I am in The Killing Zone

[Marco Rispoli]

Here's a pilot profile

Between 50 and 350 hours
Does not file a flight plan
Gets a weather report from the flight briefer
has less than 100 hours in the model he is flying
has less than 20 hours of IFR training
Leaves the airport in VFR conditions

....

And never comes back.

He/she dies on the way. Among the many reasons: weather, fuel
starvation/exaustion, mid-air collisions, take off or landing accidents,
among others.

This is the killing zone and that profile fits me to a T.

The
Killing Zone: How or Why Pilots Die (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/007136269X/qid=1086356524
/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/102-8065709-0344123?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
By Paul Craig.

Between the hours of 50 and 350 you can find about 80% of all pilot-cause
accidents.

After 350 hours there's a SHARP drop.

I am smack in the middle of it. The highest rate is between 50 and 150.

I have 75.

I picked up the book out of curiousity at Barns and Nobles the other day.
Very interesting read ... I started looking at page 1, then 2, then 3
reading more and more intensely until it was time for bed yesterday and when
I closed the book I was at page 70.

I never devoured a book so intensely as I did for this. All I can say is
that by the time I put the book down I had to take a pretty good look at
myself as a pilot.

I am in the Killing Zone and I have a good 300 hours to go. 3 years in the
killing zone ...

Statistics indicate that pilots that fly less often, crash more often.

I am not done reading it ... So far this book has been a punch in the face
but not surprising.

Somehow now I know where that "sinking" feeling I have every time I am
preflighting the plane comes from. That "worry" that "knot in my stomach"
that doesn't quite go away until I am back from the flight and taxing back
to parking.

I think I mentioned before that I don't feel ready.

Well ... I am not ready. I don't why I am not ready and I don't know what I
am missing but at 75 hours I feel more uncomfortable than I used to feel at
50 or even 25.

At 75 hours I feel like crap in fact and the more I fly the more I see
things or think about things or consider things that I never thought about
before.

REmember that time that i was in poor visibility? 10 miles? What if I had
lost an engine then? My first reaction at that time was to get closer to the
ground so I could see more ... and in fact I did. It did help ... but by
getting closer to the ground (flat ground ... safe) I was also giving up
precious altitude to glide to a safe spot ... and under me there was nothing
but trees.

I did think about it at the time but the idea of hugging the ground and
getting more visibility was more of a priority for me ...

Then after the flight was over ... rational thought started creeping back in
and i started wondering what the hell was I thinking ... I had good
visibility anyway ... I was just uncomfortable in the haze and got
comofortable closer to the ground but traded safety for comfort.

Oh ... not a big deal I suppose ... the engine did work. The haze wasn't so
bad. I made it there and back.

But I dont' feel good about it. What I don't feel good about is that I let
my sense of comfort take over rational thought.

I had enough visibility at alititude (about 4000). I should not have
descended (about 2000). If the visibility had gotten so worse that I could
not fly safely without hugging the ground ... then it was time to do the
shallow 180 and head back whence I came.

Rational thought is what's needed here. If my Instinct are telling me to do
something Rational Thought can't shut up and let Instinct take over.
Rational Thought needs to ask WHY is Instinct telling me something. Is it
telling me something that makes sense?

Why am I uncomfortable? Is it because I never experienced so much haze and a
visibility less than 20 miles? then it's safe. Rely on your training. Keep
an eye on landmarks. Don't waste alititude. Check the ground frequently.
Keep an eye out for other planes.

Is it because now it's less than 10 miles?

Time to do that 180. Keep a constant eye on the outside AND the attitude
indicator, and the directional gyro. And get the hell out. But still keep
HIGH.

The ground is what hurts. Low level flying is NOT the answer. Plenty of
telephone poles to smack into.

So I land and one more cross country was over ... a few weeks ago. 4 hours
more on my log book.

only 294 more to go before I am out of the Killing Zone.

I am a paranoid flyer. I am sprouting eyes in the back of my head and I am
getting severly suspcious of anything out of the ordinary.

I think I may be a very defensive flyer in fact.

Here's an example.

This past weekend was beautiful.

But: the wind was 11 gusty 18 (which I can handle ... i handled 25 gusty to
35 direct crosswind at Linden. Nothign I want to do ever again ... but 7
knots of gust factor makes me mildly uncomfortable).

But: that weekend we were supposed to fly to cape may

But: I was supposed to fly with my wife and a friend of hers that I never
met before.

But: moderate turbulence on the way was forecasted

But: the plane we were supposed to fly (Piper 180) has a "limp" right shock
absorber and leaky breaks. Nothing I can't handle ... I can land without
breaks. I usually land well within 1000 feet of runway barely touching the
breaks.

All of the facts above, taken singularly would not present a problem for me.

I can take gusts. I can take turbulence. I can take a relatively long cross
country. I can take strangers in the plane. I can take limp landing gears
and leaky breaks.

One at a time.

Two of the above would make me think twice.

All of them togheter are WAY outside of my envelope.

Please keep in mind that none of the things were really THAT bad. I knew
that. 11 gusty to 18 is nothing. I have done it plenty of times and the
Piper 180 is VERY stable in crossiwinds (I used to do this in the 172 all
the time which is a lot worse). My wife's friend flies in puddle jumpers all
the time and according to her she can take any weather and she is not scared
at all.

The brakes are leaky but I don't generally use brakes other than if I am in
a hurry to get out of the runway in case people need to land.

I can land on one wheel (keeping the limp wheel off the runway for a bit)
and my landings are generally soft (especially lately).

But all of these factors just made me stop in my tracks and just say No.

I am reading this book and I am thinking: am I taking this too seriously?

Am I refusing to fly when it's perfectly safe to do so?

Am I being too careful?

But the most pressing question that is gravitating my mind is: am I
"damaging" my experience by avoiding danger and risk and thus never learning
how to deal with it? Is it wise not to push the envelope at all? Wouldn't it
be wiser to push a little bit more and just learn how to deal with the
problems? I mean ... you gotta see the problem and solve it in order to
learn anything and if I am too defensive of a flyer ... I will never learn.

Give all of the above considerations ... should I have flown last weekend
instead?

I am still thinking about this ... and i don't know that i have the answer
.... yet. And I don't know if I will have the answer out of the killing zone
.... at 400 hours. Or 1000.


--
Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
My on-line aviation community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com

[Teacherjh]

>> only 294 more to go before I am out of the Killing Zone.

You are back in the Killing Zone the moment you think you are out of it.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Marco Leon]

I had many of the same concerns (but not nearly as MANY ;) ) Seems like your
ready to start your instrument rating lessons if you have not already. After
you get your IR, there will be a whole lot of concerns on flying in the
clouds. Probably spurring another email similar to the one below, then
you'll be ready for the next rating. After a few ratings and/or tickets,
yoo'll probably find yourself out of the killing zone.

Marco

P.S. I read the Killing Zone when it was first published. What I got out of
it: 1) know your limitations, 2) be humble, 3) work at always being a better
pilot.


"Marco Rispoli" > wrote in message
t...
> Here's a pilot profile
>
> Between 50 and 350 hours
> Does not file a flight plan
> Gets a weather report from the flight briefer
> has less than 100 hours in the model he is flying
> has less than 20 hours of IFR training
> Leaves the airport in VFR conditions
>
> ...
>
> And never comes back.
>
> He/she dies on the way. Among the many reasons: weather, fuel
> starvation/exaustion, mid-air collisions, take off or landing accidents,
> among others.
>
> This is the killing zone and that profile fits me to a T.
>
>

