Tragity

[.Blueskies.]

Apparently at a Young Eagle event:

http://www.komonews.com/stories/39753.htm

[Morgans]

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
.. .
> Apparently at a Young Eagle event:
>
> http://www.komonews.com/stories/39753.htm

wow. Sorrow and condolences, for those involved.

These things come in threes, so lets be careful out there.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> Apparently at a Young Eagle event:
>
> http://www.komonews.com/stories/39753.htm

God, what an awful thing. When an event designed to lure young people
to the sky turns to tragedy, G.A. loses, big time.

My condolences to the families, and the organizers of the event.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Apparently at a Young Eagle event:
>>
>> http://www.komonews.com/stories/39753.htm
>
> God, what an awful thing. When an event designed to lure young people
> to the sky turns to tragedy, G.A. loses, big time.

Two ninth-grade girls were killed in the crash. Not only was it a Young
Eagles flight, but the girls were students at Aviation High School, a school
for students with an interest in flying.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002564089_planecrash.html

--Gary

> My condolences to the families, and the organizers of the event.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>>Apparently at a Young Eagle event:
>>>
>>>http://www.komonews.com/stories/39753.htm
>>
>>God, what an awful thing. When an event designed to lure young people
>>to the sky turns to tragedy, G.A. loses, big time.
>
>
> Two ninth-grade girls were killed in the crash. Not only was it a Young
> Eagles flight, but the girls were students at Aviation High School, a school
> for students with an interest in flying.
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002564089_planecrash.html

What a loss. Is this the first Young Eagles accident of this severity?
I don't recall, thankfully, hearing about any fatalities before.


Matt

[Cecil Chapman]

Just so sad.....

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

Cecil E. Chapman
CP-ASEL-IA

Student - C.F.I.

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 -

[.Blueskies.]

more:

http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/051016_ye_loss.html


".Blueskies." > wrote in message .. .
> Apparently at a Young Eagle event:
>
> http://www.komonews.com/stories/39753.htm
>
>
>

[A Lieberman]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:34:16 GMT, .Blueskies. wrote:

> more:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/051016_ye_loss.html

Sadly, the media won't pick up on the following paragraph taken from the
above web page:

The accident marks the first fatalities among the approximately 1,200,000
Young Eagles whom EAA members have flown since EAA launched the program in
1992.

This to me shows an incredible safety record of general aviation.

Allen

[Ron Lee]

That story is incorrect in that there were two killed in a YE flight
at 00V several years ago.

Ron Lee

[tony roberts]

I fly Young Eagles through 2 different clubs.
Prior to this accident we had been discussing changing our rules to
prohibit 2 kids from the same family to fly in the same plane.

We should all look at this. Loss to the family, liability - let's split
them up - everyone wins!

Tony
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE


In article >,
".Blueskies." > wrote:

> Apparently at a Young Eagle event:
>
> http://www.komonews.com/stories/39753.htm

[Ron Natalie]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> What a loss. Is this the first Young Eagles accident of this severity?
> I don't recall, thankfully, hearing about any fatalities before.
>

I believe there has been one previous fatality, but the EAA keeps it
pretty quiet. When I had my (nobody injured) engine failure flying
Young Eagles, I did get a nice letter from the EAA thanking me for not
killing any kids.

[Jose]

> I fly Young Eagles through 2 different clubs.
> Prior to this accident we had been discussing changing our rules to
> prohibit 2 kids from the same family to fly in the same plane.
>
> We should all look at this. Loss to the family, liability - let's split
> them up - everyone wins!

The alternative is losses to two families. Is this better?

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

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >
> >>>Apparently at a Young Eagle event:
> >>>
> >>>http://www.komonews.com/stories/39753.htm
> >>
> >>God, what an awful thing. When an event designed to lure young people
> >>to the sky turns to tragedy, G.A. loses, big time.
> >
> >
> > Two ninth-grade girls were killed in the crash. Not only was it a Young
> > Eagles flight, but the girls were students at Aviation High School, a
school
> > for students with an interest in flying.
> >
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002564089_planecrash.html
>
> What a loss. Is this the first Young Eagles accident of this severity?
> I don't recall, thankfully, hearing about any fatalities before.
>

EAA site says this is the first fatal Young Eagle accident.


> Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> > I fly Young Eagles through 2 different clubs.
> > Prior to this accident we had been discussing changing our rules to
> > prohibit 2 kids from the same family to fly in the same plane.
> >
> > We should all look at this. Loss to the family, liability - let's split
> > them up - everyone wins!
>
> The alternative is losses to two families. Is this better?

It certainly can be if a family has two kids and they are both in one plane.
Splitting up kids from the same family is a not uncommon YE rule.

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

[Paul Stuart]

>From what I recall the accident in Colorado some years back involved a
young person that had got involved with his local EAA Chapter, and was
being rewarded with a flight after helping out at a Young Eagles event
- but it was not technically a Young Eagles flight i.e. the flight
wouldn't have been recorded in the Young Eagles logbook had it ended
safely.

Anyway... I guess all thoughts should really be with families of the
deceased.

Ron Lee wrote:
> That story is incorrect in that there were two killed in a YE flight
> at 00V several years ago.
>
> Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

>EAA site says this is the first fatal Young Eagle accident.

Not correct. One YE and a pilot were killed at 00V a few years ago.

Ron Lee

[Montblack]

("Ron Lee" wrote)
> Not correct. One YE and a pilot were killed at 00V a few years ago.


AirNav.com --> Airports --> OOV -->
Meadow Lake Airport - Colorado Springs, Colorado

http://www.airnav.com/airport/00V


Montblack

[g n p]

Which equates to what??? a millisecond of the per annum airline traffic
without incident??? incredible safety record???
PP-ASEL, owner SX-ATB, TB-20 Trinidad


"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:34:16 GMT, .Blueskies. wrote:
>
>> more:
>>
>> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/051016_ye_loss.html
>
> Sadly, the media won't pick up on the following paragraph taken from the
> above web page:
>
> The accident marks the first fatalities among the approximately 1,200,000
> Young Eagles whom EAA members have flown since EAA launched the program in
> 1992.
>
> This to me shows an incredible safety record of general aviation.
>
> Allen

[Matt Barrow]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Ron Lee" wrote)
>> Not correct. One YE and a pilot were killed at 00V a few years ago.
>
>
> AirNav.com --> Airports --> OOV --> Meadow Lake Airport - Colorado
> Springs, Colorado
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/00V
>

It's not in the NTSB database going back to 1990.

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ("Ron Lee" wrote)
>>> Not correct. One YE and a pilot were killed at 00V a few years ago.
>>
>>
>> AirNav.com --> Airports --> OOV --> Meadow Lake Airport - Colorado
>> Springs, Colorado
>>
>> http://www.airnav.com/airport/00V
>>
>
> It's not in the NTSB database going back to 1990.

Yes it is:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X11046&ntsbno=FTW98FA394&akey=1.

