Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend who
is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He grew up
flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft manufacturer.

These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is increased risk
of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him fly with
his friend, but we want to be reasonable.

I would appreciate any data or guidance this group could provide.

Thanks

Peter

"anon" > wrote in message
...
> Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend
> who
> is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He
> grew up
> flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft
> manufacturer.
>
> These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is increased
> risk
> of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him fly
> with
> his friend, but we want to be reasonable.
>
> I would appreciate any data or guidance this group could provide.
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter

I came up this route myself, and I have a friend, Corky Fornof, who also
came up this route. Both of us soloed very young. My personal opinion is
that if the boy has had solid training and has passed the flight test with
the powers that be in your location, the odds are very good that he is a
capable and skillful pilot.
Dudley Henriques

"anon" > wrote in message
...
> Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend
> who
> is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He
> grew up
> flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft
> manufacturer.
>
> These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is increased
> risk
> of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him fly
> with
> his friend, but we want to be reasonable.
>
> I would appreciate any data or guidance this group could provide.

The standard reference for small-plane safety statistics is the Air Safety
Foundation's Nall Report (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf).
As far as I know, there are no good statistics about the safety of new
pilots vs. more-experienced pilots. But I doubt new pilots are at increased
risk. It's not that pilots' skills don't continue to improve; but newer
pilots will tend to avoid more-challenging flight circumstances (weather
etc.) that more-experienced pilots might not be deterred by, so the overall
risk might remain about the same.

--Gary

> Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old
> friend who is a brand new pilot.

New pilots are generally careful, but I'd emphasize to both that
buzzing girlfriend's houses is a no-no. Youth will sometimes be youth.

That said, here's an idea: why don't you take a test ride yourself with
him? (Buying half the flight time would be nice.) You might come away
impressed with his professionalism (or not). Then you can come back
here and mention anything you thought seemed unsafe or unusual, and get
more comments.

You might even decide to become a pilot yourself <grin> or ask your son
to become one.

Best, Kev

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "anon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend
>>who
>>is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He
>>grew up
>>flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft
>>manufacturer.

> The standard reference for small-plane safety statistics is the Air Safety
> Foundation's Nall Report (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf).
> As far as I know, there are no good statistics about the safety of new
> pilots vs. more-experienced pilots.

That report includes the statement that "ASF studies have shown that low
pilot time in type is often a significant contributing factor in
accidents." But I didn't see any specific data there to back it up.
The accompanying chart plots a histogram of accidents vs. PIC hours of
experience but unfortunately doesn't normalize it to the number of
pilots in each band and the number of hours flown by them.

However in this case where you personally know the pilot I would think
your judgement of his maturity would be more predictive of the risk than
any statistics based on the group of inexperienced young pilots as a whole.

"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...
> New pilots are generally careful, but I'd emphasize to both that
> buzzing girlfriend's houses is a no-no. Youth will sometimes be youth.

It might be just like with cars... A 17-yr old driver might not necessarily
be unsafe, but put a few of them together in a car and it gets that way... I
would suggest mounting a video camera in the plane and let them know that
the entire flight will be recorded and anything that is even slightly unsafe
will be dealt with by way of serious punishment... Make your son understand
that he is also responsible for any unsafe actions by his friend and will be
punished...

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> The standard reference for small-plane safety statistics is the Air
>> Safety Foundation's Nall Report
>> (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf). As far as I know,
>> there are no good statistics about the safety of new pilots vs.
>> more-experienced pilots.
>
> That report includes the statement that "ASF studies have shown that low
> pilot time in type is often a significant contributing factor in
> accidents." But I didn't see any specific data there to back it up.

Yup. Plus, low time in type is different from being recently licensed as a
pilot.

> The accompanying chart plots a histogram of accidents vs. PIC hours of
> experience but unfortunately doesn't normalize it to the number of pilots
> in each band and the number of hours flown by them.

Yup. Paul Craig's book The Killing Zone has the same problem. Without
normalization, the data tell us nothing about how safety might vary as a
function of experience.

--Gary

> That report includes the statement that "ASF studies have shown that low
> pilot time in type is often a significant contributing factor in
> accidents." But I didn't see any specific data there to back it up.

I think if we read "between the lines" we will find that the poster is
really concerned with this pilot's youth -- perhaps more so than with his
low flight time.

A 17 year old boy is basically a fleshy container of hormones, with great
stamina, questionable stability, and loads of bravado. This is NOT
necessarily a great fit with being a new pilot -- especially when you put
two of these guys inside the same vehicle.