> /sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/102-8065709-0344123?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]The
> Killing Zone: How or Why Pilots Die (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/007136269X/qid=1086356524[color=blue)
> By Paul Craig.
>
> Between the hours of 50 and 350 you can find about 80% of all pilot-cause
> accidents.
>
> After 350 hours there's a SHARP drop.
>
> I am smack in the middle of it. The highest rate is between 50 and 150.
>
> I have 75.
>
> I picked up the book out of curiousity at Barns and Nobles the other day.
> Very interesting read ... I started looking at page 1, then 2, then 3
> reading more and more intensely until it was time for bed yesterday and[/color]
when
> I closed the book I was at page 70.
>
> I never devoured a book so intensely as I did for this. All I can say is
> that by the time I put the book down I had to take a pretty good look at
> myself as a pilot.
>
> I am in the Killing Zone and I have a good 300 hours to go. 3 years in the
> killing zone ...
>
> Statistics indicate that pilots that fly less often, crash more often.
>
> I am not done reading it ... So far this book has been a punch in the face
> but not surprising.
>
> Somehow now I know where that "sinking" feeling I have every time I am
> preflighting the plane comes from. That "worry" that "knot in my stomach"
> that doesn't quite go away until I am back from the flight and taxing back
> to parking.
>
> I think I mentioned before that I don't feel ready.
>
> Well ... I am not ready. I don't why I am not ready and I don't know what
I
> am missing but at 75 hours I feel more uncomfortable than I used to feel
at
> 50 or even 25.
>
> At 75 hours I feel like crap in fact and the more I fly the more I see
> things or think about things or consider things that I never thought about
> before.
>
> REmember that time that i was in poor visibility? 10 miles? What if I had
> lost an engine then? My first reaction at that time was to get closer to
the
> ground so I could see more ... and in fact I did. It did help ... but by
> getting closer to the ground (flat ground ... safe) I was also giving up
> precious altitude to glide to a safe spot ... and under me there was
nothing
> but trees.
>
> I did think about it at the time but the idea of hugging the ground and
> getting more visibility was more of a priority for me ...
>
> Then after the flight was over ... rational thought started creeping back
in
> and i started wondering what the hell was I thinking ... I had good
> visibility anyway ... I was just uncomfortable in the haze and got
> comofortable closer to the ground but traded safety for comfort.
>
> Oh ... not a big deal I suppose ... the engine did work. The haze wasn't
so
> bad. I made it there and back.
>
> But I dont' feel good about it. What I don't feel good about is that I let
> my sense of comfort take over rational thought.
>
> I had enough visibility at alititude (about 4000). I should not have
> descended (about 2000). If the visibility had gotten so worse that I could
> not fly safely without hugging the ground ... then it was time to do the
> shallow 180 and head back whence I came.
>
> Rational thought is what's needed here. If my Instinct are telling me to
do
> something Rational Thought can't shut up and let Instinct take over.
> Rational Thought needs to ask WHY is Instinct telling me something. Is it
> telling me something that makes sense?
>
> Why am I uncomfortable? Is it because I never experienced so much haze and
a
> visibility less than 20 miles? then it's safe. Rely on your training. Keep
> an eye on landmarks. Don't waste alititude. Check the ground frequently.
> Keep an eye out for other planes.
>
> Is it because now it's less than 10 miles?
>
> Time to do that 180. Keep a constant eye on the outside AND the attitude
> indicator, and the directional gyro. And get the hell out. But still keep
> HIGH.
>
> The ground is what hurts. Low level flying is NOT the answer. Plenty of
> telephone poles to smack into.
>
> So I land and one more cross country was over ... a few weeks ago. 4 hours
> more on my log book.
>
> only 294 more to go before I am out of the Killing Zone.
>
> I am a paranoid flyer. I am sprouting eyes in the back of my head and I am
> getting severly suspcious of anything out of the ordinary.
>
> I think I may be a very defensive flyer in fact.
>
> Here's an example.
>
> This past weekend was beautiful.
>
> But: the wind was 11 gusty 18 (which I can handle ... i handled 25 gusty
to
> 35 direct crosswind at Linden. Nothign I want to do ever again ... but 7
> knots of gust factor makes me mildly uncomfortable).
>
> But: that weekend we were supposed to fly to cape may
>
> But: I was supposed to fly with my wife and a friend of hers that I never
> met before.
>
> But: moderate turbulence on the way was forecasted
>
> But: the plane we were supposed to fly (Piper 180) has a "limp" right
shock
> absorber and leaky breaks. Nothing I can't handle ... I can land without
> breaks. I usually land well within 1000 feet of runway barely touching the
> breaks.
>
> All of the facts above, taken singularly would not present a problem for
me.
>
> I can take gusts. I can take turbulence. I can take a relatively long
cross
> country. I can take strangers in the plane. I can take limp landing gears
> and leaky breaks.
>
> One at a time.
>
> Two of the above would make me think twice.
>
> All of them togheter are WAY outside of my envelope.
>
> Please keep in mind that none of the things were really THAT bad. I knew
> that. 11 gusty to 18 is nothing. I have done it plenty of times and the
> Piper 180 is VERY stable in crossiwinds (I used to do this in the 172 all
> the time which is a lot worse). My wife's friend flies in puddle jumpers
all
> the time and according to her she can take any weather and she is not
scared
> at all.
>
> The brakes are leaky but I don't generally use brakes other than if I am
in
> a hurry to get out of the runway in case people need to land.
>
> I can land on one wheel (keeping the limp wheel off the runway for a bit)
> and my landings are generally soft (especially lately).
>
> But all of these factors just made me stop in my tracks and just say No.
>
> I am reading this book and I am thinking: am I taking this too seriously?
>
> Am I refusing to fly when it's perfectly safe to do so?
>
> Am I being too careful?
>
> But the most pressing question that is gravitating my mind is: am I
> "damaging" my experience by avoiding danger and risk and thus never
learning
> how to deal with it? Is it wise not to push the envelope at all? Wouldn't
it
> be wiser to push a little bit more and just learn how to deal with the
> problems? I mean ... you gotta see the problem and solve it in order to
> learn anything and if I am too defensive of a flyer ... I will never
learn.
>
> Give all of the above considerations ... should I have flown last weekend
> instead?
>
> I am still thinking about this ... and i don't know that i have the answer
> ... yet. And I don't know if I will have the answer out of the killing
zone
> ... at 400 hours. Or 1000.
>
>
> --
> Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
> My on-line aviation community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Richard Russell]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:16:28 GMT, "Marco Rispoli"
> wrote:
snipped.....
>But the most pressing question that is gravitating my mind is: am I
>"damaging" my experience by avoiding danger and risk and thus never learning
>how to deal with it? Is it wise not to push the envelope at all? Wouldn't it
>be wiser to push a little bit more and just learn how to deal with the
>problems? I mean ... you gotta see the problem and solve it in order to
>learn anything and if I am too defensive of a flyer ... I will never learn.
>
>Give all of the above considerations ... should I have flown last weekend
>instead?
>
>I am still thinking about this ... and i don't know that i have the answer
>... yet. And I don't know if I will have the answer out of the killing zone
>... at 400 hours. Or 1000.

Marco,

I have been reading your posts since you started. You sound like you
have a good head on shoulders and you have a healthy respect for the
responsibility of flying. You ask good questions and show no false
bravado. I don't even know you, but I'd fly with you in a heartbeat.

I'm in the zone, too. And yes, I read the book and I take the message
seriously. I think you're doing fine and just the fact that you are
aware of the issue and also aware of the consequences of retiring to a
cocoon confirms that.

It's an exhilarating but unsettling situation when all of sudden you
are no longer under the wing of a CFI. Most everyone feels a certain
level of discomfort at first. You have to continually, but gradually,
expand your experience envelope at a pace that suits you. You'll find
that, as time goes on, you become more comfortable with less than
perfect conditions. At the same time, you still have to honor
personal limits and make objective decisions. Don't worry about it,
you're fine.

One last thing. I do know a pilot that has 150 hours and has gone
almost nowhere. He remains within ten miles of the airport and rarely
lands anywhere else. While your fears of remaining in the zone by not
expanding your horizons may be valid, you have already demonstrated
that this is not something that will happen to you. Keep flying and
be concious of the zone, but don't let it scare you too much!

Rich Russell

[Cecil Chapman]

BTW, I read "The Killing Zone" too (just nearing 300 hours).

The only problem (and it's a minor one) with statistics is that to believe
in them is to make a pilot feel as if he/she is just a victim of 'The
Fates'. This is also the problem with John King's big announcement about
'the big lie' that I'm sure you've all heard about.

If I believed in such determinism/fatalism I would sell my gear and give up
flying and never have a second thought about it.

The 'beauty' of flying is that we (individually) control many more of the
risks than any other activity (like driving, for example). The risk of a
midair is rare, but the risk of some drunk or distracted driver plowing into
to you at 65 MPH, on the WAY to the airport is MUCH more likely - AND it is
a situation that we have little or no control over,,,, unlike most of the
aspects of flight.

We are EACH individuals loaded chock-full with self-determinism as pilots.
It is our attention to detail, from the briefing to the takeoff that affects
the safety of our flights.

So, don't ignore the 'details' and sound judgment ,, keep your proficiency
well-honed AND enlist the services of your favorite CFI, now and then, to
have a good 'objective' assessment of where you are at in your flying
capabilities and I will be so bold to suggest that you have very little
chance of getting 'bit'.

I'm a little 'scared' now,,, in a few more minutes I have to do some site
visits for clients and WILL HAVE TO DRIVE ON THE FREEWAY WITH ALL THOSE
DARNED AUTOMOBILE/TRUCK DRIVERS,,,,,, YIKES!!!!!! ;-)

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL
Student-IASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Maule Driver]

Great post!

I haven't read it but qualitatively, it rings true to me.

I think feeling like you are on the bloody edge of your own compentence is a
feeling we've all had and one that most of us seek out. It's the definition
of challenge. Having some fear and being cautious is healthy I think

Regarding leaky brakes and shocks and pushing the envelope.

Pilots I look up to don't fly with a bad brakes. They get it fixed. There
will be enough instances where you *discover* you have a bad brake and have
to exercise those "land in the first 1,000" skills. No need to knowingly
fly into such a situation. Ditto with the shocks.

It seems the longer you fly you either:

1) get more cautious and take fewer risks because you know things will go
wrong anyway and you need all the help you can get to overcome them

or

2) get more complacent and take more risks because you know things will go
wrong anyway but you can usually overcome them.

The trip with the xwinds, shocks, brakes, and passenger is one of those
situations where you are "picking up the package by its string".

....As in a passage from Flying Magazine many years ago. Some 'ol sage, when
asked what the secret was to a long, safe flying life, said,

"Avoid the terrain, don't run out of fuel, and don't pickup a package by
its string"

I always liked that one. It does require awareness that packages were once
bundled up with string rather than tape.

[Gene Seibel]

"Marco Rispoli" > wrote in message >...

> only 294 more to go before I am out of the Killing Zone.
>

When you think you are out of the Killing Zone - that's when you'll
really be dangerous. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Gary Drescher]

"Marco Rispoli" > wrote in message
t...
> Here's a pilot profile
>
> Between 50 and 350 hours
>...
> This is the killing zone and that profile fits me to a T.