--Gary

[Matt Whiting]

A Lieberman wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:34:16 GMT, .Blueskies. wrote:
>
>
>>more:
>>
>>http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/051016_ye_loss.html
>
>
> Sadly, the media won't pick up on the following paragraph taken from the
> above web page:
>
> The accident marks the first fatalities among the approximately 1,200,000
> Young Eagles whom EAA members have flown since EAA launched the program in
> 1992.
>
> This to me shows an incredible safety record of general aviation.
>
> Allen

Yes, but unfortunately, as you say, the media won't mention that and the
public will still view Young Eagles as a dangerous program now.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> I fly Young Eagles through 2 different clubs.
>> Prior to this accident we had been discussing changing our rules to
>> prohibit 2 kids from the same family to fly in the same plane.
>>
>> We should all look at this. Loss to the family, liability - let's
>> split them up - everyone wins!
>
>
> The alternative is losses to two families. Is this better?

I don't think there is a better in this situation.

Matt

[A Lieberman]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:36:12 +0300, g n p wrote:

> Which equates to what??? a millisecond of the per annum airline traffic
> without incident??? incredible safety record???
> PP-ASEL, owner SX-ATB, TB-20 Trinidad

Nope, I would say it's an incredible safety record for a "non professional"
form of transportation. Professionals fly the heavy iron (I.E. Delta, SWA
and so on).

General public that are not being paid to do what they enjoy doing, such as
flying, that is what I am referring to, even though I didn't spell this out
in my original post.

Compared to driving cars, motorcycles and boats, yes, the fact that only
one or two deaths in one million flights to me is an incredible safety
record.

Naturally, the media won't pick up on that.... There are more deadly
boating, car and motorcycle accidents which sometimes kill more then a GA
crash.

You can bet, if in one day, there was a multicar crash that killed 3
people, one motorcycle accident that killed one person or a GA plane that
bought the farm, that the plane that bought the farm will get the headline
news in spite the fact the car crash killed more people.

Just my opinion anyway.

Allen

[Ron Natalie]

Paul Stuart wrote:
>>From what I recall the accident in Colorado some years back involved a
> young person that had got involved with his local EAA Chapter, and was
> being rewarded with a flight after helping out at a Young Eagles event
> - but it was not technically a Young Eagles flight i.e. the flight
> wouldn't have been recorded in the Young Eagles logbook had it ended
> safely.
>
Why wouldn't it? The only requirement is the kid be be within the
right ages and the pilot be an EAA member. You can issue the
certificate and forward the info to the EAA for the logbook and
your YE pilot credits.

[Gary Drescher]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> Compared to driving cars, motorcycles and boats, yes, the fact that only
> one or two deaths in one million flights to me is an incredible safety
> record.

Your impression is not borne out by the available statistics. Two fatalities
out of a million half-hour flights is indeed three or four times lower than
the GA average, but still higher than the hourly fatality rate for
automobiles. (There have been many threads here that adduced data to show
that the hourly GA fatality rate is about an order of magnitude higher than
the automobile fatality rate.) Also, despite the lack of precedent alleged
by the EAA, one other apparent Young Eagle fatality has already been pointed
out here from the NTSB database, so it's not entirely clear what their
safety record really is.

> You can bet, if in one day, there was a multicar crash that killed 3
> people, one motorcycle accident that killed one person or a GA plane that
> bought the farm, that the plane that bought the farm will get the
> headline
> news in spite the fact the car crash killed more people.

You can bet that, but again you'd be at odds with readily available facts.
For example, if you look at today's online Olympian front page, you'll see
that a fatal bus crash (five dead, including one child) is listed among the
"Top Stories", whereas the Young Eagles crash we've been discussing (three
dead, including two children) is listed less prominently.
http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

--Gary

[A Lieberman]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:59:01 -0400, Gary Drescher wrote:

> You can bet that, but again you'd be at odds with readily available facts.
> For example, if you look at today's online Olympian front page, you'll see
> that a fatal bus crash (five dead, including one child) is listed among the
> "Top Stories", whereas the Young Eagles crash we've been discussing (three
> dead, including two children) is listed less prominently.
> http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

Can't argue with proof *smile*.

Looks to me the Olympian paper is a fair reporting paper and not a
sensationalist

Thanks Gary!

Allen

[Gary Drescher]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:59:01 -0400, Gary Drescher wrote:
>> For example, if you look at today's online Olympian front page, you'll
>> see
>> that a fatal bus crash (five dead, including one child) is listed among
>> the
>> "Top Stories", whereas the Young Eagles crash we've been discussing
>> (three
>> dead, including two children) is listed less prominently.
>> http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
>
> Can't argue with proof *smile*.
>
> Looks to me the Olympian paper is a fair reporting paper and not a
> sensationalist
>
> Thanks Gary!

No problem. (The Olympian might still be sensationalist--just without an
apparent preference for plane crashes over car crashes. :) )

--Gary

>
> Allen

[Margy]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> A Lieberman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:34:16 GMT, .Blueskies. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> more:
>>>
>>> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/pr/051016_ye_loss.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Sadly, the media won't pick up on the following paragraph taken from the
>> above web page:
>>
>> The accident marks the first fatalities among the approximately 1,200,000
>> Young Eagles whom EAA members have flown since EAA launched the
>> program in
>> 1992.
>>
>> This to me shows an incredible safety record of general aviation.
>>
>> Allen
>
>
> Yes, but unfortunately, as you say, the media won't mention that and the
> public will still view Young Eagles as a dangerous program now.
>
> Matt
Forget the public, my school system won't even let me MENTION the YE
program. I had arranged YE flights for 56 students in our high school
aerospace program when the teacher of that program was informed that he
was NOT going to take those kids flying and if he did and if anything
happened they would hang him out to dry, personally!

Margy

[tony roberts]

> The alternative is losses to two families. Is this better?
>
> Jose

I believe so - speaking from the position of someone who has already
lost a child.

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Jose]

>>The alternative is losses to two families. Is this better?
>>
> I believe so - speaking from the position of someone who has already
> lost a child.

I am truly sorry about your loss. True, you might have lost two. But
you might have also lost none. That is the tradeoff for the other family.

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

[tony roberts]

Hi Jose

It really is a difficult decision.
My thoughts right now are leaning to not flying related kids in the same
flight, but I truly do take your point about two families grieving as
opposed to one.
This whole thread is such a tragedy - here we are trying to light a
spark under these kids to get them interested in flying, and then we
have this situation where they are killed on their first flight.
and of course we have to remember the pilot, who devoted his day to
giving kids this experience, and paid for it with his life.
There are no winners here - it is a very sad scenario.

Fly safe, and thanks for your post,

Tony
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE


In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> >>The alternative is losses to two families. Is this better?
> >>
> > I believe so - speaking from the position of someone who has already
> > lost a child.
>
> I am truly sorry about your loss. True, you might have lost two. But
> you might have also lost none. That is the tradeoff for the other family.
>
> Jose

[Peter Duniho]

"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-E2DBEA.20582917102005@shawnews...
> It really is a difficult decision.
> My thoughts right now are leaning to not flying related kids in the same
> flight, but I truly do take your point about two families grieving as
> opposed to one.

Of course, this debate is moot. The two youngsters killed in this accident
weren't siblings.

Still, I find the "seperate the kids" line of thought to not be suited to
the real world, in spite of any rational basis for it. Families travel
together all the time. They do other things together all the time. They
are in constant danger of perishing simultaneously, through much of the
childhood of the children of a family. Even as adults, they are in similar
danger quite often.

Being a family means you do things together. If two children have a desire
to participate in a single flight together, I think some fear that they both
might die in the same accident isn't justification for sacrificing the
enjoyment they get from doing things together.

