Are pilots really good or just lucky???

Dave,

I'm willing to allow the risk level to go higher for myself than for
unsuspecting passengers who don't have the knowledge or experience to assess
the risk for themselves.


I think that's a recipe for desaster. What makes you less vulnerable to risk?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Brad,

The 296 has a Attitude Indicator???


A TC, kind of.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Michael" wrote in message
m...
Judah wrote

I seem to recall a thread a while back that discussed getting down
safely
if you lose everything, and it involved trimming all the way up and
reducing the throttle and flying with the rudder only... Admittedly, I
never tried it, but it is an excercise worth trying because I'd be
curious to see if it really works...

When I owned a 100 kt fixed-gear, fixed-pitch airplane (TriPacer), I
could do it. If I had to, I could keep the wings level with just the
compass. Move up to a 160 kt retract, and it simply doesn't work that
well.

Works pretty well on a 172.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Dave,


I'm willing to allow the risk level to go higher for myself than for
unsuspecting passengers who don't have the knowledge or experience to assess
the risk for themselves.



I think that's a recipe for desaster. What makes you less vulnerable to risk?

I'm not less vulnerable. I just think others deserve a more conservative
standard of caution when I am assessing the risk on their behalf, and they don't
have the training or knowledge to assess it for themselves. I don't know what
their risk tolerance is, so I assume they are more risk averse than I am.

Others on the NG have expressed it more eloquently, sorry I wasn't clear.

"C Kingsbury" wrote in
nk.net:


"Michael" wrote in message
m...
Judah wrote

I seem to recall a thread a while back that discussed getting down
safely if you lose everything, and it involved trimming all the way
up and reducing the throttle and flying with the rudder only...
Admittedly, I never tried it, but it is an excercise worth trying
because I'd be curious to see if it really works...

When I owned a 100 kt fixed-gear, fixed-pitch airplane (TriPacer), I
could do it. If I had to, I could keep the wings level with just the
compass. Move up to a 160 kt retract, and it simply doesn't work that
well.

Works pretty well on a 172.



Something I learned once makes me wonder if this is a high-wing vs.
low-wing issue... From what I remember, because high wing planes have the
fuselage suspended from the Wing plane, they are more stable than
low-wing planes which have the fuselage mounted on top of the wing plane.
The person who made the comment to me compared it to hanging a ball from
a stick, vs. trying to balance the ball on top of the stick...

Maybe I'm just being a low-wing scapegoater.

Of course, I fly Low Wings these days, and some of my best friends fly
High Wings. So I couldn't be prejudiced!

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:46:19 GMT, Judah wrote:

Something I learned once makes me wonder if this is a high-wing vs.
low-wing issue... From what I remember, because high wing planes have the
fuselage suspended from the Wing plane, they are more stable than
low-wing planes which have the fuselage mounted on top of the wing plane.
The person who made the comment to me compared it to hanging a ball from
a stick, vs. trying to balance the ball on top of the stick...

Maybe I'm just being a low-wing scapegoater.

Of course, I fly Low Wings these days, and some of my best friends fly
High Wings. So I couldn't be prejudiced!


I think that's why low-wings have more dihedral designed into them,
but I could be wrong.

Thomas Borchert wrote
The 296 has a Attitude Indicator???

A TC, kind of.

Actually, to be pedantic, a T&S, kind of.

The T part or the T&S (Turn&Slip) is a constrained gyro that shows
rate of turn (really rate of yaw) only. The first attempts to build
an autopilot that did not need an expensive and finicky free gyro
(Attitude indicator) used these. They were uniformly unsuccessful.
Thus the TC was developed. It's really the same kind of constrined
gyro, only it's canted so that it shows a combined rate of turn and
rate of roll. This way, the indicator shows that the wings are no
longer level before the airplane has turned at all. That made the
autopilots work. It also made it easier to fly partial panel, and
these days the T&S is all but gone from GA.

Now obviously the GPS has no way to detect roll, so while it shows a
TC presentation, it really has T&S functionality - and on top of that,
there is a delay. So don't get the idea that is will be as easy to
fly the 296 panel as it is to fly normal partial panel.

