Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:59:43 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-686101@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.13.112.10; envelope-from=marknlisa@hometel.com
From: "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa@hometel.com>
Subject: RE: Affective Training
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <redirect-685231@logan.com>

Bill,

Thanks for the kind reply.  Safety is a culture I learned (lived, breathed,
had crammed down my throat) during a 20-year USAF career -- sometimes it
drives my wife crazy!

But, one thing that is crystal clear to me is that in order to survive our
"hobby," risk has to be very near the top of considerations for every
decision we make.

One advantage the pros have over us is the use of a simulator.  The majors
require their pilots to complete sim training a couple of times a year.
They get to experience a range of emergencies to fully understand how
difficult it can be to exercise superior skill in response to inferior
judgement.  To add a little spice, each pilot knows that continued
employment hinges on the quality of their performance -- do you think there
are some sweaty palms in the sim?  This is tremendously effective affective
training.

Another big advantage (in my opinion) is a formalized set of rules.  Many
decisions (of the type that seem to get our Lancair bretheren in trouble)
are already made for the pros.  Weather conditions and equipment
requirements are clearly defined in company flight manuals.

While ALL the benefits of these advantages aren't available to us, we can
apply a few.  I've often wondered if a mutually beneficial "deal" can be
made with insurers that would allow reduced insurance rates for those who
commit to formalized sim training.  Make your insurability contingent on
successful completion of training.  The pros do it, why can't we?  And while
it may be true the training might cost us more than the insurance, no one
can argue the relative values.  When passengers ask about how you handle
emergencies do you think they'll be best mollified with a review of your
insurance policy, or an account of your emergency procedures training?

How about rules?  We've all heard the suggestions to develop a set of
"minimums" commensurate with the limits of our skill and aircraft
performance.  How many of us actually write them down?

I'll suggest that each of us should have TWO flight manuals.

The first manual, let's call it the DASH-1 (I can't help it, you can take
the boy out of the military, but you can't take the military out of the
boy), outlines HOW to operate the aircraft.  How to complete the preflight,
how to turn equipment on and off, cautions and warnings to avoid damage or
injury as a result of improper operation, etc.

The second manual, lets call it our REGS (sorry again), tells us IF we can
operate the aircraft.  If the crosswind doesn't exceed 15 kts, if the
ceiling is above 1000', if... whatever.  Create a Minimum Equipment List
(MEL) and put it in your REGS.  Set your minima according to an honest
evaluation of your capability then, and this is most important, STICK TO IT!
A quick review of the REGS prior to flight can help make safer go/no-go
decisions.

This might even be helpful with spousal relations.  If your spouse is
skittish about your flying (or flying with you) make your REGS a personal
contract that each of you can agree on, then sign it.  You can both have the
peace of mind that you're mitigating risks as best you can.

Some of you may be asking yourselves why my "safety attitude" drives my wife
crazy.  My wife and I thought building would be something we could do
together, but, alas, it's not working out that way.  When she comes to the
shop to help me she wants to chat -- about anything and everything -- while
we (I) work.  I, on the other hand, tend to focus, to the exclusion of all
else, on the task at hand.

Everytime I pick up a component to install, I ask myself, "What would happen
if this falls off inflight."  It tends to sharpen my focus; remember how
emotions can put you in the affective domain?  Unfortunately, that means I
can't chat with her.  She thinks I can't multi-task; I try to explain I can,
but choose not to for this project.  You would think that someone who plans
to strap her cute little butt into an airplane's seat would want to be
confident that aiplane won't disintegrate inflight!

Attitude...

Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: billhogarty [mailto:billhogarty@direcway.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 21:13
> Subject: Re: [LML] Re:Affective Training
>
>
> For Mark Sletten:
>
> After reading all the posts about bad judgement,  , and finger pointing,
> and criticisms, yadda, yadda, yadda, it was a pleasure reading your
> dissertation on Affective Training.
>
> I have been participating in the LML from day one and this is the first
> time anyone has made any sense (at least to me) on how to begin to stop
> the rash of  Lancair 'bad judgement' that has been plaguing us.
>
> Although it does appear to be a function of " individual attitude" your
> method of "Affective  Training"  might be  something that our recurrent
> training folks could adopt.  Your article hit home and I found it very
> refreshing.  Thanks for taking the time to share it.
>
> Best Regards,
> Bill Hogarty
>
>
>