Safety, yet again...

[Jay Honeck]

Which is safer flying or driving?

Fatalities per million trips Odds of being
killed on a single trip:
Airliner (Part 121) 0.019
52.6 million to 1
Automobile 0.130
7.6 million to 1
Commuter Airline (Part 135 scheduled) 1.72 581,395 to
1
Commuter Plane (Part 135 - Air taxi on demand) 6.10 163,934 to 1
General Aviation (Part 91) 13.3
73,187 to 1

(Sources: NTSB Accidents and Accident Rates by NTSB Classification
1995-2004 DOT Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 1995- 2004
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.)

It's pretty obvious that GA is the poor step-child of aviation.

Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
(I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

Gosh, I hate it when formating gets all screwed up like that. Let's
try THIS:

Which is safer flying or driving?

Fatalities per million trips
Airliner (Part 121) 0.019
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
52.6 million to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Automobile 0.130
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
7.6 million to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Commuter Airline (Part 135 scheduled) 1.72
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
581,395 to 1

Fatalities per million trips
Commuter Plane (Part 135 - Air taxi on demand) 6.10
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
163,934 to 1

Fatalities per million trips
General Aviation (Part 91) 13.3
Odds of being killed on a single trip:
73,187 to 1

(Sources: NTSB Accidents and Accident Rates by NTSB Classification
1995-2004 DOT Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 1995- 2004
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.)

It's pretty obvious that GA is the poor step-child of aviation.

Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
(I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Skywise]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1145761231.603449.52800
@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

<Snipola>
> Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
> (I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
> girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?

At first glance, you have a point. But then, how many of the auto
accidents are due to "stupid driver tricks"? Showing off to your
buddies, racing the car next to you, driving while putting on
makeup, late for work....

Also, could there be "stupid pilot tricks" in the other categories
as well?

If you remove stupidity from one category, you'd have to remove
it from all of them. Then, you'd have a new piece of information,
the ratio of how many stupid idiots there are in each category.

I wonder which has more? GA or cars? I'll bet its cars by a long
shot.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jay Honeck]

> If you remove stupidity from one category, you'd have to remove
> it from all of them. Then, you'd have a new piece of information,
> the ratio of how many stupid idiots there are in each category.

Well, true enough. But "stupid pilot tricks" are not usually fatal if
they occur in a car.

For example, running out of gas in your Subaru is an inconvenience.
Running out of gas in your Cessna is probably going to bend metal -- or
kill you.

Squealing your tires in front of your girl friend's house might get you
a ticket. Buzzing your girl friend's house might get you killed. And
so on...

I guess the point is that flying is far less forgiving of "stupid
tricks" than driving. Extracting them from both sets of statistics
therefore WON'T result in a straight line, equivalent change of fatal
incidents.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Gaquin]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
> Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
> (I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
> girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?

Why would you want to? You would then present a false picture of GA,
deliberately skewed to make it appear safer and more responsible than it
truly is.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
> > (I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
> > girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?
>
> Why would you want to?

Because I'm interesting in *my* probability of dying in a plane crash,
not anyone elses.

Since I:

a) Usually fly with two pilots on board
b) Have a well-oiled cockpit resource management scheme in place
c) Always top off the tanks after each flight
d) Never fly IFR
e) Never fly at night
f) Never "buzz" anyone's house
g) Never skip a pre-flight inspection
h) Personally supervise the maintenance of my plane
i) Don't let anyone else fly my plane
j) Rarely fly in mountains
k) Fly twice per week, on average
l) Maintain excellent health
m) Don't "skate" on maintenance
n) Keep the plane in a locked hangar

....I conclude that I may eliminate many of the "stupid pilot tricks"
from my personal risk assessment.

Trouble is, I don't know how to do that...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Skywise]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1145762260.574792.162910
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

<Snipola>
> I guess the point is that flying is far less forgiving of "stupid
> tricks" than driving.

Very true....no disagreement from me.


> Extracting them from both sets of statistics
> therefore WON'T result in a straight line, equivalent change of fatal
> incidents.

But maybe that's worth showing? The information could be used
to show new pilots the importance of proper flying. Goof around
in a car, and you might be ok. Goof around in a plane, and you
might be dead.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Don Tuite]

On 22 Apr 2006 22:04:51 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>Because I'm interesting in *my* probability of dying in a plane crash,
>not anyone elses.

We've been here before. Probability has to do with populations, not
with you as an individual. You do something, you wind up either dead
or alive. No fractions. The coin comes down either heads or tails.
It doesn't matter what side it came down on the last ten flips.

This is your life. Be careful. Enjoy. Select your risks.

Don

[Jay Honeck]

> >Because I'm interesting in *my* probability of dying in a plane crash,
> >not anyone elses.
>
> We've been here before. Probability has to do with populations, not
> with you as an individual. You do something, you wind up either dead
> or alive. No fractions. The coin comes down either heads or tails.
> It doesn't matter what side it came down on the last ten flips.
>
> This is your life. Be careful. Enjoy. Select your risks.

Point taken, but surely there is knowledge to be gained by subtracting
the "stupid pilot tricks" from the total number of fatal accidents?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Point taken, but surely there is knowledge to be gained by subtracting
> the "stupid pilot tricks" from the total number of fatal accidents?

I agree.

I know, let's put you in charge of this important project. Carefully go
through all of the accidents, read all of the NTSB rulings, total them all
up, then give us the results.

You don't have anything else better to do, sitting at that hotel desk all of
the time. Just get off your arse, and do it! <g>
--
Jim (ducking, really low) in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
>>Because I'm interesting in *my* probability of dying in a plane crash,
>>not anyone elses.
>
> We've been here before. Probability has to do with populations, not
> with you as an individual.

It has to do with both. No one would complain (from a mathematical
standpoint) about someone decreasing their risk relative to aviation by
simply not getting in an airplane. So obviously personal choices have an
effect on safety.

To me, the real problem with trying to eliminate the "stupid pilot tricks"
component is that I think it likely that many of the pilots who are killed
doing something someone might consider a "stupid pilot trick" probably if
asked beforehand if they'd ever do something so stupid, would have said
"no". And all it takes is making the mistake once.

Heck, for that matter, some of the mistakes are deadly enough that in all
likelihood, most of the pilots killed by such mistakes did them only once.

Which means you can spend your whole flying career avoiding such mistakes,
without doing a single thing to affect your risk of being killed by one.
Why is that? Because the measured risk isn't of pilots who go around making
those mistakes, but rather is of ALL pilots where eventually some make one
of those mistakes.

In other words, it's a fallacy to remove any stupid pilot tricks from one's
"personal risk assessment". I do very much agree with you that it's a
mistake for someone to believe that their personal risk exposure is less
simply because they strive to avoid those stupid pilot tricks.

Now, all that said, looking at the differences between accidents caused by
stupid pilot tricks and accidents caused by something else should (one
hopes) give each pilot a strong appreciation for the importance of avoiding
those stupid pilot tricks. But that doesn't guarantee they won't make one
of those mistakes. It just means they are more strongly motivated to avoid
them.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Point taken, but surely there is knowledge to be gained by subtracting
> the "stupid pilot tricks" from the total number of fatal accidents?

There is knowledge, agreed. I just don't think you can use that knowledge
to change in any meaningful way a rational calculation of your own exposure
to the risks.

You can do lots of other useful things with the knowledge. Just not that.

Pete

[Jose]

>>> Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
>>> (I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
>>> girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?
>> Why would you want to?
> Because I'm interesting in *my* probability of dying in a plane crash,
> not anyone elses.

Your probability is actually higher, just =because= you feel
invulnerable. You think that you would =never= make a stupid mistake.
Yet you have posted many stupid mistakes that you have made, some of
which you realized and some of which you still don't.

You've asked this question before, and you have gotten the same
responses before. It won't change, and it appears it won't change you
either. This is a classic accident-waiting-to-happen.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Chris]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>
>> Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
>> (I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
>> girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?
>
> Why would you want to? You would then present a false picture of GA,
> deliberately skewed to make it appear safer and more responsible than it
> truly is.

On that basis, you might want to eliminate the stupid driver trick too, like
DUI, not wearing seat belts etc.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Which is safer flying or driving?
>
> Fatalities per million trips Odds of being
> killed on a single trip:
> Airliner (Part 121) 0.019
> 52.6 million to 1
> Automobile 0.130
> 7.6 million to 1
> Commuter Airline (Part 135 scheduled) 1.72 581,395 to
> 1
> Commuter Plane (Part 135 - Air taxi on demand) 6.10 163,934 to 1
> General Aviation (Part 91) 13.3
> 73,187 to 1
>

Part 91 includes business aviation as well as recreational/personal flying.
BusAv is several times (x ?) safer than recreationa/personal flying. You can
break BusAv out into Corporate Avaition, with a couple ATP's flying a G5,
and into ownerflown singles (call it BusAv and CorpAv).

IIRC, CorpAv is even safer than Part 135 ???


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gosh, I hate it when formating gets all screwed up like that. Let's
> try THIS:
>
> Which is safer flying or driving?
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> Airliner (Part 121) 0.019
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 52.6 million to 1
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> Automobile 0.130
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 7.6 million to 1
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> Commuter Airline (Part 135 scheduled) 1.72
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 581,395 to 1
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> Commuter Plane (Part 135 - Air taxi on demand) 6.10
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 163,934 to 1
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> General Aviation (Part 91) 13.3
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 73,187 to 1
>
> (Sources: NTSB Accidents and Accident Rates by NTSB Classification
> 1995-2004 DOT Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 1995- 2004
> Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.)
>
> It's pretty obvious that GA is the poor step-child of aviation.
>
> Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
> (I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
> girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?

