X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:33:59 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4022494 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:10:19 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.39; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (imo-ma04.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.139]) by imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id nBFL9ZNj017295 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:09:35 -0500 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id q.d4a.61cab478 (37544) for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:09:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-dc03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-dc03.mx.aol.com [205.188.170.3]) by cia-mb02.mx.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMB025-d39f4b27faf7203; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:09:29 -0500 Received: from webmail-m035 (webmail-m035.sim.aol.com [64.12.101.218]) by smtprly-dc03.mx.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDC031-d39f4b27faf7203; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:09:11 -0500 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Tone on list X-Original-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:09:11 -0500 X-AOL-IP: 166.187.163.96 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CC4BE1FB71F1D1_2FAC_2F62E_webmail-m035.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 29970-STANDARD Received: from 166.187.163.96 by webmail-m035.sysops.aol.com (64.12.101.218) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:09:11 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CC4BE1FB509E91-2FAC-178C8@webmail-m035.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: VTAILJEFF@aol.com ----------MB_8CC4BE1FB71F1D1_2FAC_2F62E_webmail-m035.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 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 beli= ef systems about risk and safety. If you post something that smacks of bla= tant risky behaviour do not be surprised if someone on the list makes a re= mark 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 commenter= s are the opposite. This is a great forum to learn if one is willing to ac= cept constructive criticism from some very experienced folks in the indust= ry.=20 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 con= tanct me privately. Best Regards--have a safe and happy holiday season, Jeff Edwards President, LOBO -----Original Message----- From: Mark Sletten To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:40 am Subject: [LML] Re: Tone on list Jim, =20 Email is a terrible medium for communicating tone. It=E2=80=99s difficult= to accurately project and/or discern emotion via email. Often a writer in= tends to be sarcastic in a humorous way, but it is received as demeaning= and derogatory. =20 Some of us military types grew up in a flying environment where one=E2=80= =99s skills and judgment were under constant review. Public post-flight re= views (to give you an idea of the mindset, we called them =E2=80=98critiqu= es=E2=80=99) 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=E2=80=99m sure) =E2=80=98safety of flight is pa= ramount.=E2=80=99 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. =20 Despite our government=E2=80=99s current effort to the contrary, you can= =E2=80=99t write a rule book that prohibits EVERY sort of dangerous behavi= or/mindset/inclination. This, of course, is especially true in an organiza= tion where such behaviors/mindsets/inclinations would be advantageous, dep= ending on the mission. There are many things you can do with a USAF aircra= ft that, while not specifically forbidden, would be considered dangerous= -- even negligent -- on a training mission. The problem is you can=E2=80= =99t simply throw away a pilot you have spent millions training for behavi= ng stupidly on a single flight. And sanctioning via official means (reprim= ands, 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. =20 In a community so inculcated with the =E2=80=98safety culture,=E2=80=99= engaging in behavior not officially prohibited, but considered unsafe, wa= s grounds for public humiliation during a post-flight critique with the cr= ews of all aircraft involved, and maybe even during a monthly safety meeti= ng in front of the entire wing. Such public humiliation served several pur= poses including (but not limited to): =20 - It provides a teaching moment to show how easy it is to make bad decisio= ns - Those experiencing such public humiliation rarely repeat the offending= behavior - Those observing learned the hazard of engaging in such behavior =20 I don=E2=80=99t 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 pe= rsonal puffing (and some may be), often it is simply a matter of habit =E2= =80=93 and old habits are hard to break.=20 =20 My suggestion is for both sides to attempt tone deafness. Those posting th= eir disapproval of others should make every attempt to post opinion backed= by fact and data, but absent the vitriol. If the subject behavior/idea/mi= ndset is heinous enough it will speak for itself. Humor is often an effect= ive tool to use in such cases, but beware the problems noted above. If you= want to be funny, be sure it=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99t wait= to see how some of these guys react to this one=E2=80=A6 :-P) =20 Those on the receiving end of a critique should assume the best of intenti= ons on the part of the poster. Speaking for myself, if I offer an opinion= about another=E2=80=99s judgment or behavior, I do so with the sole purpo= se 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=E2=80=99re getting spanked try to get the message= and ignore the tone. =20 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 =E2=80=98help=E2=80=99 a person will come to naught, because= even the best, most obvious message is wasted if the receiver doesn=E2=80= =99t get it =20 Even if everyone completely disregards this rambling missive, Jim, please= don=E2=80=99t quit the forum because you are unhappy with the tone. I hav= e learned some very important lessons while observing the (often unpleasan= t) dissection of another person=E2=80=99s behavior. I=E2=80=99ve learned= some of the most important lessons of my life after being shown (always= unpleasant) how I=E2=80=99d behaved stupidly or irresponsibly. Yes, it hu= rt, but I am forever grateful to the @$$holes who pointed out the error of= my ways. =20 Respectfully, =20 Mark Sletten =20 From: Jim Scales [mailto:joscales98@hotmail.com]=20 Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:52 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Tone on list =20 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. =20 Seems that every so often there are those who feel the need to puff themse= lves 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 in= hibits the willingness of a lot of people to participate. =20 After about 3 back and forth attempts to change the opponent's point of vi= ew 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. =20 =20 To summarize, I participate because I want to be the best, safest, smartes= t pilot I can be. I believe most of us hang around for the same reasons.= It doesn=E2=80=99t do me or any other lister any good if the tone that= is used to present the information prevents the information from being re= ceived. =20 ----------MB_8CC4BE1FB71F1D1_2FAC_2F62E_webmail-m035.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
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 mi= ssion 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 mak= es a remark about it. Many of the folks who have held such beliefs are gen= erally 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 wa= nts 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 communica= ting tone. It=E2=80=99s difficult to accurately project and/or discern emo= tion 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=E2=80=99s skills and judgment were under con= stant review. Public post-flight reviews (to give you an idea of the minds= et, we called them =E2=80=98critiques=E2=80=99) were mandatory, and all as= pects of a mission were evaluated for mission effectiveness and safety. Fo= r training missions, the guiding principle was (still is I=E2=80=99m sure)= =E2=80=98safety of flight is paramount.=E2=80=99 For operational missions= crews might assume higher risks to get the job done, but compromising saf= ety for a training mission was , um, not in accordance with official guida= nce.
 