The problem I have with the Killing Zone is that the author never
establishes that the fatality rate per hour of flight time is any greater
for pilots in the 50-350 hour range than for pilots with any other level of
experience. What he establishes instead is that the annual fatality rate per
quantile of flight experience is elevated in that range of experience. But
it's conceivable, for instance, that disproportionately many hours each year
are flown by pilots in that range. Then, you'd expect disproportionately
many fatalities in that range even if each hour flown by a pilot in that
range is as safe (or even safer) than an hour flown by other pilots. Because
he hasn't normalized by the annual hours flown, the author hasn't
established that pilots in the designated "zone" have any elevated risk at
all.

--Gary

[G Farris]

Well, let's not go overboard either.
You took up flying because you enjoy it, right? If you come to the point where
you no longer enjoy it, then don't make a point of pride out of it.

Our psychological mind set has a lot to do with the outcome of everything we
undertake. Without considering flying, all of us have seen talented,
intelligent people get themselves into situations where they were subjugated -
perhaps they "gave" power to someone else, who was able to manipulate them,
perhaps through anxiety about a professional situation they got into a
situation where they looked stupid, and everything they did only made them
look more clueless, when you KNOW they have far greater talent and ability
than that.

As pilots and (perpetual) students, we are constantly trying to improve our
risk management - however in our efforts I wonder if we don't sometimes create
situations that actually degrade our performance. Look at the VFR into IMC
problem. It has been drilled into us that an inadvertent foray by a VFR pilot
into IMC is guaranteed to reduce his life expectancy to 23 seconds. Well
that's not necessarily true, and neither is it a correct reading of the
experiments cited to support it. With just a little bit of training, pilots
can be expected to do much better - well over a minute in some cases!

Seriously, I read an article recently in which a pilot recounts his foray into
IMC. He enlisted the help of his non-pilot passengers - one to watch the AI,
and to "yell" if it moved. Another to do the same with the VSI, the altimeter,
etc. Well OK - he found a solution and came out of it alive, and good for
him, but my impression in reading the article was that his greatest weakness
was his attitude. He took it as a given that the situation was unsurvivable,
when at the same time he demonstrated that he knew exactly what to do. In this
case, I believe his training about risk actually hindered his performance, and
with a little less of the "23 second" self-fullfilling prophecy, he would have
improved his performance immeasurably.

Many pilots have pretty interesting stories about early solo flights. The
first time you think you're lost, and there's no instructor to bail you out.
How many thoughts go through your mind before you finally decide "Wait a
minute . . . I know how to do this"? After this, some assurance is gained, and
every new challenge, despite the anxiety it produces, can be met with the
LEARNED (not born-with) problem solving attitude - provided of course that you
have not grossly overstepped your limits.

To be honest, in the example cited here I don't think I would have flown
either. I don't like the "leaky brakes" thing, particularly with passengers
who place their trust in me. So it's not the decision I question, but all the
brow-beating. I'm interested in hearing others' opinion here - even those who
say I'm way off - but I think to fly safely (not to mention enjoyably) we
should be more serene in our judgement of managable risks vs imprudence.

G Faris

[kontiki]

>
> I think I mentioned before that I don't feel ready.
>

That's good... it will (should) make you a more careful pilot.
I am worried about the pilot that that has not worries. (Alfred
E. Newman comes to mind... "what, me worry?")

Its healthy to question yourself... "am I prepared for this flight?"
"Do I feel confident with the weather situation en-route?"
You WILL feel more comfortable with more hours. Actually, for
me it wasn't until I got my Commercial rating on top of an
instrument rating that I spent more time enjoying the flight than
sweating the details.

Stick to the checklists, and scan the instruments (engine instruments too!)
Don't ever get too confident.

[Norfolk and Chance]

Thanks for a great post - I am just nearing the end of my PPL A training
here in the UK in a PA28-161 and have all of the same worries that you have,
in fact at the moment the more I learn, the more I question my abilities. I
do think however that if we truly relax or become complacent then we invite
problems upon ourselves.

Why fly when we aren't happy with the circumstances? I work very hard to be
able to afford my training and in fairness, if I don't enjoy it I might as
well tear up £20 notes. So, bearing that in mind I only fly if I feel
comfortable doing so. Surely this way we can derive more from our amazing
pastime and stay on the right side of the killing zone by being reasonable
and honest with ourselves in making decisions that, ultimately, our lives
depend upon. In my opinion a decision to stay on the floor is one that you
can never regret - there will always be another day as good as the last.
That said though, I do greatly enjoy my flying and the sense of liberty and
freedom that I get from it. We are all lucky to be flying and if we display
the responsibility and common-sense that should be synomonous with flying
then only we decide whether or not we come home.

[Cub Driver]

>After 350 hours there's a SHARP drop.

Well, the bad pilots have crashed.

And the uninterested pilots have quit flying.

And the elderly pilots have died of natural causes.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>It does require awareness that packages were once
>bundled up with string rather than tape.

For years after this became a non-issue, the local post office had a
fierce-tempered clerk named Wally who kept a ball of string behind the
counter. If you gave him a taped package, he handed it back with the
string, and until you'd tied it to his satisfaction, he wouldn't
accept it for mailing.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Joe Johnson]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:xJ4wc.6579$Sw.1544@attbi_s51...
> "Marco Rispoli" > wrote in message
> t...
> > Here's a pilot profile
> >
> > Between 50 and 350 hours
> >...
> > This is the killing zone and that profile fits me to a T.
>
> The problem I have with the Killing Zone is that the author never
> establishes that the fatality rate per hour of flight time is any greater
> for pilots in the 50-350 hour range than for pilots with any other level
of
> experience. What he establishes instead is that the annual fatality rate
per
> quantile of flight experience is elevated in that range of experience. But
> it's conceivable, for instance, that disproportionately many hours each
year
> are flown by pilots in that range. Then, you'd expect disproportionately
> many fatalities in that range even if each hour flown by a pilot in that
> range is as safe (or even safer) than an hour flown by other pilots.
Because
> he hasn't normalized by the annual hours flown, the author hasn't
> established that pilots in the designated "zone" have any elevated risk at
> all.
>
> --Gary

I'm a newly minted PP-ASEL and I'm as scared (though not as eloquent) as
Marco. Are you saying the whole thesis in The Killing Zone is based on such
an elementary methodological error?

[Teacherjh]

>>
Are you saying the whole thesis in The Killing Zone is based on such
an elementary methodological error?
<<

There are many things in (popular) statisics that are based on elementary
methodological error. Sometimes this is deliberate (9 out of 10 doctors
reccomend...), sometimes not (most auto accidents occur within 25 miles of
home). As long as you are aware that 82.3% of statistics are bogus, your
understanding of reality will be unimpaired.

I have not read the Killing Zone, though I have heard of its claims. I would
say that the thing to take home is that there will come a time in ones flying
career when one thinks they "have it down" and start getting just a little bit
careless. You take shortcuts, you skip things, you extend the envelope too
far. That's when you get bit.

That said, underconfidence will also bite you. You are PILOT IN COMMAND, and
you need to fly with confidence. No matter the conditions, evaluate them, make
your decision, and execute it, remaining in command of the flight, because the
laws of physics and human nature are ready to pounce. Just don't let this
authority become bravado.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Gary Drescher]

"Joe Johnson" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I'm a newly minted PP-ASEL and I'm as scared (though not as eloquent) as
> Marco. Are you saying the whole thesis in The Killing Zone is based on
such
> an elementary methodological error?

Yup. Of course, a sound analysis might still yield a similar result. We just
don't know.

--Gary

[Andrew Gideon]

Teacherjh wrote:

> That said, underconfidence will also bite you. You are PILOT IN COMMAND,

Yes, this is an important point. One must not mentally hand over control to
anyone else. It's a trap I recently discussed with some other pilots: Who
is PIC when flying with an instructor.

This is the instructor with whom I did my instrument work, and with whom I'm
doing at least some of my commercial work. But *I* am in charge, and I
cannot assume that he's there to "bail me out" if there's ever a bad choice
being made.

In a way, it's a difficult line. I've always thought that one reason for
flying with an instructor was to push one's personal envelope. So
conditions that might be just beyond my personal minimums are something I'd
try out with an instructor on board. In a sense, this is a case where I am
hoping for a "bail out" should I get in over my head.

I've not thought about it quite this way before, and I'm curious what others
might think.

- Andrew

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> For years after this became a non-issue, the local post office had a
> fierce-tempered clerk named Wally who kept a ball of string behind the
> counter. If you gave him a taped package, he handed it back with the
> string, and until you'd tied it to his satisfaction, he wouldn't
> accept it for mailing.

Yet another reason for the success of UPS.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> In a way, it's a difficult line. I've always thought that one reason for
> flying with an instructor was to push one's personal envelope. So
> conditions that might be just beyond my personal minimums are something I'd
> try out with an instructor on board. In a sense, this is a case where I am
> hoping for a "bail out" should I get in over my head.
>
> I've not thought about it quite this way before, and I'm curious what others
> might think.

It's been years since I've flown with an instructor who knows how to handle a Maule.
Since I've always been the most experienced pilot on board my plane since about 3
months after I bought it, I got out of the habit of thinking the CFI was there to
bail me out long ago. I'd bet that I'd keep the same mindset now even if I were to
fly with a high-time Maule CFI.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >After 350 hours there's a SHARP drop.

> And the elderly pilots have died of natural causes.

Not all of us! :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Martin Kosina]

> But: the wind was 11 gusty 18 (which I can handle ... i handled 25 gusty to
> 35 direct crosswind at Linden.

