If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: How much time do celebrities spend traveling in GA aircraft vs traveling in cars? Probably a lot more in aircraft (GA or otherwise). Now I think you're just pulling my leg. You can't be serious. -- Dan C-172RG at BFM |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
IMO that's a dangerous attitude to have. An instrument rated pilot who does not regularly use the rating cannot be proficient unless he is exceptionally committed to regular training. I don't know any pilots who fit that description. The ones I know who keep the rating "just to get through a cloud deck" would be in real danger if unexpectedly forced to fly an approach to minimums. Agreed. Obviously a person has to practice regularly to keep the skills sharp. Most of the IA pilots I know of do this, I'm surprised to hear you say you don't know of any who do. I was trying to say, perhaps clumsily, that I don't know any i-rated pilots who seldom use the rating yet at the same time are exceptionally committed to regular training. [snip] while I agree that a person needs to use the rating to stay proficient, even going through the training, ground work and testing to get it will make him/her more competent unless they forget everything once they're done with the checkride. Which they often do, in my experience. On the occasions when I've flown in the right seat with a couple of these guys, it's been obvious to me they were not proficient, even though they were current by the reg's. I think she is justifiably worried. Look at it from her side: she knows zip-all about flying aside from what she sees on TV, which is nearly 100% bad. How would you feel? I think it shows some good sense that she is at least willing to research the subject. We don't know her husband; she does. She doesn't know flying; we do (well, some of us do). So she has to weigh what she reads here against what she thinks about her husband's judgement. I concurred in all of my comments that she had justifiable concern. And yes, it shows good sense *and* an open mind that she was willing to get and weigh more info. Where did you get the idea I was saying anything else? I didn't mean to imply that you did. Not everything I post is an argument! -- Dan C-172RG at BFM |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"AJW" wrote: What about you guys? I suspect if your log book has more than a few hundard hours you've been in circumstances where your particular die's black face nearly came up. Was the start of the sequence 'pilot error' or equipment? In 900+ hours I've had one emergency: a voltage regulator failure in IMC. Not too scary, really. I had time to notify ATC of my intentions and I used the portable GPS on the yoke to fly a VOR approach into BFM. -- Dan C-172RG at BFM |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Fry" wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" writes: "Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message ... I think what he really meant was that there's no reason (when all is said and done) a private pilot can't end up with the same accident record as an airline captain. Marco Leon That isn't even remotely true. It's at least remotely true. Look, airline flying is safer because of better training and better equipment. 2 points for them. But, they must fly on schedule and therefore in bad weather. The average PP-ASEL doesn't have the great equipment and training, but *if they choose*, they can decide when they fly and under what conditions. So the VFR rated PP can take a cross country trip and be quite safe, *if they allow for slack time*. If the PP gets into a situation where they must meet a schedule they are inviting disaster, sooner, or later. Your analysis is flawed and doesn't represent reality. First, the weather and schedule risks are already included in the airline data of .012 fatal accidents per 100K hours. The *total* GA fatal rate (including bizjets over 12,500lb) is 1.36/100k hrs. This is a rate 113 times higher than the airline rate. The source for both of these is the NTSB. Second, GA over 12,500lb has an accident rate about 2-3x the airline rate and flys a significant percentage of the total GA hours. This makes the "light GA" accident rate higher than the NTSB numbers. Third, "Personal flying" (light GA excluding business and training) constitutes 47% of "light GA" flight hours and 72% of fatal accidents so the "personal flying" accident rate is 50% higher than the overall "light GA" rate. So, the light GA fatal accident rate is *over* 169 times the airline rate. I don't have the over 12,500lb hours and accident rates so I can't demonstrate how much over the 169 times "light GA" but I suspect that it is another 50% higher (254 times) Even if you eliminate weather, hostile terrain and "stupid pilot tricks" you don't eliminate over 99% of light GA fatal accidents. The bottom line is that personal flying is not even remotely close to airline flying *under any conditions* in terms of safety. Mike MU-2 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
No, I don't think so. Should I?
