Re: plane down near seattle

[David Herman]

The airport is Evergreen Sky Ranch, a private, grass strip (2650' long)
located near the town of Black Diamond (actually it looks closer to Enumclaw
or even Auburn to me, but it's listed as in Black Diamond), about 15 NM
southeast of Seattle.

"Diamond Head" is considerably west of there (and probably has much nicer
weather).


--
David Herman
N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying Forum:
http://www.pacificnorthwestflying.com/

"Gary" > wrote in message
news:Uab1d.391571$M95.95845@pd7tw1no...
> I just saw on the King 5 news that a single engine Beechcraft Bonanza
> crashed shortly after takeoff from the diamond head?? airport. (Not sure
if
> my info is correct at this time).
> The Beechcraft caught fire after crashing into a cargo trailer in a grassy
> field near the end of the airport.
>
> The good news is that the four people on-board although badly burned did
> manage to escape and are now being treated in hospital.
>
> I wish a speedy recovery for all.
>
> Gary
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"David Herman" > wrote in message
news:1095059920.491005@yasure...
> The airport is Evergreen Sky Ranch, a private, grass strip (2650' long)
> located near the town of Black Diamond (actually it looks closer to
Enumclaw
> or even Auburn to me, but it's listed as in Black Diamond), about 15 NM
> southeast of Seattle.
>
> "Diamond Head" is considerably west of there (and probably has much nicer
> weather).

There is, actually, a Diamond Point near Port Townsend and a Black Diamond
Airport (95W) in Black Diamond. Black Diamond is named for the coal that
used to be mined there and also is home to the Black Diamond Bakery (not to
be confused with the other bakery in town) which is said to have the world's
best sticky buns -- even better than those that can be found in and around
the Black Forest. They bake them in a brick oven. Every morning (something
like 2 am) they put a load of wood in the oven and burn it down to ashes.
Then they sweep the ashes and just keep putting their breads in the slowly
cooling oven until about noon.

Diamond Point also has much nicer weather than Black Diamond.

[C J Campbell]

"Gary" > wrote in message
news:Uab1d.391571$M95.95845@pd7tw1no...
> I just saw on the King 5 news that a single engine Beechcraft Bonanza
> crashed shortly after takeoff from the diamond head?? airport. (Not sure
if
> my info is correct at this time).
> The Beechcraft caught fire after crashing into a cargo trailer in a grassy
> field near the end of the airport.
>
> The good news is that the four people on-board although badly burned did
> manage to escape and are now being treated in hospital.

The crash was at Evergreen Sky Park near Black Diamond. The pilot and one of
the passengers was seriously burned; the pilot while dragging his passengers
out of the plane. They were airlifted to Harborview, known for its burn and
trauma center. If you get burned, you could do a lot worse than Harborview,
so the victims are in the best possible hands. The other two passengers were
not seriously injured, but were taken to Harborview anyway.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:18:34 -0700, "David Herman"
> wrote:

It was a relatively new A36 and it hit a travel trailer. A pilot
friend who lives at Evergreen witnessed the takeoff and ensuing crash.
I was nearby in the air at the time and saw a plume of black smoke so
I flew over to see if it was a structure fire or what. Very sad....

Bela P. Havasreti

>The airport is Evergreen Sky Ranch, a private, grass strip (2650' long)
>located near the town of Black Diamond (actually it looks closer to Enumclaw
>or even Auburn to me, but it's listed as in Black Diamond), about 15 NM
>southeast of Seattle.
>
>"Diamond Head" is considerably west of there (and probably has much nicer
>weather).

[onsitewelding]

Harbour View hospital is where they take the seriously injured riders after
a motorcycle road racing accident at Pacific International Raceway in Kent
Wa. I have been working corners at Pacific (formerly Seattle international
raceway) for many years and even raced my Suzuki GSXR 1100 for a couple of
those years there. (making the 4am drive from canada to be there ontime for
racing to start)
Sounds like Harbour View is a pretty good hospital. I assume that HV has a
trauma unit as well, either that or HV is just close to the track and that
is why the riders are taken there.


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary" > wrote in message
> news:Uab1d.391571$M95.95845@pd7tw1no...
> > I just saw on the King 5 news that a single engine Beechcraft Bonanza
> > crashed shortly after takeoff from the diamond head?? airport. (Not sure
> if
> > my info is correct at this time).
> > The Beechcraft caught fire after crashing into a cargo trailer in a
grassy
> > field near the end of the airport.
> >
> > The good news is that the four people on-board although badly burned did
> > manage to escape and are now being treated in hospital.
>
> The crash was at Evergreen Sky Park near Black Diamond. The pilot and one
of
> the passengers was seriously burned; the pilot while dragging his
passengers
> out of the plane. They were airlifted to Harborview, known for its burn
and
> trauma center. If you get burned, you could do a lot worse than
Harborview,
> so the victims are in the best possible hands. The other two passengers
were
> not seriously injured, but were taken to Harborview anyway.
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Herman" > wrote in message
> news:1095059920.491005@yasure...
> > "Diamond Head" is considerably west of there (and probably has much
nicer
> > weather).
>
> There is, actually, a Diamond Point near Port Townsend[...]
>
> Diamond Point also has much nicer weather than Black Diamond.