Whoa ! I don't think the statistics are your biggest worry, that's
some serious x-wind...

[Jay Honeck]

> At 75 hours I feel like crap in fact and the more I fly the more I see
> things or think about things or consider things that I never thought about
> before.

You have, perhaps, put your finger on a phenomenon that I have heretofore
never understood: The "Former Pilot."

We've all met them. He's the guy at the party who says he has his ticket,
but "hasn't flown in ten years." Or he's the guy who "made it to solo, but
quit" due to -fill in the blank- reasons.

Perhaps all of these folks simply hit a wall of failing self-confidence such
as you're describing, and quietly decided to hang it up?

Lately Mary has been going through a period of what I call "increased
sensitivity" to flying. She's loudly voicing her displeasure with
turbulence, and -- when acting as PIC -- rapidly over-corrects against
bumps. This, of course, induces even MORE "turbulence," which makes her
MORE tense, and soon she's fighting the plane rather than flying it. And
having a crappy time doing it.

She passed through a similar period at around 200 hours, if I recall
correctly. (She has around 400 hours now.) She slowly worked her way
through it last time, working her way back into a comfort zone, and I expect
she'll be fine again this time, too.

Would she have quit flying at 200 hours, without me there to act as a
steadying influence?

I don't know.

All I can say is "Hang in there" -- cuz it gets better over time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Teacherjh]

Yes, "instructor in command" syndrome is insidious.

On the one hand, I do not relinquish "in command" when i fly with an
instructor. If an instructor asks me to do something that is patently unsafe,
I will demur. However, in order to learn anything, I need to trust the
instructor - when he asks me to do something that is beyond my capability
(alone), he =is= there to bail me out. How else am I going to learn to fly
upside down, or in a cloud, or with the nose wheel in the back? But even when
a situation may not be beyond me, an instructor isn't just a passenger. He's
more like a required crewmember, and we need to fly as a team.

This should be understood. I usually treat it as understood. I'm not sure,
upon reflection, how well my understanding would match the instructor's should
we get into a situation.

For example, a passenger pulls the power off and says you lost your engine,
what do you do? If it were me, I wouldn't set up a glide, pick a field, and go
through my emergency checklist. I would smack the passenger one good, and
shove the lever back forward. Then I would contemplate the juxtaposition of
91.3 against 91.15.

An instructor does the same thing, it's a whole different story. As it turned
out, we were over a grass strip. I set up the proper approach, went through
the proper checklist procedures, and made an approach. 200 feet above the
ground the instructor did =not= say I had the field made and to go around. He
said go ahead and land it. Well, I'd never landed at a grass strip before
(renters are prohibited from doing so). I mentioned this and he replied
(correctly) that it only applies without an instructor - it was ok to land on
grass with him in the plane. Ok, cool! I did a nice landing, we went around
and did it several more times, then went home. I learned something and got
some nice grass experience (though being winter it wasn't quite the same).

Later on I looked up the airport we had landed at in the AF/D and found out it
was closed to transients in winter.

So, whose bad? Pilot in command (me) or instructor in command syndrome? What
would you have done? Why?

Jose




--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Cub Driver]

>Are you saying the whole thesis in The Killing Zone is based on such
>an elementary methodological error?

Not entirely. But you are dealing with such small numbers here that
the only way to make them valid would be to keep the dead pilots alive
and let them keep on flying.

Fatalities are only caused by people who crash. Once you're killed,
you don't get to play any more, or in this case to accumulate more
hours. Even if fatalities were distributed at random among the entire
pilot population, the survivors would necessarily have more hours than
the ones who were killed.

It's like the old pilot justification: "He *****ed up!" If he crashed,
then he ****ed up. Since you won't **** up, you won't crash. QED.

In this case, the pilot is saying: "He was low-time!" Since we aren't
low-time (well, I have just over 300 hours), then obviously we won't
crash. As Hemingway said: "Wouldn't it be pretty to think so?"

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>If an instructor asks me to do something that is patently unsafe,
>I will demur.

I did this on my flight check :)

We were trained to make a right turn only at 1,000 feet, so as to stay
out of pattern altitude, which is 900 feet, in case someone were
landing the other way. (We trained NORDO, and I took my flight check
in the Cub.)

The examiner called for a turn to the west (right) at 600 feet. I just
said "Roger, turning west at one thousand," and did so.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Or he's the guy who "made it to solo, but
>quit" due to -fill in the blank- reasons.

I came very late to flying, and one of the things that astonished me
was how many of my contemporaries had taken flight lessons in their
youth. (None of them are flying now. Indeed, I probably wouldn't be
flying now if I'd gotten my ticket in 1954.)

One gal quit because she was afraid that she wouldn't be able to find
her way back to the airport.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Gary Drescher]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Are you saying the whole thesis in The Killing Zone is based on such
> >an elementary methodological error?
>
> Not entirely. But you are dealing with such small numbers here that
> the only way to make them valid would be to keep the dead pilots alive
> and let them keep on flying.

I don't think that's correct. The >percentages< are small, but with hundreds
of fatalities per year, the magnitude of the "killing zone" difference would
pass a statistical-significance test. It's just that the author isn't
measuring what he claims to be measuring.

> Fatalities are only caused by people who crash. Once you're killed,
> you don't get to play any more, or in this case to accumulate more
> hours. Even if fatalities were distributed at random among the entire
> pilot population, the survivors would necessarily have more hours than
> the ones who were killed.

Not by a noticeable amount. The fatality rate is only 0.05% per year. If the
fatality rate per hour of flight time were constant as a function of total
hours flown, the distribution of flight-time hours among the dead would be
virtually identical to the distribution among the survivors. (If the
fatality rate were, say, 20% per year, then your point would apply.)

--Gary

[Jay Honeck]

> One gal quit because she was afraid that she wouldn't be able to find
> her way back to the airport.

Well, GPS has pretty much fixed *that* problem...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Teacherjh]

>>
One gal quit because she was afraid that she wouldn't be able to find
her way back to the airport.
<<

Happened to me, on Block Island. Landed, went for dinner and a walk, decided
to walk back to the airport, it was getting dark and the four of us took a
wrong turn on one of their roads and ended up walking around half the fat part
of the island. It may be small from the air, but it sure is big once you're on
foot!

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Marco Rispoli]

> Later on I looked up the airport we had landed at in the AF/D and found
out it
> was closed to transients in winter.
>
> So, whose bad? Pilot in command (me) or instructor in command syndrome?
What
> would you have done? Why?
>
> Jose

My undestanding is that whether the insturctor is there or not YOU are PIC.
You are responsible.

It might be ok for insurance purposes to land on a grass strip with the
instructor on board but that doesn't absolve the PIC from making sure that
what you are doing is safe.

That being said, in your place I would have trusted the instructor, I would
have done EXACTLY as you did.

Why? Cause I am a sucker for instructors. In the cockpit I am a BIG sucker
for the "instructor in command" syndrome. I rarely question what the
instructor says cause he's a figure of authority, has more experience and I
always automatically assume he/she knows what they are doing/asking.

Is it bad? Absolutely. I know I am PIC. I know what that means. Something
else I need to fix in my "aviation mental patterns". Then again, I just got
out of primary flight school and back then I was NOT PIC. I was just a
student.

More than in the "killing" zone I am starting to think that I am in the "I
can't believe I am PIC" zone.

I need to get used to the fact that I am PIC.

Just my thoughts ...

--
Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
My on-line aviation community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com

[Marco Rispoli]

>
> One gal quit because she was afraid that she wouldn't be able to find
> her way back to the airport.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

That's kinda easy to fix though.

Everytime I go somewhere I am not familiar with I always write down what VOR
radials and what heading i need to be on in order to see the airport on my
10 or 2 o'clock. (generally 10, so I don't need to twist the plane).

Just a trick. I bring a piece of paper with frequencies and radials (I
figure this out during the planning phase) and heading. Write them down and
if I am "over the airport" but don't see it, that's what I do: dial the
numbers on the VORs, go there, go on the heading I chose and invariably the
airport is just where I expect it to be, right in front of my left (or right
wing).

Obviously I am talking about good visibility conditions and airports that
are reasonably close to VORs.

I had to do this a couple of times and it worked.

--
Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
My on-line aviation community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com

[Teacherjh]

>>
It might be ok for insurance purposes to land on a grass strip with the
instructor on board but that doesn't absolve the PIC from making sure that
what you are doing is safe.
<<

What I was doing was certainly safe. The "closed to transients" in the AF/D as
to do more with wanting to keep the noise and/or traffic down.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Marco Rispoli]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> It might be ok for insurance purposes to land on a grass strip with the
> instructor on board but that doesn't absolve the PIC from making sure that
> what you are doing is safe.
> <<
>
> What I was doing was certainly safe. The "closed to transients" in the
AF/D as
> to do more with wanting to keep the noise and/or traffic down.
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Oh is that why it was closed?

I see ... well, still. I suspect that if somebody had gotten your tail
number and reported you, you'd have been in a pinch ... possibly at the same
time with the instructor.

On the other hand I think that as a student pilot only the instructor would
have gotten in trouble.

