills. Make a poor risk assessment, but get away with it…..count it as luck, but put that in your library.

My risk tolerance has nothing to do with yours. And that’s fine.

But, make enough poor decisions and insurance may become hard to get. They operate on actuarial data. So, bad decisions by others can influence my costs as well.

There is no such thing as a perfectly safe world. Aviation simply demands that you understand the risks, you take measures (training/practice, etc) to mitigate those risks, then go do it.

And learn not only from your mistakes and those of others, but learn from those cases where you got away with one……

That is safety.

MTV

Nietzsche was a philosopher. They are more concerned with the debate or discussion than solutions to problems. While MTV and I disagree as to a potential solution to safety issues occasionally, we both seek solutions. There is a difference between Russian Roulette and angling across a runway in a strong crosswind. The former seeks only adventure. The latter seeks a solution to a safety problem. Getting too Puritan with judgement calls, I agree, can distract from true solutions. Judgement that there is only one solution solves little. While we seek the unsanctioned solution, however, we have to pay the price of insurance and the FAA. The FAA, however, can be more lenient with those seeking solutions than you might think. Compare the number of pages concerning how you fly in particular to the number of pages in the ACS or Pilot's Handbook. The rules are quite fair, I think. The opinions are extensive.

mtv wrote:
That may make sense in your world. Some of us come from the world of working airplanes in the backcountry, as in off airport, not for fun (though it often is) but to get work done.

Ignore safety in that world and you may soon be out of business or fired. Airplanes are expensive. The recreational aviator can afford to have his/her airplane down for repairs occasionally, the for hire person is going to miss some income.

But, that doesn’t imply that working pilots don’t take risks, they do, but they’re maybe a bit more calculated risks.

So, a “safety culture” is not about always saying no. It’s about assessing the risk, deciding how to manage that risk, then proceeding, or going to the next gravel bar.

A recreational pilot (and, I do NOT use that term in a derogative sense. I’ve known some recreational pilots who are shit hot pilots and very skilled) has the luxury of failing a landing attempt. If they break the plane, the consequences may not be as grim. Some coffee money gets spent on repairs.

But, regardless of why you’re flying, you need to operate within the confines of your own safety culture. That doesn’t mean accidents won’t happen, BTW. It means you evaluate the risk of a particular operation (trip in weather, landing on a ridge, etc) and make a conscious decision whether you can operate there, within reasonable risk, based on YOUR skills. Make a poor risk assessment, but get away with it…..count it as luck, but put that in your library.

My risk tolerance has nothing to do with yours. And that’s fine.

But, make enough poor decisions and insurance may become hard to get. They operate on actuarial data. So, bad decisions by others can influence my costs as well.

There is no such thing as a perfectly safe world. Aviation simply demands that you understand the risks, you take measures (training/practice, etc) to mitigate those risks, then go do it.

And learn not only from your mistakes and those of others, but learn from those cases where you got away with one……

That is safety.

MTV

I fly for fun, but primarily to put food on my table, been a working pilot for well over a decade now, 91, 135, CFI, turbines, floats, IFR, training capt, flight levels, etc

Is there a difference between flying 135pax and doing practicing STOL solo in your own machine, no doubt, but the safety hysteria goes further than that, from busy bodies trying to get your livelihood destroyed, to pilots freezing on the controls paralyzed by fear.

But it’s the same thing, often those who go preaching about SMS and all that are rote with their understanding of what really is safe and what isn’t.

Or as Mr Rowe said

Philosophical point of view can reorient us, and that is helpful. Bureaucracy, so inefficient, has herded us in the right direction. We have the responsibility to think beyond that. When flying or even backcountry culture pressures pilots to err is the problem I think you are talking about. Go around, in my opinion, has become dangerously expected. Failure to push the nose around with rudder and allow the nose to go down as designed for safety in banks steep enough and continuous enough to get maneuvering pilots out of horizontal obstruction problems is another. Inefficient extra speed for "safety" on approach that would be far more efficient and safe on takeoff is another. As instructors, we owe it to our students to teach them how to fly efficiently and safely. That may or may not be the school solution. Don't look at it as what am I owed by the culture. Look at it as what can I do to contribute.

