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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Sarangan wrote
I think there is something else at play here. The 10,000+ hr pilot is likely an airline pilot. I don't believe airline cockpit skills are directly transferably to the GA cockpit. If there are skills at all. An airline pilot friend of mine frets about how he is going to operate his Baron. He says that while he flew the DC-9 and 727, his airline recurrent training and experience was OK, but now that he is in the Airbus (he refuses to call that flying) he is really concerned. I think your points about the crew environment and lack of redundancy are well taken, but we may be missing the fact that the modern airliner is just so much easier to fly than the complex single or light twin typically flown by the airline pilot on his days off that the skill level may simply have atrophied. If so, expect this to get worse in the future. Another interesting aspect of the Nall report is that student pilots accounted for fewer accidents even though they accounted for more flying hours. I don't think that's interesting at all. It's hard to get hurt if you never do anything. Student pilots fly under restrictions that would make aviation useless - in fact, they are specifically prohibited from doing most of the things that would make flying useful at all. Unfortunately, I am lately seeing a trend among instructors to make solo endorsements so restrictive that the student is never challenged, and to avoid challenging flights dual as well. I have no doubt that makes the training numbers look good, but the important question is what happens AFTER the training, when the student goes out on his own and starts using the airplane - especially those first few hundred hours before real experience is gained, when the student relies most on his primary training. I bet those numbers don't look so good. Michael |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Stadt" wrote in news:jzfmd.8294$tM7.1298
@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com: "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message 7... (Michael) wrote in om: Andrew Sarangan wrote Another interesting aspect of the Nall report is that student pilots accounted for fewer accidents even though they accounted for more flying hours. I don't think that's interesting at all. It's hard to get hurt if you never do anything. Student pilots fly under restrictions that would make aviation useless - in fact, they are specifically prohibited from doing most of the things that would make flying useful at all. Unfortunately, I am lately seeing a trend among instructors to make solo endorsements so restrictive that the student is never challenged, and to avoid challenging flights dual as well. I have no doubt that makes the training numbers look good, but the important question is what happens AFTER the training, when the student goes out on his own and starts using the airplane - especially those first few hundred hours before real experience is gained, when the student relies most on his primary training. I bet those numbers don't look so good. Michael In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were only 1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being increasingly prohibited from doing useful things? Without supporting data those numbers are totally meaningless. http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.34Statistics%20of% 20Flying.htm#Statistics%20of%20Flying The Nall report supports the 2003 data. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Sarangan wrote
In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were only 1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being increasingly prohibited from doing useful things? I don't have data for 1947. In 1955 Piper alone built over 1000 TriPacers - plus other aircraft. In 2003, all US manufacturers combined didn't build that many piston airplanes. Michael |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Andrew Sarangan
wrote: In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were only 1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being increasingly prohibited from doing useful things? In 1947, not only were virtually all light planes taildraggers (meaning lots of groundlooping), airfields were short, weather forecasting wasn't as good, instrumentation for weather flying was not fitted to many light planes (even most trainers now have the full IFR kit), the planes were lower powered (the typical trainer of '47 was an 85hp C140 on the more powerful end, 65hp aircraft were more typical - leading to higher risk mountain and hot weather flying), wake turbulence wasn't understood and NAVAIDs in many instances simply didn't exist. Not to mention in 1947, Cessna made more C140s alone than the entire light plane industry's output in 2003. The more telling stats is that despite Britain's more regulated aviation environment, the British accident rate is HIGHER than in the US. -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Malcolm Teas" wrote in message om... Hm. An FAA certified fuel gauge has to