FLYING magazine safety article

I beg to differ, Tom.

We're pointing out in part what you are saying: Flying more SHOULD
make you safer. However, one of my friends killed last year commuted
from SoCal to Red Bluff weekly in his own aircraft, built, owned and
flew the highest time Glassair III out there, and was in an aircraft he
likely had 2,000 hours in when he met an untimely death. Yes, he was
tragically killed in a midair. He was a good pilot, with extensive
recent experience and exhibited good judgement whenever I saw him.

Those that insist on low passes (at least those executed with poor
judgement), yet fly MORE, are increasing the risk to themselves and
others. High time and frequent flyer pilots still make mistakes,
sometimes fatal. Look through the NTSB accident statistics.

There are many "cops" out there chastizing poor judgement, at least
that which has been observed. Yes, they lack the authority to yank
tickets -- even where it might save a life! And some "cops" have
refused service (e.g., tows -- I have refused to tow people before),
when they feel there is too much risk. Believe me, it is far more
difficult to tell somebody you won't give them a tow than it is to grit
your teeth, give them one more tow and hope for the best.

For some people out there, a BFR is not sufficient recurrent training.
It isn't enough for me, and I hold an ATP rating. Similarly, once a
lifetime is not sufficient for automobile drivers. Once every two
years, as I'm told is required in New Zeland after a certain age, might
be a good start -- for all drivers.

And there need to be more cops on the highways...and the ramps at
airports.

Respectfully,

-Pete

wrote:
You guys are on a roll, here!

Please tell me, what on Earth does the relative accident rates of
driving vs. flying have to do with making gliding safer? In other
words, who cares?

Focus your intellectual energies on something that will make a
difference. Like telling a friend/acquaintance/stranger that they need
dual instruction after witnessing poor flying habits.

When flying, unlike driving, there is no cop up there that will pull
you over and write you up.

Flying becomes dangerous when you fly TOO LITTLE, not TOO MUCH!

Tom

I'm not sure what you are taking exception with. The thread had
degenerated into arguing about what was more dangerous: flying or
driving. I can't think of a more irrelevent comparison.

Currency DOES make you a safer pilot: and you CAN look at the NTSB
reports as a verification of that obvious principal. The reports also
include accidents involving high time pilots. Make a mistake and it can
kill you, high time or not.

BTW: a mid-air does not necessarily mean poor judgement - that can just
be bad luck. Bad judgement means having all the facts at your disposal
and still making the wrong decision.

Tom

Ahh, but the comparison between driving and flying IS relevant! So
much is taught to new and old pilots by analogy, and driving is the
closest thing many have prior to getting in the cockpit.

The risk equations are the same (albeit with different factors or
gains): more speed means more "ouch," closer proximity to
terrain/another vehicle/a wall increases probability of impact. Don't
drive a car very often (currency) and your chances of getting into an
accident increase! Buy equipment you're not used to (that new
Leviathan SUV), and your chances similarly go up. Try to cut that
corner a little quick (stretch a glide???) and you increase the chance
of coming up short.

I'll agree you're correct on the other points: a midair can be just
bad luck, and currency CAN make you a better pilot. But we need to
remember, only perfect practice makes perfect. Proriciency vs. mere
currency? I suspect we're really agreeing with one another. Practice
nothing but zoomies (high speed passes) and you may not be "current" in
something more important at the necessary time. Look at zoomies that
result in gear up landings or (worse), injuries/fatalities.

I pay the CFIG "cop" to help me identify where I'm slipping. And I
agree with you, I'm not flying "enough," either.

Is it really stupid to argue which is safer, driving or flying? I
think it is a relevant comparison as people are taking issue with the
statement that the drive home is more dangerous than the flight...and
making some of us think about what we can do to reduce our personal
risks and (as you suggested), the risks our fellow pilots take.

Peace?

wrote:
I'm not sure what you are taking exception with. The thread had
degenerated into arguing about what was more dangerous: flying or
driving. I can't think of a more irrelevent comparison.

Tom

Peace? Certainly!

It's like I told my boss once after he asked "Aren't I entitled to my
opinion?". My response: "Of course. And I will defend to the death your
right to hold that opinion, even if it's wrong!"

