Young Eagle Safety

[TaxSrv]

I fiddled with the math on the probable number of Y/E hours flown,
and the few known number of nonserious incidents (something like 3
since 1991) to compute the accident rate/100,000 hours. Having a
Y/E aboard is one of the safest ways to fly. The rate is so low
that it isn't necessary to adjust for the fact that most accidents
occur within a few miles of an airport, for a wider variance.

My reaction to this activity I didn't really predict until I got
into it. You simply do not take aloft the child of a parent,
standing right there and talking to you even briefly, trying
actually to sense what you're like, without a serious feeling of
responsibility. You are to return the child or children safely.
If a pilot in the chapter would rather not volunteer for that
unstated reason, even if a good pilot, that pilot has my respect
too. If he or she were to ask me if I was bothered by this, I
would say yes, a bit. I hope it makes me fly properly.

Fred F.

[George Patterson]

TaxSrv wrote:

> You simply do not take aloft the child of a parent,
> standing right there and talking to you even briefly, trying
> actually to sense what you're like, without a serious feeling of
> responsibility.

Excellent point. I was uncomfortable presenting my aircraft for young eagles
flights simply because the paint had gotten pretty bad (Maules used to have
really poor paint jobs). I would never have made those flights if I suspected
that the aircraft was in less than top mechanical condition.

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.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "TaxSrv" == TaxSrv > writes:

TaxSrv> My reaction to this activity I didn't really predict until
TaxSrv> I got into it. You simply do not take aloft the child of
TaxSrv> a parent, standing right there and talking to you even
TaxSrv> briefly, trying actually to sense what you're like,
TaxSrv> without a serious feeling of responsibility.

Yes, plus, YE flights are always day, VFR, and local (no weather to
run into on a cross-country).

[TaxSrv]

"Bob Fry" wrote:
>
> Yes, plus, YE flights are always day, VFR, and local (no weather
to
> run into on a cross-country).

Considerations are narrower than that for our chapter. One
Saturday, we had to turn away everybody, due to marginal weather on
viz. Almost IFR. Come tomorrow on the announced rain date;
forecast good.

Many did, but it turned up delay again until it was 1,300 broken
and clear on the viz. We tried it for a while, but told the ground
bosses this is not good. We're up there at pattern altitude flying
the hastily modified route, to avoid somebody arriving IFR to pop
out the bottom at our field or at a nearby field's ILS. Those few
of us who can with a BOTH button, monitoring unicom and also the
satellite field Approach freq for IFR arrivals. We're not enjoying
this. Many disappointed kids again, but you can't explain why in
simple terms to parents, w/o talking scary-sounding safety issues.
We took names/phone #s to individually fly kids ad hoc on a
selected, great summer evening. The parents really appreciated
that. And most had no idea we recreational flyers treat this stuff
as seriously as the people who pilot their 757s.

Fred F.

[Gary Drescher]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
>I fiddled with the math on the probable number of Y/E hours flown,
> and the few known number of nonserious incidents (something like 3
> since 1991) to compute the accident rate/100,000 hours. Having a
> Y/E aboard is one of the safest ways to fly.

Cool. But could you elaborate please? How did you calculate the number of
hours flown? What do you mean by nonserious incidents? And how do you know
how many such incidents (and how many serious incidents) there have been, if
there's no comprehensive reporting system in place for them?

> The rate is so low

What is the rate?

> that it isn't necessary to adjust for the fact that most accidents
> occur within a few miles of an airport,

That's a fact? What's its source?

Thanks,
Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> Many did, but it turned up delay again until it was 1,300 broken
> and clear on the viz. We tried it for a while, but told the ground
> bosses this is not good. We're up there at pattern altitude flying
> the hastily modified route, to avoid somebody arriving IFR to pop
> out the bottom at our field or at a nearby field's ILS. Those few
> of us who can with a BOTH button, monitoring unicom and also the
> satellite field Approach freq for IFR arrivals. We're not enjoying
> this.

Wait, how was it possible to even make the attempt with a 1300' ceiling?
You've said you're based at LNN, right? That's Class E from 700' AGL upward,
and the pattern altitude there is 974' AGL, so with a 1300' ceiling, you'd
have been much closer than 500' to the clouds, which is illegal and
dangerous when flying VFR in controlled airspace.