Despite our government=E2=80=99s current= effort to the contrary, you can=E2=80=99t write a rule book that prohibit= s EVERY sort of dangerous behavior/mindset/inclination. This, of course,= is especially true in an organization where such behaviors/mindsets/incli= nations would be advantageous, depending on the mission. There are many th= ings you can do with a USAF aircraft that, while not specifically forbidde= n, would be considered dangerous -- even negligent -- on a training missio= n. The problem is you can=E2=80=99t simply throw away a pilot you have spe= nt millions training for behaving stupidly on a single flight. And sanctio= ning via official means (reprimands, courts-martial, etc.) usually kills= any chance of promotion, so you may as well count on a person so sanction= ed to punch out (of the service) at the earliest opportunity. Understandin= g this, the leadership chooses to use peer pressure to modify behavior rat= her than more official means. It turns out the peer pressure idea works be= tter anyway.
 
In a  community so inculcated with= the =E2=80=98safety culture,=E2=80=99 engaging in behavior not officially= prohibited, but considered unsafe, was grounds for public humiliation dur= ing a post-flight critique with the crews of all aircraft involved, and ma= ybe 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 humilia= tion rarely repeat the offending behavior
- Those observing learned the hazard of= engaging in such behavior
 
I don=E2=80=99t bring all this up to sug= gest ritual public humiliation as a means to make all Lancair pilots ident= ical automatons of safety. I only wish to point out that while public rebu= kes may come across as pompous personal puffing (and some may be), often= it is simply a matter of habit =E2=80=93 and old habits are hard to break= .
 
My suggestion is for both sides to attem= pt tone deafness. Those posting their disapproval of others should make ev= ery attempt to post opinion backed by fact and data, but absent the vitrio= l. If the subject behavior/idea/mindset is heinous enough it will speak fo= r itself. Humor is often an effective tool to use in such cases, but bewar= e the problems noted above. If you want to be funny, be sure it=E2=80=99s= funny and not mean spirited. You might find them trite and silly, but add= ing an e= moticon to your text can be an effective means of deflecting hurt feel= ings. (I can=E2=80=99t wait to see how some of these guys react to this on= e=E2=80=A6 :-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=E2=80=99s judgment or beh= avior, 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=E2=80=99re gett= ing 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 anot= her: If your message bounces off the defensive wall sure to go up after yo= u deride his/her ego, your best intention to =E2=80=98help=E2=80=99 a pers= on will come to naught, because even the best, most obvious message is was= ted if the receiver doesn=E2=80=99t get it
 
Even if everyone completely disregards= this rambling missive, Jim, please don=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80= =99s behavior. I=E2=80=99ve learned some of the most important lessons of= my life after being shown (always unpleasant) how I=E2=80=99d behaved stu= pidly or irresponsibly. Yes, it hurt, but I am forever grateful to the @$$= holes who pointed out the error of my ways.
 
Respectfully,
 
Mark Sletten
 
From: Jim Scales [mailto:joscales98@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:52 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net<= /A>
Subject: Tone on list
 
In my opinion the tone on the list re= cently, in a couple of the threads, has gotten pretty abrasive. = Rather than abandon a resource that I have utilized for a long time, I th= ought 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.&n= bsp; In my opinion it really defeats the purpose of the list and turns oth= er listers off.  I'm guessing it also greatly inhibits the willingnes= s 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 disagr= ee would be the adult thing to do.  When all is said and done it real= ly is each individual's right to make his or her own decisions.&= nbsp;
 
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=E2=80=99t do me or an= y other lister any good if the tone that is used to present the informatio= n prevents the information from being received.  =
----------MB_8CC4BE1FB71F1D1_2FAC_2F62E_webmail-m035.sysops.aol.com--