I believe he (David) was referring to the Diamond Head in Hawaii.

[David Herman]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "David Herman" > wrote in message
> > news:1095059920.491005@yasure...
> > > "Diamond Head" is considerably west of there (and probably has much
> nicer
> > > weather).
> >
> > There is, actually, a Diamond Point near Port Townsend[...]
> >
> > Diamond Point also has much nicer weather than Black Diamond.
>
> I believe he (David) was referring to the Diamond Head in Hawaii.

Ya sure youbetcha, um, mahalo...


--
David Herman
N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying Forum:
http://www.pacificnorthwestflying.com/

[Cockpit Colin]

> > The good news is that the four people on-board although badly burned did
> > manage to escape and are now being treated in hospital.

People sometimes ask why I go to the trouble of wearing nomex Tee shirt /
Longjohns and a nomex flight suit (others don't ask - they just smirk). This
is the reason.

"Chance favours only the well prepared"

[dancingstar]

Harbor View is reputed to have the best trauma centers in the world. I
had a friend that was air lifted there after a bicycle accident left him
comatose. I hear they also have a wonderful burn unit, too.

Antonio

onsitewelding wrote:
> Harbour View hospital is where they take the seriously injured riders after
> a motorcycle road racing accident at Pacific International Raceway in Kent
> Wa. I have been working corners at Pacific (formerly Seattle international
> raceway) for many years and even raced my Suzuki GSXR 1100 for a couple of
> those years there. (making the 4am drive from canada to be there ontime for
> racing to start)
> Sounds like Harbour View is a pretty good hospital. I assume that HV has a
> trauma unit as well, either that or HV is just close to the track and that
> is why the riders are taken there.
>
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Gary" > wrote in message
>>news:Uab1d.391571$M95.95845@pd7tw1no...
>>
>>>I just saw on the King 5 news that a single engine Beechcraft Bonanza
>>>crashed shortly after takeoff from the diamond head?? airport. (Not sure
>>
>>if
>>
>>>my info is correct at this time).
>>>The Beechcraft caught fire after crashing into a cargo trailer in a
>>
> grassy
>
>>>field near the end of the airport.
>>>
>>>The good news is that the four people on-board although badly burned did
>>>manage to escape and are now being treated in hospital.
>>
>>The crash was at Evergreen Sky Park near Black Diamond. The pilot and one
>
> of
>
>>the passengers was seriously burned; the pilot while dragging his
>
> passengers
>
>>out of the plane. They were airlifted to Harborview, known for its burn
>
> and
>
>>trauma center. If you get burned, you could do a lot worse than
>
> Harborview,
>
>>so the victims are in the best possible hands. The other two passengers
>
> were
>
>>not seriously injured, but were taken to Harborview anyway.
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Peter R.]

Cockpit Colin wrote:

> People sometimes ask why I go to the trouble of wearing nomex Tee shirt /
> Longjohns and a nomex flight suit (others don't ask - they just smirk). This
> is the reason.
>
> "Chance favours only the well prepared"

Do you make all your passengers wear Nomex undergarments?

--
Peter

[Paul Sengupta]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Cockpit Colin wrote:
>
> > People sometimes ask why I go to the trouble of wearing nomex Tee shirt
/
> > Longjohns and a nomex flight suit (others don't ask - they just smirk).
This
> > is the reason.
> >
> > "Chance favours only the well prepared"
>
> Do you make all your passengers wear Nomex undergarments?

You need those just to post here.

I just wear cotton. Er, to fly and to post here.

Paul

[Cockpit Colin]

> Do you make all your passengers wear Nomex undergarments?

No I don't. My risk is greater than theirs because I expose myself to that
small chance many more times than they do. If they did make such a decision
they too would significantly lower their chances of burning in such an
accident. The line has to be drawn somewhere - for me I choose to protect
myself as best I can - in everything I do in aviation.

I do however make them wear life jackets when flying single-engine over
water - I do carry a fire extinguisher - I do carry an aviation survival
kit. I do a lot of other things too - many of which also get me 'stick' from
others about my attitude to safety.

I have many conversations about this (which fall mostly on deaf ears) - the
inherent problem I find is that the group who's experience would be the most
compelling when it comes to people taking a more serious approach to
aviation safety are very quiet on the topic - because they're all dead. All
the rest seem to think (a) "It won't happen to me" and (b) if it did then
"I'd be able to handle it - it's the other pilots you need to worry about".

.... and as a result they continue to have accidents and get injured.

[Jim Carter]

How is the risk any less per event for the passengers than it is for you?
Sure, you expose yourself more often, but if you think about it everyone
onboard is exposed to the same level of risk at the time the operations are
taking place. Increased frequency doesn't affect the per event risk and that
is what the Nomex is protecting against isn't it?