Spending any effort to keep siblings apart, when they have a desire to be
together, draws attention to a reasonably tiny risk of death, sacrificing
the enjoyment of the moment. An enjoyment of the moment that *ought* to be
the focus and primary motivating factor.

Not that I should need any sort of example, but one need only look to Jay
Honeck's travel with his family in his airplane. This sort of thing happens
all the time in the aviation world, just as families travel together in
automobiles all the time. It just doesn't make sense, from an "enjoy life"
point of view, to waste time trying to keep families apart.

Pete

[N93332]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "tony roberts" > wrote in message
> news:nospam-E2DBEA.20582917102005@shawnews...
>> It really is a difficult decision.
>
> Still, I find the "seperate the kids" line of thought to not be suited to
> the real world, in spite of any rational basis for it. Families travel
> together all the time. They do other things together all the time. They
> are in constant danger of perishing simultaneously, through much of the
> childhood of the children of a family. Even as adults, they are in
> similar danger quite often.
>
> Being a family means you do things together. If two children have a
> desire to participate in a single flight together, I think some fear that
> they both might die in the same accident isn't justification for
> sacrificing the enjoyment they get from doing things together.

I'm not a parent so ignore this if you wish. I would think if you have your
(say) 10 and a 15 year old kids along with their friends for YE flights that
the each of the kids would prefer to fly with one of his friends of the same
age than with his sibling.

It would still be a major tragedy if something should happen in another YE
flight with siblings or non-siblings. I hope it's at least another 1.2
million YE flights before the next tragedy.

I used to work for a company that had a policy that prohibited several
people from the same department to fly on the same airline flight. When a
group of us would fly to Singapore, we would fly 2 separate days. I usually
flew on the first day but my luggage would arrive the next day. :-(

-Greg B.

[Peter Duniho]

"N93332" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not a parent so ignore this if you wish. I would think if you have
> your (say) 10 and a 15 year old kids along with their friends for YE
> flights that the each of the kids would prefer to fly with one of his
> friends of the same age than with his sibling.

It really depends on the kids. Some siblings love to do stuff together.
Some do not. The point here is that what the kids would prefer to do should
probably guide the decision, not some morbid fear of killing two kids at
once.

If killing two kids at once is bad, then each flight should only take one
kid. Of course, that increases the exposure of the hazard to the pilot, but
probably not in a significant way. Screwing around with silly rules about
not putting related children on the same airplane is just that: silly.

> It would still be a major tragedy if something should happen in another YE
> flight with siblings or non-siblings. I hope it's at least another 1.2
> million YE flights before the next tragedy.

Me too. But I think it's important to keep in mind that accidents do
happen, people do die, and there's precious little anyone can do to
*completely* prevent that from happening. A handful of fatalities (whether
2, 4, whatever) in over a million flights is a pretty good safety record,
IMHO. Great? No, probably not. But in context it's good.

> I used to work for a company that had a policy that prohibited several
> people from the same department to fly on the same airline flight. When a
> group of us would fly to Singapore, we would fly 2 separate days. I
> usually flew on the first day but my luggage would arrive the next day.
> :-(

I've heard of similar policies at other companies. I think it's similarly
misguided. Employees traveling together may be able to accomplish business
while on the flight, and the risk of even one being killed in an accident is
remarkably small. There is greater hazard in allowing employees to drive to
lunch together in the same car every day, or to carpool to work for that
matter (activities that are generally not prohibited by those same
companies). Some companies not only allow employees to travel by air
together, they pay for the airplane! How can it be so important to one
company to keep their employees apart, and yet another is willing to put
them together on a higher-risk mode of transportation?

Frankly, a company that cannot withstand the loss of a couple of employees
is a company that has a pretty weak business plan.

Pete

[Jose]

> I've heard of similar policies at other companies. I think it's similarly
> misguided.

It'a a little different. The companies are not protecting their
employees, they are protecting the =one= project that all [four] of
these [key] employees manage. It may still be silly, but it is different.

I worked for a company that had to ship the negatives for a film it was
making from overseas. They insisted on two separate flights, which IMHO
was dumb. Loss of =either= of the flights would have meant loss of the
project.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> Not that I should need any sort of example, but one need only look to Jay
> Honeck's travel with his family in his airplane. This sort of thing
> happens all the time in the aviation world, just as families travel
> together in automobiles all the time. It just doesn't make sense, from an
> "enjoy life" point of view, to waste time trying to keep families apart.

Mary and I have debated this for over a decade, now -- and I believe there
is no better answer than this:

Life is a terminal condition. Live it for all its worth, now, cuz you could
be struck down with Lou Gehrig's disease at any time. (See Lane Wallace's
"Flying" column this month for a sobering report on what kind of a bad hand
life can deal you.)

We fly as a family, whenever and wherever we can, over 170 hours per year.
We fly in a single-engine plane, which gives us just one way of going up
(there are a hundred ways to come down), and it's 31 years old. We maintain
Atlas to the highest standards, but anything can happen at any time, and
we've trained extensively to handle those situations.

We don't fly at night, and we don't fly in bad weather. We always buy gas
from the same station, and always filter it before putting it in the plane.
We change the oil and filter every 25 hours. We never skate on a pre-flight
inspection, no matter how cold or hot. We usually have two pilots on board,
and the kids are trained to watch for traffic.

We fly from a lightly used, excellent general aviation airport. We have
three wide, long runways, low density altitude, little terrain to hit, and
an encyclopedic knowledge of the local and regional area. In our opinion,
we have reduced our risk of losing our children to an acceptable level.

But it's still our worst fear.

It's all about risk aversion, tempered with the sure knowledge that you
*will* die someday. Some people can't get out of bed in the morning
because of that pressure, while the rest of us push life to the limits.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[ET]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "N93332" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm not a parent so ignore this if you wish. I would think if you
>> have your (say) 10 and a 15 year old kids along with their friends
>> for YE flights that the each of the kids would prefer to fly with one
>> of his friends of the same age than with his sibling.
>
> It really depends on the kids. Some siblings love to do stuff
> together. Some do not. The point here is that what the kids would
> prefer to do should probably guide the decision, not some morbid fear
> of killing two kids at once.
>
> If killing two kids at once is bad, then each flight should only take
> one kid. Of course, that increases the exposure of the hazard to the
> pilot, but probably not in a significant way. Screwing around with
> silly rules about not putting related children on the same airplane is
> just that: silly.
>
>> It would still be a major tragedy if something should happen in
>> another YE flight with siblings or non-siblings. I hope it's at least
>> another 1.2 million YE flights before the next tragedy.
>
> Me too. But I think it's important to keep in mind that accidents do
> happen, people do die, and there's precious little anyone can do to
> *completely* prevent that from happening. A handful of fatalities
> (whether 2, 4, whatever) in over a million flights is a pretty good
> safety record, IMHO. Great? No, probably not. But in context it's
> good.
>
>> I used to work for a company that had a policy that prohibited
>> several people from the same department to fly on the same airline
>> flight. When a group of us would fly to Singapore, we would fly 2
>> separate days. I usually flew on the first day but my luggage would
>> arrive the next day.
>> :-(
>
> I've heard of similar policies at other companies. I think it's
> similarly misguided. Employees traveling together may be able to
> accomplish business while on the flight, and the risk of even one
> being killed in an accident is remarkably small. There is greater
> hazard in allowing employees to drive to lunch together in the same
> car every day, or to carpool to work for that matter (activities that
> are generally not prohibited by those same companies). Some companies
> not only allow employees to travel by air together, they pay for the
> airplane! How can it be so important to one company to keep their
> employees apart, and yet another is willing to put them together on a
> higher-risk mode of transportation?
>
> Frankly, a company that cannot withstand the loss of a couple of
> employees is a company that has a pretty weak business plan.
>
> Pete
>
>

Well, we don't know what caused this, but taking only one child at a
time COULD reduce risks.... less weight in the plane....