There are very good reasons that car insurance for 17 year old boys costs
exponentially more than for adults. They generally have poor judgment, and
are known to end their statements -- and sometimes their lives -- with
"Watch this!"

Personally, I'd be VERY reluctant to allow my son to fly with another 17
year old boy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> I
> would suggest mounting a video camera in the plane and let them know that
> the entire flight will be recorded and anything that is even slightly unsafe
> will be dealt with by way of serious punishment...

If I were the pilot, I would not fly the passenger under that kind of
threat. Starting out with that attitude tells me the passenger is bad news.

However, mounting a video camera to share the flight with dad would feel
much different.

Having dad take a flight first is the best idea.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:Q%Uge.75682$NU4.7336@attbi_s22...
> A 17-yr old driver might not necessarily
> be unsafe, but put a few of them together in a car and it gets that way...
> I would suggest mounting a video camera in the plane and let them know
> that
> the entire flight will be recorded and anything that is even slightly
> unsafe
> will be dealt with by way of serious punishment...

Gosh, why limit it to flying? Why not insist on video surveillance whenever
he's in a car, or for that matter any time he's with friends and might
engage in dangerous drug use or unprotected sex? Or better yet, be sure to
accompany him in person whenever he goes out. Preferably attached by a
handcuff, in case he tries to slip away. You can never be too careful with
17-year-olds.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:k4Vge.77243$WI3.40856@attbi_s71...
> There are very good reasons that car insurance for 17 year old boys costs
> exponentially more than for adults.

Does aviation insurance cost any more for 17-year-olds than for adults?

>> There are very good reasons that car insurance for 17 year old boys costs
>> exponentially more than for adults.
>
> Does aviation insurance cost any more for 17-year-olds than for adults?

Actually, it will cost less to put my son on our flight insurance than it
will to add him to our 8-year old Subaru insurance. (The insurance agent
only laughed when we asked about adding him to our Mustang convertible...
;-)

I'm hoping that this says that teenage pilots are better than teenage
drivers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>I'm hoping that this says that teenage pilots are better than teenage
drivers.

I think with the amount of time, effort, and money put toward earning a
private pilot certificate that one gains more of a sense of ownership
of that privelege than one does when "earning" a driver's license. Most
kids think of a dl as an entitlement, a rite of passage. Doubtful they
look upon flying with the same carefree attitude.

Still, you're right about the youthful indiscretions, but I wouldn't be
too quick to judge _all_ 17 year boys by that standard. I certainly
never took risks when driving at that age, but I consider myself more
the boring exception to the rule. :)

Just make sure that they don't try flying across one of the great
lakes, especially at night.

would you trust the two of them together in a sports car?
BT

"anon" > wrote in message
...
> Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend
> who
> is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He
> grew up
> flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft
> manufacturer.
>
> These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is increased
> risk
> of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him fly
> with
> his friend, but we want to be reasonable.
>
> I would appreciate any data or guidance this group could provide.
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter

> Still, you're right about the youthful indiscretions, but I wouldn't be
> too quick to judge _all_ 17 year boys by that standard. I certainly
> never took risks when driving at that age, but I consider myself more
> the boring exception to the rule. :)

I was an exceptionally cautious driver at age 17, too.

But that's only because at age 15 I stole my mother's car, and went joy
riding with three friends -- one of whom proceeded to wrap that car around
an oak tree.

It was a grave, nearly fatal lesson to be learned, the hard way, indeed...
And one I hope no one else ever has to learn.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message ...
> Gosh, why limit it to flying? Why not insist on video surveillance
whenever
> he's in a car, or for that matter any time he's with friends and might
> engage in dangerous drug use or unprotected sex? Or better yet, be sure to
> accompany him in person whenever he goes out. Preferably attached by a
> handcuff, in case he tries to slip away. You can never be too careful with
> 17-year-olds.

Good suggestion, but the original question was about flying... One would
suspect that he's already taken appropriate measures for the other things in
life that cause him concern...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:bkVge.74706$r53.48513@attbi_s21...
> I'm hoping that this says that teenage pilots are better than teenage
> drivers.

Or the sample size is not large enough for the insurace companies to draw
meaningful statistics... Frankly, there's probably not a high percentage of
teenage pilots... Flying is expensive and most teenagers don't have the
money to do it... On top of that, most don't have the perseverance to
complete something as lengthy as getting a PPL anyway...

