231 down near Columbia River Gorge, Troutdale (KTTD)

[PT20J]

On 6/26/2024 at 9:51 AM, wombat said:

Would it be reasonable to at some point sabotage the plane to make it so airworthy he couldn't even try to take off? 

Under federal law, it is a felony to willfully damage or destroy aircraft. 18 U.S.C. § 32. 

[1980Mooney]

On 6/26/2024 at 11:05 AM, wombat said:

I really don't like this thread.    So I'll try to change that.    Based on the facts we know so far, what are some things we could do to keep ourselves, the flying fleet, and other pilots, passengers and others safe? 

I think we should look for things where we might be able to find a similar situation that is about to happen and intervene.   By 'intervene' I mean have a friendly chat with the pilot, which might turn a little more preachy and less friendly depending on how it goes, or if you are a CFI being less willing to sign off on a BFR, or if things are actually bad enough, going to the FAA.

 If we know anyone with even one incident it's probably worth taking extra time as a fellow pilot to watch how they behave and be willing to offer helpful advice when we see them doing things not by the book.   Things like using the checklists, or fuel planning, or preflight and maintenance.   And their medical, currency, and proficiency.    Maybe if one of us knows a pilot like this, be willing to lend a hand and go fly with them.  Either demonstrate in our own plane the behaviors we wish they had, or as a pilot-rated passenger (or low-cost CFI) to urge them to follow the correct procedures in their own plane.

The ADS-B mismatch is another thing.  This I think gives us advance warning that this owner isn't doing everything by the book; in my opinion it's more likely that if this thing is wrong there are other things wrong with the plane.  Maybe there are significant fuel leaks and/or the fuel gauges don't work right.  This could be the cause of this specific accident and if a friendly hanger neighbor had been looking, they could have chatted with this guy and helped him understand the value in following all of the regulations and ended up catching this before the plane went into the water.

Anything else that we could identify before the incident itself in another pilot our ourselves where we should make take an action to prevent something like this in the future?

 

On 6/26/2024 at 11:31 AM, wombat said:

How many of us ever actually say anything to our fellow pilots when we see something that is a slight indicator of potential risky behaviors and actions?     I'm a CFI and unless I'm being paid to do so, I find it really hard to criticize other people's behaviors unless it's very clearly dangerous.

 

On 6/26/2024 at 11:51 AM, wombat said:

My suggestion here is not a recipe for absolute safety, but maybe it's something that can help a little, some of the time.  I'd like to do something to help.    Hand wringing and finger pointing doesn't seem to me to be helpful so I tried to make a suggestion that would help at least a little. 

What you are saying sounds a little like the hazardous attitude of Resignation.    I think we can make a difference even if we don't have absolute control over it.     https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=723&sID=1448&preview=true     The antidote for that is "I’m not helpless. ?I can make a difference.

You do bring up a really good point with your friend... If I had a friend like that, what actions could I or should I take?    Would it be reasonable to at some point sabotage the plane to make it so airworthy he couldn't even try to take off?    Document specific provable FAR violations to send to the FAA?

I've got a friend whose actions as a pilot make me cringe so much because they are risky, but as far as I know, they are legal....    He loves flying that way, but...  Ugh.

 

On 6/26/2024 at 12:50 PM, wombat said:

I'm serious about the question.  Is it ever reasonable?

I understand that there are people who are going to continue to make riskier decisions than we think are safe no matter how often we talk to them politely.    When should we escalate beyond a friendly conversation? How far should we go?  In what situations?     For some level of risky behavior, it's appropriate to just shake our head and move on.   For some level we should probably chat with them.... Where is the right level for each?

What steps are there that we can take?

• Have a subtle, polite conversation.
• Have a non-subtle direct but polite conversation.
• Have a direct and accusatory conversation, maybe described as an argument.
• Talk to people who might be impacted like passengers or have other interests like the local CFI or A&P.  (example: If you see a person who might get into the bad pilot's plane you shout across the taxiway at them "Hey, I wouldn't get into the plane with that guy.  You are putting your life at risk!")
• Talk to the FSDO.
• ???