FWIW

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[James Robinson]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> I've heard of similar policies at other companies. I think it's
> similarly misguided. Employees traveling together may be able to
> accomplish business while on the flight, and the risk of even one
> being killed in an accident is remarkably small. There is greater
> hazard in allowing employees to drive to lunch together in the same
> car every day, or to carpool to work for that matter (activities that
> are generally not prohibited by those same companies). Some companies
> not only allow employees to travel by air together, they pay for the
> airplane! How can it be so important to one company to keep their
> employees apart, and yet another is willing to put them together on a
> higher-risk mode of transportation?
>
> Frankly, a company that cannot withstand the loss of a couple of
> employees is a company that has a pretty weak business plan.

It's all driven by $$$. There have been a couple of examples where the
entire management team of a company was killed in a bizjet crash. It is
a very significant event when you lose the CEO, the COO, the CFO, and a
couple of other VPs at the same time, along with their supporting
people. Often they were involved in major acquisitions that fell apart,
or were developing new business that failed shortly thereafter. The
results were millions of dollars in losses, not to mention the loss of
the talent, and the payouts to families.

While other managers can often fill in, there will be a time lag while
they get up to speed on various subjects. Major companies like GE have
rules that limit the number of their executive team that can fly on the
same flight because of this. The rules do not prohibit two or three
together, just more than that.

As far as other forms of travel being riskier, the business aviation
sector does not have a particularly good record in comparison to airline
or highway travel.

[Skylune]

Totally preventable tragedy, thats the saddest part.

The kids' parents should now file civil suit against the pilot's estate,
the airport that sponsored the event, the EAA, as well as the manufacturer
of the plane and possibly whatever firm did the maintenance.

Of course they probably won't, since any parent stupid enough to allow
their kid to climb into a plane of unknown reliability, with a pilot of
unknown skill and ability, will probably not think of this, unless an
aviation attorney read the story and contacts them.

Amazing: would parents would allow their kids to hop on the back of a
motorcycle with an unknown rider, get onto an ATV or snowmobile with a
stranger, etc.? Probably not. But the EAA's slick propoganda (like
making a false statement claiming there have been no other fatalities in
the YE program) fools some people.

[Skylune]

The credentials required to fly someone's kids around (from the EAA
website):

"The basic pilot requirements are minimal, but important. Please review
the Young Eagle pilot requirements before you take a Young Eagle flying:


EAA Young Eagle Pilot Requirements:


Appropriate Airmen's Certificate (Sport Pilot or higher)

Current Medical Certificate (if applicable)

EAA National Membership

90-day currency in aircraft used"

More GA insanity. Does it ever end?

[W P Dixon]

Well Skylune,
Tragedies happen. They are in fact part of this game we call life. Just
a few weeks ago the homecoming queen at a local high school was killed in a
car accident. She'd just been crowned the weekend before. She was in a
Honda..so with your logic her parents should sue Honda, the car that hit her
was a Ford. So I guess we will sue Ford as well. Let's also sue the
city...if she had not been sitting at the red light after all the wreck
would have never happened!
And that leads us to sueing the State because if the State did not allow
for those nasty dern red lights at intersections then the city could not
have placed one there! Alot of accidents don't have any fault at all except
with the driver themselves,...and your logic still requires all these people
to be sued?
The homecoming queen accident had a cause. While sitting at a red light
a young fool in a Mustang was racing another vehicle and slammed into the
back of the poor girls car. The Honda burst into flames and the school's
homecoming queen burned alive..a horrible death for a 17 year old young
woman . In your logic maybe a good old ambulance chaser (whom you refer as a
lawyer) could even sue the gas station she bought the gas! After all if the
gas had not have gone up she probably would still be here..etc. etc.
But thank goodness it did not take the State of TN long to charge the 18
year old fool boy driving the Mustang with 2nd degree murder. The homecoming
queens passenger is in a burn ward herself and no one knows if she will make
it.
As a parent I know anytime my kids do anything ..there is a risk. From
letting the kids borrow the car on Saturday night, or even letting them play
sports at school. And yes even flying in an airplane! We even take that risk
when we put the kids in the car to go to the grocery store. Life is a
risk...and there are accidents. Preventable? If you think never letting your
kids leave home would prevent an accident I suggest you look at stats on
home accidents.
When you are to afraid to get outside your plastic protective bubble are
you really living anyway?

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Totally preventable tragedy, thats the saddest part.
>
> The kids' parents should now file civil suit against the pilot's estate,
> the airport that sponsored the event, the EAA, as well as the manufacturer
> of the plane and possibly whatever firm did the maintenance.
>
> Of course they probably won't, since any parent stupid enough to allow
> their kid to climb into a plane of unknown reliability, with a pilot of
> unknown skill and ability, will probably not think of this, unless an
> aviation attorney read the story and contacts them.
>
> Amazing: would parents would allow their kids to hop on the back of a
> motorcycle with an unknown rider, get onto an ATV or snowmobile with a
> stranger, etc.? Probably not. But the EAA's slick propoganda (like
> making a false statement claiming there have been no other fatalities in
> the YE program) fools some people.
>

[Skylune]

Therefore, the EAA press release is a complete fabrication, an outright,
bald-faced, self-serving lie. Great info.

(Boyer would be proud.)

[Skylune]

Well to answer the question you posed after the long car crash story, "No".
There are risks, and there are stupid risks. Putting a kid into an
unknown plane with a stranger goes down as stupid in my book.

[Gary Drescher]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Therefore, the EAA press release is a complete fabrication, an outright,
> bald-faced, self-serving lie.

No, you don't know that. The NTSB report merely says that an unspecified
witness thought the flight was a Young Eagles flight. It doesn't say whether
the witness turned out to be correct.

--Gary

[Dave Stadt]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Well to answer the question you posed after the long car crash story,
"No".
> There are risks, and there are stupid risks. Putting a kid into an
> unknown plane with a stranger goes down as stupid in my book.

United, American, Southwest and all the others don't appreciate that
comment.

[Sylvain]

Skylune wrote:
> The credentials required to fly someone's kids around (from the EAA
> website):
....

> EAA Young Eagle Pilot Requirements:
>
>
> Appropriate Airmen's Certificate (Sport Pilot or higher)

another blatant lie from Skylune; *private* certificate
or higher; The EAA does not advocate violating the FARs
-- see 14 CFR 61.101(e)(13) and 14 CFR 61.315(b)(10).

--Sylvain

[Gary Drescher]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Well to answer the question you posed after the long car crash story,
> "No".
> There are risks, and there are stupid risks. Putting a kid into an
> unknown plane with a stranger goes down as stupid in my book.

What about an unknown school bus driven by a stranger? The safety of both
the plane and the bus--as well as the skill of the pilot or driver--is
vetted by the government. Quantitatively, the plane is more dangerous than
the bus, but not by so large a factor as to be patently unreasonable.

--Gary

[Skylune]

LOL. Yes. Too broad. Commercial flight is the safest form of
transportation, GA is the most dangerous.

[W P Dixon]

So true,
And we put our kids on the bus 5 days a week! And in the young ladies
story ...you never know what other fool is going to be on the road. Or a
drunk driver. So Skylune must think all parents are stupid, including his
own ..for allowing him to drive a vehicle with all these risks that are
involved. I guess Skylunes kids are not allowed to move from the couch in
the living room ? Maybe they will grow up and sue him for twisting their
little minds so bad! ;)

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> lkaboutaviation.com...
>> Well to answer the question you posed after the long car crash story,
>> "No".
>> There are risks, and there are stupid risks. Putting a kid into an
>> unknown plane with a stranger goes down as stupid in my book.
>
> What about an unknown school bus driven by a stranger? The safety of both
> the plane and the bus--as well as the skill of the pilot or driver--is
> vetted by the government. Quantitatively, the plane is more dangerous than
> the bus, but not by so large a factor as to be patently unreasonable.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> lkaboutaviation.com...
> > Well to answer the question you posed after the long car crash story,
> > "No".
> > There are risks, and there are stupid risks. Putting a kid into an
> > unknown plane with a stranger goes down as stupid in my book.
>
> What about an unknown school bus driven by a stranger? The safety of both
> the plane and the bus--as well as the skill of the pilot or driver--is
> vetted by the government. Quantitatively, the plane is more dangerous than
> the bus, but not by so large a factor as to be patently unreasonable.
>
> --Gary

Then there are the traveling carnival rides. They spend what.....$3 or $4 a
year maintaining them whether they need it or not.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
> It'a a little different.

I agree it's different. It's still misguided.

> The companies are not protecting their employees, they are protecting the
> =one= project that all [four] of these [key] employees manage.

First, most policies aren't that narrowly written. Second, my point is (in
this case) that the cost/benefit analysis isn't being done. The company is
looking only at the potential cost, but not the potential benefits (applied
over the number of successful outcomes, of course). Third, a well-managed
company ought to be able to replace the employees on that project without
causing significant long-term harm to the company. The "cost" part of the
analysis ought to be relatively small.

> It may still be silly, but it is different.

Yes, it's different. I agree. It's still silly, and it's silly in a
similar (though not identical) way.

> I worked for a company that had to ship the negatives for a film it was
> making from overseas. They insisted on two separate flights, which IMHO
> was dumb. Loss of =either= of the flights would have meant loss of the
> project.

Yup...that's dumb.

Of course, it's dumb that losing a single resource like film negatives could
cause the loss of a project. At worst, it should only require repeating
work. If the work is unrepeatable, the film should be duplicated prior to
shipment.

Again, poorly managed project (even ignoring the "two flights" rule).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> Well, we don't know what caused this, but taking only one child at a
> time COULD reduce risks.... less weight in the plane....

My thoughts ignore the effects of the passenger count on the safety of the
flight. Not flying at all is obviously the safest approach, if one is going
to start down that road.

But even so, the conversation here is primarily about whether to put a pair
of siblings on the plane together. I did point out the question of why put
two kids on the same plane at all, if one is worried about killing a pair at
the same time. But that's not the primary focus of what I wrote.

Pete

[Skylune]

Good Lord.....

Hey, take a kid scuba diving for a day in our dive boat. Why check
anything out??

Take a kid skydiving for a day, free, no questions asked.

Or, come hunting with Skylune for a day (not really my picture, but I like
the T-shirt)...

http://www.thoseshirts.com/atf.html

[Peter Duniho]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
. 97.142...
> It's all driven by $$$.

No, it's driven by poor planning and management.

> There have been a couple of examples where the
> entire management team of a company was killed in a bizjet crash.

Only a couple? There are LOTS more examples of entire businesses failing
other ways. How can this be a significant risk?

> It is a very significant event when you lose the CEO, the COO, the CFO,
> and a
> couple of other VPs at the same time, along with their supporting
> people.

We're not talking about putting a 20-person team on the same airplane.

But even if we were, a company that is truly worried about the loss of
personnel needs to ensure that they have a backup plan in the event of that
loss. Airplane crashes aren't the only way to kill large numbers of people
all at the same time.

A well-managed company would have contingencies to deal with catastrophic
loss.

> [...]
> As far as other forms of travel being riskier, the business aviation
> sector does not have a particularly good record in comparison to airline
> or highway travel.

Funny you should lump airlines and highway travel together. They are not at
all similar in risk. Highway travel is much more similar to business GA
than to airlines.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> Forget the public, my school system won't even let me MENTION the YE
> program. I had arranged YE flights for 56 students in our high school
> aerospace program when the teacher of that program was informed that he
> was NOT going to take those kids flying and if he did and if anything
> happened they would hang him out to dry, personally!

That's outrageous.

Have you been able to get to the bottom of this travesty of
"education", Margy?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Skylune]

The decision-maker at the school in question probably taught probability
and statistics.

[Tom Conner]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Therefore, the EAA press release is a complete fabrication, an outright,
> bald-faced, self-serving lie. Great info.
>
> (Boyer would be proud.)
>

Please don't remove what you are replying to since it makes your answer
ambigious. I assume you are referring to the EAA web-site that says you
need to be a sport pilot or higher to fly young eagles.

[Skylune]

Sigh. I will speak very, very slowly: I cut and paste the criteria from
the EAA's website. If they are advocating breaking the FARs, as a
previous poster indicated, you can take it up with them.

If you do not believe Skylune, here is the link:

http://www.youngeagles.org/volunteers/volunteer.asp

[Dave Stadt]

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> lkaboutaviation.com...
> > Therefore, the EAA press release is a complete fabrication, an outright,
> > bald-faced, self-serving lie. Great info.
> >
> > (Boyer would be proud.)
> >
>
> Please don't remove what you are replying to since it makes your answer
> ambigious. I assume you are referring to the EAA web-site that says you
> need to be a sport pilot or higher to fly young eagles.


It would make no difference. Blabber is blabber whether it is related to
anything or not.

[Skylune]

Hey. While poking around their website some more, I came across their
"Airplane of the Month" photo. Man, you can't make this stuff up......

http://www.youngeagles.org/airplanemonth/1005/?month=October&year=2005

[Gary Drescher]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Good Lord.....
>
> Hey, take a kid scuba diving for a day in our dive boat. Why check
> anything out??
>
> Take a kid skydiving for a day, free, no questions asked.

Those are unreasonable analogies, since the kid needs to be competently
trained to go scuba diving or skydiving. No professional training is needed
to be a passenger in an airplane.

Letting your kid get in a plane flown by your friend or neighbor or
colleague is admittedly more dangerous (per hour of activity) than letting
your kid get in a car driven by your friend or neighbor or colleague, but
not by an outrageous amount. There's no sound principle I'm aware of that
says that anything more dangerous than driving is unreasonably risky.

--Gary

[Paul Stuart]

EAA can't be held responsible for every single flight that might be
carried out by one of its members with any child on board.