On 5/12/05 7:11 PM, in article ,
"anon" > wrote:

> Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend who
> is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He grew
> up
> flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft manufacturer.
>
> These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is increased risk
> of accidents with new pilots.

The problem is not with him being a new pilot but with 17 year old judgment.
If he has good judgment then he is probably safe enough to fly with. If you
want to put any restrictions on it, then say that the ceiling has to be at
least 5000 feet, visibility 10 miles or better, no stalls or other aerobatic
maneuvers, no flight below 1000 feet above the ground except for takeoff and
landing, crosswinds less than 10 knots, no night flight, and remain within
25 miles of the airport. As the new pilot gains experience and you gain
confidence in his judgment and abilities, you can relax these restrictions.

If you hear of this kid "buzzing" the ground or showing off, or otherwise
deliberately violating Federal Aviation Regulations, then you never let your
son fly with him again.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:22:24 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>> Gary Drescher wrote:
>>> The standard reference for small-plane safety statistics is the Air
>>> Safety Foundation's Nall Report
>>> (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf). As far as I know,
>>> there are no good statistics about the safety of new pilots vs.
>>> more-experienced pilots.
>>
>> That report includes the statement that "ASF studies have shown that low
>> pilot time in type is often a significant contributing factor in
>> accidents." But I didn't see any specific data there to back it up.
>
>Yup. Plus, low time in type is different from being recently licensed as a
>pilot.

"It seems" as if I read some where a freshly minted pilot is one of
the safest times, but ... that is an old and foggy memory.

One of the worst times is some where around 500 hours.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>> The accompanying chart plots a histogram of accidents vs. PIC hours of
>> experience but unfortunately doesn't normalize it to the number of pilots
>> in each band and the number of hours flown by them.
>
>Yup. Paul Craig's book The Killing Zone has the same problem. Without
>normalization, the data tell us nothing about how safety might vary as a
>function of experience.
>
>--Gary
>

You can reasonably expect that the son learned his flying habits from the
dad. If the dad is calm collected and level headed, the son is likely to
be a safe pilot. If he is a risk taker, short tempered and aggressive, you
might want to think twice.



anon > wrote in
:

> Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old
> friend who is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and
> mature. He grew up flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot
> for an aircraft manufacturer.
>
> These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is
> increased risk of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable
> about letting him fly with his friend, but we want to be reasonable.
>
> I would appreciate any data or guidance this group could provide.
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter

Roger wrote:

> On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:22:24 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Gary Drescher wrote:
>>>
>>>>The standard reference for small-plane safety statistics is the Air
>>>>Safety Foundation's Nall Report
>>>>(http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf). As far as I know,
>>>>there are no good statistics about the safety of new pilots vs.
>>>>more-experienced pilots.
>>>
>>>That report includes the statement that "ASF studies have shown that low
>>>pilot time in type is often a significant contributing factor in
>>>accidents." But I didn't see any specific data there to back it up.
>>
>>Yup. Plus, low time in type is different from being recently licensed as a
>>pilot.
>
>
> "It seems" as if I read some where a freshly minted pilot is one of
> the safest times, but ... that is an old and foggy memory.

The report referenced above indicates that student pilots have only
about half the number of accidents (7.7%) that one would expect based on
their percentage of the total pilot population (15.3%). It also
mentions factors that may account for this: level of supervision and
flying only under good conditions.
>
> One of the worst times is some where around 500 hours.

>>>The accompanying chart plots a histogram of accidents vs. PIC hours of
>>>experience but unfortunately doesn't normalize it to the number of pilots
>>>in each band and the number of hours flown by them.
>>
>>Yup. Paul Craig's book The Killing Zone has the same problem. Without
>>normalization, the data tell us nothing about how safety might vary as a
>>function of experience.

The perception that around 500 hours is more risky may come from that
non-normalized chart in the report since it shows a high percentage of
accidents associated with the pilots who had up to 500 hours of
experience as PIC. But, as mentioned before, this data needs to be
normalized relative to the number of pilots and hours flown before one
can draw any conclusions about relative safety.

In article >, anon wrote:
> Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend who
> is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He grew up
> flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft manufacturer.
>
> These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is increased risk
> of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him fly with
> his friend, but we want to be reasonable.

Newly qualified pilots will (generally speaking) always be a riskier
proposition than experienced pilots.

However, I have known novice teenage pilots who I'd fly with LONG before
some experienced older pilots.