You suggested looking at less tangible, harder to assess things that precede a flight like pilot attitude, mental awareness and "Resignation", (you attached a link - see summary below.)  But assessment of those things is rather "soft" with no hard and fast measurements.

First, when a pilot makes light of a serious situation, how do you determine if that pilot is just a lighthearted person trying to put the best possible spin on a bad outcome? ... Or a pilot that is not sufficiently serious about risks, planning, procedures and mitigation? 

• It's a bit like art or beauty. 
  • It looks different to different people.
• I have to admit that I was surprised that this accident pilot was joking to the FAA/NTSB in writing about his 2020 crash landing .(posted in the NTSB CAROL Docket).
  • "The wheel went bouncing off the runway, which I saw. If it wasn't such a catastrophe, it would have been kind of funny."
• If I, by my own admission, had just forgotten my landing gear, and then when warned, stalled my plane into the runway because I lacked the skill (to add power, stay in ground effect, and reject the landing, going around), resulting in breaking off the nose gear and taking out multiple runway signs, I would be seriously upset.  It would be sickening to see my nose wheel "bouncing off the runway", prop grinding into the runway, skidding into runway signs.  I could not see anything funny about it, especially knowing that the plane was totaled and to be sold for scrap parts.  If I were the accident's pilots age at the time (69), if it were me both forgetting gear and stalling the plane, my flying days would be over.  My family would be upset, not trust and refuse to fly with me ever again, my insurance agent would be upset, the FAA would be upset and I would be upset.  I would find no humor in any of it.  Discussing it would be painful.
• Some might say he is just being honest and that doesn't indicate anything.
• So on what grounds would anyone do anything preemptively other than encourage him "to get back in the saddle", buy another plane and fly again?

Second, I cannot see how anything good comes out of a confrontation/discussion by a peer pilot, uninvited, pointing out unsolicited discrepancies in another pilot's flying habits, attitude or style.  It would likely be a short discussion with a friendly or more likely not so friendly, response to "get out of my hangar", "keep your opinions to yourself", "you don't know what you are talking about" or "it's none of your business".   It needs to come from someone in aviation with authority like the FAA or AME or maybe your insurance company/agent or someone with clear stature in piloting skill like a CFI/CFII.

Hazardous Attitudes

Hazardous attitudes are attitudes that negatively affect the quality of your decisions. Recognizing them is the first step in neutralizing them. There are 5 attitudes: 

• Anti-authority: Those who do not like anyone telling them what to do.

• Impulsivity: Those who feel the need to do something, anything, immediately. 

• Invulnerability: Those who believe that accidents happen to others. 

• Macho: Those who are trying to prove that they are better than anyone else. “Watch this!

• Resignation: Those who do not see themselves making a difference. 

Here's a list of antidotes to the 5 hazardous attitudes discussed in the previous chapter. 

• Anti-authority: Follow the rules. They are usually right. 
• Impulsivity: Not so fast. Think first. 
• Invulnerability: It could happen to me. 
• Macho: Taking chances is foolish. 
• Resignation: "I’m not helpless. ?I can make a difference. 

Operational Pitfalls

Operational pitfalls can be categorized under the following: 

• Peer Pressure: “Come on, don’t be a chicken, you can totally do that.”
• Mind Set: Inability to cope with changes and fixating on the original goal. 
• Operating without visual line of sight (VLOS): Losing VLOS in order to complete the mission without having to move. 
• Getting behind the aircraft: a constant state of surprise at what happens next. 
• Loss of situational awareness: not knowing where you are or what/who is around you. 
• Operating past the battery/fuel warning: Ignoring low battery/fuel warnings and forcing the aircraft to land in an emergency. 
• Operate above maximum authorized altitude: ignoring LAANC altitudes or flying higher than 400 feet AGL. 
• Neglect for planning, inspections and checklists:  relying on short or long -term memory or over-trusting the equipment. 

