The biggest safety investment in GA is...

On Jul 6, 1:34 pm, "Matt Barrow" wrote:
Yet, the GA crowd, which is overwhelmingly (?) non-IR, has the highest
accident rates. Nealy 3 1/2 times their nearest "competitors".

Accident Rate Comparisons (U.S. Fleet)
Accidents per 100,000 hours (For 2005)
Corporate aviation(1) 0.08
Fractional jets 0.14
Scheduled airlines 0.17
FAR 91 business jets(2) 0.32
FAR 135 business jets 0.47
Business aviation(3) 0.73
Non-scheduled airlines 0.94
FAR 91 & 135 business turboprops 1.61
All air taxis 2.0
Regional airlines (4) 2.01
General aviation 6.6

1. All aircraft types flown by salaried crews for business purposes.
2. Business jets professionally and non-professionally flown.
3. All aircraft types, owner flown.
4. Regional airlines were re-classified in 1997 by the FAA causing rate
increase.
Source: Robert E. Breiling Associates

--------------------------

Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but they
fly a LOT.

Business aviation and personal aviation make a very good comparison.
In both cases, we're talking about the same training, the same
equipment, the same reporting requirements, etc. In other words, even
if the hours are misrepresented, there is no reason to believe they
are misrepresented DIFFERENTLY in the two groups. Yet both this
source (which I have not previously seen) and the Nall report indicate
that business aviation (self-flown) is dramatically safer than
personal flying. The difference is less pronounced in the Nall
report, most likely because this set of stats includes turbine
equipment (which implies both better and more regular training AND
better and more capable equipment) but the difference is still
striking in the Nall report.

Note that here, where the turbine equipment is lumped in, the numbers
look a lot better than a lot of professionally flown categories. Even
the non-sched airlines, with professional crews and likely better
equipment (on the whole - there are probably a dozen Barons and
Saratogas for every Gulfstream in the business aviation segment) look
worse. Something to think about - being professional without the
support structure of a scheduled airline seems to matter little. So
what does matter? Why is personal flying so dangerous?

I would suggest that the instrument rating isn't the key difference.
I know plenty of people doing self-flown business flying without one.
I used to do it all the time. Most eventually break down and get the
instrument rating eventually - after flying more hours than the
average recreation-only pilot flies in a lifetime. I think the real
issue is risk management.

Anyone who has done any investing knows about the Laffer curve (or J-
curve) knows that maximum conservatism does not equal minimum risk.
Put all your money into the most conservative investments, and you get
minimum return - but not minimum risk. Minimum risk comes somewhere
at about an 80-20 mix - the best compromise between investment risk
and inflation risk. Many people operate on the less conservative side
of the minimum - more risk, but higher return. There is an argument
to be made for this. There is NO argument to be made for operating on
the more conservative side - you get lower return AND higher risk.
It's just dumb.

I suggest that something similar is at work in aviation. The problem
is not that most private pilots are not instrument rated - it is that
they are too conservative.

In aviation, you balance exposure risk with incompetence risk.
Competence comes less from training and more from flying a lot in a
variety of conditions. When you fly strictly for fun, there is a huge
tendency not to fly because there is some elevated risk (maybe not
much) due to conditions (weather, fatigue, airspace, etc.) and the
flight won't be great fun. When you fly on business, you don't cancel
unless there is an obvious and significantly elevated risk - fun
doesn't enter into it, as you need to go. This will, of necessity,
make you less conservative - and will make you run afoul of GA
'wisdom.'

Time to spare, go by air
Don't ever fly yourself someplace you HAVE TO be
Don't ever fly when you're not 100%
The blue card with a hole - when color of card matches color of sky,
go fly

I submit that the wisdom is not so wise. Competence is what you need
to handle the unexpected, and the unexpected will eventually happen no
matter how conservative you are.

I also submit that most of personal GA operates on the wrong side of
the optimum - more conservative, less risky. Those who fly themselves
on business are significantly less conservative about weather,
airspace, and fatigue than those who fly only for fun - they have to
be, or they would never get enough reliability to make it worthwhile.
They are also dramatically safer. That can ONLY happen if the
pleasure flyers are on the wrong side of the minimum.

Tomorrow, I'm going to fly myself on a business trip. I KNOW the
weather is going to be pretty crappy, and I will be going into a busy
primary Class B airport during the busy time. And I think I'll be
safer than the guy who is very careful and won't fly in bad weather.
And the statistics seem to agree with me.