I know it is old school, but there used to be decorum in the Senate and elsewhere. All we can do about the angry for political show senators is vote them out. Elsewhere it is specific to us individually however.

I never ascribed to the “Safety First” mantra. If safety were indeed our first and overwhelming concern, we wouldn’t fly. We also wouldn’t drive…..etc. To me, that was always a BS argument,

BUT, safety does have to be a day to day, every flight concern……just not the only concern.

I’ve been around “safety programs” which, if actually followed, would require the pilot to go through so many evaluation steps, so many Mother may I’s, that the weather would change before you got in the plane. Those kinds of “programs” are actually unsafe, simply because any thinking pilot recognizes them for what they are, and ignores them. Which is worse than not having any safety program.

Peer pressure can be good or bad. We were doing moose surveys on the Yukon Flats, an area I flew routinely, and had for years. Visibility and ceiling was fairly low, but I continued to fly the stratification plane, a 185. During a fuel stop, one of the other pilots came up to me and strongly suggested I park, like he and the others had. I said thanks for the concern, but I’m very familiar with the country, and can navigate fine. This was pre GPS, and unless you knew that country really well, it was really easy to get lost in.

I had pointed this out to my observers, and told them if they were uncomfortable, we’d park. They’d been lost all day, but had realized I was able to safely navigate.

I was careful to point out to EVERYone that this wasn’t anything to do with skill, but rather familiarity with the country. One or two of the other pilots were upset that I hadn’t parked, based on the lowest common denominator. But the point was, there was nothing inherently unsafe to what I was doing.

I worked in Kodiak for eight years, and that was a superb place to learn weather flying and risk tolerance. The “old hands” there would fly in stuff I wasn’t about to at least initially, but they never talked down to you……”maybe wait an hour if you can, it’s improving from the south….” Etc. They weren’t interested in ego games (most of them, anyway), they had a vested interest in MY success. If I crashed, they were the ones who’d have to shut down their operations and come look for me.

So, they paid attention to the new guys, and offered carefully considered counsel. It was a great safety and learning environment.

MTV

Good point Mike. Morale is high in an Army unit who's troops like doing what their leader asks them to do because they know he will not use them poorly. Morale is one of the nine principles of war.

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Zzz wrote:Where's the backcountry flying or aviation content? The only reason the borderline Karen bitching video is allowed is because of a loose thread about floatplane complaints.

All over

I mean on other groups I’ll read of a pilot, or watch a pilot, do something that just requires a slightly beyond fresh PPL skill set, say just side stepping to another parallel runway, landing a small GA plane with 1300’ of hard dry runway, folks will tear them down as “unsafe”

Then come out and provide that in your initial post. Make the connection with a specifically worded post, or I will remove future low effort posts like this non-aviation video that are generic criticism of society and philosophy.

https://backcountrypilot.org/pre-regist ... rientation. <-- please review the "Submitted Content Policy" section. If you signed up before 2017 you may not have been required to read this.

Zzz wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Zzz wrote:Where's the backcountry flying or aviation content? The only reason the borderline Karen bitching video is allowed is because of a loose thread about floatplane complaints.

All over

I mean on other groups I’ll read of a pilot, or watch a pilot, do something that just requires a slightly beyond fresh PPL skill set, say just side stepping to another parallel runway, landing a small GA plane with 1300’ of hard dry runway, folks will tear them down as “unsafe”

Then come out and provide that in your initial post. Make the connection with a specifically worded post, or I will remove future low effort posts like this non-aviation video that are generic criticism of society and philosophy.

https://backcountrypilot.org/pre-regist ... rientation. <-- please review the "Submitted Content Policy" section. If you signed up before 2017 you may not have been required to read this.