Stress & Stress Management

Stress is the body’s response to demand. The effects of stress are cumulative and can lead to an intolerable burden. There are two types of stress: acute and chronic. 
Relaxation, physical fitness and time management help manage the accumulation of stress. 

Stress Management While Flying

It is important to know and respect your own personal limits. These will change based on the aircraft flown. It's also important to avoid distracting situations. Be sure to have a visual observer or crew member deal with people who may approach the pilot. Remain calm during emergencies. Rely on your training, utilize all available resources.

Hazard and Risk

Hazard is the real or perceived condition, event, or circumstance that a pilot encounters.
Risk: the assigned value to the potential impact of a hazard.

Dealing with risk involves three steps, which are discussed in more detail in these videos. 

• Risk Assessment
• Risk Mitigation
• Risk Management

[wombat]

@1980Mooney Agreed that my proposal isn't easy to implement.  And that some pilots are going to be harder to influence. But it's better than just wringing our hands and complaining about how other people are making our insurance rates go up.   

It's clear I don't have all the answers, but another string of "A new mooney pilot just landed gear up!  Seee!! Here is everything I could find about them!  They are so horrible, they are making my insurance rates go up!" isn't going to make anything better.   

 So I proposed doing something.   It's a half-baked plan but I'm not helpless, I can make a difference. Maybe my earlier posts were not clear about this but the intent here is soliciting feedback on what we can and should do.  Feel free to criticize my solution but if you do, please propose an better solution.

Regarding the "you can't tell me what to do" and "Get out of my hangar" pilots... If many other pilots regularly offered unsolicited negative feedback, even if that feedback is aggressively rejected, they are likely to perceive everyone else in aviation as a bunch of jerks.    Maybe that will encourage them to go find another hobby, so a good solution all around.

Regarding the feedback needing to come from someone in authority...  Well, I'm a CFI so my perception is a bit weird, and maybe people listen to my advice a lot more than they would from someone who isn't a CFI.  I take advice from lots of non-CFI pilots.  Just because someone hasn't had some specific set of official training doesn't mean they don't have good knowledge.

There are many ways to try to inform or influence others without having authority.  

Example 1: Express interest in how their ways of doing things that differ from yours and a curiosity about which is better.   Then if you can't come to an agreement between the two of you, offer to do some research. Then come back with an analysis and references.

Example 2: Ask them to teach you the 'right way' and ask for references.  If what they are doing is bad, they probably can't provide references.  If you can provide references for the opposite, maybe they'll modify their behavior.

Maybe find out what CFI the person uses and contact them, and say "Hey, so and so said he has you do their BFRs.   I saw them doing X and I think it's dangerous.  What do you think?"

 

A lot of people will refuse to admit to being wrong in the moment but will be willing to silently change their attitudes and behaviors if they can do so without admitting they made a mistake.  So if you let the other person leave the conversation without having to admit that they were wrong you might have a better chance of success.    Not sure I'm doing a great job in this particular conversation though! hahaha.

@PT20J True.  I didn't really think about that when I was writing it.   So maybe just parking my car in front of the plane is a better solution than trying to pop a tire.   Maybe a wheel lock?  Or a chain/lock on the prop?    For the kind of pilot I'm talking about they might start the engine without looking to see if there is anything on it.

[EricJ]

25 minutes ago, wombat said:

@PT20J True.  I didn't really think about that when I was writing it.   So maybe just parking my car in front of the plane is a better solution than trying to pop a tire.   Maybe a wheel lock?  Or a chain/lock on the prop?    For the kind of pilot I'm talking about they might start the engine without looking to see if there is anything on it.

Disabling an aircraft is illegal under the same law.   Basically you're not allowed to interfere in any way.    Be glad that that's a law or anybody who thinks you shouldn't fly could stop you.

 

[N201MKTurbo]

I was having a dispute with my partner about 15 years ago, and I thought he might fly it away somewhere and hide it while I was on vacation. 
 

So I thought it was a good idea to repaint the main wheels. They were still drying at home when I went on vacation.

I bought him out soon afterward.

[natdm]

5 hours ago, wombat said:

 So I proposed doing something.   It's a half-baked plan but I'm not helpless, I can make a difference. Maybe my earlier posts were not clear about this but the intent here is soliciting feedback on what we can and should do.  Feel free to criticize my solution but if you do, please propose an better solution.

The "stop being a negative Nancy" response has never made sense to me. Just because I can't think of a better way that a single pilot can help solve multiple catastrophic incidents doesn't mean I should be forced to accept that sabotaging a plane is the best reasonable idea.

At the bare minimum, let's at least stay legal.

[wombat]

@natdm Not sure how you got from

What I said

"We should do something other than trash talk other pilots on here."

To

"I should be forced to accept  that sabotaging a plane is the best reasonable idea."

[natdm]

What you said is:
 

On 6/26/2024 at 9:51 AM, wombat said:

Would it be reasonable to at some point sabotage the plane to make it so airworthy he couldn't even try to take off?

6 hours ago, wombat said:

So I proposed doing something.   It's a half-baked plan but I'm not helpless, I can make a difference. Maybe my earlier posts were not clear about this but the intent here is soliciting feedback on what we can and should do.  Feel free to criticize my solution but if you do, please propose an better solution.

1. "Should we sabotage it?"
2. "Ok fine let's not but in order for you to say we shouldn't sabotage it, you need to have a better idea."

Thus, me saying: "Just because I can't think of a better way that a single pilot can help solve multiple catastrophic incidents doesn't mean I should be forced to accept that sabotaging a plane is the best reasonable idea."

[wombat]

@natdm

"Ok fine let's not but in order for you to say we shouldn't sabotage it, you need to have a better idea."

is not the same as 

" Feel free to criticize my solution but if you do, please propose an better solution."

[1980Mooney]

This discussion is getting a little bit crazy.  If you do anything, even well meaning, to impede someone’s flight (stay let the air out of the tires, wheel, lock, control, surface lock, chain around the propeller, create an obstacle on the ground, etc.) and it in any way leads to an accident  then you become liable.  

This is a simple reason why nobody wants to get involved. 

[redbaron1982]

36 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

This discussion is getting a little bit crazy.  If you do anything, even well meaning, to impede someone’s flight (stay let the air out of the tires, wheel, lock, control, surface lock, chain around the propeller, create an obstacle on the ground, etc.) and it in any way leads to an accident  then you become liable.  

This is a simple reason why nobody wants to get involved. 

That doesn't mean that is the right thing to do.

I hate when I see us evolving into a society where nobody wants to get involved just to avoid being liable.

[wombat]

Yes, this is getting wild.

 

A couple of you are fixated on one extreme proposed solution to a made-up extreme example and acting as if the whole concept of taking some sort of action to prevent risky behavior has all of the downsides of that extreme proposed solution.

Yes, what I proposed is a crime.  But if I see someone who is about to kill a bunch of other innocent people, or have an extremely high likelihood of killing a bunch of other innocent people, I'm going to do my best to stop them, even if it means committing a crime to do so.   I'd like to live in a society where most people would do the same.

 

But if we can move off of the most extreme example for a bit, I was actually trying to get feedback on some ideas for at what level of risky behavior people think it's worth getting at least a little involved, and what are some actions they think that might be appropriate for different levels of risky behavior?

 

(I'm not so grown-up that I won't take a little jab at my detractors here...)   Some of us are clearly on the 'never take action' side and if they see someone loading 29 beautiful babies and a puppy and a kitten into a plane full of dynamite and matches while drinking from a bottle of Jack Daniels and talking about how they are going to crash into the "Best and most beautiful newly married couples" pageant, they'd politely back their car out of the way and give the pilot a clear path to the runway.