> Many disappointed kids again, but you can't explain why in
> simple terms to parents, w/o talking scary-sounding safety issues.

I'm sorry, but withholding "scary-sounding" safety facts from the parents
just isn't right. Passengers (or their parents, if the passengers are
children) should give their informed consent to fly, rather than being
tricked into doing something that's more dangerous than they would agree to
if they were allowed to know the scary truth.

--Gary

[Jay Honeck]

> My reaction to this activity I didn't really predict until I got
> into it. You simply do not take aloft the child of a parent,
> standing right there and talking to you even briefly, trying
> actually to sense what you're like, without a serious feeling of
> responsibility.

Back in 1996 I flew my entire Cub Scout troop, by myself, on Young Eagle
flights. I had *maybe* 200 hours, and I did it in a clapped-out rental
Cherokee 140, two kids at a time, from a little-bitty 2300' x 30'
single-runway strip.

Of course, everything worked out fine, but the feeling of responsibility was
almost overwhelming. I remember taxiing out with two excited kids in the
back, and one nervous parent in the front, running through emergency
procedures in my head and being so tense that I had a headache for hours
afterward. It took a LONG time to fly the whole troop in that manner, and I
was happy but completely wiped out by the end of the day.

I didn't fly YE again until several years later, and then it was Mary and me
doing it as a team, with children of members of Mary's extended family.
What a difference! To be doing flights in a plane you own and maintain,
off a big, multi-runway airport, with people you sort-of know -- with
another pilot -- made for a much more enjoyable event. The pressure and
responsibility were (of course) still there, but to a much lesser degree.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Longworth]

Gary,

Metar/TAF ceiling are always AGL not MSL. This is something that
we can easily forget. Few weeks ago, we were at KLEX early in the
morning when the ceiling was 600'. With the ILS Rwy 4 DH at 1170',
at first I thought the ceiling was below minimum and decided to wait.
After few hours, the ceiling was still at 600' but the cup of coffee
livened up my brain. I then realized that the DH AGL was 200' and the
ceiling was 600' AGL not MSL so it was a go for us.

Hai Longworth

[Gary Drescher]

"Longworth" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gary,
>
> Metar/TAF ceiling are always AGL not MSL. This is something that
> we can easily forget.

True, but I wasn't forgetting that. All the other altitudes I mentioned were
explicitly AGL too, for consistency with the ceiling measure.

--Gary

> Few weeks ago, we were at KLEX early in the
> morning when the ceiling was 600'. With the ILS Rwy 4 DH at 1170',
> at first I thought the ceiling was below minimum and decided to wait.
> After few hours, the ceiling was still at 600' but the cup of coffee
> livened up my brain. I then realized that the DH AGL was 200' and the
> ceiling was 600' AGL not MSL so it was a go for us.
>
> Hai Longworth

[john smith]

> I didn't fly YE again until several years later, and then it was Mary and me
> doing it as a team, with children of members of Mary's extended family.
> What a difference! To be doing flights in a plane you own and maintain,
> off a big, multi-runway airport, with people you sort-of know -- with
> another pilot -- made for a much more enjoyable event. The pressure and
> responsibility were (of course) still there, but to a much lesser degree.

Just think how much easier it would have been with a high-wing airplane
and two doors!
:-))

[George Patterson]

john smith wrote:

> Just think how much easier it would have been with a high-wing airplane
> and two doors!

And it gets even easier with a high-wing aircraft with three doors. :-)

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.

[Ross Richardson]

We have a couple of planes that are less than new and that support our
YE events. An airplane is an airplane to the kids. They just want the
flight. Now if there is a bright yellow RV-4 on the line, everyone wants
that.

As for the number of kids per flight, our pilots generally fill the
plane. Unless it is a special event where it will be the pilot and one
child. I have been at a rally where someone was loading up a Cessna
Citation. I may as well be in a airliner.


-------------
Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI


George Patterson wrote:
> TaxSrv wrote:
>
>> You simply do not take aloft the child of a parent,
>> standing right there and talking to you even briefly, trying
>> actually to sense what you're like, without a serious feeling of
>> responsibility.
>
>
> Excellent point. I was uncomfortable presenting my aircraft for young
> eagles flights simply because the paint had gotten pretty bad (Maules
> used to have really poor paint jobs). I would never have made those
> flights if I suspected that the aircraft was in less than top mechanical
> condition.
>
> 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.