Ok

No need be be nasty about it, between this being a “low effort post” and some of the other things you’ve said towards me, I’m not sure what I did to offend you

For our cultures recent shift to safety being first and before all else, and us flying backcountry aircraft, I didn’t think I had to directly connect the dots on safety perception and what it is we do Zane, res ipsa loquitur

mtv wrote:I never ascribed to the “Safety First” mantra. If safety were indeed our first and overwhelming concern, we wouldn’t fly. We also wouldn’t drive…..etc. To me, that was always a BS argument,

BUT, safety does have to be a day to day, every flight concern……just not the only concern.

I’ve been around “safety programs” which, if actually followed, would require the pilot to go through so many evaluation steps, so many Mother may I’s, that the weather would change before you got in the plane. Those kinds of “programs” are actually unsafe, simply because any thinking pilot recognizes them for what they are, and ignores them. Which is worse than not having any safety program.

Peer pressure can be good or bad. We were doing moose surveys on the Yukon Flats, an area I flew routinely, and had for years. Visibility and ceiling was fairly low, but I continued to fly the stratification plane, a 185. During a fuel stop, one of the other pilots came up to me and strongly suggested I park, like he and the others had. I said thanks for the concern, but I’m very familiar with the country, and can navigate fine. This was pre GPS, and unless you knew that country really well, it was really easy to get lost in.

I had pointed this out to my observers, and told them if they were uncomfortable, we’d park. They’d been lost all day, but had realized I was able to safely navigate.

I was careful to point out to EVERYone that this wasn’t anything to do with skill, but rather familiarity with the country. One or two of the other pilots were upset that I hadn’t parked, based on the lowest common denominator. But the point was, there was nothing inherently unsafe to what I was doing.

I worked in Kodiak for eight years, and that was a superb place to learn weather flying and risk tolerance. The “old hands” there would fly in stuff I wasn’t about to at least initially, but they never talked down to you……”maybe wait an hour if you can, it’s improving from the south….” Etc. They weren’t interested in ego games (most of them, anyway), they had a vested interest in MY success. If I crashed, they were the ones who’d have to shut down their operations and come look for me.

So, they paid attention to the new guys, and offered carefully considered counsel. It was a great safety and learning environment.

MTV

I agree

Haven’t been flying as long as you, however even in my years flying it seems CFIs went from doing slips and being open to spin training or falling leaf stalls, to nearly peeing themselves when they turn base to final, self licking ice cream cone this gets passed along to their students, some of whom become CFIs and on we go.

Also pax wise, I’d occasionally have folks ask “is this safe” being a non 121 wide body and all, but as the years go by it seems more pax are more scared before they even step foot on the aircraft, and I’m talking pretty, well kept equipment, with clean well spoken crew

A few months ago I was doing a helicopter tour, kinda a side gig I enjoy, well it was a nice smooth day, beautiful weather, father son and wife, did a nice smooth not hotdogging or anything takeoff, go through ETL smoothly, just about 400’ the wife freaks the fuck out, “land land land!” For a second I get spooked thinking she seems flames or something, nope, just just having a “panic attack”, so I let twr know I’m going to be landing, she gets off, father and son still want to go up. I don’t recall that type of thing occurring much at all not too many years ago.

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Zzz wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Zzz wrote:Where's the backcountry flying or aviation content? The only reason the borderline Karen bitching video is allowed is because of a loose thread about floatplane complaints.

All over

I mean on other groups I’ll read of a pilot, or watch a pilot, do something that just requires a slightly beyond fresh PPL skill set, say just side stepping to another parallel runway, landing a small GA plane with 1300’ of hard dry runway, folks will tear them down as “unsafe”

Then come out and provide that in your initial post. Make the connection with a specifically worded post, or I will remove future low effort posts like this non-aviation video that are generic criticism of society and philosophy.

https://backcountrypilot.org/pre-regist ... rientation. <-- please review the "Submitted Content Policy" section. If you signed up before 2017 you may not have been required to read this.