 

Edited June 28 by wombat
combined 'down sides' to 'downsides'

[1980Mooney]

19 hours ago, wombat said:

Yes, this is getting wild.

A couple of you are fixated on one extreme proposed solution to a made-up extreme example and acting as if the whole concept of taking some sort of action to prevent risky behavior has all of the downsides of that extreme proposed solution.

Yes, what I proposed is a crime.  But if I see someone who is about to kill a bunch of other innocent people, or have an extremely high likelihood of killing a bunch of other innocent people, I'm going to do my best to stop them, even if it means committing a crime to do so.   I'd like to live in a society where most people would do the same.

But if we can move off of the most extreme example for a bit, I was actually trying to get feedback on some ideas for at what level of risky behavior people think it's worth getting at least a little involved, and what are some actions they think that might be appropriate for different levels of risky behavior?

(I'm not so grown-up that I won't take a little jab at my detractors here...)   Some of us are clearly on the 'never take action' side and if they see someone loading 29 beautiful babies and a puppy and a kitten into a plane full of dynamite and matches while drinking from a bottle of Jack Daniels and talking about how they are going to crash into the "Best and most beautiful newly married couples" pageant, they'd politely back their car out of the way and give the pilot a clear path to the runway.

I understand that you are searching for/soliciting preemptive actions that will enhance safer piloting outcomes. But instead of using your "extreme made-up example", why not use the real example of the pilot/owner of N69HF, an RV-6 that fatally crash in Galveston a few years ago. 

The owner was an ATP (I think he flew for SW).  He had been working on his plane and then took off from the ramp between hangars, buzzed Galveston for about 1 1/2 hours and crashed.  He was drunk and on sedating antihistamines.  The Factual noted that:

• Family members and a friend of the pilot told investigators the pilot had been experiencing episodes of unusual behavior for about 4 years, for which the pilot had sought medical evaluation; however, no medical records and no record of treatment or condition were located during the investigation.  He reported no issues on his routine First Class Medicals during those 4 yours.
• One witness talked to the pilot while he was working on the airplane and described him as “distracted,” and the pilot avoided talking to him. The witness further stated that the pilot acted “very distant,” and he thought the pilot may have been impaired.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/09/loss-of-control-in-flight-vans-rv-6.html

Clearly the structured oversight by the commercial airlines and the FAA of a "pro pilot" failed.  Surely his fellow pilots at the airline noticed something over 4 years. 

So what was the GA community supposed to do in this case?   GA is basically self regulating within set guidelines.  Should have his family members and his friend turned him in to the FAA knowing it would be ending his commercial career and likely making them bitter enemies? 

 

Edited June 29 by 1980Mooney

[wombat]

@1980Mooney Great example!   

 

In hindsight, yes, they should have turned him in. (*)  His family should have contacted his AME and said something.  Or the FAA.  Or SouthWest.    

 

But before the fatal event, was what people knew about him at the time enough to be knowingly ruining his career?   Well, if I were to describe any airline pilot as having "episodes of unusual behavior, for which the person had sought medical attention" ...  Yeah...   I wouldn't let it go.  We all know that you can't have a first class medical with that sort of problem. And if I exhibit that sort of behavior I hope someone would stop me.  But did his friends and family know the requirements that well?  Probably not.     

What sorts of actions would have been reasonable to try to save him?   Not sure.  Brainstorming here.

I think the first step is to talk to him and try to help him understand he's got a problem that is potentially career ending.  Help him research ways he can stop flying while he fixes his problems in a way that doesn't ruin his career.  That might not be possible.   Maybe start trying to talk him into changing careers.

This doesn't have to be in a single conversation.   There were apparently 4+ years of this behavior.  By the time 4 years of that sort of behavior goes by, he's had about 8 1st class medical exams... He's obviously lying to his AME.   At some point (1 year?  3 months?    3 years?)  it's time to ruin his career.   Would I actually be brave enough to ruin my friendship with him and probably a number of other people based on this?  If so, how long would it take me? I hope so, but I don't know, and I don't know how long.  But in this case 4 years of trying to talk him out of it, if anybody did, was too long.