--
Jim Carter
"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
> > Do you make all your passengers wear Nomex undergarments?
>
> No I don't. My risk is greater than theirs because I expose myself to that
> small chance many more times than they do. If they did make such a
decision
> they too would significantly lower their chances of burning in such an
> accident. The line has to be drawn somewhere - for me I choose to protect
> myself as best I can - in everything I do in aviation.
>
> I do however make them wear life jackets when flying single-engine over
> water - I do carry a fire extinguisher - I do carry an aviation survival
> kit. I do a lot of other things too - many of which also get me 'stick'
from
> others about my attitude to safety.
>
> I have many conversations about this (which fall mostly on deaf ears) -
the
> inherent problem I find is that the group who's experience would be the
most
> compelling when it comes to people taking a more serious approach to
> aviation safety are very quiet on the topic - because they're all dead.
All
> the rest seem to think (a) "It won't happen to me" and (b) if it did then
> "I'd be able to handle it - it's the other pilots you need to worry
about".
>
> ... and as a result they continue to have accidents and get injured.
>
>

[Cockpit Colin]

If the chances of being involved in a fire was 1 in a million and the
passengers only ever flew one flight then their chance would be one in a
million. If I flew 1 million flights then, statistically speaking, my worst
fears would come true eventually.

At 1 in a million it's a chance they're prepared to take - for me the odds
aren't one in a million - they're a lot higher - which I'm not prepared to
take.

I hear what you're saying - and I agree that when my time comes it's not
good for the unfortunate passengers (if any) who happen to be with me -
that's the chance they took. It's like russian roulette - if I play it long
enough I'm always going to lose - so I do my best to protect myself against
that eventuality.

My point was I see so many pilots taking too many risks - most of them get
away with it most of the time - but flip the coin over and a few are dead
who would be alive today if they'd taken more precautions - and some poor
kids have to grow up without a dad because of it.

A bit like wearing seatbelts - you probably won't ever need them - but if
you do, and you're not wearing it - then it's too late.

Just imagine you're flying over moutainous terrain - in a single - engine
stops. I "Freeze the scene" and sittling along side you for a second offer
you some fire-proof clothing at recommended retail. Any takers? thought so.
How about a flying helmet? Sold! Aviation survival kit? my my this is a good
day for sales.

Sadly I've had friends who have been disfigured from not wearing full
seatbelts - known some who have died flying singles at night - some drowned
through not wearing life jackets. All preventable - and yet still it keeps
happening and happening and happening.

What does it take to change peoples attitudes?

I don't know.

[Jim Carter]

I follow your logic, but I didn't make the theme of my questions clear. If
you feel that any activity in which you participate is risky enough to
change your preparedness level, then why do you let your passengers
participate without changing theirs? Shouldn't you make them aware of your
risk avoidance techniques and allow them to make their own decisions?
Shouldn't you keep a list of the number of such activities you've conducted
so they can weigh the odds in favor of them needing to modify their
behavior? If, using your example of 1:1,000,000, you've conducted 500,000
events with no fire then their odds of needing protection have doubled.

I have to admit that while flying in higher risk environments I also used to
wear Nomex flight suit and gloves, and a helmet, but my civilian flying
never approached those risk levels because of equipment, operation, and
environment. We don't carry near the fuel quantities and usually hit the
ground much slower nowadays.

Does anyone have any statistics on refueling fires? I'd expect the risk
there to be a lot higher than that associated with civilian flight, yet we
don't see the line workers in Nomex. I wonder when that lawsuit will happen?

--
Jim Carter
"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
> If the chances of being involved in a fire was 1 in a million and the
> passengers only ever flew one flight then their chance would be one in a
> million. If I flew 1 million flights then, statistically speaking, my
worst
> fears would come true eventually.
>
> At 1 in a million it's a chance they're prepared to take - for me the odds
> aren't one in a million - they're a lot higher - which I'm not prepared to
> take.
>
> I hear what you're saying - and I agree that when my time comes it's not
> good for the unfortunate passengers (if any) who happen to be with me -
> that's the chance they took. It's like russian roulette - if I play it
long
> enough I'm always going to lose - so I do my best to protect myself
against
> that eventuality.
>
> My point was I see so many pilots taking too many risks - most of them get
> away with it most of the time - but flip the coin over and a few are dead
> who would be alive today if they'd taken more precautions - and some poor
> kids have to grow up without a dad because of it.
>
> A bit like wearing seatbelts - you probably won't ever need them - but if
> you do, and you're not wearing it - then it's too late.
>
> Just imagine you're flying over moutainous terrain - in a single - engine
> stops. I "Freeze the scene" and sittling along side you for a second offer
> you some fire-proof clothing at recommended retail. Any takers? thought
so.
> How about a flying helmet? Sold! Aviation survival kit? my my this is a
good
> day for sales.
>
> Sadly I've had friends who have been disfigured from not wearing full
> seatbelts - known some who have died flying singles at night - some
drowned
> through not wearing life jackets. All preventable - and yet still it keeps
> happening and happening and happening.
>
> What does it take to change peoples attitudes?
>
> I don't know.
>
>

[Gig Giacona]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
> If the chances of being involved in a fire was 1 in a million and the
> passengers only ever flew one flight then their chance would be one in a
> million. If I flew 1 million flights then, statistically speaking, my
> worst
> fears would come true eventually.
>

Wrong. If the chance is 1 in a million each time you fly the chance is
1:1,000,000 on the first flight and 1:1,000,000 on the millionith flight.