be right on two conditions: full and empty. No assurances of correctness anywhere else. Illegal cell phones, and now this old wives tale? It's retread week! I dunno about that. I'm repeating what I learned from an instructor of mine who's also an A&P. At your kind suggestion above I tried to track it down on the FAA website. TSO-C55 is titled "FUEL AND OIL QUANTITY INSTRUMENTS (RECIPROCATING ENGINE AIRCRAFT)", so that looked good. But it just refers me to SAE Aeronautical Standard AS-405B, "Fuel and Oil Quantity Instruments," dated July 15, 1958 for the details. It refers to older standards as well. Aeronautical standards are downloadable for $59 each from the SAE site www.sae.org. AS-405B was updated in July 2001 to AS-405C and now handles both float-type and capacitive instruments. (Capacative instruments were also covered in an earlier standard from 1989.) Also there's TSO-C47 from 1997 that covers "PRESSURE INSTRUMENTS - FUEL, OIL, AND HYDRAULIC". Unfortunately it also deadends into a SAE document. There's nothing in either TSO that answers this question. I'd expect that at least some of the difference of opinion we're finding are from older vs newer standards. Like we say in the computer biz, the nice thing about standards is that there's so many of them to choose from. Anyone got a extra $59 or so and want to resolve this? I'm curious, but not $59 curious. In any case, regardless of the standard, we all know about planes with fuel gauges that are at best a hint to your fuel condition. Seems best to track time as well as gauges like someone suggested. -Malcolm Teas |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Malcolm Teas" wrote in message
om... Hm. An FAA certified fuel gauge has to be right on two conditions: full and empty. No assurances of correctness anywhere else. Illegal cell phones, and now this old wives tale? It's retread week! I dunno about that. I'm repeating what I learned from an instructor of mine who's also an A&P. Certification rules require at least two things of fuel gauges: that they read "empty" when there is 0 usable fuel left (as opposed to dry tanks), and that they indicate the quantity of fuel in the tank. People commonly misinterpret the "0 usable fuel" clause to mean that's all a fuel gauge is required to do, but it's simply not true. I can't speak to the certification rules prior to the current Part 23, but I would be very surprised if they also only required an indication of empty or not. After all, that could satisfied with a simple on/off light, and I've never heard of an airplane so-equipped. See FAR 23.1337 for more details. Pete |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message 7... "Dave Stadt" wrote in news:jzfmd.8294$tM7.1298 @newssvr16.news.prodigy.com: "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message 7... (Michael) wrote in om: Andrew Sarangan wrote Another interesting aspect of the Nall report is that student pilots accounted for fewer accidents even though they accounted for more flying hours. I don't think that's interesting at all. It's hard to get hurt if you never do anything. Student pilots fly under restrictions that would make aviation useless - in fact, they are specifically prohibited from doing most of the things that would make flying useful at all. Unfortunately, I am lately seeing a trend among instructors to make solo endorsements so restrictive that the student is never challenged, and to avoid challenging flights dual as well. I have no doubt that makes the training numbers look good, but the important question is what happens AFTER the training, when the student goes out on his own and starts using the airplane - especially those first few hundred hours before real experience is gained, when the student relies most on his primary training. I bet those numbers don't look so good. Michael In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were only 1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being increasingly prohibited from doing useful things? Without supporting data those numbers are totally meaningless. http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.34Statistics%20of% 20Flying.htm#Statistics%20of%20Flying The Nall report supports the 2003 data. Still useless information for comparison purposes. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Dylan Smith wrote
The more telling stats is that despite Britain's more regulated aviation environment, the British accident rate is HIGHER than in the US. Of course. All safety rules inevitably make things less safe. Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Experienced avionics tech needed | Skypilot | General Aviation | 0 | January 5th 05 06:07 AM |
Dr.Curtiss runs out of his medicine | Toly | Piloting | 11 | August 24th 04 09:41 PM |
Wanted: Experienced CFIIs to Teach 10-day IFR Rating Courses near Pittsburgh | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | October 1st 03 01:50 AM |
Ever experienced panic in flight? | PWK | Home Built | 0 | August 27th 03 06:16 PM |
FORMATIONS, BOMB RUNS AND RADIUS OF ACTION | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | August 10th 03 02:22 AM |