plane down near seattle

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Cockpit Colin wrote:

People sometimes ask why I go to the trouble of wearing nomex Tee shirt
/
Longjohns and a nomex flight suit (others don't ask - they just smirk).
This
is the reason.

"Chance favours only the well prepared"

Do you make all your passengers wear Nomex undergarments?

You need those just to post here.

I just wear cotton. Er, to fly and to post here.

Paul

Do you make all your passengers wear Nomex undergarments?

No I don't. My risk is greater than theirs because I expose myself to that
small chance many more times than they do. If they did make such a decision
they too would significantly lower their chances of burning in such an
accident. The line has to be drawn somewhere - for me I choose to protect
myself as best I can - in everything I do in aviation.

I do however make them wear life jackets when flying single-engine over
water - I do carry a fire extinguisher - I do carry an aviation survival
kit. I do a lot of other things too - many of which also get me 'stick' from
others about my attitude to safety.

I have many conversations about this (which fall mostly on deaf ears) - the
inherent problem I find is that the group who's experience would be the most
compelling when it comes to people taking a more serious approach to
aviation safety are very quiet on the topic - because they're all dead. All
the rest seem to think (a) "It won't happen to me" and (b) if it did then
"I'd be able to handle it - it's the other pilots you need to worry about".

.... and as a result they continue to have accidents and get injured.

How is the risk any less per event for the passengers than it is for you?
Sure, you expose yourself more often, but if you think about it everyone
onboard is exposed to the same level of risk at the time the operations are
taking place. Increased frequency doesn't affect the per event risk and that
is what the Nomex is protecting against isn't it?

--
Jim Carter
"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
Do you make all your passengers wear Nomex undergarments?

No I don't. My risk is greater than theirs because I expose myself to that
small chance many more times than they do. If they did make such a
decision
they too would significantly lower their chances of burning in such an
accident. The line has to be drawn somewhere - for me I choose to protect
myself as best I can - in everything I do in aviation.

I do however make them wear life jackets when flying single-engine over
water - I do carry a fire extinguisher - I do carry an aviation survival
kit. I do a lot of other things too - many of which also get me 'stick'
from
others about my attitude to safety.

I have many conversations about this (which fall mostly on deaf ears) -
the
inherent problem I find is that the group who's experience would be the
most
compelling when it comes to people taking a more serious approach to
aviation safety are very quiet on the topic - because they're all dead.
All
the rest seem to think (a) "It won't happen to me" and (b) if it did then
"I'd be able to handle it - it's the other pilots you need to worry
about".

... and as a result they continue to have accidents and get injured.

If the chances of being involved in a fire was 1 in a million and the
passengers only ever flew one flight then their chance would be one in a
million. If I flew 1 million flights then, statistically speaking, my worst
fears would come true eventually.

At 1 in a million it's a chance they're prepared to take - for me the odds
aren't one in a million - they're a lot higher - which I'm not prepared to
take.

I hear what you're saying - and I agree that when my time comes it's not
good for the unfortunate passengers (if any) who happen to be with me -
that's the chance they took. It's like russian roulette - if I play it long
enough I'm always going to lose - so I do my best to protect myself against
that eventuality.

My point was I see so many pilots taking too many risks - most of them get
away with it most of the time - but flip the coin over and a few are dead
who would be alive today if they'd taken more precautions - and some poor
kids have to grow up without a dad because of it.

A bit like wearing seatbelts - you probably won't ever need them - but if
you do, and you're not wearing it - then it's too late.

Just imagine you're flying over moutainous terrain - in a single - engine
stops. I "Freeze the scene" and sittling along side you for a second offer
you some fire-proof clothing at recommended retail. Any takers? thought so.
How about a flying helmet? Sold! Aviation survival kit? my my this is a good
day for sales.

Sadly I've had friends who have been disfigured from not wearing full
seatbelts - known some who have died flying singles at night - some drowned
through not wearing life jackets. All preventable - and yet still it keeps
happening and happening and happening.