The dice don't have a memory. You are simply taking the 1:1,000,000 chance
more often than your passengers.

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig,

> The dice don't have a memory
>

Or, in other words: There is no law of small numbers. Only one of large
numbers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Cockpit Colin]

> I follow your logic, but I didn't make the theme of my questions clear. If
> you feel that any activity in which you participate is risky enough to
> change your preparedness level, then why do you let your passengers
> participate without changing theirs? Shouldn't you make them aware of your
> risk avoidance techniques and allow them to make their own decisions?

Hmmm - it's a thought-provoking idea. Flying by myself it obviously isn't an
issue. Flying with other aircrew, I'd have to say "They know the risks and
are responsible for their own risk management". Flying with non-aircrew -
it's not something I've really thought about. They're always happy to wear a
life jacket - they're happy to accept things like an aviation survival kit
being on board - they're happy with items in the emergency equipment/action
portion of the pre-flight safety briefing. They wouldn't be as familiar with
aviation risks as we are, but having said that I'd say they're astute enough
to appreciate the elevated risk of anything to do with aviation.

Frankly, I'm finding passengers getting more and more nervous about
aviation - each time a (GA) pilot does something stupid and kills himself
and/or others it makes it just a little bit harder to get passengers
onboard - something I find frustrating.

[Cockpit Colin]

> Wrong. If the chance is 1 in a million each time you fly the chance is
> 1:1,000,000 on the first flight and 1:1,000,000 on the millionith flight.
>
> The dice don't have a memory. You are simply taking the 1:1,000,000 chance
> more often than your passengers.

I agree with what you're saying - but if I take that risk 'n' times more
than you then I'm 'n' times more likely to have my number come up.

If I had a gun with a million hole chamber and only 1 round I wouldn't be
too nervous about spinning the chamber once - I'd be real nervous about
doing it a million times. The chances of blowing my brains out on any one
occasion is always 1 in a million as you say - but do it enough times and
the chance of that one chance coming up is increased proportionately - which
proportionately affects my chances of continuing on in this life in good
health! :)

[Peter Duniho]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
> If I had a gun with a million hole chamber and only 1 round I wouldn't be
> too nervous about spinning the chamber once - I'd be real nervous about
> doing it a million times. The chances of blowing my brains out on any one
> occasion is always 1 in a million as you say - but do it enough times and
> the chance of that one chance coming up is increased proportionately

Not really. Funny thing about statistics, they don't always make intuitive
sense to someone that hasn't sat down and looked at the math.

Your statement would be correct if you were talking about an agreement made
in advance to spin the barrel and pull the trigger some very large number of
times. But that wasn't your statement.

Every time you choose to take a try at your million-chambered revolver, you
have exactly a 1 in 1 million chance of killing yourself. Once you've taken
a try and survived, the next try still has exactly a 1 in 1 million chance
of killing yourself.

No matter how many times you take a try, the next time you take a try, the
chance is still exactly 1 in 1 million.

Now, how does this matter with respect your fire suit? I suppose it depends
on how you think about it. In one respect, each time you fly you have
exactly the same chance of burning up as any of your passengers do. In that
respect, it does seem unfair that you fly around in your fire suit while
allowing your passengers to go unprotected.

In other respect, however, you have "made an agreement in advance" to make a
number of flights. The actual number is perhaps not known with any
accuracy, but it may be safe to say that it's hundreds, if not thousands of
flights. By choosing (again, in advance) to wear a fire suit on each and
every flight, you are a) betting that you WILL crash and burn during some
point in those hundreds or thousands of flights, and b) making a decision to
try to protect yourself against that eventuality.

But the truth remains that for any given flight, no matter how many flights
you've already made, you still have exactly the same chance of crashing and
burning as you had on the previous flight, and will have on the subsequent
flight, statistically speaking. If on any flight, you feel it's necessary
for you to wear a fireproof suit, a passenger would be well within their
rights to feel like they are being treated with less care than the pilot is
treating himself. After all, on that flight, both the passenger and the
pilot have the exact same chance of being in the plane if and when it
crashes and burns.

So to me, the real question is this: when you are flying with passengers, do
you allow one of the passengers to wear your fire suit instead of wearing it
yourself, or do you take advantage of them and protect yourself to a greater
degree than you protect your passengers?

Another question would be: do you wear the same suit when driving a car?
After all, there's a risk of being in an accident where the car (and
occupants) are consumed by fire in an automobile as well. How about when
you fly commercially? Ride in someone else's car? Stay in a hotel? Sleep
in your own bed?

