Crash Trends

Steve Foley wrote:

I had forgotten about the report on the medical. I don't remember, do they
ask for hours since the last medical, or total hours?

Since the last medical.

I think that hours on the aircraft would be a more accurate measure, since
there is a good chance the IA can figure it out with the log books at hand.

Maybe, but the logbook hours will be tach hours on the plane. That won't be the
same as real hours on the plane, nor will either be the same as time in the air.
If tach hours is sufficient for the purpose, it might well be more accurate than
the current method.

Of course, as Jim says, that has to be paid for.

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

The Nall study has not done this in the past. Perhaps the 2005 study will
"adjust" the fatality stats to show that 2005 surpassed 2004 as the safest
year yet for GA.

I haven't died yet, so they've all been as safe for me.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
The Nall study has not done this in the past. Perhaps the 2005 study will
"adjust" the fatality stats to show that 2005 surpassed 2004 as the safest
year yet for GA.

You probably won't, either.

My suspicion is the pop in GA fatalities is mostly from the (1)
fly-in-a-month school grads and/or (2) the ones who fly very infrequently
and are a danger to themselves and their passengers without knowing it.

Now I'm even seeing some pop up ads from a company that claims you can get
your IFR ticket in 10 days!!!!

LOL. This is ludicrous. The medicals are a joke, people can go from
zero time to IFR tix in about two months, etc.

What's next, on line certification??

Now I'm even seeing some pop up ads from a company that claims you can get
your IFR ticket in 10 days!!

That's nothing new. To me it's no different from getting a multi rating
in 2-3 days. (I did) I also realized that while I had the rating I
wasn't an experienced twin pilot and needed a lot more flight time
before I was comfortable with two fans. For that matter a 10-day IFR
pilot probably shouldn't be attempting IMC conditions (certainly not
low IMC) without another pilot until the experience level comes up,
although there will be those that will do it solo. It may be easier in
a glass panel Cirrus than an old 172/Warrior but I think a conservative
approach pays off long term.

"Skylune" wrote:
...
Now I'm even seeing some pop up ads from a company
that claims you can get your IFR ticket in 10 days!!!!

LOL. This is ludicrous.

No it is not ludicrous. It's not for everybody, but for many others
it is very effective training. Just get the written out of the way
just before the 10 days. Are you an instrument rated pilot? Even
a VFR pilot may have little clue as to what instrument flying is
really about.

the ones who fly very infrequently
and are a danger

Disagree. For most light singles with tricycle gear, some of your
landings may just be ungraceful. With enough total hours, that
need not be the case. At least, this issue has little to do with
fatal accidents, the context of your posts. Two significant causes
of fatals are weather and fuel exhaustion, generally on long
x-country trips. Infrequent flyers go 40 miles for a hamburger on
a selectively gorgeous day.

Fred F.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
Until you normalize according to the number of hours flown, you don't
know
if the accident rate has increased, decreased, or stayed the same.

The Nall study has not done this in the past. Perhaps the 2005 study will
"adjust" the fatality stats to show that 2005 surpassed 2004 as the safest
year yet for GA.

You're mistaken. The Nall report has always expressed accident and fatality
rates as a function of hours flown. Otherwise, the rates would not be
meaningful as measures of safety.

--Gary

Dresher wrote: "You're mistaken. The Nall report has always expressed
accident and
fatality
rates as a function of hours flown. Otherwise, the rates would not be
meaningful as measures of safety"

OK. I thought they only pointed to the raw accident and fatality stats,
which as you pointed out would be meaningless statistically. (Of course,
the press will just report on the percentage increase in fatalities
without normalizing for flight hours, which is ok by me.)

Is there any data on YTD hours flown, by category of GA?

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Dresher wrote: "You're mistaken. The Nall report has always expressed
accident and
fatality
rates as a function of hours flown. Otherwise, the rates would not be
meaningful as measures of safety"

OK. I thought they only pointed to the raw accident and fatality stats,
which as you pointed out would be meaningless statistically. (Of course,
the press will just report on the percentage increase in fatalities
without normalizing for flight hours, which is ok by me.)

No, you're mistaken there too. The press seldom reports on GA accident
statistics, but when they do, they express the rates per hour of activity,
since that's the form in which the information is provided by the
organizations that keep track of such things. (See, for example, Sunday's
San Diego Union-Tribune, which mentions the GA accident rate of 6.6 per
100,000 hours of flying.)

--Gary