--
Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
My on-line aviation community -> http://www.thepilotlounge.com

[Andrew Gideon]

Teacherjh wrote:

>>>
> It might be ok for insurance purposes to land on a grass strip with the
> instructor on board but that doesn't absolve the PIC from making sure that
> what you are doing is safe.
> <<
>
> What I was doing was certainly safe. The "closed to transients" in the
> AF/D as to do more with wanting to keep the noise and/or traffic down.
>

If your CFI didn't know that it was closed for noise, she/he might not have
known had it been closed for safety-related reasons. This is exactly the
issue I've found myself having with "instructor in command" (nice label,
BTW!). Had you been flying on your own, would you land at an airport
(assuming no emergency) w/o checking that airport's information?

The problem, of course, is making the choice of when to "trust" the
instructor. Based upon what?

After all, a relatively low time pilot with a fear of stalls (discussed in
another thread) might have concluded that doing the "falling leaf" with a
CFI was unsafe. That choice would mean giving up a very useful learning
experience.

On the other hand, I recall a CFI early in my primary training that wanted
to go up into a snowstorm. Fortunately, the tower's "hints" that
conditions were IFR all over the place were enough to keep us on the
ground.

- Andrew

[Alan Gerber]

Teacherjh > wrote:
> For example, a passenger pulls the power off and says you lost your engine,
> what do you do? If it were me, I wouldn't set up a glide, pick a field, and go
> through my emergency checklist. I would smack the passenger one good, and
> shove the lever back forward. Then I would contemplate the juxtaposition of
> 91.3 against 91.15.

Being too lazy to open the AIM/FAR (it's right next to me, but typing is
easier), I google FAR 91.3 and find:

Sec. 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. ...

OK, then I google FAR 91.15 and find:

FAR 91.15. Dropping objects is not prohibited as long as you take
reasonable precautions to avoid injury to persons or property.

and then look up and find the *first* hit:

FAR 91.15 - Dropping objects. No pilot in command of a civil aircraft
may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight ...

I think the first hit for 91.15 would serve you better, except you'd
probably have to count the passenger as "persons".

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Alan Gerber]

Alan Gerber > wrote:
> I think the first hit for 91.15 would serve you better, except you'd
> probably have to count the passenger as "persons".

By "first", I mean the first one I quoted, not the first one Google
returned.

Note to self: proofread!

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Teacherjh]

>>
Had you been flying on your own, would you land at an airport
(assuming no emergency) w/o checking that airport's information?
<<

No. But then nobody would have pulled the power back and said "you lost your
engine". If I lost my engine for real, I would have landed in a wheat field if
that's what presented itself to me.

>>
The problem, of course, is making the choice of when to "trust" the
instructor. Based upon what? [anectode snipped]
<<

I had an instructor want to go up with lumpy ice all over the wing (we couldn't
bang it off after an hour of trying). I demurred. He was from Florida, newly
transplanted to the northeast, but should have known better. Sheesh.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Cub Driver]

>It might be ok for insurance purposes to land on a grass strip with the
>instructor on board

With or without an instructor, why would a grass strip be a problem?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Everytime I go somewhere I am not familiar with I always write down what VOR
>radials and what heading i need to be on in order to see the airport on my
>10 or 2 o'clock. (generally 10, so I don't need to twist the plane).

Well, she was probably in a Piper Cub or the equivalent. No radio, no
VOR, not even a headset to quiet the engine.

Though I trained in a Cub, we did of course have earphones and
intercom. I can't imagine what it would be like to learn to fly with
an instructor who could neither hear you nor see you (unless of course
in 1954 they put the student in the front seat).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Teacherjh]

>> With or without an instructor, why would a grass strip be a problem?

Ask the FBO. IT is pretty much universal that if you rent and airplane, you
must land on a paved strip 2000 feet long or longer. It probably has something
to do with insurance. I won't even attempt to fathom their reasoning.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Cub Driver]

>Ask the FBO. IT is pretty much universal that if you rent and airplane, you
>must land on a paved strip 2000 feet long or longer.

Not at Hampton NH airport (where the airport is the FBO). If we had
that rule, nobody would ever be able to bring the rental airplane home
:)

I understand 2000 feet, especially if you're in a Cessna. (Many Cessna
drivers won't land at Hampton, which is 2400 feet.) But pavement? It's
a lot harder on the airplane than grass.

I go out of my way to land on grass. I hate that SQUEAK! when I land
on asphalt.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Morgans]

"Cub Driver" > wrote
>
> I go out of my way to land on grass. I hate that SQUEAK! when I land
> on asphalt.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford

Really? There is no squeak, when landing on grass? There always is, when
they do it in the movies! <g>
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004

[Michael]

"Marco Rispoli" > wrote
> Between the hours of 50 and 350 you can find about 80% of all pilot-cause
> accidents.

And probably 80% of pilots, too. Look around the airport. Ask people
you know (CFI's excluded - I'll get to them later) how many hours they
have. Betcha 4 out of 5 will have between 50 and 350.

> After 350 hours there's a SHARP drop.

There's a sharp drop in the number of pilots, too. After 350 hours,
most pilots either go pro, or quit. Going pro at that point generally
means doing the CFI thing - getting into the right seat of a trainer
and going around the pattern. It's pretty hard to get hurt if you
never do anything.

The numbers that you're citing are pretty meaningless unless you know
the experience level distribution of the active pilots. The entire
killing zone conjecture is more than likely just bad statistics.

> I am in the Killing Zone and I have a good 300 hours to go. 3 years in the
> killing zone ...

Or one year. Or ten. All depends on how much you fly.

> Statistics indicate that pilots that fly less often, crash more often.

I don't know that statistics are available to prove this, but I
believe it. Why? Because every aviation insurance company I've ever
dealt with believed it, and reflected this in the rate structure.
These guys have to be right most of the time to turn a profit. A guy
who writes a book just has to sound convincing. Guess who I believe?

It stands to reason that if you cover a plane that flies 20 hours a
year, that's a lot less exposure than covering one that flies 200.
But all else being equal, you will get a better annual (not per-hour)
rate if you fly your airplane 200 hours a year instead of 20. The
company that writes my insurance won't even talk to you if you have
the same make and model and don't fly it at least 60 hours a year, and
they're happier to see 160.

> Well ... I am not ready. I don't why I am not ready and I don't know what I
> am missing but at 75 hours I feel more uncomfortable than I used to feel at
> 50 or even 25.

You have a better idea of how much you don't know. Congratulations -
that's the first step on the road to learning. But you can't learn if
you don't fly.

> At 75 hours I feel like crap in fact and the more I fly the more I see
> things or think about things or consider things that I never thought about
> before.

At 1700+ hours, the same happens to me. You can never know
everything, you can never be prepared for every possible eventuality.
That's the great lie of aviation training - you can't be trained for
everything and you can't be trained for the unexpected. What you
actually need is an aviation education - a way of thinking that
prepares you to solve unexpected problems and to anticipate situations
you were not specifically prepared for. Very little of that happens
at the private pilot level, because most students aren't interested
and most CFI's aren't capable. So what do you do? Well, you think
and you discuss. That's really what hangar flying is supposed to be
about.

> REmember that time that i was in poor visibility? 10 miles? What if I had
> lost an engine then? My first reaction at that time was to get closer to the
> ground so I could see more ... and in fact I did. It did help ... but by
> getting closer to the ground (flat ground ... safe) I was also giving up
> precious altitude to glide to a safe spot ... and under me there was nothing
> but trees.
>
> I did think about it at the time but the idea of hugging the ground and
> getting more visibility was more of a priority for me ...

And I think your priorities may have been correct. Flying around in
low vis puts you at increased risk of inadvertent cloud penetration
and possible loss of control. Compared to this, the risk of engine
failure may be smaller. No flight can be made risk-free; it is your
job as pilot in command first to decide how the flight can be
completed with minimum risk and then to decide if that risk level is
justified by the rewards of making the flight.

> Then after the flight was over ... rational thought started creeping back in
> and i started wondering what the hell was I thinking ... I had good
> visibility anyway ... I was just uncomfortable in the haze and got
> comofortable closer to the ground but traded safety for comfort.

Did you really? Was the visibility good enough? Then perhaps you
made a poor decision. Think you would have been the first? 90% of
pilots admit to having made more than a few bad decisions. The other
10% are lying.

> Oh ... not a big deal I suppose ... the engine did work. The haze wasn't so
> bad. I made it there and back.
>
> But I dont' feel good about it. What I don't feel good about is that I let
> my sense of comfort take over rational thought.

You are second-guessing your decision and discussing it with others.
That's part of what accelerates the learning process. Experience
isn't just what happens to you - it's also what you get out of it.

I'm all for rational thought, but don't discount the value of
listening to your gut as well. When you're uncomfortable, there is
usually a reason.

Having said all that - if the terrain was hostile you likely made a
suboptimal decision. OK. Don't do it again. Next time, carefully
weigh your options and decide what's the safest way to complete the
flight. You are not likely to make this same mistake again, because
you've beaten this one to death. Will you make others? Most
certainly. But if this one is any indication, they won't be too
terribly serious and you will learn from them.

> Why am I uncomfortable? Is it because I never experienced so much haze and a
> visibility less than 20 miles? then it's safe.

Maybe. There are real risks associated with reduced visibility,
especially for someone who is not experienced in it and not prepared
to transition to instruments if the need should arise.

There is no such thing as safe. There are only degrees of risk.

On the other hand, I think the risk you took was reasonable. Flying
at 2000 ft isn't a big deal. I would have happily done the same when
I had 75 hours.

> The ground is what hurts. Low level flying is NOT the answer. Plenty of
> telephone poles to smack into.