Not very many aviation accidents result in one or more occupants being
burned when they otherwise would have survived the accident. Although it
does happen, the risk is comparable to the risk of being burned in any
number of other situations in which I'm guessing you don't wear your suit.
I don't know what a full Nomex suit costs, but I know that I'd choose to
spend that money on other more relevant safety devices, like a nice ANR
headset, or a backup handheld radio, or a handheld GPS, rather than wasting
it on clothing that is probably never going to be of any use to me, and
which does nothing to improve the safety of my passengers.

Which is not to say you shouldn't wear your suit if you feel it's useful.
It's just to say that I don't really understand your thinking, and probably
never will. I wouldn't be surprised if more people share that sentiment
than don't.

Pete

[Viperdoc]

Nomex doesn't protect you from the heat or keep you from getting a thermal
burn- it simply won't catch fire itself or melt on your skin. You can also
get a used one for under $100, which is a lot cheaper than any handheld
radio or GPS.

Actually, if you're going to wear a suit, you should also consider gloves
and socks as well as a "turkey bag" flame hood.

[Peter Duniho]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Nomex doesn't protect you from the heat or keep you from getting a thermal
> burn

I don't think I suggested it did. I certainly never intended to. It's a
point worth keeping in mind though.

- it simply won't catch fire itself or melt on your skin. You can also
> get a used one for under $100, which is a lot cheaper than any handheld
> radio or GPS.

That's not any cheaper than a used handheld radio or GPS.

Pete

[Gig Giacona]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
>> Wrong. If the chance is 1 in a million each time you fly the chance is
>> 1:1,000,000 on the first flight and 1:1,000,000 on the millionith flight.
>>
>> The dice don't have a memory. You are simply taking the 1:1,000,000
>> chance
>> more often than your passengers.
>
> I agree with what you're saying - but if I take that risk 'n' times more
> than you then I'm 'n' times more likely to have my number come up.
>
> If I had a gun with a million hole chamber and only 1 round I wouldn't be
> too nervous about spinning the chamber once - I'd be real nervous about
> doing it a million times. The chances of blowing my brains out on any one
> occasion is always 1 in a million as you say - but do it enough times and
> the chance of that one chance coming up is increased proportionately -
> which
> proportionately affects my chances of continuing on in this life in good
> health! :)
>
>

This logic is exactly what pays for all those nice big casinos in Vegas ans
is why they give you free drinks even when you are playing $0.05 slots.

[Cockpit Colin]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Wrong. If the chance is 1 in a million each time you fly the chance is
> >> 1:1,000,000 on the first flight and 1:1,000,000 on the millionith
flight.
> >>
> >> The dice don't have a memory. You are simply taking the 1:1,000,000
> >> chance
> >> more often than your passengers.
> >
> > I agree with what you're saying - but if I take that risk 'n' times more
> > than you then I'm 'n' times more likely to have my number come up.
> >
> > If I had a gun with a million hole chamber and only 1 round I wouldn't
be
> > too nervous about spinning the chamber once - I'd be real nervous about
> > doing it a million times. The chances of blowing my brains out on any
one
> > occasion is always 1 in a million as you say - but do it enough times
and
> > the chance of that one chance coming up is increased proportionately -
> > which
> > proportionately affects my chances of continuing on in this life in good
> > health! :)
> >
> >
>
> This logic is exactly what pays for all those nice big casinos in Vegas
ans
> is why they give you free drinks even when you are playing $0.05 slots.

No. Not at all. The house always wins because the odds are in their favour -
remembering that it costs you to participate. Having invested in a lot of
safety equipment it costs me nothing to use it.

[Cockpit Colin]

Not quite correct.

Nomex will burn in a fire - but it won't support combustion (ie you couldn't
put a match to a suit hanging from a coat hanger and expect it to go up in
flames). As a rule it supports a higher temperature before burning as well,
compared to normal everyday clothes. Additionally, when you remove the
source of the flame it won't leave charred remains smouldering.

It's thermal insulation (for just the suit) is minimal (as you rightly point
out) - the increased thermal protection comes from the layered nomex under
garments.

I think a lot of people mis-understand the purpose of a nomex suit - it's
not to allow you to sit in a burning cockpit as flames reduce everything
around you to smouldering ash - it's to significantly reduce your injuries
from burns in the 5 to 10 seconds you have to get the hell out of a burning
wreckage and clear of the fire - or if you like, use that time to assist
someone else who isn't as well protected.


"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Nomex doesn't protect you from the heat or keep you from getting a thermal
> burn- it simply won't catch fire itself or melt on your skin. You can also
> get a used one for under $100, which is a lot cheaper than any handheld
> radio or GPS.
>
> Actually, if you're going to wear a suit, you should also consider gloves
> and socks as well as a "turkey bag" flame hood.
>
>

[Cockpit Colin]

I understand what you're saying - and I agree that "the aeroplane doesn't
have a memory" per sec - but what I'm saying is no matter how small the
odds, if you repeat the event often enough, then you're number WILL come up
eventually.