Michael

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 06:35:57 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote in
:


"Thomas Borchert" wrote:

..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer

I have to agree - and reading Jay's post about his friends made me post
this.

Thoughts?

I agree, with a strict qualification. Having the IR is like owning a gun: it
can be used safely, but used ineptly it can kill you and those you love.
Pilots who get rated and then do only the minimum work required to stay
current are at considerable risk when they get into a high workload, IMC
situation, IMO.

Sure, training is good; a private pilot will learn useful things that will
stick with him by getting the rating. But If he's not going to fly IFR
frequently and train beyond requirements in actual and simulated IMC, then he
is better off letting his currency lapse and staying VFR after the checkride.


I agree.

But mere attainment of the IR, whether put to actual or simulated use
or not, is apparently sufficient to qualify it as the most significant
safety investment in GA.

Dan Luke wrote:


Sure, training is good; a private pilot will learn useful things that will
stick with him by getting the rating. But If he's not going to fly IFR
frequently and train beyond requirements in actual and simulated IMC, then he
is better off letting his currency lapse and staying VFR after the checkride.


I don't think anyone is better off letting any currencies lapse, it
sets a bad precident. Unless, of course you are going to give up
flying....

"ktbr" wrote in message
...
Dan Luke wrote:


Sure, training is good; a private pilot will learn useful things that
will stick with him by getting the rating. But If he's not going to fly
IFR frequently and train beyond requirements in actual and simulated IMC,
then he is better off letting his currency lapse and staying VFR after
the checkride.


I don't think anyone is better off letting any currencies lapse, it
sets a bad precident. Unless, of course you are going to give up
flying....

Quite righ, the both of you. Currency is your best protector, but note how
many pilots that are quite current (daily flights) lose it?

One thing I've been hearing is the advice to fly the approach you're going
to use in your mind BEFORE your even take off. That way, good weather or
bad, there's no surprises under pressure.

How many people just pull out the chart and go at it, then wind up falling
behind when a turn sneaks up on you?

The two biggest killers are, what?, CFIT and LOC (Loss of Control)?
Turns -- LOC
Straight & Level -- CFIT

??

On Jul 6, 11:14 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
[snip]
One thing I've been hearing is the advice to fly the approach you're going
to use in your mind BEFORE your even take off. That way, good weather or
bad, there's no surprises under pressure.

How many people just pull out the chart and go at it, then wind up falling
behind when a turn sneaks up on you?
[snip]

One thing my instructor told me was that he uses his flight sim
software to fly the planned approach and his alternates before leaving
for an IFR flight. He's got ~8000 hours. I think it's an excellent
idea and a great use of flight sim software.

John
PP-ASEL

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 6, 11:14 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
[snip]
One thing I've been hearing is the advice to fly the approach you're
going
to use in your mind BEFORE your even take off. That way, good weather or
bad, there's no surprises under pressure.

How many people just pull out the chart and go at it, then wind up
falling
behind when a turn sneaks up on you?
[snip]

One thing my instructor told me was that he uses his flight sim
software to fly the planned approach and his alternates before leaving
for an IFR flight. He's got ~8000 hours. I think it's an excellent
idea and a great use of flight sim software.

John
PP-ASEL

That would be more better, too :~)

If that opportunity is not available, what one can do is something like
forcing yourself to have an "out of body" experience, where you mentally fly
the entire approach, trying to conjure up every sensation you expect to meet
along the way.

Notice the great golfers, that stand behind the tee before going up to hit
their shot; what they say they are doing is visualizing the swing, the ball
taking off, flying, and landing. Likewise, in baseball, the great hitters
said they would visualize the ball coming out of the pitchers hand and
approaching the plate where they would visualize knocking the hell out of
it. In the same vein, great pitchers have said they could "see" the ball
breaking just they way they wanted and hitting the target (catchers glove)
just they way they wanted. IIRC, the best at this mental game were Roger
Clemens and Steve Carlton.

The best flight sim, I would venture to say, is between your ears.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

I have to agree with Dan, an IFR rating is only as good as the
proficiency the pilot has with it. Having a rating or qualification
doesn't mean a pilot is proficient. The once a month IFR jaunt by a
pilot is a loaded gun waiting to be misused.