Since most automobile trips probably are the 10 mile, 35 MPH variety, the
comparison is hard to draw. Hell, what's the rate for auto trips versus
walking to the store? :~)

[Matt Barrow]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>
>> Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
>> (I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
>> girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?
>
> Why would you want to? You would then present a false picture of GA,
> deliberately skewed to make it appear safer and more responsible than it
> truly is.

How about sifting out the idiot teenager driver, the old geezer that fell
asleep at the wheel and ran over another car...

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> >Because I'm interesting in *my* probability of dying in a plane crash,
>> >not anyone elses.
>>
>> We've been here before. Probability has to do with populations, not
>> with you as an individual. You do something, you wind up either dead
>> or alive. No fractions. The coin comes down either heads or tails.
>> It doesn't matter what side it came down on the last ten flips.
>>
>> This is your life. Be careful. Enjoy. Select your risks.
>
> Point taken, but surely there is knowledge to be gained by subtracting
> the "stupid pilot tricks" from the total number of fatal accidents?

How often do you drive drunk?

How often do you drive 70MPH or wet or icy roads?

How often do you drive recklessly? Carelessly?...

[Jeff]

> Your probability is actually higher, just =because= you feel
> invulnerable. You think that you would =never= make a stupid mistake. Yet
> you have posted many stupid mistakes that you have made, some of which you
> realized and some of which you still don't.

He didn't say he would =never= make a stupid mistake, what he said is that
he strives to minimize his exposure to them. I've seen pilots drive up to
our local FBO, walk into the termina, get keys, go out to a rental C150, get
in, start up, taxi out (no runup) and do a mid-field departure (this is an
all-inclusive list). And I've seen this several times.

The results of that kind of behaviour is what Jay is able to avoid by taking
the precautions that he does. There's nothing wrong with the question. If
he (and I for that matter) want to see what our "chances" really are, then
I, for one, don't want to be included in the statistical analysis that
includes my impatient FBO customers that don't preflight, run-up or use all
the 4000ft runway. Because in my world, those three things aren't factors.

Does that mean that I won't die from an engine out or fuel starvation from
my own stupidity? No, but it does mean that I won't take-off with the
gustlocks installed or with detectable water in my fuel.

jf

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>> If you remove stupidity from one category, you'd have to remove
>> it from all of them. Then, you'd have a new piece of information,
>> the ratio of how many stupid idiots there are in each category.
>
> Well, true enough. But "stupid pilot tricks" are not usually fatal if
> they occur in a car.
>
> For example, running out of gas in your Subaru is an inconvenience.
> Running out of gas in your Cessna is probably going to bend metal -- or
> kill you.
>
> Squealing your tires in front of your girl friend's house might get you
> a ticket. Buzzing your girl friend's house might get you killed. And
> so on...
>
> I guess the point is that flying is far less forgiving of "stupid
> tricks" than driving. Extracting them from both sets of statistics
> therefore WON'T result in a straight line, equivalent change of fatal
> incidents.

But he's talking about removing only the stupid-drver-trick *accidents*, not
all the stupid drver tricks.

I suspect that if one removes all the fatal stupid-drver-trick accidents
from the record, one would have very few fatal accidents left.

This is not apples-to-apples, of course: in flying, one has less exposure to
risk of death from to the stupidity of other pilots than one does to the
stupidity of other drivers while driving.

Nevertheless, I believe you are making a grave error in attempting to
reassure yourself that you are beating the odds. Private GA flying is
dangerous; more dangerous than driving by two orders of magnitude, according
to the NTSB statistics you posted. That disparity is so huge I don't see
how you can convince yourself that you can reduce it to equality in your own
flying. If you do manage to believe this you are living in a dream world, a
dangerous place for a pilot.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[john smith]

> Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
> (I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
> girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?

If I got caught buzzing my girlfriend's house, it wouldn't be an
aviation fatality. My wife would murder me!

[Jose]

> ...If
> he (and I for that matter) want to see what our "chances" really are, then
> I, for one, don't want to be included in the statistical analysis that
> includes my impatient FBO customers that don't preflight, run-up or use all
> the 4000ft runway. ...

Well, if you are going to eliminate "stupid pilot tricks" from the
database of accidents, you also have to remove them from the database of
flights (stupid pilot tricks that did not result in a crash). To be
fair you should then eliminate all the flights where the pilot is =more=
careful or meticulous than Jay is. That changes the denominator also.

Then, you have to add back all the flights (and "stupid pilot tricks")
where the pilot didn't realize (like Jay) that what he's about to do,
just this time, is a stupid pilot trick.

Ultimately it's just a way of saying "I'm better than those loons" where
in fact, just saying that belies reality.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gary Drescher]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
> To be fair you should then eliminate all the flights where the pilot is
> =more= careful or meticulous than Jay is.

Yup, or where the pilot is far more experienced, has more-advanced
qualifications (instrument-current), or is flying a more hazard-resistant
aircraft (deicing, stormscope, TCAS) that is subject to a more-rigorous
inspection schedule for passenger-carrying operations, and so on. (GA
commercial or business flights have a much better safety record than
personal flying.)

On the other hand, I think there *is* a reasonable way to approximate the
calculation Jay is asking for. If we look at training flights, we find
(according to the Nall Report) a fatality rate that's about half the rate
for GA overall (whereas personal flying in general has a fatality rate
that's about 1.5 the rate for GA overall). And we find that lower rate even
though training flights have a high concentration of takeoffs, landings, and
low-altitude maneuvering (the most dangerous phases of flight). So the
fatality rate for training flights plausibly gives us a reasonable estimated
bound of the rate for especially conservative daytime VFR personal flying.
(It's still more dangerous than driving, though.)

--Gary

[John Gaquin]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>
>> Why would you want to?
>
> Because I'm interesting in *my* probability of dying in a plane crash,
> not anyone elses.
>
> Since I:
<snip a-n>

> ...I conclude that I may eliminate many of the "stupid pilot tricks"
> from my personal risk assessment.
>
> Trouble is, I don't know how to do that...

Your list is comprehensive and no doubt helpful, with the exception of items
D and E, which taken together I consider a net negative. Be that as it may,
you're doing a creditable job of reducing risk, and that in itself serves to
markedly reduce your risk, the theory being that if you personally take
responsibility for every phase of decision making, and you know that you can
greatly control the degree to which you screw up, then you can reduce your
risk to a very low point indeed. And keep it such for a long time.

Where the process breaks down is here: when you operate and fly, it is in a
world (GA) that offers you precious little backstop, as you try to reduce
your personal risk assessment to something akin to a commercial airline.
YOU (meaning you and/or Mary) monitor, manage, plan, fly, maintain
(throughsupervision), fuel, monitor, repair, and replace every aspect of
your plane and your flying, with some assistance from a mechanic, a fuel
guy, and perhaps some friends at the airport. When I was flying (or anyone
else in an airline environment) I had two other pilots in the cockpit with
me, or inspecting the plane for me, and we were all flying 12-17 days a
month; a loadmaster and cargo handling crew, or sometimes 5-15 FAs; a
dozen ramp people and mechanics working around the plane on every flight,
all of them - 30-35 people or more - keeping an eye out for anything that
didn't look right, plus ops planners, dispatchers, maintenance schedulers, a
training department, and a bunch of others behind the scenes all managing
this and a hundred other airplanes to make sure that when the plane was at
the gate, it was ready and in good shape to go, and that the pilots flying
it were as ready as they could be. And still there would be minor mistakes,
mechanical failures that delayed things, oversights, etc., usually none of
them serious, but there none the less.

It is this backstopping infrastructure that gives the airline environment
the safety record it enjoys. Its not just great pilots (although we'd all
like to take some credit :-))- its the whole show: if I overlooked
something, there were 2 other people looking over my shoulder in the
cockpit. If anyone anywhere in the process overlooked something, there were
always a number of other folks somewhere whose job included double checking
the first guy.

This is an environment that GA does not, and simply cannot, provide. The
bottom line is that when you fly, you're doing damn near everything
yourself, and in that environment, the probability of mistakes slipping
through will always be higher. You can reduce the risk through exceptional
vigilance, but imo you can never individually duplicate the type of safety
net that an airline provides.

The point is this: what can you do? and what will you do in response?
What is the real world benefit to you if you calculate that you can decrease
your fatality probability from 1 in 73,187 flights (GA) to 1 in 581,395
flights (scheduled 135)? How many total flights have you made up to now?
When will you likely reach 73,187? Even at an average 3 hours per flight
you'd have to log over 24,000 hours of GA flying to get close to that point.
Then what? Will you stop flying because the so-called "law of averages" is
now working against you?

The fact that you think of these things, and take steps to make your flying
as safe as you can means that you probably *are* making your flying as safe
as you can. You don't need to attach a probability number to that, because
it would be meaningless in real world terms. You're doing the best you can,
which is a hell of a lot better than most of your GA compatriots, judging by
the numbers you will undoubtedly beat.

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> ...I conclude that I may eliminate many of the "stupid pilot tricks"
> from my personal risk assessment.

Can you really? I recall one of your particular Sun-and-Fun return trip
write-ups (perhaps last year) that had a moment that could be classified as
a stupid pilot trick, namely continuing VFR into deteriorating weather and
scud running.