If the chances of dying in aviation were 1 in every 10 flights - and I
agree it's one in 10 for every flight regardless of how many successful
flights I've already had - then I hope you'll agree that if you keep taking
that 1 in 10 chance then it probably won't be too long before you're dead.

Does this help any passengers who have been unlucky enough to have been on
this flight? Nope - not one little bit. But I'm not prepared to lower my
degree of protection just to make it "fair" all around: I'm not going to
take off my seat belt just becuase you've chosen not to wear one. However,
if they wish to invest in the same equipment then they're most welcome to
reap the benefits of that by wearing it in aircraft I command.

Perhaps I used the wrong terminology - sorry, I don't have a degree in
statistical math - but I stand by my principle that if you repeat small odds
enough times then eventually it bites you in the bum, even if the odds of it
happening on any given flight remain the same.

I think we're drifting a bit off course here, which is as much my doing as
anyone elses - I'm not just talking Nomex flying suits - my original post
was written as a result of my frustration of how so many pilots think of
themselves as safe pilots (have you ever met a single one who would define
himself as a dangerous one?) - and yet I'm forever seeing them fly off into
the blue yonder in jeans and tee shirts - over water - single engine - no
life jackets - no flight plan - or overloaded - or with an aircraft that's
not up to standard. Seems about the only thing they never forget is the
"she'll be right" attitude.

Statistically speaking they're probably going to be just fine - but the
reality is a small (and no doubt statistically correct) number of them keep
killing themselves - I don't want to be one of them - neither (no doubt) do
others - the difference is I'm trying to do something to influence the odds
in my favour. What I can't understand is why others aren't doing the same?

If we knew in advance which pilots were going to be the unlucky ones then
the rest of us could relax a little - but of course we don't know that -
which is why we all need to be taking, at a minimum, some common sense
precautions. I don't plan on having an accident each time I drive - and I'm
a careful driver - but I wear my seatbelt anyway.

Good post by the way - very impressive communication skills.




"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If I had a gun with a million hole chamber and only 1 round I wouldn't
be
> > too nervous about spinning the chamber once - I'd be real nervous about
> > doing it a million times. The chances of blowing my brains out on any
one
> > occasion is always 1 in a million as you say - but do it enough times
and
> > the chance of that one chance coming up is increased proportionately
>
> Not really. Funny thing about statistics, they don't always make
intuitive
> sense to someone that hasn't sat down and looked at the math.
>
> Your statement would be correct if you were talking about an agreement
made
> in advance to spin the barrel and pull the trigger some very large number
of
> times. But that wasn't your statement.
>
> Every time you choose to take a try at your million-chambered revolver,
you
> have exactly a 1 in 1 million chance of killing yourself. Once you've
taken
> a try and survived, the next try still has exactly a 1 in 1 million chance
> of killing yourself.
>
> No matter how many times you take a try, the next time you take a try, the
> chance is still exactly 1 in 1 million.
>
> Now, how does this matter with respect your fire suit? I suppose it
depends
> on how you think about it. In one respect, each time you fly you have
> exactly the same chance of burning up as any of your passengers do. In
that
> respect, it does seem unfair that you fly around in your fire suit while
> allowing your passengers to go unprotected.
>
> In other respect, however, you have "made an agreement in advance" to make
a
> number of flights. The actual number is perhaps not known with any
> accuracy, but it may be safe to say that it's hundreds, if not thousands
of
> flights. By choosing (again, in advance) to wear a fire suit on each and
> every flight, you are a) betting that you WILL crash and burn during some
> point in those hundreds or thousands of flights, and b) making a decision
to
> try to protect yourself against that eventuality.
>
> But the truth remains that for any given flight, no matter how many
flights
> you've already made, you still have exactly the same chance of crashing
and
> burning as you had on the previous flight, and will have on the subsequent
> flight, statistically speaking. If on any flight, you feel it's necessary
> for you to wear a fireproof suit, a passenger would be well within their
> rights to feel like they are being treated with less care than the pilot
is
> treating himself. After all, on that flight, both the passenger and the
> pilot have the exact same chance of being in the plane if and when it
> crashes and burns.
>
> So to me, the real question is this: when you are flying with passengers,
do
> you allow one of the passengers to wear your fire suit instead of wearing
it
> yourself, or do you take advantage of them and protect yourself to a
greater
> degree than you protect your passengers?
>
> Another question would be: do you wear the same suit when driving a car?
> After all, there's a risk of being in an accident where the car (and
> occupants) are consumed by fire in an automobile as well. How about when
> you fly commercially? Ride in someone else's car? Stay in a hotel?
Sleep
> in your own bed?
>
> Not very many aviation accidents result in one or more occupants being
> burned when they otherwise would have survived the accident. Although it
> does happen, the risk is comparable to the risk of being burned in any
> number of other situations in which I'm guessing you don't wear your suit.
> I don't know what a full Nomex suit costs, but I know that I'd choose to
> spend that money on other more relevant safety devices, like a nice ANR
> headset, or a backup handheld radio, or a handheld GPS, rather than
wasting
> it on clothing that is probably never going to be of any use to me, and
> which does nothing to improve the safety of my passengers.
>
> Which is not to say you shouldn't wear your suit if you feel it's useful.
> It's just to say that I don't really understand your thinking, and
probably
> never will. I wouldn't be surprised if more people share that sentiment
> than don't.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
> I understand what you're saying - and I agree that "the aeroplane doesn't
> have a memory" per sec - but what I'm saying is no matter how small the
> odds, if you repeat the event often enough, then you're number WILL come
up
> eventually.