If your son's friend is a regular hanger-out at the airfield they fly
out at, you can probably get a feel for what type of pilot he is from
other people at the airfield. Pilot communities are quite tightly knit.
We always had a pretty good idea who at our airport was 'looking for a
grid reference'.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

> wrote in

> Just make sure that they don't try flying across one of the great
> lakes, especially at night.

Is that your best cautionary suggestion? Your recommendation is hysterical
in nature and of almost no relevant preventative value. Think or shut up.

moo

In article <k4Vge.77243$WI3.40856@attbi_s71>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> A 17 year old boy is basically a fleshy container of hormones, with great
> stamina, questionable stability, and loads of bravado. This is NOT
> necessarily a great fit with being a new pilot -- especially when you put
> two of these guys inside the same vehicle.

I'd agree; not NECESSARILY a great fit, but you do have to know the
pilot in question. The youngest pilot I know was one of the line guys at
Houston Gulf airport; I would have had NO qualms letting him fly my
Cessna 140 with an appropriate checkout. However, there are some people
I wouldn't even take as passengers!

Most of the younger pilots I have known I feel I could trust with my
plane too. There are a few I wouldn't, but there are also quite a few
older pilots I wouldn't trust with an RC model let alone full scale!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Grumman-581" >
> "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:bkVge.74706$r53.48513@attbi_s21...
>> I'm hoping that this says that teenage pilots are better than teenage
>> drivers.
>
> Or the sample size is not large enough for the insurace companies to draw
> meaningful statistics... Frankly, there's probably not a high percentage
> of
> teenage pilots... Flying is expensive and most teenagers don't have the
> money to do it...

But, 30 years ago, they did. Does anyone have accident stats that justify
the concerns expressed in this thread? I don't think so. Idle speculation
about the obvious is intellectually unattractive and emotionally
unsatisfying.

moo

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in
>
> > Just make sure that they don't try flying across one of the great
> > lakes, especially at night.
>
> Is that your best cautionary suggestion? Your recommendation is
> hysterical in nature and of almost no relevant preventative value.
> Think or shut up.
>

Actually, his advice is both relevant and subtle. The issue under
discussion is teen-age judgement and the above advice relates to judgement,
although whether the accident was due to age, judgement, a combination, or a
fuel leak of some nature is still undecided.

"EastWing" > wrote in
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote in
>>
>> > Just make sure that they don't try flying across one of the great
>> > lakes, especially at night.
>>
>> Is that your best cautionary suggestion? Your recommendation is
>> hysterical in nature and of almost no relevant preventative value.
>> Think or shut up.
>
> Actually, his advice is both relevant and subtle. The issue under
> discussion is teen-age judgement and the above advice relates to
> judgement,
> although whether the accident was due to age, judgement, a combination, or
> a
> fuel leak of some nature is still undecided.

IOW, of no relevant interest specific to teenage pilots. Restricting night
flights over water to pilots over 19 years of age would be a useless and
idiotic restriction. Think or shut up.

moo

"Jay Honeck" >
>> Still, you're right about the youthful indiscretions, but I wouldn't be
>> too quick to judge _all_ 17 year boys by that standard. I certainly
>> never took risks when driving at that age, but I consider myself more
>> the boring exception to the rule. :)
>
> I was an exceptionally cautious driver at age 17, too.

Yes, because you were a scared one. BFD.
>
> But that's only because at age 15 I stole my mother's car, and went joy
> riding with three friends -- one of whom proceeded to wrap that car around
> an oak tree.

You are an admitted idiot. Based on your own admitted stupidity do you
presume to judge others. Taking responsibility is to your credit. But the
probative value of your cautionary tale is as useful as a discussion of
whether Hans or Gretel's respective biological imperatives were to blame for
their near demise.

moo

"Jay Honeck" >

> A 17 year old boy is basically a fleshy container of hormones, with great
> stamina, questionable stability, and loads of bravado. This is NOT
> necessarily a great fit with being a new pilot -- especially when you put
> two of these guys inside the same vehicle.

Reasonable extrapolation. Stats please.
>
> There are very good reasons that car insurance for 17 year old boys costs
> exponentially more than for adults. They generally have poor judgment,
> and are known to end their statements -- and sometimes their lives -- with
> "Watch this!"
>
> Personally, I'd be VERY reluctant to allow my son to fly with another 17
> year old boy.

Because he's inadequately trained? Too hormonal? (Women are this way all
the time, right?)

