If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Marten Kemp wrote:
Jonathan Birge wrote: "Marten Kemp" wrote in message ... Martin, nobody likes to be outclassed by somebody who can take criticism so honorably. In fact, I find your integrity offensive. It's just selfish of you, to deny me my righteous flaming. This is Usenet, dammit! I was pretty rude. Come on! Let me have it! Don't leave me down here in the gutter alone. -Jonathan Okay, Johnny-boy. *Read my farking sig* the next time and at least get my name right, you jerk. Feel better now? {grin} Much, thank you! Sorry about screwing up your name. That was unintentional. You're welcome. It happens a lot, actually. -- Marten Kemp awwww... group hug.... theres a lotta love in this thread... teege ------------------------------------------------------- The beatings will continue until morale improves. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, Cap. That was a good discussion.
"Captain Wubba" wrote in message om... While I agree with the need to look at this kind of data in multiple ways, I think the 'per departure' numbers may be very misleading. First off, there are plenty of GA planes that make literally hundreds of departures per week. I see training planes at my airport do a dozen touch-and-goes an hour, and these planes often fly 30-40 hours a week in the summer. Does that count as a 'departure'? If so, then that would dramatically reduce the 'per departure' GA accident rate. If not, then why count the automoble 'departure' that consists of a 1 mile drive to the video store? A more 'meaningful' comparison would be to compare the fatalities in different groupings of activity. While this is necessarily somewhat arbitrary, I think a reasonable question would be "If I will be travelling more than 100 miles on this trip, and going between two cities, what is the liklihood that I will arrive safely in a GA plane vs. a car?" After all, airplanes and cars have very different mission profiles on short trips. One can hardly compare a 2 mile trip in a car to a 750 mile hard-IFR cross country. Neither can one compare a T&G with an instructor aboard to a 250 mile car trip in a driving blizzard. The comparison would be meaningless. In this, I think GA will come out better than one might think. I remember reading something from AAA a couple years ago basically saying that long-distance driving (i.e. or more than two hours I believe) was dramatically more dangerous than local driving. Which is quite logical. I recently returned (driving) from a 150 mile trip, and saw at least 10 crosses by the sides of the highway. I think that the comparison between this kind of driving and GA flying a similar distance will yield a reasonably close rate of fatality. In the end, one thing we know for certain is that the vast majority of aircraft fatalities are directly attributable to pilot error. I randomly looked at 100 NTSB fatal-accident reports the other day (slow day). 91% of these crashes were clearly pilot error. And, as the Nall Report reiterates every year, something like 75% of all aircraft accidents are related to just one of three causes (VFR into IMC, low-level maneauvering [stall-spins], and fuel mismanagement. This isn't complex stuff. This is trivially easy to prevent. All it takes is training and discipline. Personally, I think it is safer to fly GA with a 'professional' quality pilot than it is to drive a similar distance (assuming a cross country). If 90% of airplane fatalities can be attributed to pilots acting stupid, then it stands to reason that if you only fly with pilots who have the training and discipoline to *not* act the fool, then you are much more likely to arrive safely than if you were flying with the 'average' pilots. If GA has a reputation for being dangerous, there is nobody to blame but ourselves. Honestly...is there *ever* an excuse for running out of gas? Is there ever an excuse for intentionally flying into clouds when you are not qualified or prepared? But pilots do it all the time. And kill people. I'd feel much safer in the back of a 182 travelling 200 miles, being piloted by a pilot who never busts minima, who never lands with less than hour of gas, and who never shows off than I would even driving my own car that 200 miles. My odds of getting hit by a drunk driver, or getting clipped by a truck that can't see me, or getting distracted for that one second and not seeing the brake lights ahead of me seem vastly higher in the car than in the plane. Cheers Cap |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred B" wrote in message . .. Thanks, Cap. That was a good discussion. Prehaps to get a better grasp of GA Safety it would be necessary to evaluate/compare sub-catagories of GA incidents into professional, semi- professional, & recreational pilot groups. For purpose of discussion the "Professional Group" would include instructors, others who fly for pay. The