Well, that also depends on what exactly you're talking about. It's
certainly not necessarily true for most things we think about in aviation.

That is, we speak of accident statistics as though it's a foregone
conclusion that we will all suffer the exact same rate of accidents. But we
don't. Some people are clearly more accident-prone than others. The
statement regarding gear-up accidents "there are those who have, and those
who will" is fun to say, but it's not actually literally true. Some pilots
will never have a gear-up landing, even if they always fly retractable gear
aircraft.

Additionally, for any statistically measurable event, there is *always* some
non-zero probability that the event will never happen. For events that are
already unlikely, the non-zero probability that the event will never happen
can be quite significant.

Aircraft accidents in which a Nomex flight suit would actually produce a
significant difference in the outcome of the accident fall into this
category. They are extremely rare, and so even when one assumes a pilot
flying with great frequency, the non-zero probability that the event will
never happen is quite large.

By "produce a significant difference in the outcome of the accident", I mean
accidents in which there is not only a fire that occurs prior to occupant
exit of the airplane (not a common outcome of accidents in general), but
there is a fire that is escapable by the occupant (most people who die by
fire in an accident would not have had a chance even wearing Nomex...they
were trapped in the aircraft, and they most often die by smoke inhalation
anyway, not from their clothes catching fire).

Anyway, that's a long way of saying that, for the type of event that a Nomex
suit would protect against, it's simply not true that "your number WILL come
up eventually", even assuming you repeat the event some humanly-possible
number of times (say, eight one hour flights a day).

Now, all that said, you also write...


> I think we're drifting a bit off course here, which is as much my doing as
> anyone elses - I'm not just talking Nomex flying suits - my original post
> was written as a result of my frustration of how so many pilots think of
> themselves as safe pilots (have you ever met a single one who would define
> himself as a dangerous one?) - and yet I'm forever seeing them fly off
into
> the blue yonder in jeans and tee shirts - over water - single engine - no
> life jackets - no flight plan - or overloaded - or with an aircraft that's
> not up to standard. Seems about the only thing they never forget is the
> "she'll be right" attitude.

I certainly have no problem with that observation. I'd agree that many
people *completely* neglect "negative outcome" issues, and fail to make even
the most rudimentary preparations. I myself probably fail to prepare with
quite as much thoroughness as you apparently do.

However, the Nomex suit is a good talking point with respect to that. You
wear the suit, because you feel it's a worthwhile way of preparing for a
possible event, even if it's an unlikely event. Many other things are
similar.

I think flying over inhospitable terrain without suitable clothing is dumb,
and I never do it. But how about for a local flight? Some people may feel
that any time you get into the airplane, circumstances out of your control
may take you into inhospitable terrain, and thus you should always be
prepared with warm clothing, possibly a sleeping bag and tent and other
survival equipment as well.

But there's always the issue of cost versus benefit. In the same way that I
look at the Nomex suit and say "the odds of that actually being useful are
so incredibly low, it's a waste of my time and effort to bother with the
Nomex suit...I can spend that time and effort in much more productive,
preparative ways", others may look at other preparations we might both make
and say they are not worth it.

Obviously, I'd disagree with them, but at least I'd understand how they came
to that conclusion. :)

> [...] I don't plan on having an accident each time I drive - and I'm
> a careful driver - but I wear my seatbelt anyway.

As well you should. But do you also wear your Nomex suit every time you
drove? :)

> Good post by the way - very impressive communication skills.

Heh...glad you think so. Others are often not so gracious, preferring to
describe my posts as "verbose", or "irrelevant", or [expletive deleted]...
:)

Pete

[Cockpit Colin]

I've had a great idea ...

.... From now on I think I'll just do my own thing - and let other do the
same. No doubt they'll keep doing dumb things, but with a bit of luck
they'll slowly remove themselves from the gene pool.

Somehow I think the reason many people take so many risks in aviation isn't
so much to do with a deep mathematical analysis of the situation as "I'll
never happen to me and I'd be able to handle it if it did (which it won't
because it'll never happen to me). A combination of denial & invincibility.

Thanks for the debate all.

CC

[Thomas Borchert]

Cockpit,

> Somehow I think the reason many people take so many risks in aviation isn't
> so much to do with a deep mathematical analysis of the situation
>

I'd still be interested in how you prepare for the risks of driving a car
(Nomex, too?) or repairing stuff in the house.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Cockpit Colin]

> I'd still be interested in how you prepare for the risks of driving a car
> (Nomex, too?) or repairing stuff in the house.

I wear my seatbelt. I insist that others in the vehicle do the same. I carry
a first aid kit. I carry a cell phone. I don't speed. I keep a safe distance
from the vehicle in front - and allow more distance when it's wet. I try to
drive defensively - trying to anticipate crazy actions of fellow drivers
(especially "boy racers"). If I discover a safety-related defect in my
vehicle I get it fixed. I try to avoid treacherous driving conditions. I try
to focus on controlling the vehicle first, especially when the kids are
doing their best to start World War 3.

Repairing things around the house I always ask myself the question "Is what
I'm doing safe"?

In contrast I see pilots who jump into a plane and go taxiing for take off
without a pre-flight inspection (but I guess that's OK - everything would
probably have looked OK anyway). They take off from a 3000' runway at the
1/2 way point (but it's OK - the plane doesn't need the full distance, even
though it is overloaded by 300 pounds) - they take off and climb through
cloud (VFR) (but it's OK - they know what they're doing). Off they go over
water without lifejackets (but that's OK too - engines never quit, and I'm
sure they can swim with one arm tied behind their back (or broken)). They
don't file a flight plan / SAR watch (and neither should they - they cost
$6.50 and should be provided for nothing). Cutting through controlled
airspace they turn their transponder off (but it's OK - there's never any
other traffic around here anyway). They buzz their mates place at 100 feet
(but it's OK - they're used to flying all day at low altitude) The list goes
on and on :(

I hope this helps, but somehow I doubt it will.

Over and out.

[Thomas Borchert]

Cockpit,

> I hope this helps,
>

It does.

I still think the Nomex thing is overdoing it and doing something
comparable in road traffic would probably mean going out in a
rubber-clad tank, but you got the risk thing right.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Cockpit Colin > posted:

>> I'd still be interested in how you prepare for the risks of driving
>> a car (Nomex, too?) or repairing stuff in the house.
>
> [...] I keep
> a safe distance from the vehicle in front - and allow more distance
> when it's wet. [...]
>
LOL!

If you tried to drive that way in *this* town, you'd never get where
you're going. If you are more than the length of a vehicle behind another,
some idiot *will* squeeze in and cut you off. Assured Clear Distance is an
impossibility. It drives me nuts.

Neil

[Peter Duniho]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> If you tried to drive that way in *this* town, you'd never get where
> you're going. If you are more than the length of a vehicle behind another,
> some idiot *will* squeeze in and cut you off. Assured Clear Distance is an
> impossibility. It drives me nuts.

That is simply false, and I don't even need to know where you drive to know
that. As best I can tell, it's a claim made by people who secretly want to
tailgate and are just looking for an excuse.

I drive, in traffic, consistently with an appropriate distance between me
and the car in front of me. Regardless of speed, this is *at least* two car
lengths, to allow for safe lane changes in front of me. At normal highway
speeds, this over ten car lengths (minimum 2 seconds following distance, 176
feet at 60mph).

In stop and go traffic, there is *always* enough room between me and the car
in front of me for someone to change lanes and get in front of me. This is
*by design*, and has never resulted in me traveling backwards on the
highway, nor forced me to travel any slower than the slowest car on the
road.

There are three possibilities:
-- My lane is slower than the lane next to me. In this case, the only
people who wants to be in my lane are trying to get somewhere else (usually
to the off ramp, or from an on ramp over to another lane). These people
never slow me down.

-- My lane is going the same speed as the lane next to me. In this
case, an additional type of person who wants to be in my lane is the
dumb-ass that thinks that he will affect his trip time significantly by
bobbing back and forth from lane to lane (I used to be this dumb-ass, by the
way, until I figured out I wasn't saving any time). When the lanes are
going the same speed, there's not a steady supply of dumb-asses trying to
get in front of me, and the lanes continue to move at the same speed.

-- My lane is going faster than the lane next to me. In this case,
there is incentive for someone to change lanes in front of me, but depending
on how much faster my lane is going than the other, there either is not the
opportunity for many people to get in front of me (since we are traveling
past the other lane too quickly for many cars to safely switch lanes), or
the incentive to switch lanes quickly disappears (since as new cars enter my
lane, it drops back to the same speed as the other lane).

In all cases, allowing people to enter my lane freely in front of me does
not affect my travel time by any significant amount. The total delay over
an entire trip is on the order of less than 60 seconds, usually only 5 to 10
seconds.

I have used this technique all over the country, in some of the worst
traffic, with some of the most aggressive drivers, and it has never failed
me. I always get where I'm going, and I get there at practically the same
time I would have had I been tailgating.

The fact that you think a person trying to get into your lane in front of
you is an idiot (and they may be, since most people on the road are acting
like idiots) says more about your on-highway competitiveness than it does
about the person who simply wanted to change lanes in front of you. The
biggest problem with congestion is that people do exactly as you do,
providing no room for fluid movement between lanes, which is a necessity for
smooth flow of traffic at any speed.

The world needs more drivers like Colin, and fewer like you.

Pete