 

For the bystanders watching him work on his plane, that's a challenging situation too.   If the bystander thought he was impaired (and the bystander was absolutely correct!) I'm sad that he didn't do something about it.   Maybe try to talk to the guy a little more to see for sure.  Maybe try to look up his home phone number and call his family?   Maybe go grab a couple more pilots even if you don't know them and say "Hey, there is a guy over here that is working on his plane and I think he's drunk.  Can you come give me your opinion and maybe help talk this guy out of doing anything stupid?"    But maybe the bystander's "thought he was impaired" was just a realization after the fact and it wasn't so bad.   I wasn't there, I don't know.

 

 

(*)  I'm assuming here that we all believe that that it's better to have him alive and having lost his career than to crashed and died.    If you believe different, that's OK.   But let's keep the conversation on examples where we both believe that 'saving' the person is better than letting them die.

[1980Mooney]

30 minutes ago, wombat said:

@1980Mooney Great example!   In hindsight, yes, they should have turned him in. (*)  His family should have contacted his AME and said something.  Or the FAA.  Or SouthWest.   

But before the fatal event, was what people knew about him at the time enough to be knowingly ruining his career?   Well, if I were to describe any airline pilot as having "episodes of unusual behavior, for which the person had sought medical attention" ...  Yeah...   I wouldn't let it go.  We all know that you can't have a first class medical with that sort of problem. And if I exhibit that sort of behavior I hope someone would stop me.  But did his friends and family know the requirements that well?  Probably not.     

What sorts of actions would have been reasonable to try to save him?   Not sure.  Brainstorming here.

I think the first step is to talk to him and try to help him understand he's got a problem that is potentially career ending.  Help him research ways he can stop flying while he fixes his problems in a way that doesn't ruin his career.  That might not be possible.   Maybe start trying to talk him into changing careers.

This doesn't have to be in a single conversation.   There were apparently 4+ years of this behavior.  By the time 4 years of that sort of behavior goes by, he's had about 8 1st class medical exams... He's obviously lying to his AME.   At some point (1 year?  3 months?    3 years?)  it's time to ruin his career.   Would I actually be brave enough to ruin my friendship with him and probably a number of other people based on this?  If so, how long would it take me? I hope so, but I don't know, and I don't know how long.  But in this case 4 years of trying to talk him out of it, if anybody did, was too long.

For the bystanders watching him work on his plane, that's a challenging situation too.   If the bystander thought he was impaired (and the bystander was absolutely correct!) I'm sad that he didn't do something about it.   Maybe try to talk to the guy a little more to see for sure.  Maybe try to look up his home phone number and call his family?   Maybe go grab a couple more pilots even if you don't know them and say "Hey, there is a guy over here that is working on his plane and I think he's drunk.  Can you come give me your opinion and maybe help talk this guy out of doing anything stupid?"    But maybe the bystander's "thought he was impaired" was just a realization after the fact and it wasn't so bad.   I wasn't there, I don't know.

(*)  I'm assuming here that we all believe that that it's better to have him alive and having lost his career than to crashed and died.    If you believe different, that's OK.   But let's keep the conversation on examples where we both believe that 'saving' the person is better than letting them die.

It's not that I believe different. And yes hindsight is perfect 20-20 and yes someone should have stopped him, reported him, etc. from killing himself.  Luckily he didn't crash into others.

I assume that over 4 years that his family did talk to him.  From the Docket and Final, they said that they knew that "he sought medical attention" so they thought he was addressing it.  He just didn't tell the FAA or the airlines. 

As for the morning of the crash, the Docket interviews and Final state "Family members and a friend stated that the pilot had gone to the airport the day of the accident to work on the  airplane’s magnetos and did not take his flying gear or indicate that he would fly that day".  So if the pilot in the next hangar called the accident pilot's family and said that he seems "impaired", they would likely say "Yes we know - he is just working on the plane today." and maybe "We will come by later".  In the meantime, the next door hangar pilot sees the RV fire up and shoot out the ramp between hangars.