Ok

No need be be nasty about it, between this being a “low effort post” and some of the other things you’ve said towards me, I’m not sure what I did to offend you

For our cultures recent shift to safety being first and before all else, and us flying backcountry aircraft, I didn’t think I had to directly connect the dots on safety perception and what it is we do Zane, res ipsa loquitur

Zane works hard here to “manage” things, so this forum doesn’t turn into what many others have. The rules are pretty simple, and we’ll intended.

MTV

Just going through some paperwork from a past operator, one that has a full time “safety officer” and all the little badges and flair from all the for profit safety certification companies


On their FRAT, flying to a airport with no fuel, even if you have tons in reserve and would not take on fuel anyways, is the same “risk level” as flying a plane on a mx ferry permit.

I like to think of this in terms of innovative pilot's, for example, Bob Reeve and Don Sheldon. Their ability to take risks, pushing backcountry flying to the limits, led to greater ingenuity.

Some of the risks they took did not immediately fuel much technological progression, such as Bob Reeve's mudflats landings with skis. He did decide to make stainless steel skis for such a purpose, but as you can imagine, you still don't really see many people landing in mud with straight stainless steel these days. Nevertheless, his ability to "risk it for the biscuit" with his niche use skis, provided a valuable service and had a tremendous impact for the people of Valdez. Over time, similar use-cases provided the invention of retractable skis in 1955. I'm sure Don Sheldon appreciated that and Bob Reeve's daughter apparently.

Don Sheldon was a whole other beast, developing techniques for glacier landings. The majority of the flights he made up to Denali, were not totally necessary per se, ferrying expeditionists back and forth. Years previous to Sheldon making these flights regularly, people must've thought you were a complete loon to attempt such a thing as landing on a glacier. Nowadays, little old Grammy fly's via K2 Aviation in Talkeetna for a lovely glacier landing on Denali. My point is, at the time Don really didn't need to do these sort of things, but he chose to for money. The potential good outweighed the potential bad for him - risk and reward. He and other's found that you can safely land on a glacier, so much so that we now have multiple multi-million dollar companies here ferrying people for fun. A lot of people can look at what Don Sheldon and say, why on earth would he have been attempting that time and time again for a bit of cash. Let's be honest, for this guy it was all about thrill. He time and time again showed that he was willing to attempt things that noone had ever done in a plane, such as the daring Devil's Canyon rescue.

So you hear, "there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots". These two men were both old and bold. You can bet they had their share of dodgy moments as well. In the end, what killed them both was cancer, potentially due to that lead in AvGas. In short, don't be dumb, be wise. Seek first-hand experience, learn, and innovate. Be safety conscious and use your wits, but have fun and fly for the thrill. You only get one shot at this life, so have fun and use your brain doing it. I know these two gentlemen were great pilot's because they learned first hand, not because they went to some safety seminar brought to you by the Montana Pilots Association. They had brains and good instincts. These men weren't lucky, they were the fortunate. Fortunate to know their abilities, their airplanes, and their limits.

Well, obviously you’ve read “Wager With The Wind” - The Don Sheldon Story. Greiner did a great job celebrating Sheldon’s accomplishments. That said, an old dear friend of mine, one George Kitchen, flew cover for Sheldon when Sheldon was about to do something risky. One evening in Cold Bay over a beer with George, Oren Seybert (Peninsula Air owner) and a pilot from another company, that gent noted that he was reading “Wager”, and that he was up to the part where Sheldon performed the first successful landing at 16,000 feet on McKinley.

I noticed George squirm a bit when he said that, so, I said “George, you used to fly cover for Sheldon on some of those deals, right?” His response was a quiet “Yes”. I asked if he was around for that first 16,000 foot landing. He said yes. Orin, picking up on this, asked George what he was doing during that rescue.

George’s reply was classic: “I made the second successful landing at 16, then made the first five successful takeoffs at 16 K.” “So, George, that means Sheldon crashed on takeoff?” So George actually performed the rescue.