Here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/n3ptz

My point is simply to suggest that no matter the experience, we all have
engaged in some piloting behaviour that could be classified as a "stupid
pilot trick." To suggest that you can eliminate SPTs from your personal
risk assessment is ignoring that which you do seem to still possess in some
small degree.

Instead of admitting that types of accidents can be eliminated from my risk
assessment, I still use them to motivate me not to make them.

--
Peter

[Flyingmonk]

Since I haven't been up in the air for over a year now and driving much
much more, does this mean that I've ACTUALLY been taking more risk than
before? :-)

The Monk

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Gosh, I hate it when formating gets all screwed up like that. Let's
> try THIS:
>
> Which is safer flying or driving?
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> Airliner (Part 121) 0.019
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 52.6 million to 1
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> Automobile 0.130
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 7.6 million to 1
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> Commuter Airline (Part 135 scheduled) 1.72
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 581,395 to 1
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> Commuter Plane (Part 135 - Air taxi on demand) 6.10
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 163,934 to 1
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> General Aviation (Part 91) 13.3
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 73,187 to 1
>
> (Sources: NTSB Accidents and Accident Rates by NTSB Classification
> 1995-2004 DOT Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 1995- 2004
> Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.)
>
> It's pretty obvious that GA is the poor step-child of aviation.
>
> Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
> (I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
> girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Judah]

What are you saying? Are you going to start tracking how many times you
have flown, and when you reach the "magic number" you'll stop?

I don't think so.

I think the statistics you have posted provide much more information than
what is typically deduced on face value.

GA IS STATISTICALLY LESS SAFE THAN OTHER COMMON FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION.

Yes, but why is that?

The evidence would seem to be that the aviation industry, as compared with
the automotive industry, has drastically failed at its job of improving and
innovating with respect to flight safety in General Aviation. I think the
reason is because the FAA - the very body of Government that was
instantiated to promote safety in aviation - has left the GA industry in
the dust. Instead of working cooperatively with small airplane
manufacturers to promote safety through improved technology and innovation,
they have made it increasingly difficult to certify innovation and
technology. In fact, I suspect that most GA aircraft that are built today
are no safer than their counterparts from 50 years ago, about the same time
that the FAA came into existence. Most improvements have been in Avionics,
not in safety. The only discernable difference between a 1960s Beech
Bonanza and a 2006 model is the G1000 "Glass Cockpit". Woo hoo...

Think about, on the other hand, what the government, in cooperation with
automakers, has done to improve the Auto Accident statistics over the last
50 years. Fatalities in auto accidents have plummetted so far that auto
insurance companies are complaining that it costs them too much because
most people DON'T die in a car accidents - they were saved by a seatbelt,
airbag, or crumple zone. Improvements and enhancements are added to cars
every year, and while I suspect that overall accident rates haven't been
substantially reduced, most accidents that used to be fatal 50 years ago
are now survived.

The biggest safety innovation in GA aircraft over the last 50 years is the
Cirrus Parachute, which has had questions surrounding it since its
inception. And if I wanted to retrofit my non-cirrus aircraft to include
one, I would have to go through so much red tape with the FAA to do it
legally, I would be substantially safer, but only because I wouldn't be
able to afford to fly anymore afterward.

So every time I look at those statistics, I don't get scared, I get
annoyed.



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1145761631.226080.133800
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Gosh, I hate it when formating gets all screwed up like that. Let's
> try THIS:
>
> Which is safer flying or driving?
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> Airliner (Part 121) 0.019
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 52.6 million to 1
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> Automobile 0.130
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 7.6 million to 1
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> Commuter Airline (Part 135 scheduled) 1.72
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 581,395 to 1
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> Commuter Plane (Part 135 - Air taxi on demand) 6.10
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 163,934 to 1
>
> Fatalities per million trips
> General Aviation (Part 91) 13.3
> Odds of being killed on a single trip:
> 73,187 to 1
>
> (Sources: NTSB Accidents and Accident Rates by NTSB Classification
> 1995-2004 DOT Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 1995- 2004
> Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.)
>
> It's pretty obvious that GA is the poor step-child of aviation.
>
> Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
> (I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
> girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Judah]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1145762260.574792.162910
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

<snip>

> I guess the point is that flying is far less forgiving of "stupid
> tricks" than driving. Extracting them from both sets of statistics
> therefore WON'T result in a straight line, equivalent change of fatal
> incidents.

Yeah, but the point is also that flying is far less forgiving of _ANY_
exception than driving.

[Icebound]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Which is safer flying or driving?
>
> Fatalities per million trips Odds of being
> killed on a single trip:
> Airliner (Part 121) 0.019
> 52.6 million to 1
> Automobile 0.130
> 7.6 million to 1
> Commuter Airline (Part 135 scheduled) 1.72 581,395 to
> 1
> Commuter Plane (Part 135 - Air taxi on demand) 6.10 163,934 to 1
> General Aviation (Part 91) 13.3
> 73,187 to 1
>



Actually, Jay, it does not look that bad. There are a lot of GA accidents
that are not applicable to your envelope of operation, even BEFORE you take
out the stupidity factor.

I took a couple of hours and looked at the fatalities in the NTSB database
just for 2006 for GA and "non-commercial" operations.

The analysis is done by hand, and quickly, so there may be an error in the
count of a couple here or there but it is probably pretty close.

Of the total fatalities (130), there are probably less than 40 that apply to
the sort of flying that you claim to do. So you should be able to multiply
the safety probability by more than 4 (or reduce your risk by a factor of
more than 4.... maybe something closer to 300,000 to 1).



The "cause" categories, below, are strictly MY OWN inference based on the
factual or preliminary NTSB report, since none of these accidents have an
"official" cause determined as of yet. The categories are *exclusive"... no
fatality appears in more than one category... IE: an helicopter doing
photography will show up in "Helicopters" and NOT in "Low level work".


Total: 130

Helicopters: 23
IFR and IMC: 23
Probable VFR into IMC: 7
VFR at night: 8

Takeoff from unprepared surface: 1
Hand-propping: 1
Aerobatics involved immediately before: 5
Testing new aircraft/installation: 1
Low level "work" (spraying, photography, etc.): 11


Mid-air collision: 3
Training: 1
Non-work Low level manoeuvres/stupidity: 5

Engine failure: 8

Yet to be explained, Experimental: 3
Yet to be explained, certified: 16
Yet to be explained, large: 14 (3 accidents)

The last category, the 14 fatalities are the result of only 3 accidents
involving larger aircraft.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060208X00173&key=1 involved 6 in
a Beech 200 upon landing after a rather bizarre go-around.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060202X00149&key=1 involved 4 in
a Citation jet landing, and ,
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060203X00158&key=1 was 4 in a
business twin, also related to landing.

....and in spite of protestations from the group, IFR in IMC appears to be a
dangerous activity for GA.

[john smith]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> The biggest safety innovation in GA aircraft over the last 50 years is the
> Cirrus Parachute,

It is not a CIRRUS parachute, it is a Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS)
parachute. BRS has parachutes already designed and certified for
different makes/models of certified aircraft.

[Jose]

> Of the total fatalities (130), there are probably less than 40 that apply to
> the sort of flying that you claim to do. So you should be able to multiply
> the safety probability by more than 4 (or reduce your risk by a factor of
> more than 4.... maybe something closer to 300,000 to 1).

False.

You can't just change the numerator, you must also look at the
denominator - that is, you need to then remove all the non-accident
flights outside the envelope.

Simple example - assume that 10% of the pilots are female. There are
312 accidents, and they happen to be distributed 10% female, 90% male.

If you're female, are you really ten times safer because you can
discount the 90% of male accidents?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Icebound]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> Of the total fatalities (130), there are probably less than 40 that apply
>> to the sort of flying that you claim to do. So you should be able to
>> multiply the safety probability by more than 4 (or reduce your risk by a
>> factor of more than 4.... maybe something closer to 300,000 to 1).
>
> False.
>
> You can't just change the numerator, you must also look at the
> denominator -


C'mon... I'm trying to give the guy something to hang on to :-)!! Nobody
said this was a scientific study! :-)

Nevertheless, it may be "false", but not completely so.

Although I don't have the numbers..... it is a good bet that for many of
those "outside the envelope" categories ( IFR in IMC, helicopter, night
flights, aerobatics, hand-propping, etc.) the denominator is, in fact,
proportionately small relative to the total numbers "inside" the "basic"
Jay-type operations envelope.

[Jay Honeck]

> How often do you drive drunk?
>
> How often do you drive 70MPH or wet or icy roads?
>
> How often do you drive recklessly? Carelessly?...

Uh, never.

What's your point?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> >e) Never fly at night
>
> You're missing some great views.

I know. But it's one aspect of risk that Mary and I have agreed is
easily avoidable. Once the kids are on their own, we'll go back to
night flying, I'm sure.

> I'm with you on the rest, except maybe the IFR part, once I'm
> instrument rated. To me there's IFR, and there's _IFR_.

IFR flight is MUCH more dangerous than VFR flight. The statistics of
single-pilot IFR flight are quite appalling, and have kept Richard
Collins (of Flying Magazine) in a job for forty years.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Your list is comprehensive and no doubt helpful, with the exception of items
> D and E, which taken together I consider a net negative.

Interesting that you would say that, John. Why is not flying IFR, and
not flying at night "taken together a net negative"?


> The point is this: what can you do? and what will you do in response?
> What is the real world benefit to you if you calculate that you can decrease
> your fatality probability from 1 in 73,187 flights (GA) to 1 in 581,395
> flights (scheduled 135)?