• I have been to Galveston where his hangar was many times and had a friend based there. Even if you called the Tower or FBO, they likely would not come very fast to the hangars if at all.  If they did, most likely the accident pilot would probably say, "I am just working on my plane".  And they would leave at that point.  If the hangar pilot called a second time, they probably would not come.
• So what would you have done?  If you wanted to take a calculated risk, you could park your car/truck in front of his hangar on the assumption that he would not call the police, Tower or FBO since you believed him to be highly impaired.  Of course he might damage your vehicle. 
  • And if he wasn't impaired, he might make a complaint against you and then there might be charges against you or the FBO/Airport might kick you out of our hangar lease.

There is no easy answer.  And getting personally involved carries risk.

[Yetti]

Back in the day cops would pull over a Rolling G.   think about how a G would roll.   ie drunk driver.   If they did not want to do the paperwork, they would just put the car key ring over the radio antenna.    You have to be pretty sober to get them off, so kind of self service punishment.

[wombat]

@1980Mooney  I don't claim that every accident or incident is preventable.   But if someone had stopped and talked to him and expressed any interest, he might have changed his mind.  Maybe he was desperate for someone to come help him and if he'd had another person there for an hour to help him on the magnetos he would have thought different by the time he was done.  Maybe the other person could have invited him out to to a bar for a drink and the guy would have spilled his guts and then called the FAA the next day an surrendered his medical.    And from what you have posted it doesn't seem like anybody did, although there may have been lots of effort put into trying to help him.  We'll never know, nobody was successful.

 

If you don't want to take a risk to save someone's life, that's your decision to make.    I am willing to take some personal risk to try to save someone's life.    I am inclined to take action to make the world better.

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, wombat said:

@1980Mooney  I don't claim that every accident or incident is preventable.   But if someone had stopped and talked to him and expressed any interest, he might have changed his mind.  Maybe he was desperate for someone to come help him and if he'd had another person there for an hour to help him on the magnetos he would have thought different by the time he was done.  Maybe the other person could have invited him out to to a bar for a drink and the guy would have spilled his guts and then called the FAA the next day an surrendered his medical.    And from what you have posted it doesn't seem like anybody did, although there may have been lots of effort put into trying to help him.  We'll never know, nobody was successful.

If you don't want to take a risk to save someone's life, that's your decision to make.    I am willing to take some personal risk to try to save someone's life.    I am inclined to take action to make the world better.

All great suggestions (other than taking him to a bar given his proclivity to abuse alcohol - maybe take him to Starbucks....). 

But I am confused.  Are you the same person that said on page 2:

• "I'm a CFI and unless I'm being paid to do so, I find it really hard to criticize other people's behaviors unless it's very clearly dangerous."
• And "I've got a friend whose actions as a pilot make me cringe so much because they are risky, but as far as I know, they are legal....    He loves flying that way, but...  Ugh. "

You said above "If you don't want to take a risk to save someone's life, that's your decision to make.    I am willing to take some personal risk to try to save someone's life.    I am inclined to take action to make the world better."  It sounds like you are suggesting what you and others ideally should do.....but even you find it hard to do.  It doesn't sound like you confronted your friend that conducts risky, but legal, flying actions.

I am not criticizing you but just pointing out what appears to be the reality of this difficult situation.

[wombat]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

It sounds like you are suggesting what you and others ideally should do.....but even you find it hard to do.

Exactly.

 

  Yes, it's a difficult situation.  The only reason we are talking about this is because there isn't a well known clear answer.    For me it makes things easier if I have thought it out ahead of time and have a plan.  But what I won't do is just close my eyes to opportunities to maybe save a plane or a life by having a conversation.