A Young Eagles flight takes place when an official EAA form is filled
out prior to the flight. This form records the child's details and
makes sure that permission for the flight has been granted by a parent
or legal guardian. This is also the form that is sent to Oshkosh to be
entered in the Young Eagles database. If this form is completed, then
yes it's a Young Eagles flight, EAA takes responsibility for it, and -
provided the pilot has met requirements - the flight is covered under
the insurance program.



Ron Natalie wrote:
> Paul Stuart wrote:
> >>From what I recall the accident in Colorado some years back involved a
> > young person that had got involved with his local EAA Chapter, and was
> > being rewarded with a flight after helping out at a Young Eagles event
> > - but it was not technically a Young Eagles flight i.e. the flight
> > wouldn't have been recorded in the Young Eagles logbook had it ended
> > safely.
> >
> Why wouldn't it? The only requirement is the kid be be within the
> right ages and the pilot be an EAA member. You can issue the
> certificate and forward the info to the EAA for the logbook and
> your YE pilot credits.

[Dave Stadt]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Hey. While poking around their website some more, I came across their
> "Airplane of the Month" photo. Man, you can't make this stuff up......
>
> http://www.youngeagles.org/airplanemonth/1005/?month=October&year=2005


Your point is?

[Gary Drescher]

"Paul Stuart" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> A Young Eagles flight takes place when an official EAA form is filled
> out prior to the flight. This form records the child's details and
> makes sure that permission for the flight has been granted by a parent
> or legal guardian. This is also the form that is sent to Oshkosh to be
> entered in the Young Eagles database. If this form is completed, then
> yes it's a Young Eagles flight, EAA takes responsibility for it, and -
> provided the pilot has met requirements - the flight is covered under
> the insurance program.

The question, though, is whether the form is always mailed before the flight
starts (as is supposed to be done with Angel Flight liability waivers, for
example), or whether the form is often taken on board and not mailed until
afterward. If the latter, then YE's official safety record may be
misleading, since some fatal flights won't count as YE flights even though
they would've counted if they'd been successful.

--Gary

[Matt Whiting]

Skylune wrote:
> Totally preventable tragedy, thats the saddest part.
>
> The kids' parents should now file civil suit against the pilot's estate,
> the airport that sponsored the event, the EAA, as well as the manufacturer
> of the plane and possibly whatever firm did the maintenance.
>
> Of course they probably won't, since any parent stupid enough to allow
> their kid to climb into a plane of unknown reliability, with a pilot of
> unknown skill and ability, will probably not think of this, unless an
> aviation attorney read the story and contacts them.
>
> Amazing: would parents would allow their kids to hop on the back of a
> motorcycle with an unknown rider, get onto an ATV or snowmobile with a
> stranger, etc.? Probably not. But the EAA's slick propoganda (like
> making a false statement claiming there have been no other fatalities in
> the YE program) fools some people.
>

Is this Skylune as in lunatic?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Skylune wrote:

> More insanity. Does it ever end?

(One word snipped above to make it fit the context.)

Not as long as you are posting here.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Skylune wrote:

> Therefore, the EAA press release is a complete fabrication, an outright,
> bald-faced, self-serving lie. Great info.
>
> (Boyer would be proud.)
>

What does Boyer have to do with the EAA?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Skylune wrote:

> Well to answer the question you posed after the long car crash story, "No".
> There are risks, and there are stupid risks. Putting a kid into an
> unknown plane with a stranger goes down as stupid in my book.

Well, from your past posts, it does seem that you wrote the book on stupid.

Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul Stuart" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > A Young Eagles flight takes place when an official EAA form is filled
> > out prior to the flight. This form records the child's details and
> > makes sure that permission for the flight has been granted by a parent
> > or legal guardian. This is also the form that is sent to Oshkosh to be
> > entered in the Young Eagles database. If this form is completed, then
> > yes it's a Young Eagles flight, EAA takes responsibility for it, and -
> > provided the pilot has met requirements - the flight is covered under
> > the insurance program.
>
> The question, though, is whether the form is always mailed before the
flight
> starts (as is supposed to be done with Angel Flight liability waivers, for
> example), or whether the form is often taken on board and not mailed until
> afterward. If the latter, then YE's official safety record may be
> misleading, since some fatal flights won't count as YE flights even though
> they would've counted if they'd been successful.
>
> --Gary

The permission and release forms are seldom mailed before the flight takes
place. They are most commonly administered by a ground crew if it is an
organized event or by the pilot if it is not an organized event. If the
form is not processed the pilot is not covered by the EAA provided liability
insurance.

[Skylune]

My point is illustrated in the photo accompanying the article below. I
find the posting of the Concorde, which no longer flies due mainly to the
highly publicized fiery crash outside Paris a few years back, as the
"plane of the month to be ironic. (irony = incongruity between what might
be expected and what actually occurs)

http://www.rense.com/general2/conc.htm

[Dave Stadt]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> My point is illustrated in the photo accompanying the article below. I
> find the posting of the Concorde, which no longer flies due mainly to the
> highly publicized fiery crash outside Paris a few years back, as the
> "plane of the month to be ironic. (irony = incongruity between what might
> be expected and what actually occurs)
>
> http://www.rense.com/general2/conc.htm


I'm sorry, you make absolutely no sense.

[Skylune]

Your first paragraph: i agree to an extent. I disagree to the extent that
by climbing into a plane, you are assuming exactly the same risk as the
pilot.

In the case of the second paragraph, I would (and have) let my kids in
cars driven by others if (and only if) I had confidence in the driver's
ability, judgement, and experience.

Simply because someone volunteers to fly YE does not make them safe or
competent pilots. Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all forms
of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this point. Is it
safe? Depends on your risk threshold.

However, as a parent, knowing that GA is the riskiest form of transport,
combined with not knowing who the heck is flying your kid around, and how
well maintained the plane is, is an unacceptable risk in my book. Better
to fly with a pilot that you know well and trust.

[Sylvain]

Skylune wrote:
> Better to fly with a pilot that you know well and trust.

which is also an option with YE -- and as I found out, far more
enjoyable for the pilot as well; nobody puts a gun to the
head of the parents forcing them to take part.

--Sylvain

[Jay Beckman]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Your first paragraph: i agree to an extent. I disagree to the extent that
> by climbing into a plane, you are assuming exactly the same risk as the
> pilot.
>
> In the case of the second paragraph, I would (and have) let my kids in
> cars driven by others if (and only if) I had confidence in the driver's
> ability, judgement, and experience.
>
> Simply because someone volunteers to fly YE does not make them safe or
> competent pilots. Statistically, GA is the most dangerous of all forms
> of transportation. There is no (reasonable) debate on this point. Is it
> safe? Depends on your risk threshold.

Which sector of GA?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Matt Whiting]

Skylune wrote:
> My point is illustrated in the photo accompanying the article below. I
> find the posting of the Concorde, which no longer flies due mainly to the
> highly publicized fiery crash outside Paris a few years back, as the
> "plane of the month to be ironic. (irony = incongruity between what might
> be expected and what actually occurs)

No, the primary reason was economics. And with the recent increase in
fuel prices, it was probably a very insightful move.