You might as well compare rock climbing to flying - the activities have
little in common. Most pointedly, flying is a three dimensional
activity, driving is not. Weather plays a much reduced roll in car
accidents than it does in A/C accidents. I am most appalled at the
comparison "Driving to the 'blank' is more dangerous than 'blank'". I
have even heard this said about mountain climbing. Driving safety has
risen remarkedly over the last 40+ years because of the tremendous
investment of money and resources. A good part of the GA fleet is over
40 years old.

Particularly inappropriate is taking statistics involving large groups
and applying it to you individually. Such convoluted logic would have
you believe that flying more is more hazardous to your health, when
exactly the opposite may be true.

While equipment has improved, from a safety standpoint, marginally over
the years, the greatest impact on your personal safety is in the area
of judgement. Unfortunately, I am probably preaching to the choir on
this point.

Tom

wrote:
Peace? Certainly!

It's like I told my boss once after he asked "Aren't I entitled to my
opinion?". My response: "Of course. And I will defend to the death your
right to hold that opinion, even if it's wrong!"

You might as well compare rock climbing to flying - the activities have
little in common. Most pointedly, flying is a three dimensional
activity, driving is not. Weather plays a much reduced roll in car
accidents than it does in A/C accidents. I am most appalled at the
comparison "Driving to the 'blank' is more dangerous than 'blank'". I
have even heard this said about mountain climbing. Driving safety has
risen remarkedly over the last 40+ years because of the tremendous
investment of money and resources. A good part of the GA fleet is over
40 years old.

Particularly inappropriate is taking statistics involving large groups
and applying it to you individually. Such convoluted logic would have
you believe that flying more is more hazardous to your health, when
exactly the opposite may be true.

While equipment has improved, from a safety standpoint, marginally over
the years, the greatest impact on your personal safety is in the area
of judgement. Unfortunately, I am probably preaching to the choir on
this point.

Tom

In article .com,
"309" wrote:

For some people out there, a BFR is not sufficient recurrent training.
It isn't enough for me, and I hold an ATP rating. Similarly, once a
lifetime is not sufficient for automobile drivers. Once every two
years, as I'm told is required in New Zeland after a certain age, might
be a good start -- for all drivers.

IIRC, the current regulations here in NZ are that you have to renew your
license at age 75, and then at 80 and every two years after that.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

Bruce Hoult wrote:

IIRC, the current regulations here in NZ are that you have to renew your
license at age 75, and then at 80 and every two years after that.

My wife - who earns a living in gerontological research - recently
attended a seminar in Sydney where a NZ person stated that extensive
research showed there was no statistically significant difference in
acccident rates of older drivers between jurisdictions (worldwide,
including NZ) which proficiency tested older drivers and those which did
not. Accordingly (NZ being a rational country) it was proposed that
proficiency testing of older drivers would be abandoned and only medical
checks would be required.

The main policy problem to be sorted out before the change could be
implemented appeared to be what should be done with the redundant
examiners. I suppose they could be retrained as medical examiners...or
your gliding club could slip a free trial flight voucher into their last
pay packets...

Graeme Cant

In article ,
Graeme Cant wrote:

Bruce Hoult wrote:

IIRC, the current regulations here in NZ are that you have to renew your
license at age 75, and then at 80 and every two years after that.

My wife - who earns a living in gerontological research - recently
attended a seminar in Sydney where a NZ person stated that extensive
research showed there was no statistically significant difference in
acccident rates of older drivers between jurisdictions (worldwide,
including NZ) which proficiency tested older drivers and those which did
not. Accordingly (NZ being a rational country) it was proposed that
proficiency testing of older drivers would be abandoned and only medical
checks would be required.

Yes, well the rationality of politically-driven decisions is not,
unfortunately, a given.


I forget when, but sometime in the mid 1980's it was decided that there
wasn't any point in making people renew their driver's licenses every
five years, since all that happened was that you showed up, paid some
money, and they gave you a sticker to stick into your license.
Therefore, NZ being a rational country, it was decided by the government
of the day to issue "lifetime" licenses. Mine expires on 31/12/2033, at
which time I hope to still be alive as it will be at the end of the
month containing my 71st birthday.

However, another government in the late 1990's decided that this was a
bad idea and that people should in fact have to renew their license
every ten years (?). So they revoked all existing licenses and issued
new ones. Despite me not having done anything wrong, my license now
expires at the end of 2007 instead of the end of 2033, which is 26 years
earlier than previously.

If there is logic behind these moves, it escapes me.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------