|
Well, here we go again.... The
sky is falling.
With the spirit of the
"Tone on the list", again, anyone that said they have flown beyond Vne is
attacked.
Blaming us for your insurance
rates because I said I have flown past Vne? Now you've added we must be "Low
time / Low experienced folks".. Really????
Year after year after year
after year I've never had any problem binding a full policy for my Lancair, for
a very reasonable premium, nor has anyone else I know with an LNC-2. LNC-4's on
the other hand, the Lancair's that do seem to cause many fatals, is hard to
insure and expensive.
And you blame that on a post
on the LML??? Do you have any proof what so ever backing this extraordinary
claim? Are all the underwriters reading this forum and raising LNC-4 rates
because someone with an LNC-2 said he likes to go fast?? No wait, it was "
blatant risky behavior"...
My rates have gone down....
Hummm.. I guess I must be a "Good risk"..
This is not constructive
criticism, this down right rude and abusive to talk that way about other pilots.
This is my choice, not yours, I don't believe I'm
"risky".
I don't raise your rates (
which is a ridiculous statement ). LNC-4's have proven to be a bad risk thought
the years, not LNC-2's or LNC-3's, that's why your rates are high! And
that's why LNC-2's are low.
This is a great forum and
there are many very experienced pilots and builders here, and some of us fly
past Vne.. And do aerobatics and close formation, and race.
If you can't understand how a
four place, high risk, very costly, pressurized experimental aircraft has a
very high premium, you should consult an insurance broker and ask how they
calculative the premium. I would bet it's not from a post on the internet.
Note: This was all written
with a nice tone.
Randy
Stuart
LNC-2
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:33
PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list
Mark,
Very well said-- and I might add that LOBO has been trying for over a
year now to get insurance at affordable rates for members-- but this mission
depends on reducing the accidents whcih in turn on changing people's belief
systems about risk and safety. If you post something that smacks of blatant
risky behaviour do not be surprised if someone on the list makes a remark
about it. Many of the folks who have held such beliefs are generally low time/
low experience folks.Unfortunately, some of them are no longer with us--and it
is not because they quit the list. Many of the commenters are the
opposite. This is a great forum to learn if one is willing to accept
constructive criticism from some very experienced folks in the industry.
On another note, I have been speaking to an insurance company that wants
us to help them identify who are the good insurance risks.
Those owners would hopefully qualify for a preferred rate. If
you are intrerested contanct me privately.
Best Regards--have a safe and happy holiday season,
Jeff Edwards
President, LOBO
-----Original
Message----- From: Mark Sletten <mwsletten@gmail.com> To:
lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:40 am Subject: [LML]
Re: Tone on list
Jim,
Email
is a terrible medium for communicating tone. It’s difficult to accurately
project and/or discern emotion via email. Often a writer intends to be
sarcastic in a humorous way, but it is received as demeaning and
derogatory.
Some
of us military types grew up in a flying environment where one’s skills and
judgment were under constant review. Public post-flight reviews (to give you
an idea of the mindset, we called them ‘critiques’) were mandatory, and all
aspects of a mission were evaluated for mission effectiveness and safety. For
training missions, the guiding principle was (still is I’m sure) ‘safety of
flight is paramount.’ For operational missions crews might assume higher risks
to get the job done, but compromising safety for a training mission was , um,
not in accordance with official guidance.
Despite
our government’s current effort to the contrary, you can’t write a rule book
that prohibits EVERY sort of dangerous behavior/mindset/inclination. This, of
course, is especially true in an organization where such
behaviors/mindsets/inclinations would be advantageous, depending on the
mission. There are many things you can do with a USAF aircraft that, while not
specifically forbidden, would be considered dangerous -- even negligent -- on
a training mission. The problem is you can’t simply throw away a pilot you
have spent millions training for behaving stupidly on a single flight. And
sanctioning via official means (reprimands, courts-martial, etc.) usually
kills any chance of promotion, so you may as well count on a person so
sanctioned to punch out (of the service) at the earliest opportunity.
Understanding this, the leadership chooses to use peer pressure to modify
behavior rather than more official means. It turns out the peer pressure idea
works better anyway.
In
a community so inculcated with the ‘safety culture,’ engaging in
behavior not officially prohibited, but considered unsafe, was grounds for
public humiliation during a post-flight critique with the crews of all
aircraft involved, and maybe even during a monthly safety meeting in front of
the entire wing. Such public humiliation served several purposes including
(but not limited to):
-
It provides a teaching moment to show how easy it is to make bad
decisions
-
Those experiencing such public humiliation rarely repeat the offending
behavior
-
Those observing learned the hazard of engaging in such behavior
I
don’t bring all this up to suggest ritual public humiliation as a means to
make all Lancair pilots identical automatons of safety. I only wish to point
out that while public rebukes may come across as pompous personal puffing (and
some may be), often it is simply a matter of habit – and old habits are hard
to break.
My
suggestion is for both sides to attempt tone deafness. Those posting their
disapproval of others should make every attempt to post opinion backed by fact
and data, but absent the vitriol. If the subject behavior/idea/mindset is
heinous enough it will speak for itself. Humor is often an effective tool to
use in such cases, but beware the problems noted above. If you want to be
funny, be sure it’s funny and not mean spirited. You might find them trite and
silly, but adding an emoticon to your text can be an effective means of
deflecting hurt feelings. (I can’t wait to see how some of these guys react to
this one… :-P)
Those
on the receiving end of a critique should assume the best of intentions on the
part of the poster. Speaking for myself, if I offer an opinion about another’s
judgment or behavior, I do so with the sole purpose of avoiding injury or bent
airplanes. My guess is the vast majority of those posting negatively have the
same goal. In other words, as difficult as it may be, when you’re getting
spanked try to get the message and ignore the tone.
One
thing I would point out to those who truly have the best of intentions
(improving safety) when critiquing another: If your message bounces off the
defensive wall sure to go up after you deride his/her ego, your best intention
to ‘help’ a person will come to naught, because even the best, most obvious
message is wasted if the receiver doesn’t get it
Even
if everyone completely disregards this rambling missive, Jim, please don’t
quit the forum because you are unhappy with the tone. I have learned some very
important lessons while observing the (often unpleasant) dissection of another
person’s behavior. I’ve learned some of the most important lessons of my life
after being shown (always unpleasant) how I’d behaved stupidly or
irresponsibly. Yes, it hurt, but I am forever grateful to the @$$holes who
pointed out the error of my ways.
Respectfully,
Mark
Sletten
In
my opinion the tone on the list recently, in a couple of the
threads, has gotten pretty abrasive. Rather than abandon a resource
that I have utilized for a long time, I thought I would make a couple of
comments.
Seems
that every so often there are those who feel the need to puff
themselves up and put others down. In my opinion it really defeats the
purpose of the list and turns other listers off. I'm guessing it also
greatly inhibits the willingness of a lot of people to
participate.
After
about 3 back and forth attempts to change the opponent's point of view it
would seem that agreeing to disagree would be the adult thing to do.
When all is said and done it really is each individual's right to
make his or her own decisions.
To
summarize, I participate because I want to be the best, safest, smartest pilot
I can be. I believe most of us hang around for the same reasons.
It doesn’t do me or any other lister any good if the tone that is used to
present the information prevents the information from being received.
|