Mike MU-2 "MLenoch" wrote in message ... Mike MU-2 Do you know Sandy McAusland? VL |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"Slip'er" wrote in message news:Kpdrd.190624$hj.182656@fed1read07... Are you assuming that the 1.3/100k fatal accident rate applies to the type of flying that you do? I'll take that bate. Yes, it is one component of the statistic. The 1.3/100K is an aggregate of all types of GA flying. Divide that into different categories of flight (mountain flying, bush flying, IMC, Night, etc: of course being careful that categories don't share population like my examples...) and it is very reasonable to hypothesize that the statistics across types could be very different. Carl Exactly. My reason for asking is that pilots seem to think that the 1.3/100K rate represents what they think of as "GA" but it encompasses a lot of hours of bizjet flying which have a accident rate about 3% of the light GA rate so the light GA rate is actually much higher. If you then separate light GA into catagoies you find that personal flying is 50% greater than the average light GA rate (Nall Report). So personal flying across all risks (including "stupid pilot tricks") has about twice the fatal accident rate as the often quoted 1.3/100K. Mike MU-2 |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... wrote: [snip] while I agree that a person needs to use the rating to stay proficient, even going through the training, ground work and testing to get it will make him/her more competent unless they forget everything once they're done with the checkride. Which they often do, in my experience. On the occasions when I've flown in the right seat with a couple of these guys, it's been obvious to me they were not proficient, even though they were current by the reg's. Two of my partners call me once every six months to sit in the right seat while they fly some approaches and hold on a VOR. Their procedures and radio work are clumsy but their aircraft control is pretty solid. Neither have filed an IFR flight plan in probably some years, but if they ended up in IMC I don't see any reason to think they wouldn't get the plane on the ground at an airport with their passengers' underwear still clean. This sort of "survival IFR" probably does not require you to be able to make an approach down to ILS minimums in a howling storm. The only places close to me that I can think of where conditions go from MVFR to LIFR that rapidly are along the atlantic coast where fog can roll in quite rapidly. However, if you're flying to Nantucket and this happens, you can probably do a 180 and head back inland where it's likely CAVU to the moon. I have a lot more trust that this sort of pilot will survive the kind of encounters with weather that can happen when VFR turns into MVFR or MIFR, than one who has little or no instrument training. But in the end we cannot really use statistics to guide us, since we can really only guess at the number of hours flown in IMC versus VMC. -cwk. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Not even close.
Mike MU-2 "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:XQkrd.186130$R05.52165@attbi_s53... ...Take a 182, fly day VFR only, don't buzz anybody and your chance of dying is the same as driving... Gosh, do we *really* need to quantify that statement? Let's see.... Hmmm.. If we remove needless risk taking, do you think flying might be safer? I believe the answer can only be "yes." Heck, if we remove "running out of gas" and "flying planes that haven't been maintained properly", personal flying might actually be SAFER than driving. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
"Slip'er" wrote in message news:sldrd.190623$hj.62009@fed1read07... Unlike a motorcycle, a pilot gets to choose his level of risk. LOL, Obviously you do not ride a motorcycle. I race up and down Palomar Mountain, Ortega Highway, and many other popular Southern California sport bike roads. Motorcycle riders definitely choose their own level of risk I like the idea of a motorcycle but I live in Boston and the thought of riding around here sends chills down my spine. I get nearly run down at least once a month by soccer moms in SUVs because they don't see my low car in their blind spot when they change lanes without signaling (one of many fine local traditions). I'm surprised at how *few* motorcycle fatalities there are around here. (FYI, I used to work at a local newspaper so I did see "all the accidents that didn't make the news") The way I look at it is that in an airplane, it's relatively unlikely that I'll pay for someone else's mistake. Not impossible, just exceedingly unlikely. There are very few chains of events leading to a fatal accident in which an avoidable pilot error does not feature at some point. I have friends who ride and they have told me about defensive driving and such, but the fact remains that riding a bike in a populated area, you will often be surrounded by vehicles capable of turning you into a grease spot. You can do a lot to protect yourself but there's an infinite number of possibilities where another driver's screwup will punch your ticket. -cwk. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:04:13 GMT, Judah wrote:
Some years back, Audi was sued because of failures related to their accelerator and brakes that led to fatalities. My recollection of this was that Audi was found to be blameless in terms of "unintended acceleration". In every single car tested, no matter how hard anyone stomped on the accelerator, the brakes held it in place. In other words, no audi engine could move the car if the brakes were applied. So in those vehicals in which the alleged "unintended acceleration" occured, what actually was happening? The owners were stepping on the accelerator, not the brake pedal. How could this be? Like many european cars Audi arranged the brake and accelerator pedal close together and at the same height so that the driver could easily transition from one to the other. So there was not much space between the two. Plus, the wheel well intruded somewhat so that both pedals were displaced to the right more so than most american drivers were used to. I know, you'd think that this would mean that drivers would more likely mistake the brake pedal for the accelerator but it was cited as a factor. Many of the car magazines did extensive testing to see if they could either duplicate the situation or find out why it was happening. Stepping on the gas when you intended to step on the brakes is something seniors do all the time, and they aren't often in Audi's. To them when it's happening, they think they are stepping on the brake, because that's what they thought they had done. So they cannot react quickly enough to remove their foot from the gas to the brake before bad things happen. Corky Scott |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's minimum safe O2 level? | PaulH | Piloting | 29 | November 9th 04 07:35 PM |
Baghdad airport safe to fly ?? | Nemo l'ancien | Military Aviation | 17 | April 9th 04 11:58 PM |
An Algorithm for Defeating CAPS, or how the TSA will make us less safe | Aviv Hod | Piloting | 0 | January 14th 04 01:55 PM |
Fast Safe Plane | Charles Talleyrand | Piloting | 6 | December 30th 03 10:23 PM |
Four Nimitz Aviators Safe after | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | July 28th 03 10:31 PM |