Sometimes low level flying is the only answer. Obstacles are a lot
less dangerous when you can see them clearly. You have to go VERY low
for telephone poles (and even cell towers) to be an issue.

> So I land and one more cross country was over ... a few weeks ago. 4 hours
> more on my log book.

And experience was acquired. You made a mistake. You learned from
it. That is what experience is all about. Would it have been better
to wait for blue skies to make that flight? You would have learned
little or nothing.

> I am a paranoid flyer.

I have a cousin who is a physician with a professional insterest in
psychiatry. Once, on a visit, I took him and some other people
flying. The plane was parked outside, at an airport I rarely use and
whose line boys I really don't trust. Prior to our flight, I
carefully went around the airplane. I checked for dents that should
not be there, damage to the nose gear, fuel and oil levels, security
of stabilator, motion in the ailerons - a normal preflight for those
times when the plane has been out of my control. My cousin wathced me
carefully. Finally, I turned around and said "A certain amount of
paranoia is healthy in a pilot." He could not help but agree.

We were going to do the Hudson River tour, but wound up making only a
short flight in the vicinity of the airport. I judged the ceilings
too low and the visibility insufficient to fly 25 short miles to the
Hudson over terrain that wasn't all that flat and none too familiar.
Had I been more familiar with the area and flying a slower airplane, I
might have felt differently. I'm still not sure the decision was the
right one.

What I'm trying to tell you is that the paranoia never goes away - or
at least it should not.

Recently I found out about a failure mode in my airplane - a way that
sloppy maintenance on the flap system could kill me. It has killed
before. I'm not that concerned about it now - I've practiced the
recovery procedure and I am now proficient in it. Except that an
engine failure that occurs during the recovery procedure will be very,
very bad. But it could have been really ugly had it happened to me
unexpectedly. It was ugly for someone else. I've owned that airplane
for over three years and have logged over 600 hours in it, after
getting the best available training. Nothing is 100%.

> I am sprouting eyes in the back of my head and I am
> getting severly suspcious of anything out of the ordinary.

Good. You live longer that way.

> This past weekend was beautiful.
>
> But: the wind was 11 gusty 18 (which I can handle ... i handled 25 gusty to
> 35 direct crosswind at Linden. Nothign I want to do ever again ... but 7
> knots of gust factor makes me mildly uncomfortable).
>
> But: that weekend we were supposed to fly to cape may
>
> But: I was supposed to fly with my wife and a friend of hers that I never
> met before.
>
> But: moderate turbulence on the way was forecasted
>
> But: the plane we were supposed to fly (Piper 180) has a "limp" right shock
> absorber and leaky breaks. Nothing I can't handle ... I can land without
> breaks. I usually land well within 1000 feet of runway barely touching the
> breaks.
>
> All of the facts above, taken singularly would not present a problem for me.
>
> I can take gusts. I can take turbulence. I can take a relatively long cross
> country. I can take strangers in the plane. I can take limp landing gears
> and leaky breaks.
>
> One at a time.
>
> Two of the above would make me think twice.
>
> All of them togheter are WAY outside of my envelope.
>
> Please keep in mind that none of the things were really THAT bad. I knew
> that. 11 gusty to 18 is nothing. I have done it plenty of times and the
> Piper 180 is VERY stable in crossiwinds (I used to do this in the 172 all
> the time which is a lot worse). My wife's friend flies in puddle jumpers all
> the time and according to her she can take any weather and she is not scared
> at all.
>
> The brakes are leaky but I don't generally use brakes other than if I am in
> a hurry to get out of the runway in case people need to land.
>
> I can land on one wheel (keeping the limp wheel off the runway for a bit)
> and my landings are generally soft (especially lately).
>
> But all of these factors just made me stop in my tracks and just say No.
>
> I am reading this book and I am thinking: am I taking this too seriously?
>
> Am I refusing to fly when it's perfectly safe to do so?
>
> Am I being too careful?
>
> But the most pressing question that is gravitating my mind is: am I
> "damaging" my experience by avoiding danger and risk and thus never learning
> how to deal with it? Is it wise not to push the envelope at all? Wouldn't it
> be wiser to push a little bit more and just learn how to deal with the
> problems? I mean ... you gotta see the problem and solve it in order to
> learn anything and if I am too defensive of a flyer ... I will never learn.
>
> Give all of the above considerations ... should I have flown last weekend
> instead?
>
> I am still thinking about this ... and i don't know that i have the answer
> ... yet. And I don't know if I will have the answer out of the killing zone
> ... at 400 hours. Or 1000.

Everything you say makes perfect sense. You've made excellent
arguments for both decisions. Both the risks of the go decision
(gusty crosswinds plus weak gear plus bad brakes plus factors likely
to degrade pilot performance) and the risks of the no-go decision
(limiting your expereince by avoiding the edges of the envelope) are
very, very real. There is not a damn thing I can tell you about this,
with my 1700+ hours of experience, that you have not already
considered. We can discuss the fine points of the risks, but for 75
hours I think your asessment is very, very solid.

Are you taking the book too seriously? Yes and no. The 50 to 350
hours thing is bogus, because the statistics are bogus. Sure, that's
the steep part of the learning curve - but with solid training there's
no reason you should not get through that. You've been taught to
handle 25G35, so odds are your handwork is fine. You're asking all
the right questions, so there's nothing wrong with your headwork.

Frankly, I don't think you made a bad call on that trip. Too many
little things that weren't right. I think I would have made the same
decision at your experience level. Would you have made it? Probably.
And maybe you would have caught a gust at just the wrong time and
thumped on the gear, and the weak oleo would have chosen that time to
blow an already leaky seal or Schreder valve and collapse, and with
weak brakes you would not have had the control to keep it on the
runway in the crosswind. Or worse, those weak brakes could have
locked up - asymmetrically. Had it happen once - took everything I
had to keep it on the runway. I had over 1000 hours then. Rental
planes are mostly junk, and I won't tell you never to fly one that's
less that perfect (else you would never fly) but why stack the odds
against yourself by taking a plane with known deficiencies in
conditions that will maximally aggravate those deficincies?

Does this mean you should never push your envelope? Not at all. The
risk of not learning because you never leave your comfort zone is very
real. But from where I'm sitting, it sounds like you're making
reasonable choices. Yes, you're sweating them all and second-guessing
every one of them after the fact, but that's healthy. It's
accelerating your development as a pilot.

The risks of flying small airplanes are very, very real. The drive to
the airport is the safest part of the trip, not the most dangerous.
We lose one in 2000 of our number to crashes every year, and nearly
every one of those pilots launched confident that he would return to
earth safely. I can't tell you this is safe.

What I can tell you is that from where I'm sitting, with over a decade
of flying behind me, it sounds to me like you're thinking this through
- and that has to count for something.

Michael

[Teacherjh]

>>
Flying at 2000 ft isn't a big deal. I would have happily
done the same when I had 75 hours.
<<

I love flying low. A lot of pilots are afraid of it, both because of obstacles
and navigation. I know pilots who won't take off without a working GPS. AT
1000 feet, you can't see all that far, and the sectional is not detailled
enough to corroborate with most of what you will see. Much of your navigation
will be ded reckoning, confirmed by pilotage. At 4000 feet, the picture is
quite different.

I think it's vitally important that pilots, new ones especially, get some real
low level cross country experience. It will save your bacon one day. IT
builds faith in your ability to hold a course and know where you are. It also
gives you good planning experience (you have to plan well - find the obstacles
on the map, and loook out the window for the ones that aren't on the map.

Too many pilots just climb high and turn on the autopilot. They get stuck
under an overcast, they don't know what to do.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Cub Driver]

>Really? There is no squeak, when landing on grass? There always is, when
>they do it in the movies! <g>

Over the past six years on grass I'll bet I have made every kind of
bad landing that the Cub has to offer, and the tires have never
squeaked. The most I can remember is BOO-OOP! when the little darling
made a particularly high leap. Probably saw something in the grass
that frightened her.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

[Andrew Gideon]

Michael wrote:

> And probably 80% of pilots, too. Look around the airport. Ask people
> you know (CFI's excluded - I'll get to them later) how many hours they
> have. Betcha 4 out of 5 will have between 50 and 350.

At a MAPA meeting recently (there's another this week in northern NJ; see
midatlanticpilots.com), a speaker was discussing this issue and asked who
was in "the zone". There were probably 50 or 60 people there, and only two
hands were raised. And I was one, and am now out of the zone.

[...]
> The numbers that you're citing are pretty meaningless unless you know
> the experience level distribution of the active pilots. The entire
> killing zone conjecture is more than likely just bad statistics.

I tend to agree that this is most likely, but I've not read the original
claim.

- Andrew

[Trent Moorehead]

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
news:c31wc.65138>
> I'm a little 'scared' now,,, in a few more minutes I have to do some site
> visits for clients and WILL HAVE TO DRIVE ON THE FREEWAY WITH ALL THOSE
> DARNED AUTOMOBILE/TRUCK DRIVERS,,,,,, YIKES!!!!!! ;-)

Late last Saturday night I came up on an accident that had JUST happened. No
one killed, but it was fairly severe. Dazed passengers stumbling about and
nearly killed by traffic, screaming kids, blood, panic etc. The cause of the
accident was a young girl (7 mo. pregnant BTW) ran a red light at 55 mph and
rammed into a car filled to the gills with people (I counted 8). All 8 were
innocent victims due to one person's negligence and they were lucky they
weren't killed.

It's interesting to me how easily people dismiss the danger of simply
driving, but see flying as a much more dangerous activity. You don't see
people with phobias of driving even though almost every one knows someone
who has been involved in a wreck, or has been involved in one themselves.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Peter Duniho]

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
...
> [...] The cause of the
> accident was a young girl (7 mo. pregnant BTW) ran a red light at 55 mph
and
> rammed into a car filled to the gills with people (I counted 8). All 8
were
> innocent victims due to one person's negligence and they were lucky they
> weren't killed.

I've never seen a car with eight legitimate, belted seating positions.

Doesn't sound to me like the victims were wholely innocent.

> It's interesting to me how easily people dismiss the danger of simply
> driving, but see flying as a much more dangerous activity. You don't see
> people with phobias of driving even though almost every one knows someone
> who has been involved in a wreck, or has been involved in one themselves.

First of all, flying is demonstrably more dangerous than driving. The
accident rate is higher, and the vehicles have less survivability built into
them.

Secondly, YOU may not see people with phobias of driving, but plenty such
people exist. Personally, driving makes me more concerned for my safety
than flying does, though I feel relatively comfortable doing both.

Pete

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Trent Moorehead wrote:
> It's interesting to me how easily people dismiss the danger of simply
> driving, but see flying as a much more dangerous activity.

Flying is more dangerous; the fatal accident rate for GA is about
equivalent to riding a motorcycle on the roads (although the total
accident rate is a bit lower).

Even if it wasn't, to many people flying simply isn't natural because
you aren't attached to the ground. The lizard part of the human brain
evolved firmly on the ground, and not in the air, so only those of us
who somehow lack a basic instinctive fear of flying actually enjoy it.
The vast majority of people are afraid of flying because billions of
years of natural selection have hard wired them to feel that being off
the ground = imminent danger of hitting it very hard.

--
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"

[Cub Driver]

>asked who
>was in "the zone". There were probably 50 or 60 people there, and only two
>hands were raised.

Maybe low-time pilots are too interested in flying to be seminaring
about it?

(I've never been to a seminar or meeting about flying, though I have
been to a couple of air shows and fly-ins.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Jay Honeck]

> You don't see
> people with phobias of driving even though almost every one knows someone
> who has been involved in a wreck, or has been involved in one themselves.

Actually, you *do* see this. However, these poor folks get ridiculed to the
point of silence, and come up with other reasons not to drive.

For some reason it's socially "okay" to have a fear of flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Richard Russell]

snipped...
>
>It's interesting to me how easily people dismiss the danger of simply
>driving, but see flying as a much more dangerous activity. You don't see
>people with phobias of driving even though almost every one knows someone
>who has been involved in a wreck, or has been involved in one themselves.
>
>-Trent
>PP-ASEL
>

I think one needs to keep in mind that we are indoctrinated into the
automobile world as soon as we are born. From the first ride home
from the maternity ward, we grow up with cars being an integral part
of every phase of life. It's no wonder to me that the dangers
involved are dismissed because everyone accepts that the automobile is
as normal to everyday life as the bathtub. That goes for the
accidents, too. Not many are fortunate enough to have this same early
indoctrination into the aviation world, thus it typically is not
regarded as a normal part of living.
Rich Russell

[Andrew Gideon]

Cub Driver wrote:

>
>>asked who
>>was in "the zone". There were probably 50 or 60 people there, and only
>>two hands were raised.
>
> Maybe low-time pilots are too interested in flying to be seminaring
> about it?

MAPA meetings aren't really seminars. They're opportunities to dine with a
bunch of fellow aviators. However, just for fun, there's usually a speaker
or three to whom we pay some attention.

MAPA does run seminars, but these are different (ie. the food isn't as good
{8^).

It's been only relatively recently that I've become "socially" involved with
aviation like this. It definitely adds to the experience.

At to the number of low time pilots that dine with us...perhaps we don't do
enough to get the word out. I suppose one solution would be to mention the
organization, and our meetings in northern NJ every month, in a USENET
posting.

I could also mention the organization's URL:

http://midatlanticpilots.com/

Those would probably be good ideas.

- Andrew

[G Farris]

In article >,
says...
>

>
>I think one needs to keep in mind that we are indoctrinated into the
>automobile world as soon as we are born. From the first ride home
>from the maternity ward, we grow up with cars being an integral part
>of every phase of life. It's no wonder to me that the dangers
>involved are dismissed because everyone accepts that the automobile is
>as normal to everyday life as the bathtub. That goes for the
>accidents, too. Not many are fortunate enough to have this same early
>indoctrination into the aviation world, thus it typically is not
>regarded as a normal part of living.
>Rich Russell


That's true - and it's one of the difficulties in making meaningful
statistical comparisons. The sample size for automobile use is just so great.
We spend a significant portion of our lives in automobiles. After sleeping, it
must be one of the highest time activities for average people in
industrialized nations.

Today I spent four hours in the car and one hour and a half in a Cessna 172. I
guess my risk in the car was probably greater, but I put a lot more attention
into safety considerations on my flight. Even though I'm a very
safety-conscious driver, we just don't evaluate the risk in the same way,
because it's such a "standard" part of our everyday lives.

In the old adage about rural life " Birth sometimes occurs in cars, death
usually, and conception always!"

G Faris

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:43:19 +0000 (UTC), (G Farris)
wrote:

>Today I spent four hours in the car and one hour and a half in a Cessna 172. I
>guess my risk in the car was probably greater

I used to tell my wife the same thing ("the most dangerous part of
flying is over when I park the car at the airport") but it's not
really true. As posted, flying is more comprable to riding a
motorcycle than driving a car.

But perhaps you meant that 4 hours car > 1.5 flying. Yes, that may
well be true. Most of these comparisons are done on an hour-for-hour
basis, but sometimes on a passenger-mile basis.

I recently saw comparisons on the safest passenger vehicle. It wasn't
a SUV or a pickup, as one might assume, but a Toyota Avalon. (In this
case, only driver fatalities were counted, so as to avoid being skewed
by passengers.) Then I realized what was going on: Avalon, Accord,
Camry, then Civic, Corolla, etc -- the more likely a young man was to
drive the vehicle, the more dangerous it appeared to be. Even the
Subaru Outback is significantly more dangerous than the Avalon, but
then you don't see as many middle-aged women driving Outbacks, and you
never see a young man driving an Avalon.

I wonder how much of flying's apparent dangers (and motorcycles' too?)
comes not from the vehicle but from the driver?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Richard Russell]

snipped..
>I wonder how much of flying's apparent dangers (and motorcycles' too?)
>comes not from the vehicle but from the driver?
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
>The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
>The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
>Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org


I've been riding motorcycles an average of 10,000 miles a year for 35
years. I have been flying for 1.5 years and I've thought a lot about
the similarities and relative dangers involved in each.

I do ascribe to the premise that they are approximately equal in
danger level to the participant. That, however, is based upon pure
numbers without any regard for other factors. While deaths may be
statistically equivalent there is a very significant difference
between the two activities. When flying, your fate is much more in
your hands than it is when your driving a motorcycle. When I fly, I
know that if I am going to die on that flight that the probability of
my death being the result of my own error is extremely high. While
driving my motorcycle, I am much more at the mercy of what is going on
around me and, if I die on that ride, there is a much greate chance
that my death is the result of something other than my own error.
That's not to say that bikers don't screw up and kill themselves, but
there are many, many incidents where bikers are killed by deer,
drunks, people running lights, "Officer, I never saw the bike", and so
on.

The net result is that, even though I have vastly more experience on
the bike (almost a Dudley-esque level), I feel safer when I am flying
because I know that I have a greater degree of control over my
destiny.

Rich Russell

[Richard Russell]

snipped...
>
>There's a sharp drop in the number of pilots, too. After 350 hours,
>most pilots either go pro, or quit. Going pro at that point generally
>means doing the CFI thing - getting into the right seat of a trainer
>and going around the pattern. It's pretty hard to get hurt if you
>never do anything.
>
>The numbers that you're citing are pretty meaningless unless you know
>the experience level distribution of the active pilots. The entire
>killing zone conjecture is more than likely just bad statistics.
>
snipped...

I think you're right, the numbers probably are technically
meaningless. I read book and and I think that, even though it may be
statisically flawed, it offers a mindset that is valuable to the
low-time pilot. There are good lessons there, even though one of them
may not be a lesson in how to do statistical analysis.

Rich Russell

[Jay Honeck]

> The net result is that, even though I have vastly more experience on
> the bike (almost a Dudley-esque level), I feel safer when I am flying
> because I know that I have a greater degree of control over my
> destiny.

Bingo.

When I ride, I am in a constant state of alertness -- partially for my own
performance, but mostly for those around me.

When I fly, I am in a constant state of alertness -- partially for those
around me, but mostly for my own performance. (And the performance of my
aircraft.)

I am much more comfortable dealing with my own abilities and limitations;
thus, although it may be an illusion, I feel much safer flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael]

Cub Driver > wrote
> I wonder how much of flying's apparent dangers (and motorcycles' too?)
> comes not from the vehicle but from the driver?

Most of it.

As a driver, you get a discount for being older, female, and married.
The highest rates are paid by young unmarried men, the lowest by
middle aged married women. There is no similar insurance dynamic at
play in airplanes. Nobody really cares about your age, sex, or
marital status. Why?

Driving is mandatory, flying is optional.

Unless you live in New York City, you have to drive. There isn't a
realistic choice. But you can choose when, how, and how much. You
can avoid high traffic areas. You can slow down. You can avoid
driving at night. In general, you can reduce your exposure by
reducing the utility of your car. The whole idea is anathema to a
young unmarried man. He will go where he wants to go, when he wants
to go there, and as fast as he can get there. A middle aged married
woman will delay her trip, take longer, go elsewhere if possible, and
just not go if she can. She is most likely far less skilled as a
driver than the young unmarried male, but she is safer. She drives
only when necessary, and then in the safest way possible.

Of course there are exceptions - there are cautious young unmarried
men and middle aged married women who seek adventure on the open road,
but they are just that - exceptions.

Flying is completely different. It's optional. There are a very few
people who have a valid need to fly, but that doesn't include most of
us. We fly because we want to fly. For that reason, there are no
safe private pilots.

Yes, I am absolutely serious. There are no safe private pilots.
They've all quit. Every private pilot still flying has made the
decision, consciously or unconsciously, that the fun and possible
marginal utility of flying is worth the increased risk of serious
injury and even death, not only for himself but for his passengers.
Every trip the typical private pilot makes in an airplane could have
been more safely made by car or commercial carrier - and generally
cheaper and more reliably as well.

Why doesn't your insurance company care about your great judgment and
commitment to safety? Because it's all a bunch of crap. If you were
really committed to safety, you would have already quit. That's why
there is no discount for age, marital status, or sex. Because that
'discount' is realized by not needing aviation insurance because you
don't fly.

So what do insurance companies care about? Why, the one thing you can
do to improve your odds without quitting - improving your skill and
knowledge. Both tend to accumulate with experience, so every insurer
cares about experience. Both also tend to accumulate with training
(initial and recurrent) so most insurers also care about that. The
more relevant the skill and knowledge the better, so insurers care
about time in category, class, and make/model. Skill rots, so recent
experience also counts.

Skill and knowledge don't make you safe - nothing will - but they do
make you safer. If you want safety, put your airplane in the hangar.
It's safe there. But that's not what airplanes are for.

Michael

[G Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:43:19 +0000 (UTC), (G Farris)
>wrote:
>
>>Today I spent four hours in the car and one hour and a half in a Cessna 172.
I
>>guess my risk in the car was probably greater
>
>I used to tell my wife the same thing ("the most dangerous part of
>flying is over when I park the car at the airport") but it's not
>really true. As posted, flying is more comprable to riding a
>motorcycle than driving a car.
>
>But perhaps you meant that 4 hours car > 1.5 flying. Yes, that may
>well be true. Most of these comparisons are done on an hour-for-hour
>basis, but sometimes on a passenger-mile basis.
>

Yes, I meant 4 hours in the car VS 1.5 flying. I realize that per hour or per
mile flying small aircraft is more dangerous.

Cheers,
G Faris

[G Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>I do ascribe to the premise that they are approximately equal in
>danger level to the participant. That, however, is based upon pure
>numbers without any regard for other factors. While deaths may be
>statistically equivalent there is a very significant difference
>between the two activities. When flying, your fate is much more in
>your hands than it is when your driving a motorcycle. When I fly, I
>know that if I am going to die on that flight that the probability of
>my death being the result of my own error is extremely high. While
>driving my motorcycle, I am much more at the mercy of what is going on
>around me and, if I die on that ride, there is a much greate chance
>that my death is the result of something other than my own error.
>That's not to say that bikers don't screw up and kill themselves, but
>there are many, many incidents where bikers are killed by deer,
>drunks, people running lights, "Officer, I never saw the bike", and so
>on.
>
>The net result is that, even though I have vastly more experience on
>the bike (almost a Dudley-esque level), I feel safer when I am flying
>because I know that I have a greater degree of control over my
>destiny.
>


I agree with that too. The chances of your being killed "by someone else"
while flying are small. You are boss.

G Faris

[gatt]

"Joe Johnson" > wrote in message news:2Xkwc.5825

> I'm a newly minted PP-ASEL and I'm as scared (though not as eloquent) as
> Marco. Are you saying the whole thesis in The Killing Zone is based on
such
> an elementary methodological error?

Don't be afraid, just be aware and prepared.

I read a statistic back in the early '90s that said that newly-minuted
private pilots were less at risk than pilots in the 150-hour range, because
their training and discipline was more current and they have flown more
regularly than somebody like me, who logged a couple of hours a year until
just recently. I'm at 150 hrs now, and thankful that I'm in a training
program again because I can see how some of my skills have rusted that,
without IFR training, I would have forgotten about all together. Other than
that I'd probably me more of a danger to myself than I was at 50 hrs.

-c

[gatt]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message

> If your CFI didn't know that it was closed for noise, she/he might not
have
> known had it been closed for safety-related reasons. This is exactly the
> issue I've found myself having with "instructor in command" (nice label,
> BTW!).

Personal example: I failed my PPL checkride because of the Xctry section,
where I picked a private field as a waypoint. My instructor, who moved from
another state, referred to the field all the time. I should have known
better; I had already suspected he was wrong, but who argues with their
instructor? When the examiner asked "Where's your waypoint?" and I
pointed to an old, abandoned airstrip, he pointed to a field near it and
said "Nope. THAT'S the airstrip. The owner is a farmer, and when he wants
to fly, he checks his windsock and mows the field accordingly. You should
have been taught not to use private airstrips as waypoints."

I should have stuck with my hunch and picked a different waypoint when I
practiced the SAME cross country with the instructor onboard the day before.

-c

[gatt]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message

> >> With or without an instructor, why would a grass strip be a problem?
>
> Ask the FBO. IT is pretty much universal that if you rent and airplane,
you
> must land on a paved strip 2000 feet long or longer. It probably has
something
> to do with insurance. I won't even attempt to fathom their reasoning.

That's what I was told. An instructor of mine was fired for having me land
on a grass strip. The sad thing was, not only was he one of the best
instructors I've ever had, I had landed (as a passenger) at the same grass
strip in the same FBO's aircraft when the OWNER of the FBO gave me a
discovery flight.

-c

[gatt]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message

> I go out of my way to land on grass. I hate that SQUEAK! when I land
> on asphalt.

At the glider towing facility at McMinnville, Oregon, the lady who flies the
cropduster/tow plane lands on the grass next to the asphalt because, she
says, it's easier on the tires.

-c

[Peter Duniho]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> Personal example: I failed my PPL checkride because of the Xctry section,
> where I picked a private field as a waypoint. My instructor, who moved
from
> another state, referred to the field all the time. I should have known
> better; I had already suspected he was wrong, but who argues with their
> instructor?

I do. But then I suppose most people here wouldn't find that surprising.
It turns out that I'm right almost all the time, but not 100%. :)

> When the examiner asked "Where's your waypoint?" and I
> pointed to an old, abandoned airstrip, he pointed to a field near it and
> said "Nope. THAT'S the airstrip. The owner is a farmer, and when he wants
> to fly, he checks his windsock and mows the field accordingly. You should
> have been taught not to use private airstrips as waypoints."
>
> I should have stuck with my hunch and picked a different waypoint when I
> practiced the SAME cross country with the instructor onboard the day
before.

There may be reason not to pick a particular private airstrip as a waypoint.
However:

* I fail to see how the airstrip in question here was a sufficiently
poor waypoint to justify failing you on your checkride. Did the error
create a hazard, or a significant error in your groundspeed calculation? I
doubt it did. I doubt it had ANY effect whatsoever on anything important.

* Lots of private airstrips are fixed firmly to the ground, and are
every bit as reasonable as a waypoint as a paved public airport. To claim
that "you should have been taught not to use private airstrips as waypoints"
is every bit as erroneous as if someone claimed "you can always use private
airstrips as waypoints".

Frankly, sounds to me as though you and your instructor got a bum rap by an
overly critical examiner.

Which is not to say you shouldn't argue with your instructor. You should
always question what they say, if you don't understand what they said or why
they said it. Sometimes you'll find out the instructor was wrong, and
sometimes you'll learn with greater depth about how and why they were right.
But either way, there's a benefit.

Pete

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:27:38 -0700, "gatt"
> wrote:

> You should
>have been taught not to use private airstrips as waypoints."

That seems rather odd to me. Among my waypoints are my house, the
Newmarket gym, the town of Durham, Littlemark Island, a couple of
exits on I-93, and the southeast corner of an unnamed lake in Maine,
not to mention two private airstrips. A waypoint is any easily
recognized point that you might want to use for navigation, plus those
where you might want to land sometime.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Richard Russell]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:18:01 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> The net result is that, even though I have vastly more experience on
>> the bike (almost a Dudley-esque level), I feel safer when I am flying
>> because I know that I have a greater degree of control over my
>> destiny.
>
>Bingo.
>
>When I ride, I am in a constant state of alertness -- partially for my own
>performance, but mostly for those around me.
>
>When I fly, I am in a constant state of alertness -- partially for those
>around me, but mostly for my own performance. (And the performance of my
>aircraft.)
>
>I am much more comfortable dealing with my own abilities and limitations;
>thus, although it may be an illusion, I feel much safer flying.

Jay,
I don't think it is an illusion. Your awareness of the issue and your
alertness to your performance "make" it safer. I believe that you
have the ability to tip the scales in this situation. No smoke and
mirrors required.
Rich Russell

[Michael]

(G Farris) wrote
> I agree with that too. The chances of your being killed "by someone else"
> while flying are small. You are boss.

Actually, the closest I ever came to dying in an airplane, it was
because someone else (an air traffic controller) lost situational
awareness.

Michael