[TaxSrv]

"Gary Drescher" wrote:
> >
> > Having a Y/E aboard is one of the safest ways to fly.
>
> Cool. But could you elaborate please? How did you calculate the
> number of hours flown? What do you mean by nonserious
> incidents? And how do you know how many such incidents (and
> how many serious incidents) there have been, if there's no
> comprehensive reporting system in place for them?
>

If 500,000 flights, call it 200,000 hours for the flights. Much of
this occurs at a planned Y/E event, so it can be presumed NTSB will
note that relevant fact. A word search through the reports on
keywords should turn them up.

> > The rate is so low
>
> What is the rate?
>

I again queried up the accidents to date. It appears now a total
of 10 Y/E accidents (but 2 reports involve planes colliding on a
taxiway, for duplicate reports). However, there was one "possible
Y/E" fatal in 1998 in Colorado, and one serious injury to one
occupant -- hard landing. All others were no injury to occupants,
as common on landing/T-O accidents, which are the remaining cases.

The overall accident rate is in this period is then 10/100K hours,
at 5/100K for Y/E, it's twice as safe using the raw data,
fender-benders included.

> > that it isn't necessary to adjust for the fact that most
> > accidents occur within a few miles of an airport,
>
> That's a fact? What's its source?

Just "read that" somewhere, but looks true. Flip through any
sample month of NTSB reports and count 'em up. If 60%, then we're
up to about 2.5 times as safe.

Stats can't account for pilots flying also homebuilts and
antique/classic taildraggers, statistically not as good (on
taildraggers I'm guessing). Can't account for these events
typically on Sat-Sun, sharing a busy pattern with others, and a
fatigue factor if a busy event. So the actual rate for this
activity is likely better yet.

Fred F.

[Gary Drescher]

Thanks for the further details!

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" wrote:
>> Cool. But could you elaborate please?
>
> If 500,000 flights, call it 200,000 hours for the flights. Much of
> this occurs at a planned Y/E event, so it can be presumed NTSB will
> note that relevant fact. A word search through the reports on
> keywords should turn them up.
> ...
> The overall accident rate is in this period is then 10/100K hours,
> at 5/100K for Y/E, it's twice as safe using the raw data,
> fender-benders included.

A problem with this methodology, it seems to me, is that other YE pilots
have reported here that it's possible to decide *retroactively* whether a
flight counts as a YE flight--a pilot might take the form along in the plane
and either turn it in afterward (assuming the pilot survived) or not. If
that's true, then we don't really know what proportion of flights may have
had accidents (fatal or otherwise) that were not reported as YE flights,
even though the flight would have been reported as such if it'd been
successful. That alone could easily distort the statistics by a factor of
two or more.

--Gary

[TaxSrv]

"Gary Drescher" wrote:
>
> If that's true, then we don't really know what proportion
> of flights may have had accidents (fatal or otherwise) that
> were not reported as YE flights, even though the flight
> would have been reported as such if it'd been successful.
> That alone could easily distort the statistics by a factor of
> two or more.

I agree, and NTSB stuff enables "approximate" methodology. Except
that a number of minor accidents aren't reported to NTSB in
general, so a similar % for Y/E won't distort comparisons.

On a serious/fatal Y/E flight, EAA will know about it if their up
to $1 million insurance coverage is sought after, and hence will be
reported to NTSB.

I think it's sufficient to stand back 10 feet and look at NTSB
data, and Y/E activity does appear safer. It's like crop-dusting.
We know it's hazardous and NTSB says so; the actual comparative
rate doesn't matter much except to insurance companies. But note
there, the premium cost of the EAA insurance is small, even if EAA
kicks in some, and it covers other liability hazards for a chapter
and its members.

Fred F.

[Gary Drescher]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" wrote:
>>
>> If that's true, then we don't really know what proportion
>> of flights may have had accidents (fatal or otherwise) that
>> were not reported as YE flights, even though the flight
>> would have been reported as such if it'd been successful.
>> That alone could easily distort the statistics by a factor of
>> two or more.
>
> I agree, and NTSB stuff enables "approximate" methodology. Except
> that a number of minor accidents aren't reported to NTSB in
> general, so a similar % for Y/E won't distort comparisons.

As far as we know, accidents that go unreported entirely are no less common
among YE flights than among other flights. But there's an entirely
different, additional distortion that I'm addressing: if there are many
flights that might not count as YE flights if there's an accident, but will
count as YE if there's not an accident, then that will sharply distort the
comparison (especially for serious or fatal accidents, which are almost
certainly reported to the NTSB).

> On a serious/fatal Y/E flight, EAA will know about it if their up
> to $1 million insurance coverage is sought after, and hence will be
> reported to NTSB.

Hm, does the NTSB necessarily know about crash-related insurance claims,
settlements, or lawsuits? If a plaintiff says a flight was a YE flight and
the EAA denies it, would the NTSB necessarily report the lawsuit or its
outcome? (Does the EAA's $1M coverage have the usual GA cap of $100K per
passenger? That certainly limits the incentive for lawsuits.)

--Gary

[Jose]

> A problem with this methodology, it seems to me, is that other YE pilots
> have reported here that it's possible to decide *retroactively* whether a
> flight counts as a YE flight--a pilot might take the form along in the plane
> and either turn it in afterward (assuming the pilot survived) or not.

What is the incentive for doing this? By not filling out and sending in
the form first, insurance coverage is lost, and it's only needed if
there =is= a crash.

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

[Gary Drescher]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> A problem with this methodology, it seems to me, is that other YE pilots
>> have reported here that it's possible to decide *retroactively* whether a
>> flight counts as a YE flight--a pilot might take the form along in the
>> plane and either turn it in afterward (assuming the pilot survived) or
>> not.
>
> What is the incentive for doing this? By not filling out and sending in
> the form first, insurance coverage is lost, and it's only needed if there
> =is= a crash.

It's not necessarily a deliberate strategy. The pilot might just consider it
more convenient to mail the form sometime after the flight and rack up the
YE hours; no one expects to die on their next flight. But if the pilot and
the form don't survive the flight, the intention to send it afterward is
thwarted.

Although the feeling isn't rational, I always feel a bit silly asking an FBO
to mail my liability-waiver and flight-plan forms before my Angel Flights
(there's usually no mailbox handy). I force myself to do it anyway, but I'm
certainly tempted to just bring the forms along and mailing them later.

--Gary

[Jose]

> The pilot might just consider it more convenient to mail
> the form sometime after the flight and rack up the YE hours;

What do YE hours buy the pilot?

> Although the feeling isn't rational, I always feel a bit silly asking an FBO
> to mail my liability-waiver and flight-plan forms before my Angel Flights
> (there's usually no mailbox handy). I force myself to do it anyway, but I'm
> certainly tempted to just bring the forms along and mailing them later.

It should be sufficient for those forms to be on the ground and in
friendly posession. It would at least show intent, and can be dropped
silently in the mailbox afterwards with nobody the wiser. Or is it
necessary for the EAA to do something with the forms for them to have
effect?

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

[Gary Drescher]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> The pilot might just consider it more convenient to mail
>> the form sometime after the flight and rack up the YE hours;
>
> What do YE hours buy the pilot?

We pilots seem to enjoy accumulating and tabulating hours of various sorts.
:)

--Gary

[Ron Lee]

Jose > wrote:

>> A problem with this methodology, it seems to me, is that other YE pilots
>> have reported here that it's possible to decide *retroactively* whether a
>> flight counts as a YE flight--a pilot might take the form along in the plane
>> and either turn it in afterward (assuming the pilot survived) or not.

The only one that I know of that may fit is the Colorado fatality and
even though I thought it was a YE flight (also mentioned as such in
the NTSB report), there seems to be some uncertainty that it was a YE
flight.

Ron Lee

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Jose > wrote:
>
>>> A problem with this methodology, it seems to me, is that other YE pilots
>>> have reported here that it's possible to decide *retroactively* whether
>>> a
>>> flight counts as a YE flight--a pilot might take the form along in the
>>> plane
>>> and either turn it in afterward (assuming the pilot survived) or not.

(That was me, not Jose.)

> The only one that I know of that may fit is the Colorado fatality and
> even though I thought it was a YE flight (also mentioned as such in
> the NTSB report), there seems to be some uncertainty that it was a YE
> flight.

Right. The question is how many more like that there may be that we *don't*
know of; even a single instance dramatically changes the YE fatality rate.
The NTSB mentioned YE in the Colorado instance only because a witness on the
ground happened to be aware of and mention the flight's (alleged) status as
a YE flight.