semi-professional group are those that fly themselves as an adjunt to their professional activities on a regular basis . The recreation group being those who fly for recreation only. Ralph Nesbitt Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type "Captain Wubba" wrote in message om... While I agree with the need to look at this kind of data in multiple ways, I think the 'per departure' numbers may be very misleading. First off, there are plenty of GA planes that make literally hundreds of departures per week. I see training planes at my airport do a dozen touch-and-goes an hour, and these planes often fly 30-40 hours a week in the summer. Does that count as a 'departure'? If so, then that would dramatically reduce the 'per departure' GA accident rate. If not, then why count the automoble 'departure' that consists of a 1 mile drive to the video store? A more 'meaningful' comparison would be to compare the fatalities in different groupings of activity. While this is necessarily somewhat arbitrary, I think a reasonable question would be "If I will be travelling more than 100 miles on this trip, and going between two cities, what is the liklihood that I will arrive safely in a GA plane vs. a car?" After all, airplanes and cars have very different mission profiles on short trips. One can hardly compare a 2 mile trip in a car to a 750 mile hard-IFR cross country. Neither can one compare a T&G with an instructor aboard to a 250 mile car trip in a driving blizzard. The comparison would be meaningless. In this, I think GA will come out better than one might think. I remember reading something from AAA a couple years ago basically saying that long-distance driving (i.e. or more than two hours I believe) was dramatically more dangerous than local driving. Which is quite logical. I recently returned (driving) from a 150 mile trip, and saw at least 10 crosses by the sides of the highway. I think that the comparison between this kind of driving and GA flying a similar distance will yield a reasonably close rate of fatality. In the end, one thing we know for certain is that the vast majority of aircraft fatalities are directly attributable to pilot error. I randomly looked at 100 NTSB fatal-accident reports the other day (slow day). 91% of these crashes were clearly pilot error. And, as the Nall Report reiterates every year, something like 75% of all aircraft accidents are related to just one of three causes (VFR into IMC, low-level maneauvering [stall-spins], and fuel mismanagement. This isn't complex stuff. This is trivially easy to prevent. All it takes is training and discipline. Personally, I think it is safer to fly GA with a 'professional' quality pilot than it is to drive a similar distance (assuming a cross country). If 90% of airplane fatalities can be attributed to pilots acting stupid, then it stands to reason that if you only fly with pilots who have the training and discipoline to *not* act the fool, then you are much more likely to arrive safely than if you were flying with the 'average' pilots. If GA has a reputation for being dangerous, there is nobody to blame but ourselves. Honestly...is there *ever* an excuse for running out of gas? Is there ever an excuse for intentionally flying into clouds when you are not qualified or prepared? But pilots do it all the time. And kill people. I'd feel much safer in the back of a 182 travelling 200 miles, being piloted by a pilot who never busts minima, who never lands with less than hour of gas, and who never shows off than I would even driving my own car that 200 miles. My odds of getting hit by a drunk driver, or getting clipped by a truck that can't see me, or getting distracted for that one second and not seeing the brake lights ahead of me seem vastly higher in the car than in the plane. Cheers Cap |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:33:00 -0500, "Highfllyer" wrote: He got in trouble because he was flying using tried and proven VFR techniques on a legally VFR night when VFR techniques would not work. That can happen ANYTIME at night, even on a clear night. It is all a matter of visual reference. It can happen in the daytime also. It's happened to me turning downwind to base over water with limited (although legal VFR) visibility and no visual references in my field of view. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) He was a bad pilot. Just because you can buy it, doesn't mean you can fly it. PP SEL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
REAL NAVY LIFE | B.C. Mallam | Naval Aviation | 2 | February 10th 05 01:20 AM |
'Room Temperature' | Anthony | Home Built | 11 | August 23rd 04 07:36 PM |
Pat Tillman's wife is available | Jim | Military Aviation | 1 | April 27th 04 07:12 PM |
WW 2 Ace, Richard Bongs, wife dies | Fitzair4 | Home Built | 2 | October 3rd 03 05:02 AM |
Air Force wife, kids found dead | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 19th 03 04:36 AM |