Michael

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:14:45 GMT, wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:32:55 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:



Why? I'd be sad if my wife or one of my kids died, however, if I get
killed, I won't be sad at all! :-)

Matt


In other words, you'd be happy to be with Jesus, but the fact that

Now you're making assumptions

your wife and kids would be bereft of a providing husband and

In today's world?
If she's half way decent looking suitors will be showing up before the
body is cold. If she's half way decent looking and they think she
has money (late husband was one of those rich pilots) they'll be there
to help carry the body out with the parting phrase: "If there's any
thing at all I can do to help, *anything*, just let me know". "I'll
stop by tomorrow to see how you are doing".

nutturing father, and whose lives would have presumably taken a turn
for the worse, wouldn't bother you at all.

Now you're making assumptions again. She'll probably find a rich,
good looking one to fulfill her wildest dreams, send the kids to the
best private schools... What more could one ask.

Rather selfish of you, isn't it?

To help her get set up with a rich guy to take care of her and the
kids? I'd say that's being thoughtful.

Life is short and we only go around once. Enjoy it while you're here.


Roger

"Michael" wrote:
My initial reaction to reading that was that it was absolutely 100%
right, and I couldn't see how anyone could possibly disagree. Then I
realized that you (and I) made an implicit assumption. Let me make it
explicit.

The assumption you make is the assumption of a destination pilot.

When you make a trip that you would make in any case, only by private
airplane rather than an existing alternative (automobile, airline,
etc.) there are two separate classes of reasons for this. First,
there might be practical advantages such as cost (yeah, right),
comfort (my seats are a lot more comfortable than coach), convenience
(with regard to schedule flexibility and time - almost always the
case), and lack of frustration (sitting in traffic, being treated like
a criminal by the Thousands Standing Around, lost luggage). These I
would class as practical reasons, just as valid for your passenger as
they are for you, even if he doesn't care a bit about little airplanes
and will spend the flight sleeping or reading a book.

There is also that joy of flying that we all share - something that is
valid for you but not your passenger.

On the other hand, there is increased risk. It never ceases to amaze
me how many pilots are in denial about this increased risk. The truth
is, unless your alternative method of transportation was manufactured
by Yamaha or Harley Davidson, it is almost certainly safer.
Nevertheless, the other methods are not risk-free.

So we as pilots accept the increased risk for the increased benefits.
We have more increased benefits than our passengers (since we get to
enjoy the flight) so are willing to accept more risk. So far, I am
merely restating what you said, but in more detail (have you noticed I
have a habit of doing this?)

What!?! Never!

[snip]

If most of your flights have no real destination - meaning they are
either to nowhere at all or to someplace you would not bother going if
it meant driving or taking the airlines or the bus - then you're
likely to have the same risk tolerance for yourself and your
passengers, because your reasons for making the flight are
fundamentally the same. If most of your flights are for the purpose
of travel, and you would probably make the trip by other means if the
airplane was not an option, then you are more likely to realize that
you have more of a reason to make the trip by airplane than someone
who does not enjoy the flight, and thus are willing to accept more
risk.

Nope, I disagree -- I think. Assuming our passenger on the $100
hamburger trip is just as ignorant about flying as the one going 400
miles to a business neeting, isn't he entitled to the same cautious
discretion from his pilot as the serious traveler?

With a flying buddy I've made a $100 hamburger trip with low IMC all the
way just because, well, that's what we like to do, sick-os that we are.
That's a notably elevated risk level over a nice VFR trip, IMO, given
the airplane I fly. I would never invite a non-aviation savvy passenger
on such a trip, even if I knew he would enjoy it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not the purpose of the
flight but the risk level that should make the pilot consider whether
his passengers would decline the trip if they really knew the score.

I must say that, aside from Angel Flight, I get very few passengers
because, as much as I enjoy giving rides, I don't sugar coat the risks
for people. I flat out tell them that flying in a light aircraft is
more dangerous than riding in a car, and that tends to dampen a lot of
folks' enthusiasm.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:

Why would your own life somehow be less important than that of other
people, however closely related you may be to them? I don't think that
way. If I consider the risk acceptable to my life, it is acceptable to
other people's, too. And yes, there would be types of IMC I consider
too risky for myself.

I don't agree, Thomas.

Some people ferry single-engine airplanes across the vast oceans. This
is indisputably a high risk thing to do, but they accept the risk
because of the rewards of money and personal satisfaction. Still, I
very much doubt many of them take their kids along for the ride,
believing--appropriately, I would argue--that what is acceptable risk
for them is not acceptable for an innocent child. Would you say that the
ferry pilots think their lives are worth less than their children's?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM