Responsibilities of Pilots and Observers

[mingram]

I'm starting a new thread to discuss the responsibilities of Pilots and Observers that Jeff started.

Here's a repost of Jeff's initial thoughts:
----
"I'm not sure I agree with or understand the "P2 with observer" concept. Here are a couple reasons:

1. The USHPA provision and intent for "observers" is a far cry from how we typically see it implemented. I'll leave the experts to weigh in, but the actual USHPA "examiner" and "observer" provisions doesn't appear to offer a sanctioned way to make a P3 site flyable by a P2 pilot.

2. As your post seems to suggest, the observer concept inappropriately shifts the burden of judgment from the pilot to the "observer." The "observer" system is a poor substitute for mentoring, which is admittedly in short supply. Talking to more experienced pilots on launch, and hearing about their experiences, and asking them questions is how junior (single-seat) pilots can make more informed decisions. The "observer" system doesn't involve much mentoring. It just suggests that a P3 site can somehow be removed of its objective dangers by having a P3 "observer" nearby on the ground.

3. In flying, there is a time-honored tradition of "instructor-pilot" and "student-pilot." Both are pilots, but the two are separated by a profound gulf of experience. The other tradition is the "solo" flight, which represents a hard-earned, major milestone. All of this highly evolved tradition has refined a culture whereby the "winged" pilot has earned a novice rating after a long and extensive apprenticeship, and even then only appropriate for certain conditions. Our "observer" system muddies that, and creates an informal "! in-between," cheapening the time-honored requirement to earn one's solo ratings. This is all-the-more important in the single-seat aircraft.

4. A site or event should be P2 or P3, period. I don't know what a "P3 but P2 with observer" means. Again, "observing" can't change the physical characteristics of a site and make a risky site less so. "Observing" is meant to evaluate a pilot's readiness for rating advancement. The factors that make any site P2 or P4 are intrinsic to the site, not the conditions. But too often, the "observer" is ostensibly there to evaluate whether the conditions are acceptable for the P2 to fly. In a single-seat aircraft, only the pilot can be held culpable for the decision to take-off -- that judgment is non-transferrable.

5. We need more independent, pilot-based assessment and decision-making. Too many pilots decide when and where and whether to fly based on what other pilots are doing. Some of this is healthy mentoring, and learning from folks who know the area. But some of it is dependency. Pilots need to learn to evaluate sites, weather, conditions, etc. for themselves. One way to do that is to sit on launch and talk to pilots and watch other pilots flying, and then evaluate the conditions for one's self. But again, the "observer" can too easily become someone whose very presence erodes the responsibility to evaluate conditions and make personal judgments.

The incident in question appears (IMHO) to have had more to do with a visiting pilot who was unfamiliar with the site, didn't get a proper site briefing, and accepted the risk of flying alone. The "observer" s! ystem isn't meant to teach someone what to do with a cravat on launch, or how to land safely in a tree. "

[mingram]

And here's a cross-post of Hugh's response/thoughts:
----
"WRT Jeff's issue about observer vs mentor: USHPA tried to implement a mentor program but it fizzled. In our area, observers have functioned as mentors, with varying degrees of hand-holding according to personality of the observer. The difference would be that a mentor sticks with one P2, invites *him/her* flying rather than having the P2 snivel for an observer - trying to solve the problem of P2s getting lost/dropping out after initial training. Agree that observer should not substitute his/her judgment for the P2's - remember, your influence ends once the P2 is in the air! (Radio helps a little, but I am very cautious about trying to radio-control from the ground - at that point, the P2 is Pilot in Command, better not to distract...) If we make all our sites P3 (no P2 w/observer) then how will we make new P3s? (Believe we have so designated Edith's Gap.). I think all our sites are pretty rough, so some mandatory hand-holding (look up the origin of "pedagogy") is needed. Jeff, if not already, I encourage you to take up the leaden mantle of responsibility and become an observer - you are a cut above in terms of skills - might get you out of the house more! Might be good to have an "observer caucus" sometime to standardize our mentoring, learn from each other. Maybe even invite the examiner who appoints us!
- Hugh"

[markc]

Back in the day of monthly CHGPA meetings (years ago, I'm dating myself), the observers would periodically meet before/after in order to compare notes, discuss responsibilities, etc. Perhaps there's still a place for something like that? On-line protocols and procedures are great, but an actual f-2-f can have its place too.

MarkC

[chgpa]

Matt, MANY thanks for teasing this topic out of the recent incident report at Daniels!

However, discussions about how the CHGPA observer system works (or doesn't work, which seems to be the perspective of some) is definitely an issue of club operations and responsibilities. So I'll be moving this topic over there.

And I hope to make some contributions to the discussion once that's happened, and I've caught up on forum-related tasks.

Cheers,

MarkC

[markc]

I can understand Jeff's frustrations about the role of Observers and the H2/P2 pilots that they work with.