What does it take to change peoples attitudes?

I don't know.

I follow your logic, but I didn't make the theme of my questions clear. If
you feel that any activity in which you participate is risky enough to
change your preparedness level, then why do you let your passengers
participate without changing theirs? Shouldn't you make them aware of your
risk avoidance techniques and allow them to make their own decisions?
Shouldn't you keep a list of the number of such activities you've conducted
so they can weigh the odds in favor of them needing to modify their
behavior? If, using your example of 1:1,000,000, you've conducted 500,000
events with no fire then their odds of needing protection have doubled.

I have to admit that while flying in higher risk environments I also used to
wear Nomex flight suit and gloves, and a helmet, but my civilian flying
never approached those risk levels because of equipment, operation, and
environment. We don't carry near the fuel quantities and usually hit the
ground much slower nowadays.

Does anyone have any statistics on refueling fires? I'd expect the risk
there to be a lot higher than that associated with civilian flight, yet we
don't see the line workers in Nomex. I wonder when that lawsuit will happen?

--
Jim Carter
"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
If the chances of being involved in a fire was 1 in a million and the
passengers only ever flew one flight then their chance would be one in a
million. If I flew 1 million flights then, statistically speaking, my
worst
fears would come true eventually.

At 1 in a million it's a chance they're prepared to take - for me the odds
aren't one in a million - they're a lot higher - which I'm not prepared to
take.

I hear what you're saying - and I agree that when my time comes it's not
good for the unfortunate passengers (if any) who happen to be with me -
that's the chance they took. It's like russian roulette - if I play it
long
enough I'm always going to lose - so I do my best to protect myself
against
that eventuality.

My point was I see so many pilots taking too many risks - most of them get
away with it most of the time - but flip the coin over and a few are dead
who would be alive today if they'd taken more precautions - and some poor
kids have to grow up without a dad because of it.

A bit like wearing seatbelts - you probably won't ever need them - but if
you do, and you're not wearing it - then it's too late.

Just imagine you're flying over moutainous terrain - in a single - engine
stops. I "Freeze the scene" and sittling along side you for a second offer
you some fire-proof clothing at recommended retail. Any takers? thought
so.
How about a flying helmet? Sold! Aviation survival kit? my my this is a
good
day for sales.

Sadly I've had friends who have been disfigured from not wearing full
seatbelts - known some who have died flying singles at night - some
drowned
through not wearing life jackets. All preventable - and yet still it keeps
happening and happening and happening.

What does it take to change peoples attitudes?

I don't know.

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
If the chances of being involved in a fire was 1 in a million and the
passengers only ever flew one flight then their chance would be one in a
million. If I flew 1 million flights then, statistically speaking, my
worst
fears would come true eventually.


Wrong. If the chance is 1 in a million each time you fly the chance is
1:1,000,000 on the first flight and 1:1,000,000 on the millionith flight.

The dice don't have a memory. You are simply taking the 1:1,000,000 chance
more often than your passengers.

Gig,

The dice don't have a memory


Or, in other words: There is no law of small numbers. Only one of large
numbers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I follow your logic, but I didn't make the theme of my questions clear. If
you feel that any activity in which you participate is risky enough to
change your preparedness level, then why do you let your passengers
participate without changing theirs? Shouldn't you make them aware of your
risk avoidance techniques and allow them to make their own decisions?

Hmmm - it's a thought-provoking idea. Flying by myself it obviously isn't an
issue. Flying with other aircrew, I'd have to say "They know the risks and
are responsible for their own risk management". Flying with non-aircrew -
it's not something I've really thought about. They're always happy to wear a
life jacket - they're happy to accept things like an aviation survival kit
being on board - they're happy with items in the emergency equipment/action
portion of the pre-flight safety briefing. They wouldn't be as familiar with
aviation risks as we are, but having said that I'd say they're astute enough
to appreciate the elevated risk of anything to do with aviation.

Frankly, I'm finding passengers getting more and more nervous about
aviation - each time a (GA) pilot does something stupid and kills himself
and/or others it makes it just a little bit harder to get passengers
onboard - something I find frustrating.