There is no real world benefit -- it's an intellectual exercise. I
would continue to fly regardless of the risk -- but one of my family
members has inquired, and I would like to be able to share some real
numbers with her.

Preferably, I would like to share numbers that include: "If you don't
fly drunk, the statisics improve to 'x'..." ,or, "If you don't run out
of gas, the statistics improve to 'Y'..."

Unfortunately, there seems to be no scientific way to arrive at an
answer. (Which, if you think about it, is really quite amazing. What
the hell do we pay all those FAA bureaucrats to DO all day, anyway?)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > ...I conclude that I may eliminate many of the "stupid pilot tricks"
> > from my personal risk assessment.
>
> Can you really? I recall one of your particular Sun-and-Fun return trip
> write-ups (perhaps last year) that had a moment that could be classified as
> a stupid pilot trick, namely continuing VFR into deteriorating weather and
> scud running.

Um, if you actually READ my account, we performed a 180 and landed the
plane. I believe this is the prescribed procedure to follow when one
runs into deteriorating weather?

> Instead of admitting that types of accidents can be eliminated from my risk
> assessment, I still use them to motivate me not to make them.

That is obvious, and goes without saying. Any other reading of my
"eliminating them from my personal risk assessment" is a
misconstruction of my intent.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> How often do you drive drunk?
>>
>> How often do you drive 70MPH or wet or icy roads?
>>
>> How often do you drive recklessly? Carelessly?...
>
> Uh, never.
>
> What's your point?

I believe his point is that the auto statistics include those behaviors as
well. If you're going to adjust the aviation statistics to exclude stuff
you don't do, you have to adjust the auto statistics to exclude stuff you
don't do. Otherwise, the two numbers aren't comparable.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> Nevertheless, I believe you are making a grave error in attempting to
> reassure yourself that you are beating the odds. Private GA flying is
> dangerous; more dangerous than driving by two orders of magnitude, according
> to the NTSB statistics you posted. That disparity is so huge I don't see
> how you can convince yourself that you can reduce it to equality in your own
> flying. If you do manage to believe this you are living in a dream world, a
> dangerous place for a pilot.

I never said ANYTHING about wanting to reduce my risk to that of
driving. In fact, I am already more than satisifed that flying is as
safe as I can make it, and worth the risk. I wouldn't commit aviation
over 100 times per year if I thought it weren't worth the risks.

But I would like to extract, if possible, all the stupid stuff that I
don't, won't or can't do from the accident statistics. Unfortunately,
there appears to be no way to do that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> If you're female, are you really ten times safer because you can
> discount the 90% of male accidents?

Mary would say "YES!"...

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> How often do you drive drunk?
>>
>> How often do you drive 70MPH or wet or icy roads?
>>
>> How often do you drive recklessly? Carelessly?...
>
> Uh, never.
>
> What's your point?

The point is if you're trying to ascertain _your_ risk factor, you must
compare apples and oranges...both on the ground and in the air.

Your risk factor is higher (VFR only, recreastion/personal flying) and your
automobile risk factors are lower. Using general statistics won't help YOU
because you're outside the generalities that the accident stats are
picturing.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> >e) Never fly at night
>>
>> You're missing some great views.
>
> I know. But it's one aspect of risk that Mary and I have agreed is
> easily avoidable. Once the kids are on their own, we'll go back to
> night flying, I'm sure.
>
>> I'm with you on the rest, except maybe the IFR part, once I'm
>> instrument rated. To me there's IFR, and there's _IFR_.
>
> IFR flight is MUCH more dangerous than VFR flight. The statistics of
> single-pilot IFR flight are quite appalling, and have kept Richard
> Collins (of Flying Magazine) in a job for forty years.

It's not IFR flying that's dangerous, but the conditions under which those
flights are conducted.

Geez, Jay, every airline flight is conducted under IFR...

[Jay Honeck]

> > IFR flight is MUCH more dangerous than VFR flight. The statistics of
> > single-pilot IFR flight are quite appalling, and have kept Richard
> > Collins (of Flying Magazine) in a job for forty years.
>
> It's not IFR flying that's dangerous, but the conditions under which those
> flights are conducted.
>
> Geez, Jay, every airline flight is conducted under IFR...

Duh, Matt -- we're not talking about the airlines here. We're talking
about Spam Can IFR flight, which by any statistical measure remains
light years more dangerous than day VFR flight.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Um, if you actually READ my account, we performed a 180 and landed the
> plane.

If I hadn't READ the original story, that anecdote wouldn't have popped
into my mind when enjoying your latest thread, no? Actually, I thought you
would have been slightly impressed with the fact that some drop in the
Usenet ocean actually remembered a two year-old story of yours.

> I believe this is the prescribed procedure to follow when one
> runs into deteriorating weather?

In any case, flying at 700 feet *prior* to your 180 was the act to which I
was referring. With the literal explosion of 1,000+ foot digital towers
going up around the country, were you were absolutely certain that the
particular area in which you were scud running was clear of these obstacles
before dropping down to that altitude?

Are you implying that prior to embarking on your return trip, you checked
the VFR chart notams for that lengthy route, from Florida to Iowa, in the
event you needed to drop below a 1,000 ft ceiling in low visibility
somewhere along the way? Was your wife in the right seat following your
exact route on the VFR sectional chart to ensure your continued clearance
of all charted objects? If you really did that then I *sincerely* am
impressed with the thoroughness of your VFR flight planning skills and your
cockpit resource management skills.

However, if not, then dropping below a lowering ceiling in low visibility
over an unfamiliar area certainly would be classified as an SPT, regardless
of the outcome.

--
Peter

[John Gaquin]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message

>> Your list is comprehensive and no doubt helpful, with the exception of
>> items
>> D and E, which taken together I consider a net negative.
>
> Interesting that you would say that, John. Why is not flying IFR, and
> not flying at night "taken together a net negative"?

Because by eschewing night and IFR/IMC operations you exempt yourself from
two-thirds of the operational environmental exposure that will, by
contributiing to your overall broad base of experience, help to prevent you
from making one of those "stupid pilot tricks". Nothing to go crazy over --
I just think you'd likely be a better all-around aviator with night and
instrument experience. I will acknowledge, however, that unless you are
likely to fly regularly in the IFR system, your policy may well be best. A
rusty instrument pilot who doesn't realize it is a dangerous thing indeed.
I'm forming opinions from a pov where IFR ops were so normal that somewhat
reduced viz and relatively mild wx systems were really non-events.

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> Hell, what's the rate for auto trips versus walking to the store? :~)


A fatality to that one person in America, who still walks to the store,
would skew the numbers as dramatically as the one fatal accident in the
super-safe Concorde program.

http://www.concordesst.com/accident/accidentindex.html
The web page is titled "Accident" .....(singular).


Montblack

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-24, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> IFR flight is MUCH more dangerous than VFR flight. The statistics of
> single-pilot IFR flight are quite appalling, and have kept Richard
> Collins (of Flying Magazine) in a job for forty years.

It depends on sector. Business GA flying (not corporate, but someone
flying their personal C182 somewhere on business) seems to have a much
better safety record than pleasure GA flying - despite the added 'get
there itis' factors that business GA will undoubtedly entail (and the
amount of IFR that business GA would also entail).

The difference between the business flyer of a light GA plane and the
pleasure flyer, someone going on a trip every so often for vacations or
whatever - is probably the business flyer is a LOT more current on IFR
procedures than the pleasure IFR flyer. With VFR, you can get away with
a bit of uncurrency - scraping the rust off isn't that hard, and you can
probably do it without hurting yourself. But someone barely IFR current
going out on a high workload IFR trip is another matter entirely.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...

>
> The difference between the business flyer of a light GA plane and the
> pleasure flyer, someone going on a trip every so often for vacations or
> whatever - is probably the business flyer is a LOT more current on IFR
> procedures than the pleasure IFR flyer.


This ia an excellent point. I'd like to see the data on accident:last flight
for GA.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> The difference between the business flyer of a light GA plane and the
>> pleasure flyer, someone going on a trip every so often for vacations or
>> whatever - is probably the business flyer is a LOT more current on IFR
>> procedures than the pleasure IFR flyer.
>
>
> This ia an excellent point. I'd like to see the data on accident:last
> flight for GA.
Pick a bunch from the NTSB reports; you'll find that many (most ?) had the
pilot not maintained currency, frequently by substantial margins. Not only
is it a blunder in maintaining control, but even worse, dealing with
equipment failures.

How much of the problem of single pilot IFR is matter of workload? Minimum
equipment for IFR is still a massive task when handled alone. How about
antiquated equipment (ie, a King 105 vs a 155 with flip-flop frequencies)?
Lack of at least (or knowing how to properly operate) even a simple
autopilot?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Better than that, actually, I had a huge, color moving-map GPS
> stationed front and center, that showed the precise location of every
> obstruction along my route of flight.

you do NOT want to know how many obstructions are not listed or
are listed in the wrong place.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Marco Leon]

Jay, I think Matt was differentiating IFR versus IMC. I fly IFR much more
than I do VFR but I fly in VMC much more than I do IMC.

Back to you original post, I too have thought about how to extrapolate the
stupid pilot tricks and careless pilots out of the equation. I've come to
the conclusion that it's too subjective to get a reliable statistic. What
dangerous to one pilot may be routine for another. You can get dizzy if you
over-analyze the myriad of risk vs. reward factors that come into play on
any given flight.