The thing that interests me when I read about GA accidents is how many
occur with student and an instructor on board. You would think this
would be the safest situation. On one of my check rides, the
instructor conducting it had little experience with smaller aircraft
like the C172 we were in. Fortunately I had tons of time in it, and
was able to show him the capabilities of the aircraft. Had he been
with a student, I wondered how they would have faired in an emergency
situation or just being able to land at a tight field with a short
strip. After the check ride he thanked me for my time and
acknowledged he need more time in lighter aircraft to be proficient as
an instructor. Since then we have flown together several times...on
his dime.

I've never had an IFR rating, there are times when I wish I had one,
especially when the weather turns nasty faster than predicted. Before
everyone runs out to get one, become as proficient as possible with
the ratings they have. Fundamentals of flying, knowledge of equipment
and basic common sense go a long ways in safe operation of an
aircraft. The one thing one of my first instructors taught me was
'never be in a rush...haste kills'. Take the time to do it right the
first time...you may not have a second chance. Too bad there wasn't a
way to teach common sense.

Hawkeye wrote:

I've never had an IFR rating, there are times when I wish I had one,
especially when the weather turns nasty faster than predicted. Before
everyone runs out to get one, become as proficient as possible with
the ratings they have. Fundamentals of flying, knowledge of equipment
and basic common sense go a long ways in safe operation of an
aircraft. The one thing one of my first instructors taught me was
'never be in a rush...haste kills'. Take the time to do it right the
first time...you may not have a second chance. Too bad there wasn't a
way to teach common sense.


Just to say that having an instrument rating is of no real value
unless currency and proficiency are maintained is addressing half
the problem. I have found that the folks that would let their IFR
proficency go away also have a tendency to take some of their good
ol' VFR proficencies slide as well. So I agree that currency of
_all_ your ratings need to be well maintained or perhaps a flight
be re-considered.

If you take your flying seriously, or own your own aircraft, the
the instrument rating is more of a necessity than an option. You
worked hard for the rating... its dumb to let that skill evaporate.
Spend the money to do a IPC with a CFII once a year, even though
you are current; it's cheap insurance.

Just to say that having an instrument rating is of no real value
unless currency and proficiency are maintained is addressing half
the problem. I have found that the folks that would let their IFR
proficency go away also have a tendency to take some of their good
ol' VFR proficencies slide as well.

Hmm. I know we've covered this before, but your statement does not
match my observations. Of the bazillions of GA pilots I talk to
every day, very few are proficient at instrument flying, and a
majority will plainly admit that they are not current. But they may
be very active, outstanding pilots, nonetheless.

(Caveat: This is true only of the "hobby" pilots, mind you -- which
covers the majority of pilots. Professionals who earn their living
flying are obviously going to be instrument proficient, since every,
single flight is flown "in the system".)

Most pro pilots will tell you that flying every flight under IFR
flight rules is the best way to remain both current and proficient.
On the flip side, however, many will also admit that it sucks the life
right out of flying, and many fly an old Cub or Luscombe with a
compass and a chart on weekends just to regain their flying chops.

If you take your flying seriously, or own your own aircraft, the
the instrument rating is more of a necessity than an option.

Disagree 100%. An instrument rating is a nice feather in your cap,
and the training *does* make one a more skillful pilot -- but it is
far from a necessity. Mary and I have flown for 13 years, coast-to-
coast, from Canada to Mexico, all VFR, without mishap.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Just to say that having an instrument rating is of no real value
unless currency and proficiency are maintained is addressing half
the problem. I have found that the folks that would let their IFR
proficency go away also have a tendency to take some of their good
ol' VFR proficencies slide as well.

Hmm. I know we've covered this before, but your statement does not
match my observations. Of the bazillions of GA pilots I talk to
every day, very few are proficient at instrument flying, and a
majority will plainly admit that they are not current. But they may
be very active, outstanding pilots, nonetheless.

(Caveat: This is true only of the "hobby" pilots, mind you -- which
covers the majority of pilots. Professionals who earn their living
flying are obviously going to be instrument proficient, since every,
single flight is flown "in the system".)

Most pro pilots will tell you that flying every flight under IFR
flight rules is the best way to remain both current and proficient.
On the flip side, however, many will also admit that it sucks the life
right out of flying, and many fly an old Cub or Luscombe with a
compass and a chart on weekends just to regain their flying chops.

Evidently GA flying sucks the life, literally, out of quite a few people
compared to regular, boring flying.

See my other post in this thread quoting the accident rates by types of
flying.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY