I am in The Killing Zone

You don't see
people with phobias of driving even though almost every one knows someone
who has been involved in a wreck, or has been involved in one themselves.

Actually, you *do* see this. However, these poor folks get ridiculed to the
point of silence, and come up with other reasons not to drive.

For some reason it's socially "okay" to have a fear of flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

snipped...

It's interesting to me how easily people dismiss the danger of simply
driving, but see flying as a much more dangerous activity. You don't see
people with phobias of driving even though almost every one knows someone
who has been involved in a wreck, or has been involved in one themselves.

-Trent
PP-ASEL


I think one needs to keep in mind that we are indoctrinated into the
automobile world as soon as we are born. From the first ride home
from the maternity ward, we grow up with cars being an integral part
of every phase of life. It's no wonder to me that the dangers
involved are dismissed because everyone accepts that the automobile is
as normal to everyday life as the bathtub. That goes for the
accidents, too. Not many are fortunate enough to have this same early
indoctrination into the aviation world, thus it typically is not
regarded as a normal part of living.
Rich Russell

Cub Driver wrote:


asked who
was in "the zone". There were probably 50 or 60 people there, and only
two hands were raised.

Maybe low-time pilots are too interested in flying to be seminaring
about it?

MAPA meetings aren't really seminars. They're opportunities to dine with a
bunch of fellow aviators. However, just for fun, there's usually a speaker
or three to whom we pay some attention.

MAPA does run seminars, but these are different (ie. the food isn't as good
{8^).

It's been only relatively recently that I've become "socially" involved with
aviation like this. It definitely adds to the experience.

At to the number of low time pilots that dine with us...perhaps we don't do
enough to get the word out. I suppose one solution would be to mention the
organization, and our meetings in northern NJ every month, in a USENET
posting.

I could also mention the organization's URL:

http://midatlanticpilots.com/

Those would probably be good ideas.

- Andrew

In article ,
says...



I think one needs to keep in mind that we are indoctrinated into the
automobile world as soon as we are born. From the first ride home
from the maternity ward, we grow up with cars being an integral part
of every phase of life. It's no wonder to me that the dangers
involved are dismissed because everyone accepts that the automobile is
as normal to everyday life as the bathtub. That goes for the
accidents, too. Not many are fortunate enough to have this same early
indoctrination into the aviation world, thus it typically is not
regarded as a normal part of living.
Rich Russell


That's true - and it's one of the difficulties in making meaningful
statistical comparisons. The sample size for automobile use is just so great.
We spend a significant portion of our lives in automobiles. After sleeping, it
must be one of the highest time activities for average people in
industrialized nations.

Today I spent four hours in the car and one hour and a half in a Cessna 172. I
guess my risk in the car was probably greater, but I put a lot more attention
into safety considerations on my flight. Even though I'm a very
safety-conscious driver, we just don't evaluate the risk in the same way,
because it's such a "standard" part of our everyday lives.

In the old adage about rural life " Birth sometimes occurs in cars, death
usually, and conception always!"

G Faris

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:43:19 +0000 (UTC), (G Farris)
wrote:

Today I spent four hours in the car and one hour and a half in a Cessna 172. I
guess my risk in the car was probably greater

I used to tell my wife the same thing ("the most dangerous part of
flying is over when I park the car at the airport") but it's not
really true. As posted, flying is more comprable to riding a
motorcycle than driving a car.

But perhaps you meant that 4 hours car 1.5 flying. Yes, that may
well be true. Most of these comparisons are done on an hour-for-hour
basis, but sometimes on a passenger-mile basis.

I recently saw comparisons on the safest passenger vehicle. It wasn't
a SUV or a pickup, as one might assume, but a Toyota Avalon. (In this
case, only driver fatalities were counted, so as to avoid being skewed
by passengers.) Then I realized what was going on: Avalon, Accord,
Camry, then Civic, Corolla, etc -- the more likely a young man was to
drive the vehicle, the more dangerous it appeared to be. Even the
Subaru Outback is significantly more dangerous than the Avalon, but
then you don't see as many middle-aged women driving Outbacks, and you
never see a young man driving an Avalon.

I wonder how much of flying's apparent dangers (and motorcycles' too?)
comes not from the vehicle but from the driver?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

snipped..
I wonder how much of flying's apparent dangers (and motorcycles' too?)
comes not from the vehicle but from the driver?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org


I've been riding motorcycles an average of 10,000 miles a year for 35
years. I have been flying for 1.5 years and I've thought a lot about
the similarities and relative dangers involved in each.

I do ascribe to the premise that they are approximately equal in
danger level to the participant. That, however, is based upon pure
numbers without any regard for other factors. While deaths may be
statistically equivalent there is a very significant difference
between the two activities. When flying, your fate is much more in
your hands than it is when your driving a motorcycle. When I fly, I
know that if I am going to die on that flight that the probability of
my death being the result of my own error is extremely high. While
driving my motorcycle, I am much more at the mercy of what is going on
around me and, if I die on that ride, there is a much greate chance
that my death is the result of something other than my own error.
That's not to say that bikers don't screw up and kill themselves, but
there are many, many incidents where bikers are killed by deer,
drunks, people running lights, "Officer, I never saw the bike", and so
on.