What's interesting about the stats that you posted is that pilots occupy the
extremes at both ends. The next question a safety-concious pilot must ask is
how can they emulate the Part 121 pilots (in terms of training and to a
lesser extent equipment) as much a possible while still retaining the joy of
flight. That answer, like how people fly, will be different for each pilot.

Although I don't play a lot, the game of Poker can teach some real-life
strategies in that you try and acquire the best hand you can possibly get.
Then you just have to go with what you got.

Marco







"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > > IFR flight is MUCH more dangerous than VFR flight. The statistics of
> > > single-pilot IFR flight are quite appalling, and have kept Richard
> > > Collins (of Flying Magazine) in a job for forty years.
> >
> > It's not IFR flying that's dangerous, but the conditions under which
those
> > flights are conducted.
> >
> > Geez, Jay, every airline flight is conducted under IFR...
>
> Duh, Matt -- we're not talking about the airlines here. We're talking
> about Spam Can IFR flight, which by any statistical measure remains
> light years more dangerous than day VFR flight.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>



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

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> Better than that, actually, I had a huge, color moving-map GPS
>> stationed front and center, that showed the precise location of every
>> obstruction along my route of flight.
>
> you do NOT want to know how many obstructions are not listed or
> are listed in the wrong place.
>
Or how many it doesn't list because they are < 700 AGL.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > > IFR flight is MUCH more dangerous than VFR flight. The statistics of
> > > single-pilot IFR flight are quite appalling, and have kept Richard
> > > Collins (of Flying Magazine) in a job for forty years.
> >
> > It's not IFR flying that's dangerous, but the conditions under which
those
> > flights are conducted.
> >
> > Geez, Jay, every airline flight is conducted under IFR...
>
> Duh, Matt -- we're not talking about the airlines here. We're talking
> about Spam Can IFR flight, which by any statistical measure remains
> light years more dangerous than day VFR flight.

Quite, but the y way you put it you lump them together.

Naturally IMC is more dangerous, just like driving in a blizzard is more
dangerous than a clear summer day.

The crux is that single pilot IFR is more dangerous that dual due to
WORKLOAD. As has been pointed out, contrast BusAv, CommercialAv and Air Taxi
with recreational DAY VFR.

If it's safety you're after, don't fly recreationally. If you need to fly
UFR, as many of us do to make a business (those who fly for business
purposes) go, the big difference is CURRENCY.

BTW, from what I see (and someone can poop on me it they can show otherwise)
the big killer in Single pilot IFR is flying into conditions (ie, T-storms)
that possibly a second pilot may balk at. IN dual pilot, the situation is
often commercially related so it's highly unlikely the pilot hasn't flown in
four, five six months, or in IMC in over a year.


--
Matt
---------------------
1400 hrs single pilot IFR (<90 in IMC) and still kicking....so far.

[Matt Barrow]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> Jay, I think Matt was differentiating IFR versus IMC. I fly IFR much more
> than I do VFR but I fly in VMC much more than I do IMC.

Likewise.

Out here in the west, "where the skies are not cloudy all day", IMC is a
rarity.

In the past seven years (other than my current forced _break_) , my longest
"respite" from flying was nine days. Even during our "off season", it's
never been more than nine days.

One thing I find striking about the NTSB reports is two big factors; 1) the
pilot hadn't flown IMC in several months, or, 2) single pilot flew right
into a T-Cell.

Training and Currency.

BTW, for me, IMC means autopilot on or Flight Director at the least. How
many "spam cans", as Jay puts it, have an AP/FD arrangement. If what I get
from my browsing from the accident reports is even fairly accurate, it's
very few.

IFR into IMC in a 172 or Archer without those is a accident waiting to
happen, EVEN IF IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL.

> Back to you original post, I too have thought about how to extrapolate the
> stupid pilot tricks and careless pilots out of the equation. I've come to
> the conclusion that it's too subjective to get a reliable statistic. What
> dangerous to one pilot may be routine for another.

1) Training
2) Recurrent Training
3) Currency
4) equipment (workload).

>You can get dizzy if you
> over-analyze the myriad of risk vs. reward factors that come into play on
> any given flight.
>
> What's interesting about the stats that you posted is that pilots occupy
> the
> extremes at both ends. The next question a safety-concious pilot must ask
> is
> how can they emulate the Part 121 pilots (in terms of training and to a
> lesser extent equipment) as much a possible while still retaining the joy
> of
> flight. That answer, like how people fly, will be different for each
> pilot.

Ah, the old "training" factor. How many pilots seldom, if ever, take
recurrent trainign after they get their private ticket or IR?

> Although I don't play a lot, the game of Poker can teach some real-life
> strategies in that you try and acquire the best hand you can possibly get.
> Then you just have to go with what you got.

And knowing when to fold (stand down).


>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> > > IFR flight is MUCH more dangerous than VFR flight. The statistics of
>> > > single-pilot IFR flight are quite appalling, and have kept Richard
>> > > Collins (of Flying Magazine) in a job for forty years.
>> >
>> > It's not IFR flying that's dangerous, but the conditions under which
> those
>> > flights are conducted.
>> >
>> > Geez, Jay, every airline flight is conducted under IFR...
>>
>> Duh, Matt -- we're not talking about the airlines here. We're talking
>> about Spam Can IFR flight, which by any statistical measure remains
>> light years more dangerous than day VFR flight.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

[Jose]

> I had a huge, color moving-map GPS
> stationed front and center, that showed the precise location of every
> obstruction along my route of flight.

No, it just had the location of every obstruction in the database. And
there are probably errors, but I can't prove it.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
[snips]
> Out here in the west, "where the skies are not cloudy all day", IMC is a
> rarity.

> One thing I find striking about the NTSB reports is two big factors; 1)
> the pilot hadn't flown IMC in several months, or, 2) single pilot flew
> right into a T-Cell.

> IFR into IMC in a 172 or Archer without those is a accident waiting to
> happen, EVEN IF IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL.


Do you think having Strikefinder/Stormscope/XM Weather would reduce many
pilots' overall (weather related) risk a SIGNIFICANT amount?

....or does the human factor TRUMP all?

http://www.2pi.com/les/flying/ss.html
Mooney mailing list discussion:

http://www.avionicswest.com/stormsco.html
Strikefinder and Stormscope from Google

http://www.anywheremap.com/aviation-weather.aspx/
An XM Weather link


Montblack

[John Ousterhout]

Certainly avoiding many of the SPTs will greatly increase your safety.

Sadly, many of those who crashed in a SPT were respected by their
fellows as a good and careful pilot who never did SPTs. It makes one wonder.

So while those who regularly perform SPTs are more likely to crash, it
appears that any pilot can suffer a "brain fart" and do an SPT. For
some it's the first and last time.

http://www.cyberair.tv/tower/faa/jtm/student/content.html
I found this on the net a few years ago and used it for a report about
Pilot Judgment for my EAA Chapter. Even though it's titled "Judgment
Training Manual for Student Pilots" I believe that a review of the
material would be useful to any pilot.


"Don't just do something, sit there!"

- John Ousterhout -



Jay Honeck wrote:
> Since I:
>
> a) Usually fly with two pilots on board
> b) Have a well-oiled cockpit resource management scheme in place
> c) Always top off the tanks after each flight
> d) Never fly IFR
> e) Never fly at night
> f) Never "buzz" anyone's house
> g) Never skip a pre-flight inspection
> h) Personally supervise the maintenance of my plane
> i) Don't let anyone else fly my plane
> j) Rarely fly in mountains
> k) Fly twice per week, on average
> l) Maintain excellent health
> m) Don't "skate" on maintenance
> n) Keep the plane in a locked hangar
>
> ...I conclude that I may eliminate many of the "stupid pilot tricks"
> from my personal risk assessment.
>
> Trouble is, I don't know how to do that...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[john smith]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > The difference between the business flyer of a light GA plane and the
> > pleasure flyer, someone going on a trip every so often for vacations or
> > whatever - is probably the business flyer is a LOT more current on IFR
> > procedures than the pleasure IFR flyer.

> This ia an excellent point. I'd like to see the data on accident:last flight
> for GA.

Probablly not as much as you might think. The "pleasure" IFR pilot
is/may be more cognizant of his limitations and might be more cautious
about venturing into "hard" IFR.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Better than that, actually, I had a huge, color moving-map GPS
> > stationed front and center, that showed the precise location of every
> > obstruction along my route of flight.
>
> you do NOT want to know how many obstructions are not listed or
> are listed in the wrong place.

I have found the obstruction databases in both of our moving map GPS's
(AvMap EKP IIIc and Lowrance 2000c) to be remarkable -- almost eerily
-- accurate. I'm sure they're missing some, but, wow, I would NOT want
to be without this remarkable tool.

And, of course, it's not like we're flying around with our heads down
all the time. Yet another advantage of having two pilots up front is
that one is always looking outside.

And before ANYONE gets the mistaken notion, no, I'm not advocating scud
running.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Better than that, actually, I had a huge, color moving-map GPS
> stationed front and center, that showed the precise location of every
> obstruction along my route of flight.

What is the update cycle is on a handheld GPS? Who provides the data?

--
Peter

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:36:29 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote:

>Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>> Better than that, actually, I had a huge, color moving-map GPS
>> stationed front and center, that showed the precise location of every
>> obstruction along my route of flight.
>
>What is the update cycle is on a handheld GPS? Who provides the data?

For that matter, what's the *obstacle* update cycle for an IFR panel
mounted GPS? My G1000 cards don't seem to be updated more frequently
than the G1000 software, which seems to run every 6-8 months.

[Judah]

john smith > wrote in
news:jsmith-D8F282.18555023042006@network-065-024-007-
027.columbus.rr.com:

> In article >,
> Judah > wrote:
>
>> The biggest safety innovation in GA aircraft over the last 50 years
>> is the Cirrus Parachute,
>
> It is not a CIRRUS parachute, it is a Ballistic Recovery Systems(BRS)
> parachute. BRS has parachutes already designed and certified for
> different makes/models of certified aircraft.

True, but let's look deeper...

If you want to buy a BRS Parachute System for an Ultralight Aircraft,
thereby not requiring certification or FAA approval, you can buy one
for
as little as $2,200. As you watch the price increase, the price
difference from a 600lb model to an 1800lb model is about equal to
(just
slightly higher than) the increase in weight - about 300%.

Now go from that to the Cessna models, which run $16k and $17k...

2250lbs / 600lbs = 375%, but $15,995 / $2,495 = 640%!
3100lbs / 1050lbs = 295%, but $16,995 / $3,495 = 486%!
3100lbs / 1600lbs = 194%, but $16,995 / $4,095 = 415%!

Basically, the ratios are nearly double for certified systems.

Now why do you think that is? Do you think it's because the systems are
safer when they are put on a Cessna, or do you think it's because of
the
cost of all the red tape required to get the thing certified by the
FAA?


Frankly, I think the BRS is about the only innovative safety system out
there, and it's obvious why...

[Grumman-581]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> Frankly, I think the BRS is about the only innovative safety system out
> there, and it's obvious why...

One has to wonder if perhaps it would be cheaper to just supply all of the
occupants in the aircraft with a parachute... Quick Google search brough up
prices anywhere from $900-$3000... Maybe for skydivers, the $3000 one might
give them a certain advantage, but I suspect the $900 one would be perfectly
good for getting your butt to the ground with minimal injuries... I'm just
not so sure about whether I can get out of the plane, deploy the chute and
survive from the 300 ft that the BRS chute claims is their minimum
activation altitude...

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
>>>(I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
>>>girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?
>>
>>Why would you want to?
>
>
> Because I'm interesting in *my* probability of dying in a plane crash,
> not anyone elses.
>
> Since I:
>
> a) Usually fly with two pilots on board
> b) Have a well-oiled cockpit resource management scheme in place
> c) Always top off the tanks after each flight
> d) Never fly IFR
> e) Never fly at night
> f) Never "buzz" anyone's house
> g) Never skip a pre-flight inspection
> h) Personally supervise the maintenance of my plane
> i) Don't let anyone else fly my plane
> j) Rarely fly in mountains
> k) Fly twice per week, on average
> l) Maintain excellent health
> m) Don't "skate" on maintenance
> n) Keep the plane in a locked hangar

Make sure you add don't fly in marginal weather, near(within 20 miles)
of convective weather.
>
> ...I conclude that I may eliminate many of the "stupid pilot tricks"
> from my personal risk assessment.
>
> Trouble is, I don't know how to do that...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Grumman-581]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> And before ANYONE gets the mistaken notion, no, I'm not advocating scud
> running.

I've scud run from New Orleans to Houston before... Flying across the swamps
at a maximum of 500 ft and even had someone cross underneath me... At one
point, was flying a pretty good portion of it at 200 ft... Great view of the
swamps... It's all in what you get used to... Flying around the MSY
airspace, one flies that low over Lake Pontchartrain slightly offshore in
order to skirt the Class-B... Yeah, if you loose and engine, you're going to
go down, but I've been at 10,000 ft and didn't relish the potential for
losing an engine over that terrain either...

[Private]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > Does anyone know how to extract the "stupid pilot trick" fatalities
>> > (I.E.: Running out of gas; Flying into terrain; Buzzing your
>> > girlfriend's house; etc.) from this statistic?
>>
>> Why would you want to?
>
> Because I'm interesting in *my* probability of dying in a plane crash,
> not anyone elses.
>
> Since I:
>
> a) Usually fly with two pilots on board
> b) Have a well-oiled cockpit resource management scheme in place
> c) Always top off the tanks after each flight
> d) Never fly IFR
> e) Never fly at night
> f) Never "buzz" anyone's house
> g) Never skip a pre-flight inspection
> h) Personally supervise the maintenance of my plane
> i) Don't let anyone else fly my plane
> j) Rarely fly in mountains
> k) Fly twice per week, on average
> l) Maintain excellent health
> m) Don't "skate" on maintenance
> n) Keep the plane in a locked hangar
>
> ...I conclude that I may eliminate many of the "stupid pilot tricks"
> from my personal risk assessment.
>
> Trouble is, I don't know how to do that...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I think that your question proves that you are at least thinking about your
safety and risk management which is good (and more than many do). However I
suggest that it might be more useful to concentrate on our personal risk
management rather than attempting a quantified personal risk assessment.

I think that we will agree with the NTSB that most aircraft accidents are
due to pilot error and I would submit that a large portion of those errors
are due to human factors that (being human) we all have to some degree. In
this case suggesting that you are not likely to commit SPT seems to be
indicative of what in human factors training is an example of the hazardous
thought pattern of 'invulnerability'. It is akin to 'it can't happen to
me', and while it may provide us with some comfort I would suggest that it
is the false 'fat, dumb and happy' feeling that comes just before 'oh oh'
and 'oh ****'.

While I am sure that you learned a great deal from your SNF trip I think you
must agree that sections of your trip story were starting to read like an
accident report. We always say that an accident is usually the result of a
cascading chain of events and our task as pilots is to break the chain as
early as possible. I would submit that in this discussion the way to break
the first link in this chain is to admit to ourselves that we are all
capable of SPT.

Here in Canada human factors training is required as part of the PPL, CPL
and the ATPL ground training and I suspect is also required in the US. In
an earlier post John Ousterhout provided a link to a website that seems to
have some very good material http://www.cyberair.tv/tower/faa/jtm/index.html
Transport Canada publishes two excellent books 'Human Factors for Aviation'
'Basic Handbook TP12863E' and 'Advanced Handbook TP12864E' which are the
texts usually used for ground instruction, there is also an instructors
guide but I do not have the cat#. Unfortunately TC is not as enlightened as
the FAA and AFAIK these manuals are not available on the net as our cheap
government expects us to buy them in paper form. While looking for a link
on the TC site I did stumble on this which may be of some interest
http://www.transportcanada.ca/CivilAviation/general/Flttrain/SMS/Toolkit/PartIII/human.htm
http://www.transportcanada.ca/CivilAviation/general/Flttrain/SMS/Toolkit/PartIII/menu.htm

I would respectfully suggest that you add human factors to your personal
recurrent training program. Like Pogo said "We have seen the enemy and it
is us."

Happy landings,

[Morgans]

"john smith" > wrote

> Probablly not as much as you might think. The "pleasure" IFR pilot
> is/may be more cognizant of his limitations and might be more cautious
> about venturing into "hard" IFR.

Yes, most are cautious, but it only takes a few that are not.
Unfortunately, the NTSB reports are full of the few that are not afraid, and
get in way over their heads, and pay for it with their lives.
--
Jim in NC

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-24, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> BTW, for me, IMC means autopilot on or Flight Director at the least. How
> many "spam cans", as Jay puts it, have an AP/FD arrangement. If what I get
> from my browsing from the accident reports is even fairly accurate, it's
> very few.
>
> IFR into IMC in a 172 or Archer without those is a accident waiting to
> happen, EVEN IF IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL.

I don't think it's THAT extreme (however, some kind of lightning
detection in many parts of the world is almost always necessary. A
Strikefinder might not be good enough to thread the needle between
T-storms but at least you know it's there and don't just go blundering
into it; these devices are good for strategic planning).

The thing is a C172 is very stable and extremely easy to fly in IMC.
It's not like trying to fly a Baron with no autopilot and no flight
director in IMC. A _current_ pilot in a C172 who flies IMC often just
shouldn't have a problem - trimmed out, a properly rigged C172 flies
itself. It just isn't hard (unless you start overcontrolling because
you're spatially disoriented - but someone who gets wound up enough to
lose control of a C172 will probably still lose control with a flight
director).

The most intense flights I've had were in low IFR in a Beech Bonanza on
a moderately bumpy day - single pilot (I was the only occupant). I was
very IFR current at the time. I dread to think what it would have been
like to make those flights without plenty of recent IMC flight.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-24, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I have found the obstruction databases in both of our moving map GPS's
> (AvMap EKP IIIc and Lowrance 2000c) to be remarkable -- almost eerily
> -- accurate. I'm sure they're missing some, but, wow, I would NOT want
> to be without this remarkable tool.

Even so, just in case - if I found myself in a situation where things
had turned to a scud run, it's a good idea to:

- slow down (gives you more time to see obstructions)
- don't fly on the base of the clouds

This second one sounds a bit counter-intuitive (after all, if you do
that, you'll be the furthest away you can be from the ground, right?) -
but the visibility is often MUCH better if you fly lower. Sparky Imeson
in his mountain flying website recommends flying in the lower third of
the air (divide the space between terror firma and the clouds into
thirds, and fly in the lower third). But I shudder at the idea of scud
running in the mountains.

Incidentally, on the general subject of stupid pilot tricks, I've made
my fair share and had a few flights that read like the start of an
accident report (and I still shudder about some of them - even if I
didn't at the time, and even if so far I've been able to put them all
down to experience having merely got a fright and never bending a plane).
I have around 1200 hours in light planes - anyone
with this amount of flight time who says they have never made a stupid
pilot trick were either with the airlines ab-initio (and probably made
the SPT in the simulator) or are lying, or are so unaware they haven't
even realised that they've made some SPTs and just got lucky (and are
probably even now looking for that grid reference).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dan Luke]

"Margy Natalie" wrote:

>
> Make sure you add don't fly ...(within 20 miles) of convective weather.

A nice rule, but down here in Thunderstorm Alley it would keep you on the
ground a lot.

http://www.weatherpages.com/variety/thunderstorms.html

Where CBs are an almost daily event 5 months of the year, one has to be a
bit more discriminating about what constitutes a really dangerous storm, or
one's flying will be severely restricted.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[B A R R Y]

Grumman-581 wrote:

>
> I've scud run from New Orleans to Houston before... Flying across the swamps
> at a maximum of 500 ft and even had someone cross underneath me... At one
> point, was flying a pretty good portion of it at 200 ft...

No cell towers around? =8^(

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> > Better than that, actually, I had a huge, color moving-map GPS
>> > stationed front and center, that showed the precise location of every
>> > obstruction along my route of flight.
>>
>> you do NOT want to know how many obstructions are not listed or
>> are listed in the wrong place.
>
> I have found the obstruction databases in both of our moving map GPS's
> (AvMap EKP IIIc and Lowrance 2000c) to be remarkable -- almost eerily
> -- accurate. I'm sure they're missing some, but, wow, I would NOT want
> to be without this remarkable tool.

Tool for what? How useful is an obstruction database that is almost
accurate?

I have the same db in my 396: it is impressive, in a gee-wiz sort of way,
but undependable.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Grumman-581]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. com...
> No cell towers around? =8^(

In the middle of a ****in' swamp? Nawh, not likely...

[Dan Luke]

"John Ousterhout" wrote:

> Certainly avoiding many of the SPTs will greatly increase your safety.
>
> Sadly, many of those who crashed in a SPT were respected by their fellows
> as a good and careful pilot who never did SPTs. It makes one wonder.
>
> So while those who regularly perform SPTs are more likely to crash, it
> appears that any pilot can suffer a "brain fart" and do an SPT. For some
> it's the first and last time.

Bingo.

Ever met a pilot who didn't think he or she was cautious and prudent about
flying?

Private GA flying is dangerous. Period. Anyone who convinces himself
otherwise is engaging in self deception, and is thereby increasing his risk
level.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Grumman-581]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> Private GA flying is dangerous. Period. Anyone who convinces himself
> otherwise is engaging in self deception, and is thereby increasing his
risk
> level.

Awh 'ell... Just being alive is dangerous... If you don't watch out, sooner
or later, ya' gonna die... Of all the things I've done in life, flyin is
probably one of the safer things... The number of bones I've broken from it
are considerably less than I have broken from other endeavors (e.g.
motorcycles)...

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> > I have found the obstruction databases in both of our moving map GPS's
> > (AvMap EKP IIIc and Lowrance 2000c) to be remarkable -- almost eerily
> > -- accurate. I'm sure they're missing some, but, wow, I would NOT want
> > to be without this remarkable tool.
>
> Tool for what? How useful is an obstruction database that is almost
> accurate?
>
> I have the same db in my 396: it is impressive, in a gee-wiz sort of way,
> but undependable.

I wouldn't say it's undependable--it's fairly accurate in my experience,
assuming that you keep it up to date. I'll leave it to your imagination
as to how many users actually keep it up to date.

Would I want to fly along at 500 or 1000 AGL and depend on the database
to keep me from smashing into something? Absolutely not. But it's a
great tool to use in terminal areas and around airports to supplement a
visual scan. It enhances safety--it makes you safer--only if you don't
try to replace your visual scan duty as a pilot with an electronic gizmo.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> Ever met a pilot who didn't think he or she was cautious and prudent about
> flying?
>
> Private GA flying is dangerous. Period. Anyone who convinces himself
> otherwise is engaging in self deception, and is thereby increasing his risk
> level.

Just about everything is dangerous--that's not the issue. Driving a car
on the highway is certainly dangerous. The real issue is risk
management, which involves quality training and disciplined, continuous
practice in order to mitigate risk to an acceptable level.

The problem with pilots who engage in risky activity is very similar to
the problem with teenage drivers who engage in risky activity--they both
believe that their skill level is beyond what it actually is, and they
have the confidence to prove it.

By and large, I have a greater degree of control over the risks involved
with flying an airplane than I do with the risks involved in driving a
car on the highway. I take steps to mitigate the risks in aviation and,
as a result, I do indeed believe that I'm generally safer in the
airplane than in the car.



JKG

[Matt Barrow]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> [snips]
>> Out here in the west, "where the skies are not cloudy all day", IMC is a
>> rarity.
>
>> One thing I find striking about the NTSB reports is two big factors; 1)
>> the pilot hadn't flown IMC in several months, or, 2) single pilot flew
>> right into a T-Cell.
>
>> IFR into IMC in a 172 or Archer without those is a accident waiting to
>> happen, EVEN IF IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL.
>
>
> Do you think having Strikefinder/Stormscope/XM Weather would reduce many
> pilots' overall (weather related) risk a SIGNIFICANT amount?
>
> ...or does the human factor TRUMP all?

The SF/SS helps, certainly. Better yet is SF/SS and NEXRAD downlink. A
non-current and/or poor trained pilot is a menace to themself and everything
in the air (birds, too).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margy Natalie" wrote:
>
>>
>> Make sure you add don't fly ...(within 20 miles) of convective weather.
>
> A nice rule, but down here in Thunderstorm Alley it would keep you on the
> ground a lot.
>
> http://www.weatherpages.com/variety/thunderstorms.html
>
> Where CBs are an almost daily event 5 months of the year, one has to be a
> bit more discriminating about what constitutes a really dangerous storm,
> or one's flying will be severely restricted.

Average of 79 days a year? All day? Static?

Not even a 20 mile gap?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Longworth]

Peter R. wrote:

> What is the update cycle is on a handheld GPS? Who provides the data?
>

My Lowrance Airmap 100 uses Jeppesen database with 28 day cycle.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-04-24, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>> BTW, for me, IMC means autopilot on or Flight Director at the least. How
>> many "spam cans", as Jay puts it, have an AP/FD arrangement. If what I
>> get
>> from my browsing from the accident reports is even fairly accurate, it's
>> very few.
>>
>> IFR into IMC in a 172 or Archer without those is a accident waiting to
>> happen, EVEN IF IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL.
>
> I don't think it's THAT extreme (however, some kind of lightning
> detection in many parts of the world is almost always necessary. A
> Strikefinder might not be good enough to thread the needle between
> T-storms but at least you know it's there and don't just go blundering
> into it; these devices are good for strategic planning).

I'm not speaking of T-Storms, but just IMC. I once flew from Houston to
Memphis on an Embrarier (sp?) 35 through some TS's and it was interesting to
hear the horns go off in the cockpit when we hit (I think) negative g's.

Sure, it can be done by a competent pilot, but how many are flying 30-40-50
hours a year and buzz off into IMC with a AH/DG and dual Nav-Coms...then get
overloaded, especially when one of those craps out?

>
> The thing is a C172 is very stable and extremely easy to fly in IMC.

For a current pilot, sure. Then, when a maneuver is needed...

> It's not like trying to fly a Baron with no autopilot and no flight
> director in IMC. A _current_ pilot in a C172 who flies IMC often just
> shouldn't have a problem - trimmed out, a properly rigged C172 flies
> itself.

Agree 110% - the key being the word OFTEN. Also, "properly rigged" and I'll
add, "well maintained".

> It just isn't hard (unless you start overcontrolling because
> you're spatially disoriented - but someone who gets wound up enough to
> lose control of a C172 will probably still lose control with a flight
> director).

I dunno...I find the dual cues to be... reassuring.

>
> The most intense flights I've had were in low IFR in a Beech Bonanza on
> a moderately bumpy day - single pilot (I was the only occupant). I was
> very IFR current at the time. I dread to think what it would have been
> like to make those flights without plenty of recent IMC flight.

Quite so. Until my current grounding, the longest I went during my "busy
season" was, I think, nine days. During the off season, trips to Grandmas,
trips into the "big city", and other sightseeing, the longest was two weeks.
Those flights, too, are generally at least two to three hours each way. Even
in severe clear, I'll file and fly IFR just because it required more
precision.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Peter R.]

Longworth > wrote:

> My Lowrance Airmap 100 uses Jeppesen database with 28 day cycle.

Is that both obstacle and nav data?

--
Peter

[B A R R Y]

Grumman-581 wrote:
>
> Awh 'ell... Just being alive is dangerous... If you don't watch out, sooner
> or later, ya' gonna die...

This guy might have been "safely" sitting on the couch, watching TV:

<http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2006/04/24/news/breaking_news/doc444c973802890513232178.txt>

If he isn't the poster child for getting out and living, I don't know
who is. He'd be alive today, if he were out flying! <G>

[Montblack]

("Grumman-581" wrote)
>> No cell towers around? =8^(

> In the middle of a #%^&*n' swamp? Nawh, not likely...


Radio towers...

http://www.1450wgns.com/tower.html
Back in 1946, when Cecil Elrod constructed the Good Neighbor Station, the
engineers knew that placing the tower and ground system in a swampy area
would dramatically increase the signal strength and coverage. The design of
the new PiRod tower with Kintronic's folded dipole antenna take even greater
advantage of the water.