Matt

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>
>"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>> Hey. While poking around their website some more, I came across their
>> "Airplane of the Month" photo. Man, you can't make this stuff up......
>>
>> http://www.youngeagles.org/airplanemonth/1005/?month=October&year=2005
>
>
>Your point is?
>
>

I think the "lune" is getting the better of Skylune.
Usually presenting himself as "anti-GA" he now attacks the Concorde, which
is about as far as one gets from GA, this side of the SR-71.

Alzheimers is a tragedy.

[Margy]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Not that I should need any sort of example, but one need only look to Jay
>>Honeck's travel with his family in his airplane. This sort of thing
>>happens all the time in the aviation world, just as families travel
>>together in automobiles all the time. It just doesn't make sense, from an
>>"enjoy life" point of view, to waste time trying to keep families apart.
>
>
> Mary and I have debated this for over a decade, now -- and I believe there
> is no better answer than this:
>
> Life is a terminal condition. Live it for all its worth, now, cuz you could
> be struck down with Lou Gehrig's disease at any time. (See Lane Wallace's
> "Flying" column this month for a sobering report on what kind of a bad hand
> life can deal you.)
>
> We fly as a family, whenever and wherever we can, over 170 hours per year.
> We fly in a single-engine plane, which gives us just one way of going up
> (there are a hundred ways to come down), and it's 31 years old. We maintain
> Atlas to the highest standards, but anything can happen at any time, and
> we've trained extensively to handle those situations.
>
>
.....

My theory is if you all go down together it's better than if 2 of you go
down. At least the grieving is out of the immediate family. Now, if
just you and Mary fly together and leave the kids home make sure the
will has them going to nice folks. On the other hand you probably
aren't too far away from the kids going off flying and leaving you and
Mary at home :-)

Margy

[Tom Conner]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Your first paragraph: i agree to an extent. I disagree to the extent that
> by climbing into a plane, you are assuming exactly the same risk as the
> pilot.
>

Who are you replying to? Stop just writing stuff without the text that
generated your response. Try to learn how to post. Its not that difficult.
Even if you have a valid point, it is being lost because your posts are not
autonomous.

[Thomas Borchert]

Skylune,

> Commercial flight is the safest form of
> transportation, GA is the most dangerous.
>

Both those statements are wrong.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> Please don't remove what you are replying to since it makes your answer
> ambigious
>

Please get a decent newsreader that will show context ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>> Please don't remove what you are replying to since it makes your answer
>> ambigious
>
> Please get a decent newsreader that will show context ;-)

Even a newsreader that shows threads cannot tell you what text in the
previous message is being referenced in a reply.

[Jay Honeck]

> The decision-maker at the school in question probably taught probability
> and statistics.

That's not a glowing endorsement of Margy's educational system.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> My theory is if you all go down together it's better than if 2 of you go
> down. At least the grieving is out of the immediate family. Now, if just
> you and Mary fly together and leave the kids home make sure the will has
> them going to nice folks. On the other hand you probably aren't too far
> away from the kids going off flying and leaving you and Mary at home :-)

Actually, we've got that base covered, too. If something should happen to
us, Mary's sister gets the kids, while my sister gets financial control.
They must work *together* to get anything done.

This not only puts checks and balances in place, but also makes for a
hilarious and entertaining afterlife for Mary and me...

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

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article <nospam-4015AC.19342216102005@shawnews>,
tony roberts > wrote:

> I fly Young Eagles through 2 different clubs.
> Prior to this accident we had been discussing changing our rules to
> prohibit 2 kids from the same family to fly in the same plane.
>
> We should all look at this. Loss to the family, liability - let's split
> them up - everyone wins!


Knowing what I know as a certificated pilot, I would be very reluctant
to permit my child(ren) to fly with an unknown pilot. However, I would
much rather have my child(ren) in a single-engine airplane with a
competent pilot than in a car on the highway. There is no doubt in my
mind that there is much less risk in the former than in the latter. If
the competence and proficiency of the pilot is not known, then the risk
is considerably higher.



JKG

[Margy]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Forget the public, my school system won't even let me MENTION the YE
>>program. I had arranged YE flights for 56 students in our high school
>>aerospace program when the teacher of that program was informed that he
>>was NOT going to take those kids flying and if he did and if anything
>>happened they would hang him out to dry, personally!
>
>
> That's outrageous.
>
> Have you been able to get to the bottom of this travesty of
> "education", Margy?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Hey, I'm in the DC area. We've got TONS of lawyers so we can't do
anything. As Scott Crossfield put it "we are protecting our kids so
well they can't do anything" (more or less his words). We live and die
by conservative risk management. I even got caught doping model
airplanes in my classroom on a SATURDAY morning. Damn, I thought I'd
never get caught on a Saturday!! I snuck it though on a purchase order,
oh well.

Margy

[Margy]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>My theory is if you all go down together it's better than if 2 of you go
>>down. At least the grieving is out of the immediate family. Now, if just
>>you and Mary fly together and leave the kids home make sure the will has
>>them going to nice folks. On the other hand you probably aren't too far
>>away from the kids going off flying and leaving you and Mary at home :-)
>
>
> Actually, we've got that base covered, too. If something should happen to
> us, Mary's sister gets the kids, while my sister gets financial control.
> They must work *together* to get anything done.
>
> This not only puts checks and balances in place, but also makes for a
> hilarious and entertaining afterlife for Mary and me...
>
> :-)
damn you Jay, you made me spit into my computer!!!!

Margy

[ET]

Jonathan Goodish > wrote in
:

> In article <nospam-4015AC.19342216102005@shawnews>,
> tony roberts > wrote:
>
>> I fly Young Eagles through 2 different clubs.
>> Prior to this accident we had been discussing changing our rules to
>> prohibit 2 kids from the same family to fly in the same plane.
>>
>> We should all look at this. Loss to the family, liability - let's
>> split them up - everyone wins!
>
>
> Knowing what I know as a certificated pilot, I would be very reluctant
> to permit my child(ren) to fly with an unknown pilot. However, I
> would much rather have my child(ren) in a single-engine airplane with
> a competent pilot than in a car on the highway. There is no doubt in
> my mind that there is much less risk in the former than in the latter.
> If the competence and proficiency of the pilot is not known, then the
> risk is considerably higher.
>
>
>
> JKG

Hrmmm..

That just makes too much sense... In a car, you have at least as much
chance of dying as the result of someone ELSES stupidity as your own,
while in an aircraft the vast majority of possible fatal incidents are
under your direct control as the Pilot....

I can only think of a few instances where someone elses stupidity comes
into play... mid air (contributory), runway incursion,.... of course a
mechanic who screws something up that is not visible on inspection......


--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[George Patterson]

Tom Conner wrote:

> Try to learn how to post.

Better that he should learn how not to post.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Gary Drescher]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Goodish > wrote in
> :
>> Knowing what I know as a certificated pilot, I would be very reluctant
>> to permit my child(ren) to fly with an unknown pilot. However, I
>> would much rather have my child(ren) in a single-engine airplane with
>> a competent pilot than in a car on the highway. There is no doubt in
>> my mind that there is much less risk in the former than in the latter.
>> If the competence and proficiency of the pilot is not known, then the
>> risk is considerably higher.
>
> That just makes too much sense...

Only if you ignore all the actual data that's been discussed here.