The net result is that, even though I have vastly more experience on
the bike (almost a Dudley-esque level), I feel safer when I am flying
because I know that I have a greater degree of control over my
destiny.

Rich Russell

snipped...

There's a sharp drop in the number of pilots, too. After 350 hours,
most pilots either go pro, or quit. Going pro at that point generally
means doing the CFI thing - getting into the right seat of a trainer
and going around the pattern. It's pretty hard to get hurt if you
never do anything.

The numbers that you're citing are pretty meaningless unless you know
the experience level distribution of the active pilots. The entire
killing zone conjecture is more than likely just bad statistics.

snipped...

I think you're right, the numbers probably are technically
meaningless. I read book and and I think that, even though it may be
statisically flawed, it offers a mindset that is valuable to the
low-time pilot. There are good lessons there, even though one of them
may not be a lesson in how to do statistical analysis.

Rich Russell

The net result is that, even though I have vastly more experience on
the bike (almost a Dudley-esque level), I feel safer when I am flying
because I know that I have a greater degree of control over my
destiny.

Bingo.

When I ride, I am in a constant state of alertness -- partially for my own
performance, but mostly for those around me.

When I fly, I am in a constant state of alertness -- partially for those
around me, but mostly for my own performance. (And the performance of my
aircraft.)

I am much more comfortable dealing with my own abilities and limitations;
thus, although it may be an illusion, I feel much safer flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Cub Driver wrote
I wonder how much of flying's apparent dangers (and motorcycles' too?)
comes not from the vehicle but from the driver?

Most of it.

As a driver, you get a discount for being older, female, and married.
The highest rates are paid by young unmarried men, the lowest by
middle aged married women. There is no similar insurance dynamic at
play in airplanes. Nobody really cares about your age, sex, or
marital status. Why?

Driving is mandatory, flying is optional.

Unless you live in New York City, you have to drive. There isn't a
realistic choice. But you can choose when, how, and how much. You
can avoid high traffic areas. You can slow down. You can avoid
driving at night. In general, you can reduce your exposure by
reducing the utility of your car. The whole idea is anathema to a
young unmarried man. He will go where he wants to go, when he wants
to go there, and as fast as he can get there. A middle aged married
woman will delay her trip, take longer, go elsewhere if possible, and
just not go if she can. She is most likely far less skilled as a
driver than the young unmarried male, but she is safer. She drives
only when necessary, and then in the safest way possible.

Of course there are exceptions - there are cautious young unmarried
men and middle aged married women who seek adventure on the open road,
but they are just that - exceptions.

Flying is completely different. It's optional. There are a very few
people who have a valid need to fly, but that doesn't include most of
us. We fly because we want to fly. For that reason, there are no
safe private pilots.

Yes, I am absolutely serious. There are no safe private pilots.
They've all quit. Every private pilot still flying has made the
decision, consciously or unconsciously, that the fun and possible
marginal utility of flying is worth the increased risk of serious
injury and even death, not only for himself but for his passengers.
Every trip the typical private pilot makes in an airplane could have
been more safely made by car or commercial carrier - and generally
cheaper and more reliably as well.

Why doesn't your insurance company care about your great judgment and
commitment to safety? Because it's all a bunch of crap. If you were
really committed to safety, you would have already quit. That's why
there is no discount for age, marital status, or sex. Because that
'discount' is realized by not needing aviation insurance because you
don't fly.

So what do insurance companies care about? Why, the one thing you can
do to improve your odds without quitting - improving your skill and
knowledge. Both tend to accumulate with experience, so every insurer
cares about experience. Both also tend to accumulate with training
(initial and recurrent) so most insurers also care about that. The
more relevant the skill and knowledge the better, so insurers care
about time in category, class, and make/model. Skill rots, so recent
experience also counts.

Skill and knowledge don't make you safe - nothing will - but they do
make you safer. If you want safety, put your airplane in the hangar.
It's safe there. But that's not what airplanes are for.

Michael

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:43:19 +0000 (UTC), (G Farris)
wrote:

Today I spent four hours in the car and one hour and a half in a Cessna 172.
I
guess my risk in the car was probably greater

I used to tell my wife the same thing ("the most dangerous part of
flying is over when I park the car at the airport") but it's not
really true. As posted, flying is more comprable to riding a
motorcycle than driving a car.

But perhaps you meant that 4 hours car 1.5 flying. Yes, that may
well be true. Most of these comparisons are done on an hour-for-hour
basis, but sometimes on a passenger-mile basis.


Yes, I meant 4 hours in the car VS 1.5 flying. I realize that per hour or per
mile flying small aircraft is more dangerous.

Cheers,
G Faris