If the Observer system was a truly a _mentoring_ system, then things might be a bit simpler. The 2 works with a specific observer, one who is available for many flights, in many different conditions. As a result of their collaboration, the 2 gains added experience and judgement.

But from what I've seen, this just doesn't happen very often in the real world, at least around here. I'm guessing because of the time requirements that are involved?

Instead, the 2 reaches the point of a solo flight (or two, or three) with their instructor, and then they are 'let loose', to garner additional knowledge from Observers.

In nearly 20 years of flying, I've encountered a handful (literally) of HG 2's who have been "ready" for mountain flying after their initial solo. It's not (in my experience) a simple matter of getting your 2, getting your high-flight, and then *poof*, you are good-to-go.

In fact, 90+% of the H-2 pilots that I've witnessed on their first handful of high-flights are **FAR** (majorly far), from being able to judge conditions at a ramp/slot/cliff launch site. You know that deer-in-the-headlights look? Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. On a gnarly day at High Rock, or Woodstock, or the Pulpit, in conditions that you just don't see during training.

(My experience is limited to HG pilots, so please take note of that, grain-of-salt, etc)

So, at least within the 'new-HG-pilot' sample that I've seen, I have to say that very few (almost *none*) have had sufficient experience to "evaluate the conditions for one's self". Additional advice is needed for those critical first few high flights, from launch sites that are far less predictable than what's been encountered previously.

Yes, this means that things are very gray : Is evaluation up to the P2/H2? Or is it up to the Observer? If the Observer says "good to go!" and something happens, is it their fault? If the P2/H2 chooses to fly, even though there might be butterflies, and something happens, is it their fault?

I don't think there's an easy black-and-white answer to any of those questions.

MarkC

[theflyingdude]

Having been an Observer for the past 25 years or so, I think the idea of sites being rated H2 or P2 with an Observer makes perfect sense. Like Mark said, the vast majority of these pilots lack the experience to judge the flying conditions and whether they're suitable for that site on that day. Essentially, we play the role of mentor, regardless of whether that's an official title. Where it gets a little more dicey is when new pilots show up at a site for the first time and you have to try and determine their relative abilities without ever having seen them fly. I always try to err on the side of caution and if it's someone I don't know, I tend to call their Instructor and ask for some background information. Once the pilot leaves the ground, they're pretty much on their own, although I do think having radio contact is a huge benefit if all they need to do is listen to your occasional input.

JR

[brianvh]

For liability reasons I think it's good to say that technically a site is H/P2 or H/P3, with no observers involvement mandated (only recommended); while in practice making it clear that "observer recommended" means a H/P2 is making a major misstep by not using a mentor for every flight. And in most cases, agreeing to be an observer means you have agreed to be a mentor.

[theflyingdude]

If there were no H2/P2 w/ Observer sites, no one would be able to fly the local mountain sites until they obtained their H3/P3 ratings. That would make even obtaining those ratings nearly impossible unless you went somewhere else to fly. The sites that permit H2/P2 w/ Observers are generally suitable for those newer pilots in some, but certainly not all, conditions. Hence, the requirement that an Observer be present to help make that determination. I try to allow the H2 to make his or her own decision as to whether or not they should fly on a given day, but occasionally enthusiasm gets the better of their judgment, especially if there are other pilots in the air. That's where the role changes from mentor to Observer and you have to say "no" or "wait". Strongly "suggesting" they don't fly isn't really an option when the health and we'll-being of both the site and the pilot are on the line.

JR

[CraginS]

For liability reasons I think it's good to say that technically a site is H/P2 or H/P3, with no observers involvement mandated (only recommended); while in practice making it clear that "observer recommended" means a H/P2 is making a major misstep by not using a mentor for every flight. And in most cases, agreeing to be an observer means you have agreed to be a mentor.

IANAL, but my bureaucratically-molded mind often works like one. Thus I see the value of Brian's proposal, and suggest the following extension:

"For flight safety, pilots with fewer than three flights [# could be variable for different sites] at this site should receive a site-specific conditions and practices briefing from a locally experienced pilot (preferably an appointed USHPA Observer) at the launch site no more than three hours before launching."

This sentence gives the reason, puts the burden on the pilot not the observer, allows customization (for instance, I'd set the experience count at 10 for Woodstock, 3 for Bill's Hill), and sets location and timing of the briefing so the current conditions at the site that day are the basis for the mentoring advice.

Reactions?

[theflyingdude]

Not necessary - that's one reason why every pilot that joins the USHPA must sign a waiver and why most sites require USHPA membership in order for the pilot to be allowed to fly. I'm unaware of any instances involving H2/P2 pilots suing the organization or an a Observer for negligence and I think the waiver would prevent that from happening absent some type of gross negligence situation.

JR

[davidtheamazing1]

As a relative new H3 (in terms of hours) I think that our region does a good job with observers mentoring H2s. The only thing that I think we could do better is to promote some new observers from the ranks, especially on the P side.