Wrong. If the chance is 1 in a million each time you fly the chance is
1:1,000,000 on the first flight and 1:1,000,000 on the millionith flight.

The dice don't have a memory. You are simply taking the 1:1,000,000 chance
more often than your passengers.

I agree with what you're saying - but if I take that risk 'n' times more
than you then I'm 'n' times more likely to have my number come up.

If I had a gun with a million hole chamber and only 1 round I wouldn't be
too nervous about spinning the chamber once - I'd be real nervous about
doing it a million times. The chances of blowing my brains out on any one
occasion is always 1 in a million as you say - but do it enough times and
the chance of that one chance coming up is increased proportionately - which
proportionately affects my chances of continuing on in this life in good
health!

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
If I had a gun with a million hole chamber and only 1 round I wouldn't be
too nervous about spinning the chamber once - I'd be real nervous about
doing it a million times. The chances of blowing my brains out on any one
occasion is always 1 in a million as you say - but do it enough times and
the chance of that one chance coming up is increased proportionately

Not really. Funny thing about statistics, they don't always make intuitive
sense to someone that hasn't sat down and looked at the math.

Your statement would be correct if you were talking about an agreement made
in advance to spin the barrel and pull the trigger some very large number of
times. But that wasn't your statement.

Every time you choose to take a try at your million-chambered revolver, you
have exactly a 1 in 1 million chance of killing yourself. Once you've taken
a try and survived, the next try still has exactly a 1 in 1 million chance
of killing yourself.

No matter how many times you take a try, the next time you take a try, the
chance is still exactly 1 in 1 million.

Now, how does this matter with respect your fire suit? I suppose it depends
on how you think about it. In one respect, each time you fly you have
exactly the same chance of burning up as any of your passengers do. In that
respect, it does seem unfair that you fly around in your fire suit while
allowing your passengers to go unprotected.

In other respect, however, you have "made an agreement in advance" to make a
number of flights. The actual number is perhaps not known with any
accuracy, but it may be safe to say that it's hundreds, if not thousands of
flights. By choosing (again, in advance) to wear a fire suit on each and
every flight, you are a) betting that you WILL crash and burn during some
point in those hundreds or thousands of flights, and b) making a decision to
try to protect yourself against that eventuality.

But the truth remains that for any given flight, no matter how many flights
you've already made, you still have exactly the same chance of crashing and
burning as you had on the previous flight, and will have on the subsequent
flight, statistically speaking. If on any flight, you feel it's necessary
for you to wear a fireproof suit, a passenger would be well within their
rights to feel like they are being treated with less care than the pilot is
treating himself. After all, on that flight, both the passenger and the
pilot have the exact same chance of being in the plane if and when it
crashes and burns.

So to me, the real question is this: when you are flying with passengers, do
you allow one of the passengers to wear your fire suit instead of wearing it
yourself, or do you take advantage of them and protect yourself to a greater
degree than you protect your passengers?

Another question would be: do you wear the same suit when driving a car?
After all, there's a risk of being in an accident where the car (and
occupants) are consumed by fire in an automobile as well. How about when
you fly commercially? Ride in someone else's car? Stay in a hotel? Sleep
in your own bed?

Not very many aviation accidents result in one or more occupants being
burned when they otherwise would have survived the accident. Although it
does happen, the risk is comparable to the risk of being burned in any
number of other situations in which I'm guessing you don't wear your suit.
I don't know what a full Nomex suit costs, but I know that I'd choose to
spend that money on other more relevant safety devices, like a nice ANR
headset, or a backup handheld radio, or a handheld GPS, rather than wasting
it on clothing that is probably never going to be of any use to me, and
which does nothing to improve the safety of my passengers.

Which is not to say you shouldn't wear your suit if you feel it's useful.
It's just to say that I don't really understand your thinking, and probably
never will. I wouldn't be surprised if more people share that sentiment
than don't.

Pete