I have not 'confronted' my friend.   I've had one subtle (perhaps too subtle) conversation about if the flying he does is really worth the risk.   While his flying makes me very uncomfortable, I doubt I'll ever get to the point of 'confronting' him about it.   And there is no way I'd block him in or disable his plane.   He's not doing anything that dangerous.   And also he had a near miss last summer that has resulted in a change of behavior that I hope is permanent.   Hmm... So maybe it is that dangerous after all?   *sigh*

[toto]

8 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

I understand that you are searching for/soliciting preemptive actions that will enhance safer piloting outcomes. But instead of using your "extreme made-up example", why not use the real example of the pilot/owner of N69HF, an RV-6 that fatally crash in Galveston a few years ago. 

The owner was an ATP (I think he flew for SW).  He had been working on his plane and then took off from the ramp between hangars, buzzed Galveston for about 1 1/2 hours and crashed.  He was drunk and on sedating antihistamines.  The Factual noted that:

• Family members and a friend of the pilot told investigators the pilot had been experiencing episodes of unusual behavior for about 4 years, for which the pilot had sought medical evaluation; however, no medical records and no record of treatment or condition were located during the investigation.  He reported no issues on his routine First Class Medicals during those 4 yours.
• One witness talked to the pilot while he was working on the airplane and described him as “distracted,” and the pilot avoided talking to him. The witness further stated that the pilot acted “very distant,” and he thought the pilot may have been impaired.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/09/loss-of-control-in-flight-vans-rv-6.html

Clearly the structured oversight by the commercial airlines and the FAA of a "pro pilot" failed.  Surely his fellow pilots at the airline noticed something over 4 years. 

So what was the GA community supposed to do in this case?   GA is basically self regulating within set guidelines.  Should have his family members and his friend turned him in to the FAA knowing it would be ending his commercial career and likely making them bitter enemies? 

 

Out of curiosity, does the airline pilots union have a safety hotline or something that would allow anonymous reports of suspected bad behavior? I would think that they would have better resources to address this sort of thing, and could address it quietly where appropriate (or noisily where not). 

(I know this thread is about GA and not about 121, but I’m genuinely curious.)

[Andy95W]

56 minutes ago, toto said:

Out of curiosity, does the airline pilots union have a safety hotline or something that would allow anonymous reports of suspected bad behavior? I would think that they would have better resources to address this sort of thing, and could address it quietly where appropriate (or noisily where not). 

(I know this thread is about GA and not about 121, but I’m genuinely curious.)

At least for ALPA, there is, it’s called Professional Standards.  When a report gets filed, the pilot is talked to by a member of the Professional Standards committee in a non-confrontational way in the hopes that he/she will address their issues.  The airline never has to get involved which is good for all concerned.

There are other programs to address bad flying, such as unstable approaches, taxiing too fast, etc., all for the purpose of increasing safety.

Unfortunately, none of those programs would be used in this scenario since it’s obviously outside of the purview of the union.

[toto]

3 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

Unfortunately, none of those programs would be used in this scenario since it’s obviously outside of the purview of the union.

I thought the scenario here was a pilot struggling with possible mental health issues, alcohol abuse, impaired flying judgment and failure to report all this stuff on medical applications?

[Andy95W]

I can only assume he kept his issues under control at work.

But if a fellow SW pilot and GA airplane owner saw him exhibiting mental health issues, then I would hope they would point it out to their union.  At that point, the union would hopefully address it with the pilot- but I don’t know if that’s 100% accurate for the SW pilots union.

[toto]

26 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

I can only assume he kept his issues under control at work.

But if a fellow SW pilot and GA airplane owner saw him exhibiting mental health issues, then I would hope they would point it out to their union.  At that point, the union would hopefully address it with the pilot- but I don’t know if that’s 100% accurate for the SW pilots union.

But so if you’re a member of the public (i.e., another GA pilot, no connection with the airline) and you see a 121 pilot doing this stuff, could you call a safety hotline at the union to report it and expect that they’ll follow up?