Driver training and pilot training are worlds apart. The standards, both
for instruction and evaluation, are nearly incomparable. Nobody thinks this
should be different. Flight training, by the book we all use, pretty much,
assumes all students are dangers unto themselves and others. Driver
education, by comparison, is a joke. Was your experience any different?

moo

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "anon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend
>>who
>>is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He
>>grew up
>>flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft
>>manufacturer.
>>
>>These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is increased
>>risk
>>of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him fly
>>with
>>his friend, but we want to be reasonable.
>>
>>I would appreciate any data or guidance this group could provide.
>
>
> The standard reference for small-plane safety statistics is the Air Safety
> Foundation's Nall Report (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf).
> As far as I know, there are no good statistics about the safety of new
> pilots vs. more-experienced pilots. But I doubt new pilots are at increased
> risk. It's not that pilots' skills don't continue to improve; but newer
> pilots will tend to avoid more-challenging flight circumstances (weather
> etc.) that more-experienced pilots might not be deterred by, so the overall
> risk might remain about the same.

The main additional risk is lack of well developed judgement. The 17
year-old likely has very good skill, but the thing I'd be a little
concerned about is would he exercise good judgement and not show off a
little for his friend. If he really is mature and level-headed, then I
think the risk is small.


Matt

Oddly enough, there's a statistic that seems to say that newly minted
pilots are fairly safe. Then they go into a decline as their
confidence builds. Then they get safer when their hours get over, say,
300.

So it's hard to suggest that you could put a lower limit (say 100
hours) on your son's friend.

The problem of course is that two testosterone-addled minds are worse
than one, as we all know who remember driving about with our buddies
in the Good Old Days. You should first of all insist that any flying
be in daylight. That's easy to enforce, and it removes a big source of
danger.

Flying in fact is fairly safe, and even a forced landing in a light
airplane is likely to be more survivable than an automobile pileup on
the turnpike. You've got that on your side!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oddly enough, there's a statistic that seems to say that newly minted
> pilots are fairly safe. Then they go into a decline as their
> confidence builds. Then they get safer when their hours get over, say,
> 300.

Except, as Peter and I noted earlier in the thread, it's a *bogus*
statistic, because it's not properly normalized to adjust for the number of
pilots in each experience category (or to adjust for the annual hours flown
in each experience category). So the statistic in question does not actually
support the conclusion that safety declines until 300 hours or so.

--Gary

A 17 year old DRIVER might be perfectly responsible and safe when they're
driving by themselves or with and adult in the car. But put two 17 year
olds in the car together and you often have trouble.

I'm sure your son's 17 year old friend is a perfectly competant pilot, but
I'd be someone hesitant to allow two 17 year olds in the plane together.
There's likely to be a certain amout of "showing off" going on.




--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:k4Vge.77243$WI3.40856@attbi_s71...
>> That report includes the statement that "ASF studies have shown that low
>> pilot time in type is often a significant contributing factor in
>> accidents." But I didn't see any specific data there to back it up.
>
> I think if we read "between the lines" we will find that the poster is
> really concerned with this pilot's youth -- perhaps more so than with his
> low flight time.
>
> A 17 year old boy is basically a fleshy container of hormones, with great
> stamina, questionable stability, and loads of bravado. This is NOT
> necessarily a great fit with being a new pilot -- especially when you put
> two of these guys inside the same vehicle.
>
> There are very good reasons that car insurance for 17 year old boys costs
> exponentially more than for adults. They generally have poor judgment,
> and are known to end their statements -- and sometimes their lives -- with
> "Watch this!"
>
> Personally, I'd be VERY reluctant to allow my son to fly with another 17
> year old boy.
> --
>

Jay,

Would you let your son drive with a 17 year old?

On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:11:32 -0400, anon > wrote:

>Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend who
>is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He grew up
>flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft manufacturer.
>
>These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is increased risk
>of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him fly with
>his friend, but we want to be reasonable.
>
>I would appreciate any data or guidance this group could provide.
>
>Thanks
>
>Peter

I would guess (and I do acknowledge up front that this is a guess)
that there are no extraordinary risks associated with flying with this
new pilot. There are many factors that complicate the statistical
analysis of these risks, but two points come to my mind. One is that
a newly trained pilot is generally a very conciencious pilot. He
knows that he is new, lacks experience and has much to learn. That is
not necessary a negative. This causes most new pilots to be very
cautious as they expand their experience envelope. As such, they are
typically flying in familiar areas in very good weather conditions.
This helps to keep the overall risk at a low level. The second thing
is that many (certainly not all) pilots tend to develop bad habits
over the years and/or become complacent about things that used to
garner all of their attention. It's only human nature and pilots
fight that pull from the dark side constantly. With no time yet to
develop bad habits or become complacent and still being new enough to
truly be doing everything by the book, I don't think I'd have any
problem hopping into the right seat and enjoying a wonderful flight.
Rich Russell

anon wrote:
> Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old
friend who
> is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature.
He grew up
> flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft
manufacturer.
>
> These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is
increased risk
> of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him
fly with
> his friend, but we want to be reasonable.
>
> I would appreciate any data or guidance this group could provide.

While it is true that a new pilot will have an increased risk of an
accident over a more experienced pilot, it really has more to do with
what they want to do. Going up for an hour around your home town is
pretty basic for a new private pilot. As pilots start flying in more
weather and on further trips, they need to jump in slow enough that
their experience bucket fills up faster than their luck bucket drains.
However, for a fun flight around town he should have a great time.
Understand that before this young man became a pilot he had to convince
not only his instructor (CFI) that he was a good pilot with good
judgement, he also had to convince an FAA designated examiner.
Personally, as a father and as a former young man myself ( :) ) I would
probably want to restrict them to just the two of them. Two young men
can be pretty responsible. As you get 3 or 4 together things can
sometimes get a bit extream.

-Robert, CFI

I'd be more worried about one with 200 to 300 hours who's starting
to get over confident and push the envelope.


"anon" > wrote in message
...
> Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend
> who
> is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He
> grew up
> flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft
> manufacturer.
>
> These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is increased
> risk
> of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him fly
> with
> his friend, but we want to be reasonable.
>
> I would appreciate any data or guidance this group could provide.
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter

Jay Masino wrote:

> There's likely to be a certain amout of "showing off" going on.

Flying an airplane isn't "showing off" enough? It used to be, damn it!

<Laugh>

- Andrew

"anon" > wrote in message

> Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend
who
> is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He
grew up
> flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft
manufacturer.

Well, there's a simple opportunity...uh, solution...here: Make him take you
flying first!

;>
-c

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

>> That report includes the statement that "ASF studies have shown that low
>> pilot time in type is often a significant contributing factor in
>> accidents." But I didn't see any specific data there to back it up.
>
> I think if we read "between the lines" we will find that the poster is
> really concerned with this pilot's youth -- perhaps more so than with his
> low flight time.
>
> A 17 year old boy is basically a fleshy container of hormones, with great
> stamina, questionable stability, and loads of bravado. This is NOT
> necessarily a great fit with being a new pilot -- especially when you put
> two of these guys inside the same vehicle.
>
> There are very good reasons that car insurance for 17 year old boys costs
> exponentially more than for adults. They generally have poor judgment, and
> are known to end their statements -- and sometimes their lives -- with
> "Watch this!"
>
> Personally, I'd be VERY reluctant to allow my son to fly with another 17
> year old boy.

People aren't averages, though, either. There are *some* careful and
mature 17-year-olds. Since the parents know the other boy, I'd
suggest *that* is the main area to consider. Does he show signs of
typical adolescent stupid behavior? Does he show definit signs of
*resisting* it? Maybe not so bad a risk.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

"Guy Elden Jr" > writes:

>>I'm hoping that this says that teenage pilots are better than teenage
> drivers.
>
> I think with the amount of time, effort, and money put toward earning a
> private pilot certificate that one gains more of a sense of ownership
> of that privelege than one does when "earning" a driver's license. Most
> kids think of a dl as an entitlement, a rite of passage. Doubtful they
> look upon flying with the same carefree attitude.
>
> Still, you're right about the youthful indiscretions, but I wouldn't be
> too quick to judge _all_ 17 year boys by that standard. I certainly
> never took risks when driving at that age, but I consider myself more
> the boring exception to the rule. :)

True, I didn't either. Of course, I didn't get my driver's license
until I was 22, so that might have something to do with it too. :-)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in
message
news:2005051314153543658%bodhijunkoneeightyeightju nkatmacdotcom@junkjunk...
> On 2005-05-13 04:27:59 -0400, "EastWing" > said:
>
> >
> > "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> > wrote in
> >>
> >>> Just make sure that they don't try flying across one of the
> >>> great lakes, especially at night.
> >>
> >> Is that your best cautionary suggestion? Your recommendation is
> >> hysterical in nature and of almost no relevant preventative value.
> >> Think or shut up.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, his advice is both relevant and subtle. The issue under
> > discussion is teen-age judgement and the above advice relates to
> > judgement, although whether the accident was due to age, judgement,
> > a combination, or a fuel leak of some nature is still undecided.
>
> What accident are you talking about?
>

The accident was discussed in the thread "Out of fuel, out of hope: 'Help,
I'm in the water'". A news paper account is at
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050427-115912-7691r.htm

However, I was wrong in regard to this discussion. I thought the pilot was
18 but he was 20.

>"anon" wrote in message > These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing
that >there is increased risk
> of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him fly
with
> his friend, but we want to be reasonable.
> I would appreciate any data or guidance this group could provide.

Every person is different. I soloed at 16 along with a couple of high school
buddies of mine. We destroyed numerous cars and motorcycles, and maybe a
boat or two, but we never so much as scratched an airplane. The culture
ingrained into us by the older fellows at the airport instilled a sense of
pride in flying.

D.

OtisWinslow wrote:
> I'd be more worried about one with 200 to 300 hours who's starting
> to get over confident and push the envelope.
>

I spent a lot of time studying statistics in college and very few of
the more provocative analyses out there really leave much of an
impression. The data is simply not rich enough (that I've seen) to
support high confidence assertions that there is a "killing zone" at
this point. So we're stuck using common sense: inexperience kills
novice pilots, overconfidence and sloppiness kills experienced ones. On
the highway you are at the mercy of every dingbat around; in the air
it's all you. Statistics say that flying is more dangerous as a general
rule but I can understand why many pilots say they feel safer in the
air: depending on their habits they very likely are much of the time.

-cwk.

> Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend
who
> is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He
grew up
> flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft
manufacturer.
>
> These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is increased
risk
> of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him fly
with
> his friend, but we want to be reasonable.
>
> I would appreciate any data or guidance this group could provide.
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter

I would approach it like I would other activities when teenagers want to go
out and do stuff. Set some conditions to reduce the risk, then expand the
boundaries as your trust and their maturity increasese. Let your son when
his friend has 100 hours in his logbook, conditions are 5,000 and 5 or
better, daytime, and they stay within 25 miles for example.

("Happy Dog" wrote)
>> Just make sure that they don't try flying across one of the great
>> lakes, especially at night.

> Is that your best cautionary suggestion? Your recommendation is
> hysterical in nature and of almost no relevant preventative value. Think
> or shut up.


It was an ok "cautionary" suggestion.

Recommendation was not hysterical in nature - especially if measured against
your terse response. A young man recently slipped under the waves (while
talking to 911) on a cold, dark and windy night, after ditching in Lake
Michigan -
don't fly over the lakes at night 17 year olds.

There, one 'what if' addressed - relevant preventative value in that.


> "Think or shut up."

Wow. This is just precious.


Montblack

"Montblack" >
>>> Just make sure that they don't try flying across one of the great
>>> lakes, especially at night.
>
>> Is that your best cautionary suggestion? Your recommendation is
>> hysterical in nature and of almost no relevant preventative value. Think
>> or shut up.

> It was an ok "cautionary" suggestion.

I said "is that your best".
>
> Recommendation was not hysterical in nature - especially if measured
> against
> your terse response. A young man recently slipped under the waves (while
> talking to 911) on a cold, dark and windy night, after ditching in Lake
> Michigan - don't fly over the lakes at night 17 year olds.

Recommendation was hysterical in nature if measured against reality. Would
he have been OK during the day? Was he 17? Was he a new teenaged pilot?
Do you know what caused that accident? The NTSC needs your number if you
do.

> There, one 'what if' addressed - relevant preventative value in that.

You don't know what you're talking about.
>
>> "Think or shut up."
>
> Wow. This is just precious.

You have said nothing interesting. Take the hint.

moo

I'm not a pilot, not even a student pilot, and though I've read this
newsgroup for years, I've never before posted.

When I was 16 or so, I had some flight instruction (just 5.5 hours, it
hardly counts!), as did many friends in my age group- in fact, we had
our own club and plane, not bad for a bunch of kids I suppose.

While many teenagers have a tendency to "show off" and do bold (read:
dumb) things occasionally, the mindset we had wasn't like that. If
anything, "showing off" was done not by breaking procedure, but the
opposite. It seemingly showed "gutsiness and bravado" to stick
meticulously to every rule and safe practice no matter what we "wanted"
to do.