Montblack

[Dan Luke]

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

> By and large, I have a greater degree of control over the risks involved
> with flying an airplane than I do with the risks involved in driving a
> car on the highway. I take steps to mitigate the risks in aviation and,
> as a result, I do indeed believe that I'm generally safer in the
> airplane than in the car.

With respect, you are kidding yourself if you believe that.

You have convinced yourself that you are sufficiently skilled and cautious to
overcome at least a 700% disparity in fatal accident rates--or greater if you
use the statistics Jay posted. Do you really believe that you possess
sufficient superiority to all other GA pilots to achieve this immunity?
Where do you think that puts you on the pilot bell curve? Most pilots think
they're right there with you, and therefore a bunch of you have to be wrong.

From what I know of your flying, I presume you do not limit yourself to trips
around the pattern on pretty days; you demand utility from your piloting and
your airplane. This means that you take risks, and, by any empirical measure
we have available, your risks flying are far greater than your risks driving.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

>> "Margy Natalie" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Make sure you add don't fly ...(within 20 miles) of convective weather.
>>
>> A nice rule, but down here in Thunderstorm Alley it would keep you on the
>> ground a lot.
>>
>> http://www.weatherpages.com/variety/thunderstorms.html
>>
>> Where CBs are an almost daily event 5 months of the year, one has to be a
>> bit more discriminating about what constitutes a really dangerous storm,
>> or one's flying will be severely restricted.
>
> Average of 79 days a year? All day? Static?

Most of those 79 are concentrated in summer. There is a morning shift of
CBs and an afternoon shift, and some days they overlap. This sometimes
happens every day for a month. Thunderstorms are my cross to bear; that's
why I think the 396 is the greatest aviation gadget ever.

> Not even a 20 mile gap?

I mean there are plenty of days in the summer when you'd have trouble getting
out of Mobile on time if you *insisted* on a 20-mile gap. Even if you did
dart out when you saw an opening, you might then have to land short of your
destination and wait until there was a 20-mile clear path and radius to that
airport. If I had all day to sit around FBOs waiting for just the right
moment, I suppose I wouldn't care.

Most of the summer sea breeze boomers on the Gulf Coast do not need a 20-mile
separation for safety. 10 miles is plenty.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

Jay,

The fact that you list both GA and auto fatality statistics implies
that you wish to compare them in some way. So I must ask why you would
wish to eliminate spt's from the equation, while not eliminating sdt's
(stupid driver tricks)? Surely you must realize that many auto
fatalities are the result of sdt's (eating/talking on phone/driving
with not enough sleep/drinking/etc...) - acts that you undoubtably
avoid just as you avoid spt's. Are you simply trying to comfort
yourself in the feeling that GA flying is safer than it really is?

Note - I am not discounting the higher probability of someone else's
sdt killing you while you drive, while it's likely that you would only
die from your own spt while flying.

-CK

[[email protected]]

A PIREP Jay wrote up about a flight to Las Vegas a month or two back
comes to mind - I think Jim Burns was the PIC with Jay a passenger. If
I recall correctly, there were multiple legs flown through high winds
on that trip - high enough to cause sickness to the pilot and
passenger(s), and enough to damage the aircraft during one landing. If
they had died, some would have labeled that flight a SPT.

The fact is that most accidents (car, plane, boat, etc) are caused by
one or more misjudgements/mistakes. We are all human and are all prone
to making mistakes. Certainly we can improve our odds somewhat by not
deliberately doing "stupid" things. But it only takes one mistake to
kill you one time...

[Jay Honeck]

> The fact that you list both GA and auto fatality statistics implies
> that you wish to compare them in some way. So I must ask why you would
> wish to eliminate spt's from the equation, while not eliminating sdt's
> (stupid driver tricks)?

It's not that I don't want to compare them -- I do, if only for the
purposes of comparison. Removing stupid tricks from both figures would
be okay by me.

Really, though, I don't care about the risks of driving. I *do* care
about the risks of flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> > By and large, I have a greater degree of control over the risks involved
> > with flying an airplane than I do with the risks involved in driving a
> > car on the highway. I take steps to mitigate the risks in aviation and,
> > as a result, I do indeed believe that I'm generally safer in the
> > airplane than in the car.
>
> With respect, you are kidding yourself if you believe that.

I disagree. The reality is that the risks to you from other drivers on
the road are far greater than the risks to you from other pilots in the
air, with some possible limited exceptions. You can increase your risk
on the road by driving in a careless and reckless manner, and by using
poor judgment, just as you can in the air. You can mitigate the risk to
yourself on the road and in the air through education, training,
experience, and self-discipline. Whether you practice effective risk
management is entirely up to you.



> You have convinced yourself that you are sufficiently skilled and cautious to
> overcome at least a 700% disparity in fatal accident rates--or greater if you
> use the statistics Jay posted. Do you really believe that you possess
> sufficient superiority to all other GA pilots to achieve this immunity?
> Where do you think that puts you on the pilot bell curve? Most pilots think
> they're right there with you, and therefore a bunch of you have to be wrong.

To be honest, I haven't been following this thread very diligently, so I
don't know what statistics Jay posted, or what he was claiming. I also
don't place much value on statistics unless they are placed in their
proper context.

I believe that I possess better skills and judgment that a majority of
the accident pilots. A vast majority of GA accidents are caused by a
string of very poor judgments by the pilot(s) involved, and usually the
string of poor judgments appeared prior to the accident flight.

I believe that I can end up as a negative statistic, but I believe that
I won't end up as a negative statistic as long as I am smart enough to
know what I don't know, and conservative enough to call it quits before
I get into trouble.

Risk management through education, training, and continuous practice
(experience) can substantially decrease your chances of becoming a
negative statistic.



> From what I know of your flying, I presume you do not limit yourself to trips
> around the pattern on pretty days; you demand utility from your piloting and
> your airplane. This means that you take risks, and, by any empirical measure
> we have available, your risks flying are far greater than your risks driving.

I do not limit myself to nice sunny days with no wind, but I don't take
risks that I consider to be unnecessary. If it's too windy, if there's
ice, thunderstorms, or the weather is at minimums, I just don't go.
Part of my decision is based on my own skills and personal limitations,
and part of my decision is based on the capabilities and limitations of
the equipment that I fly. In any case, the end result is that I
mitigate the risk to an acceptable level which, for me, makes that 500
mile trip much safer than an equivalent trip in the automobile.

I should also note that I don't plow through midnight snowstorms at
80mph on the highway, either, but I can tell you first-hand that many
drivers apparently don't have the same approach to risk management that
I practice on the road.


JKG

[Private]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> While I am sure that you learned a great deal from your SNF trip I think
>> you
>> must agree that sections of your trip story were starting to read like an
>> accident report.
>
> Traveling cross country in a light airplane is relatively more
> dangerous than sitting on the couch. All sorts of things can happen,
> and you must be prepared to handle them as best you can.
>
> I know pilots that never leave the pattern, simply because of this
> fact.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


I do not mean to suggest that I am adverse to risk. I think risk is an
integral part of a complete life. What I am opposed to is ignoring risk
(recklessness) or underestimating risk. Teenagers are unable to understand
the concept of consequence and therefore think they are invulnerable. This
leads them to accept levels of risk that they would avoid as adults. As
adults we try to diminish risk in order to increase our comfort level. I
suggest that the acknowledgment of risk is the first step to managing it. I
believe you are a conscientious pilot who is trying to be as safe as you can
be; I just think that you should acknowledge your own fallibility. Safety
like democracy requires constant vigilance, and as pilots we also require at
least one possible alternate strategy.



IMHO the current huge desire to guaranty complete safety is a quest for the
unobtainable and in many cases the price for increased safety is higher than
its benefit. It seems like every current event has made the 'person in the
street' feel unsafe and they want the government to fix it. I ran across
the following this week



"In our culture, these days, there is no core, no authenticity to our lives;
we have become dangerously preoccupied with safety; have dedicated ourselves
to ease. We live without risk, hence without adventure, without discovery
of ourselves or others. The moral measure of man is: for what will he risk
all, risk his life?" Susan Musgrave

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-25, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I know pilots that never leave the pattern, simply because of this
> fact.

Which is probably just about the most dangerous place to be in a light
plane!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-25, Dan Luke > wrote:
> Most of the summer sea breeze boomers on the Gulf Coast do not need a 20-mile
> separation for safety. 10 miles is plenty.

In particular, Gulf coast thunderstorms (I lived in Houston for 6 years)
are the small, airmass type of storm that typically only affect a very
small area. They aren't like the rapacious monsters of the mid-West. You
still wouldn't want to fly into a Gulf coast airmass storm, but
generally when they occuring, the weather is VFR with the requisite
unstable airmass (so you have reasonable visibility) and you just steer
around them.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Frankly, I think the BRS is about the only innovative safety system out
>> there, and it's obvious why...
>
> One has to wonder if perhaps it would be cheaper to just supply all of the
> occupants in the aircraft with a parachute... Quick Google search brough
> up
> prices anywhere from $900-$3000... Maybe for skydivers, the $3000 one
> might
> give them a certain advantage, but I suspect the $900 one would be
> perfectly
> good for getting your butt to the ground with minimal injuries... I'm just
> not so sure about whether I can get out of the plane, deploy the chute and
> survive from the 300 ft that the BRS chute claims is their minimum
> activation altitude...


Many people have trouble getting out of a plane while it's sitting on the
ground at a standstill.