--Gary

> Ron Lee

[TaxSrv]

"Gary Drescher" wrote:
> But there's an entirely different, additional distortion
> that I'm addressing: if there are many flights that might not
> count as YE flights if there's an accident, but will
> count as YE if there's not an accident,

It's a distortion if true. I have no clue. What's the factual
basis for your clue?

> Hm, does the NTSB necessarily know about crash-related
> insurance claims, settlements, or lawsuits?

If NTSB answers the telephone. If there's substantial hull damage
or serious injury, I think the ins co, and/or a plaintiff's att'y,
expects FAA/NTSB to know about it and for them to proceed if they
didn't know.

> If a plaintiff says a flight was a YE flight and the EAA
> denies it,

The truth will be sought in the usual way in which plaintiffs
discover evidence, such as sworn depositions.

Fred F.

[Gary Drescher]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" wrote:
>> But there's an entirely different, additional distortion
>> that I'm addressing: if there are many flights that might not
>> count as YE flights if there's an accident, but will
>> count as YE if there's not an accident,
>
> It's a distortion if true. I have no clue. What's the factual
> basis for your clue?

The factual basis is the report that some YE pilots have made here that any
flight by an EAA pilot with a young passenger can count as a YE flight if
the paperwork is filled out and sent in. That creates a strong potential for
the distortion I'm speaking of. The extent to which the potential is
realized is a matter of sheer guesswork, which I'm not inclined to indulge
in one way or the other. So my conclusion is that we just don't know, with
any reasonable reliability, how YE's fatality rate compares with GA
generally. I'm not insisting that it's *not* lower; I just don't think
there's good evidence either way.

>> Hm, does the NTSB necessarily know about crash-related
>> insurance claims, settlements, or lawsuits?
>
> If NTSB answers the telephone. If there's substantial hull damage
> or serious injury, I think the ins co, and/or a plaintiff's att'y,
> expects FAA/NTSB to know about it and for them to proceed if they
> didn't know.

Offhand, I don't know of any reason that a plantiff or insurer would care
whether the FAA or NTSB knows that a flight was a YE flight; what reason do
you see for that? (And if the child's parent(s) were aboard the fatal flight
too, there might not be anyone left who even knows that it was intended to
be a YE flight.)

--Gary

[TaxSrv]

"Gary Drescher" wrote:
> So my conclusion is that we just don't know, with any
> reasonable reliability, how YE's fatality rate compares with
> GA generally.
>
> Offhand, I don't know of any reason that a plantiff or insurer
> would care whether the FAA or NTSB knows that a flight
> was a YE flight; what reason do you see for that?

On both points, fatal cases especially are thoroughly investigated.
I was a witness on a fatal case, and since we all were from out of
town, I had dinner with the guys by just showing up at the same
restaurant that evening. They interview a whole bunch of people
with any knowledge of the pilot and the flight. It might include
exploring behind a pax a stranger to the pilot. They often need
indirect evidence to understand what probably happened. This is
likely what happened in the Colorado case, except no signed release
to be found.

I suspect at least 90% of YE flights are scheduled events. For a
chapter member to just fly three kids in an extended family on a
Saturday becomes such with a phone call or email to EAA. Why?
Because EAA insurance coverage only partially covers you if at all
for an ad hoc flight on your own. To get self-protection of the
full $1 million, follow simple rules. For an unfavorable fatal
rate, we'd be looking for about 5-6 more cases where the fact of a
fatal ad hoc, YE flight among the 10% didn't turn up in the
investigation. Highly improbable beyond the fact that on those
flights you likely know the parents, like of the neighbor's kid,
and act very responsibly.

Fred F.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:

> What do YE hours buy the pilot?

Satisfaction, for the most part. You also get your name listed in certain EAA
publications.

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]

By the way, I emailed the EAA to ask about the 1998 Colorado crash during
what appeared (according to the NTSB report) to be a Young Eagles flight.
They explained that according to their own investigation, the passenger had
turned 18 and was no longer a Young Eagle, but instead was a volunteer at
the Young Eagles flight rally earlier in the day. They say they told this to
the NTSB at the time. (I see no reason to doubt their explanation, so I'd
agree that the flight was indeed not a Young Eagles flight.)

--Gary