> In a car, you have at least as much
> chance of dying as the result of someone ELSES stupidity as your own,
> while in an aircraft the vast majority of possible fatal incidents are
> under your direct control as the Pilot....
>
> I can only think of a few instances where someone elses stupidity comes
> into play... mid air (contributory), runway incursion,.... of course a
> mechanic who screws something up that is not visible on inspection......

The problem is that these "few instances" already add up to a higher
fatality rate *by themselves* than the *total* fatality rate for driving.
All the other, far more common ways to die in an airplane--the pilot
errors--are *in addition* to that already higher rate.

--Gary

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
ET > wrote:
> That just makes too much sense... In a car, you have at least as much
> chance of dying as the result of someone ELSES stupidity as your own,
> while in an aircraft the vast majority of possible fatal incidents are
> under your direct control as the Pilot....
>
> I can only think of a few instances where someone elses stupidity comes
> into play... mid air (contributory), runway incursion,.... of course a
> mechanic who screws something up that is not visible on inspection......

There is risk in everything that we do. Driving in a car, even with a
competent driver, has to be riskier than flying in a well-maintained
single engine airplane with a competent and proficient pilot.

Unfortunately, it seems to be very difficult to assess the competency
and proficiency of a dead pilot after the accident. The only statistics
I've ever seen appear to lump all pilots together, with some exceptions
for data on certificates and ratings, which still don't do much to
assess the pilot's skill or judgment. Human beings in the pilot
community often try to deflect attention away from the dead pilot by
calling the that person a "great pilot" or "very experienced," which
doesn't help if the pilot wasn't faithful to those traits. While most
accidents appear to point to pilot error, there are some very good
pilots who just happen to draw the short straw that day. However, the
same observation is possible with virtually any activity.

I can't drive 1 mile down the road without having someone cut me off,
slam on their brakes and turn without signaling, cross the center line
into my lane, etc. I don't have any of those concerns in flight. I'm
sorry, but I simply can't believe that I'm safer on the road than in
flight, based on my own first-hand experience.

I haven't been following this thread, so I'm not sure what the latest is
on the accident that started this thread. Based on what I've read,
though, it sounds like a botched landing and an incorrect or unlucky
recovery. If that's the case, the cause will likely point to pilot
error that could have been prevented by better skill, judgment, or both.



JKG

[ET]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
:

> "ET" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jonathan Goodish > wrote in
>> :
>>> Knowing what I know as a certificated pilot, I would be very
>>> reluctant to permit my child(ren) to fly with an unknown pilot.
>>> However, I would much rather have my child(ren) in a single-engine
>>> airplane with a competent pilot than in a car on the highway. There
>>> is no doubt in my mind that there is much less risk in the former
>>> than in the latter.
>>> If the competence and proficiency of the pilot is not known, then
>>> the
>>> risk is considerably higher.
>>
>> That just makes too much sense...
>
> Only if you ignore all the actual data that's been discussed here.
>
>> In a car, you have at least as much
>> chance of dying as the result of someone ELSES stupidity as your own,
>> while in an aircraft the vast majority of possible fatal incidents
>> are under your direct control as the Pilot....
>>
>> I can only think of a few instances where someone elses stupidity
>> comes into play... mid air (contributory), runway incursion,.... of
>> course a mechanic who screws something up that is not visible on
>> inspection......
>
> The problem is that these "few instances" already add up to a higher
> fatality rate *by themselves* than the *total* fatality rate for
> driving. All the other, far more common ways to die in an
> airplane--the pilot errors--are *in addition* to that already higher
> rate.
>
> --Gary
>
>

So, GA deaths due to mid-airs, runway incursions, and hidden A&P/AI
screw-ups add up to a higher fatality rate than driving???? HA! I just
don't see that....

I read the ntsb reports every month, and while I have done no math of
the causes, etc... I see very few mid-air fatalities, even fewer (if
any) runway incursion fatalities, and just a few hidden mechanic screw
up (although it is likely that more than a few of those "they just went
down & we don't know why" fatalites could be hidden mechanical).

I DO read alot about fuel exhastion, stalling on final, stalling on
takeoff, trying to take off with too much weight and/or at too high a
density alt... etc...

Quit frankly if the rate is as high as you say for the 3 above causes,
BRS should be selling a HELL of a lot more all-plane parachutes!

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[ET]

Jonathan Goodish > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> ET > wrote:
>> That just makes too much sense... In a car, you have at least as much
>> chance of dying as the result of someone ELSES stupidity as your own,
>> while in an aircraft the vast majority of possible fatal incidents
>> are under your direct control as the Pilot....
>>
>> I can only think of a few instances where someone elses stupidity
>> comes into play... mid air (contributory), runway incursion,.... of
>> course a mechanic who screws something up that is not visible on
>> inspection......
>
> There is risk in everything that we do. Driving in a car, even with a
> competent driver, has to be riskier than flying in a well-maintained
> single engine airplane with a competent and proficient pilot.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems to be very difficult to assess the competency
> and proficiency of a dead pilot after the accident. The only
> statistics I've ever seen appear to lump all pilots together, with
> some exceptions for data on certificates and ratings, which still
> don't do much to assess the pilot's skill or judgment. Human beings
> in the pilot community often try to deflect attention away from the
> dead pilot by calling the that person a "great pilot" or "very
> experienced," which doesn't help if the pilot wasn't faithful to those
> traits. While most accidents appear to point to pilot error, there
> are some very good pilots who just happen to draw the short straw that
> day. However, the same observation is possible with virtually any
> activity.
>
> I can't drive 1 mile down the road without having someone cut me off,
> slam on their brakes and turn without signaling, cross the center line
> into my lane, etc. I don't have any of those concerns in flight. I'm
> sorry, but I simply can't believe that I'm safer on the road than in
> flight, based on my own first-hand experience.
>
> I haven't been following this thread, so I'm not sure what the latest
> is on the accident that started this thread. Based on what I've read,
> though, it sounds like a botched landing and an incorrect or unlucky
> recovery. If that's the case, the cause will likely point to pilot
> error that could have been prevented by better skill, judgment, or
> both.
>
>
>
> JKG

I agree with you...

FYI the start of this thread was the death of 2 Young Eagles and the
pilot. On a go-around apparently, for yet unknown reasons, the plane was
unable to gain altitude and crashed after clipping some trees. NTSB
report is not yet up, but here is the link from the original post:

http://www.komonews.com/stories/39753.htm

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Gary Drescher]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> So, GA deaths due to mid-airs, runway incursions, and hidden A&P/AI
> screw-ups add up to a higher fatality rate than driving???? HA! I just
> don't see that.

Sorry, but "HA!" doesn't trump actual data.

> I read the ntsb reports every month, and while I have done no math of
> the causes, etc...

That's the problem. Others *have* done the math, and have discussed it here.
The results of that analysis are completely at odds with your informal
impression.

Collisions and non-pilot causes (mechanical/maintenance error) add up to
about 10% of fatal GA accidents (see AOPA's Nall Report). Since the GA
fatality rate is more than ten times that of driving (more than twenty times
if we just look at personal flying), 10% of that rate is still more than the
total accident rate for driving.

> Quit frankly if the rate is as high as you say for the 3 above causes,
> BRS should be selling a HELL of a lot more all-plane parachutes!

Perhaps they would, if more pilots were to do the math.

--Gary