Sheldon used up a LOT of airplanes. He did a lot of tough ops. But, many years later, Cliff Hudson, who started flying McKinley a year or so after Sheldon, was recognized for the dozens of really dangerous rescues he performed on the Mountain over the years…..without ever wrecking a plane. Nobody wrote a book about Cliff though.

In todays world, the economics of aviation dictate that an outfit that wrecks a lot of planes won’t be in business very long…..largely due to insurance.

Sheldon was a very skilled pilot, no doubt. But others did much of the same work without bending a lot of sheet metal, like Sheldon did.

Bob Reeve was a true character of the north. He ran his personal airline as HE wanted it run. Their unwritten rule was, once the pilot had the keys to the plane, the trip was his to manage. They did some things that were safe (like their “special” instrument approach procedure to Driftwood Bay) but not exactly compliant with FARs. RCR (as employees called the boss) furloughed one pilot for two weeks for an “infraction” while a fed was in the jump seat. Then, the pilot was given the keys to Reeves condo in HI, two first class tickets to HI and a wad of cash.

THAT (I know-yelling) is a great “safety culture”. That said, do something unsafe, and the pilot would be walking home, looking for work.

Me, I’d rather work for or fly on, Reeve, and I have, many times.

MTV

For what it is worth: A friend here flies for the local air ambulance outfit.
Yesterday he was telling me that, for several years, he has had to give dispatch an IMSAFE number (1-10) before every flight. That is, he has to self evaluate every flight. A good thing in my opinion, we all should.
That is on top of an IMSAFE report at beginning of his shift.
However, the Company is now asking him to do a brief IMSAFE evaluation on the med crew before every flight as part of the crew brief. Then he has to give dispatch his opinion on whether or not they are up to the task.
He feels very uncomfortable about that.

The FRAT, flight risk analysis tool, has been common for 135 for some time, lots of medevac also have a 3 to go, 1 to day no policy. Issue is lots of the FRATs seem to be made by people who don’t understand where the danger actually is.

Self evaluation is a good rule. Crew evaluation can get into human nature problems. I enjoyed medevac in the Army. There were lots of rules, but more decisions were left to the Aircraft Commander. I knew myself well enough to not accept a civilian medevac job. Rules are more arbitrary and leave out the value of on the ground decisions. The Army was more like what Mike was talking about where he (aircraft commander) was able to make go no go decisions.

I live in a very rural county with a small county sheriff staff. When my brother was shot the ambulance waited for a deputy per their rule while his lungs filled from a sucking chest wound. At the trial the long 911 tape was played and his condition was pretty evident. He was shot in the head as well and reported only that wound. Better 911 training would have perhaps diagnosed the problem and saved his life by just having him apply a plastic bag seal, but protocol would still have required the paramedics to wait.

Like in war, in life the tactical situation is often fluid. Rules increase safety, but so does common sense. Rules mean always. Common sense is more flexible.

contactflying wrote:Self evaluation is a good rule. Crew evaluation can get into human nature problems. I enjoyed medevac in the Army. There were lots of rules, but more decisions were left to the Aircraft Commander. I knew myself well enough to not accept a civilian medevac job. Rules are more arbitrary and leave out the value of on the ground decisions. The Army was more like what Mike was talking about where he (aircraft commander) was able to make go no go decisions.

I live in a very rural county with a small county sheriff staff. When my brother was shot the ambulance waited for a deputy per their rule while his lungs filled from a sucking chest wound. At the trial the long 911 tape was played and his condition was pretty evident. He was shot in the head as well and reported only that wound. Better 911 training would have perhaps diagnosed the problem and saved his life by just having him apply a plastic bag seal, but protocol would still have required the paramedics to wait.

Like in war, in life the tactical situation is often fluid. Rules increase safety, but so does common sense. Rules mean always. Common sense is more flexible.

Sorry to hear..

One of the first things they teach in EMS is PPE and is the scene safe, if the scene isn’t safe you’re not going in, and lots of police are not exactly medical practitioners