I never even solo'd, but the experience still was a huge part of
growing up, and it strongly affected my driving. When I started
driving, I'd already done a bit of flying, and so the "safety first"
thinking was all part of it.

I don't know if I've contributed a thing to the discussion, so while
I'm here, I'd like to shout out a "thanks" to the regulars here; you
all make this a most enjoyable place for reading about the one love I
won't likely ever return to (financial reasons, mainly).

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. Jay Honeck is correct that my
concern was about a YOUNG new pilot, although I now understand that hours in
the air and range of experience are relevant as well. BTIZ's question is a
good one,--would I let them drive in a sports car. The answer is a resounding
yes. In fact I let these two drive across three states at 16 and they did
great, notwithstanding the smuggled fireworks in the trunk on their return. As
to me flying with the friend--not a bad idea. If I wouldn't, I certainly
shouldn't let my son.

We haven't broached this subject with mom yet. We'll see.

Thanks again for your comments and insights.

Peter
>
>"anon" > wrote in message
...
>> Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend
>> who
>> is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He
>> grew up
>> flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft
>> manufacturer.
>>
>> These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is increased
>> risk
>> of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him fly
>> with
>> his friend, but we want to be reasonable.
>>
>> I would appreciate any data or guidance this group could provide.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Peter
>
>I came up this route myself, and I have a friend, Corky Fornof, who also
>came up this route. Both of us soloed very young. My personal opinion is
>that if the boy has had solid training and has passed the flight test with
>the powers that be in your location, the odds are very good that he is a
>capable and skillful pilot.
>Dudley Henriques
>

"anon" > wrote in message
...
> Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. Jay Honeck is correct that my
> concern was about a YOUNG new pilot, although I now understand that hours
in
> the air and range of experience are relevant as well. BTIZ's question is
a
> good one,--would I let them drive in a sports car. The answer is a
resounding
> yes. In fact I let these two drive across three states at 16 and they did
> great, notwithstanding the smuggled fireworks in the trunk on their
return. As
> to me flying with the friend--not a bad idea. If I wouldn't, I certainly
> shouldn't let my son.
>
> We haven't broached this subject with mom yet. We'll see.
>
> Thanks again for your comments and insights.

As a licensed pilot, he's demonstrated the _ability_ of flying an aircraft.

As a relatively NEW pilot, he lacks experience to deal with more difficult
conditions.

The clincher, though, is: how mature is he in other aspects of his life?

If the latter is "very", then you should have no problem under good weather
and flight conditions.

Remember that all risk is _measured_.

Anywho, my boys never drove (nor desire even now) sports cars, leaning
towards pickup trucks. :~)

("Happy Dog" wrote)
[snips]

> Recommendation was hysterical in nature if measured against reality.

Somewhere between "hysterical" and "reality" we disagree.


> You have said nothing interesting.

What's the line (paraphrasing) in the documentary Empire of the Air - The
Men Who Made Radio? (PBS 1991) ...'You trade reality for words, than you
talk about the words.'


> Take the hint.

Your other send-off was precious, this one is simply trite.


Montblack

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>There are very good reasons that car insurance for 17 year old boys costs
>>>exponentially more than for adults.
>>
>>Does aviation insurance cost any more for 17-year-olds than for adults?
>
>
> Actually, it will cost less to put my son on our flight insurance than it
> will to add him to our 8-year old Subaru insurance. (The insurance agent
> only laughed when we asked about adding him to our Mustang convertible...
> ;-)
>
> I'm hoping that this says that teenage pilots are better than teenage
> drivers.
I have a friend who says when he was 16 his parents would let him fly
anywhere, but he couldn't have the car on a Saturday night.

I think (hope) most young pilots take flying very seriously, but, you
know, everybody drives!

Margy

In article >, Montblack wrote:
> Recommendation was not hysterical in nature - especially if measured against
> your terse response. A young man recently slipped under the waves (while
> talking to 911) on a cold, dark and windy night, after ditching in Lake
> Michigan -
> don't fly over the lakes at night 17 year olds.

It wasn't really relevant to this discussion. If we want to go into
'what ifs' I could write a 20,000 word list of 'what ifs', the vast
majority being irrelevant. I highly doubt these people are going on a
lake-crossing cross-country, it's much more likely they are going for a
45-minute local flying trip that won't cross a body of water larger than
someone's swimming pool.

I've known plenty of old men to cross bodies of water at night with no
survival gear, too. This kind of thing isn't limited to younger people.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"