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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I am in The Killing Zone
Here's a pilot profile
Between 50 and 350 hours Does not file a flight plan Gets a weather report from the flight briefer has less than 100 hours in the model he is flying has less than 20 hours of IFR training Leaves the airport in VFR conditions .... And never comes back. He/she dies on the way. Among the many reasons: weather, fuel starvation/exaustion, mid-air collisions, take off or landing accidents, among others. This is the killing zone and that profile fits me to a T. The Killing Zone: How or Why Pilots Die By Paul Craig. Between the hours of 50 and 350 you can find about 80% of all pilot-cause accidents. After 350 hours there's a SHARP drop. I am smack in the middle of it. The highest rate is between 50 and 150. I have 75. I picked up the book out of curiousity at Barns and Nobles the other day. Very interesting read ... I started looking at page 1, then 2, then 3 reading more and more intensely until it was time for bed yesterday and when I closed the book I was at page 70. I never devoured a book so intensely as I did for this. All I can say is that by the time I put the book down I had to take a pretty good look at myself as a pilot. I am in the Killing Zone and I have a good 300 hours to go. 3 years in the killing zone ... Statistics indicate that pilots that fly less often, crash more often. I am not done reading it ... So far this book has been a punch in the face but not surprising. Somehow now I know where that "sinking" feeling I have every time I am preflighting the plane comes from. That "worry" that "knot in my stomach" that doesn't quite go away until I am back from the flight and taxing back to parking. I think I mentioned before that I don't feel ready. Well ... I am not ready. I don't why I am not ready and I don't know what I am missing but at 75 hours I feel more uncomfortable than I used to feel at 50 or even 25. At 75 hours I feel like crap in fact and the more I fly the more I see things or think about things or consider things that I never thought about before. REmember that time that i was in poor visibility? 10 miles? What if I had lost an engine then? My first reaction at that time was to get closer to the ground so I could see more ... and in fact I did. It did help ... but by getting closer to the ground (flat ground ... safe) I was also giving up precious altitude to glide to a safe spot ... and under me there was nothing but trees. I did think about it at the time but the idea of hugging the ground and getting more visibility was more of a priority for me ... Then after the flight was over ... rational thought started creeping back in and i started wondering what the hell was I thinking ... I had good visibility anyway ... I was just uncomfortable in the haze and got comofortable closer to the ground but traded safety for comfort. Oh ... not a big deal I suppose ... the engine did work. The haze wasn't so bad. I made it there and back. But I dont' feel good about it. What I don't feel good about is that I let my sense of comfort take over rational thought. I had enough visibility at alititude (about 4000). I should not have descended (about 2000). If the visibility had gotten so worse that I could not fly safely without hugging the ground ... then it was time to do the shallow 180 and head back whence I came. Rational thought is what's needed here. If my Instinct are telling me to do something Rational Thought can't shut up and let Instinct take over. Rational Thought needs to ask WHY is Instinct telling me something. Is it telling me something that makes sense? Why am I uncomfortable? Is it because I never experienced so much haze and a visibility less than 20 miles? then it's safe. Rely on your training. Keep an eye on landmarks. Don't waste alititude. Check the ground frequently. Keep an eye out for other planes. Is it because now it's less than 10 miles? Time to do that 180. Keep a constant eye on the outside AND the attitude indicator, and the directional gyro. And get the hell out. But still keep HIGH. The ground is what hurts. Low level flying is NOT the answer. Plenty of telephone poles to smack into. So I land and one more cross country was over ... a few weeks ago. 4 hours more on my log book. only 294 more to go before I am out of the Killing Zone. I am a paranoid flyer. I am sprouting eyes in the back of my head and I am getting severly suspcious of anything out of the ordinary. I think I may be a very defensive flyer in fact. Here's an example. This past weekend was beautiful. But: the wind was 11 gusty 18 (which I can handle ... i handled 25 gusty to 35 direct crosswind at Linden. Nothign I want to do ever again ... but 7 knots of gust factor makes me mildly uncomfortable). But: that weekend we were supposed to fly to cape may But: I was supposed to fly with my wife and a friend of hers that I never met before. But: moderate turbulence on the way was forecasted But: the plane we were supposed to fly (Piper 180) has a "limp" right shock absorber and leaky breaks. Nothing I can't handle ... I can land without breaks. I usually land well within 1000 feet of runway barely touching the breaks. All of the facts above, taken singularly would not present a problem for me. I can take gusts. I can take turbulence. I can take a relatively long cross country. I can take strangers in the plane. I can take limp landing gears and leaky breaks. One at a time. Two of the above would make me think twice. All of them togheter are WAY outside of my envelope. Please keep in mind that none of the things were really THAT bad. I knew that. 11 gusty to 18 is nothing. I have done it plenty of times and the Piper 180 is VERY stable in crossiwinds (I used to do this in the 172 all the time which is a lot worse). My wife's friend flies in puddle jumpers all the time and according to her she can take any weather and she is not scared at all. The brakes are leaky but I don't generally use brakes other than if I am in a hurry to get out of the runway in case people need to land. I can land on one wheel (keeping the limp wheel off the runway for a bit) and my landings are generally soft (especially lately). But all of these factors just made me stop in my tracks and just say No. I am reading this book and I am thinking: am I taking this too seriously? Am I refusing to fly when it's perfectly safe to do so? Am I being too careful? But the most pressing question that is gravitating my mind is: am I "damaging" my experience by avoiding danger and risk and thus never learning how to deal with it? Is it wise not to push the envelope at all? Wouldn't it be wiser to push a little bit more and just learn how to deal with the problems? I mean ... you gotta see the problem and solve it in order to learn anything and if I am too defensive of a flyer ... I will never learn. Give all of the above considerations ... should I have flown last weekend instead? I am still thinking about this ... and i don't know that i have the answer .... yet. And I don't know if I will have the answer out of the killing zone .... at 400 hours. Or 1000. -- Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL My on-line aviation community - http://www.thepilotlounge.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
only 294 more to go before I am out of the Killing Zone.
You are back in the Killing Zone the moment you think you are out of it. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I had many of the same concerns (but not nearly as MANY ) Seems like your
ready to start your instrument rating lessons if you have not already. After you get your IR, there will be a whole lot of concerns on flying in the clouds. Probably spurring another email similar to the one below, then you'll be ready for the next rating. After a few ratings and/or tickets, yoo'll probably find yourself out of the killing zone. Marco P.S. I read the Killing Zone when it was first published. What I got out of it: 1) know your limitations, 2) be humble, 3) work at always being a better pilot. "Marco Rispoli" wrote in message t... Here's a pilot profile Between 50 and 350 hours Does not file a flight plan Gets a weather report from the flight briefer has less than 100 hours in the model he is flying has less than 20 hours of IFR training Leaves the airport in VFR conditions ... And never comes back. He/she dies on the way. Among the many reasons: weather, fuel starvation/exaustion, mid-air collisions, take off or landing accidents, among others. This is the killing zone and that profile fits me to a T. /sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/102-8065709-0344123?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]The Killing Zone: How or Why Pilots Die By Paul Craig. Between the hours of 50 and 350 you can find about 80% of all pilot-cause accidents. After 350 hours there's a SHARP drop. I am smack in the middle of it. The highest rate is between 50 and 150. I have 75. I picked up the book out of curiousity at Barns and Nobles the other day. Very interesting read ... I started looking at page 1, then 2, then 3 reading more and more intensely until it was time for bed yesterday and[/color] when I closed the book I was at page 70. I never devoured a book so intensely as I did for this. All I can say is that by the time I put the book down I had to take a pretty good look at myself as a pilot. I am in the Killing Zone and I have a good 300 hours to go. 3 years in the killing zone ... Statistics indicate that pilots that fly less often, crash more often. I am not done reading it ... So far this book has been a punch in the face but not surprising. Somehow now I know where that "sinking" feeling I have every time I am preflighting the plane comes from. That "worry" that "knot in my stomach" that doesn't quite go away until I am back from the flight and taxing back to parking. I think I mentioned before that I don't feel ready. Well ... I am not ready. I don't why I am not ready and I don't know what I am missing but at 75 hours I feel more uncomfortable than I used to feel at 50 or even 25. At 75 hours I feel like crap in fact and the more I fly the more I see things or think about things or consider things that I never thought about before. REmember that time that i was in poor visibility? 10 miles? What if I had lost an engine then? My first reaction at that time was to get closer to the ground so I could see more ... and in fact I did. It did help ... but by getting closer to the ground (flat ground ... safe) I was also giving up precious altitude to glide to a safe spot ... and under me there was nothing but trees. I did think about it at the time but the idea of hugging the ground and getting more visibility was more of a priority for me ... Then after the flight was over ... rational thought started creeping back in and i started wondering what the hell was I thinking ... I had good visibility anyway ... I was just uncomfortable in the haze and got comofortable closer to the ground but traded safety for comfort. Oh ... not a big deal I suppose ... the engine did work. The haze wasn't so bad. I made it there and back. But I dont' feel good about it. What I don't feel good about is that I let my sense of comfort take over rational thought. I had enough visibility at alititude (about 4000). I should not have descended (about 2000). If the visibility had gotten so worse that I could not fly safely without hugging the ground ... then it was time to do the shallow 180 and head back whence I came. Rational thought is what's needed here. If my Instinct are telling me to do something Rational Thought can't shut up and let Instinct take over. Rational Thought needs to ask WHY is Instinct telling me something. Is it telling me something that makes sense? Why am I uncomfortable? Is it because I never experienced so much haze and a visibility less than 20 miles? then it's safe. Rely on your training. Keep an eye on landmarks. Don't waste alititude. Check the ground frequently. Keep an eye out for other planes. Is it because now it's less than 10 miles? Time to do that 180. Keep a constant eye on the outside AND the attitude indicator, and the directional gyro. And get the hell out. But still keep HIGH. The ground is what hurts. Low level flying is NOT the answer. Plenty of telephone poles to smack into. So I land and one more cross country was over ... a few weeks ago. 4 hours more on my log book. only 294 more to go before I am out of the Killing Zone. I am a paranoid flyer. I am sprouting eyes in the back of my head and I am getting severly suspcious of anything out of the ordinary. I think I may be a very defensive flyer in fact. Here's an example. This past weekend was beautiful. But: the wind was 11 gusty 18 (which I can handle ... i handled 25 gusty to 35 direct crosswind at Linden. Nothign I want to do ever again ... but 7 knots of gust factor makes me mildly uncomfortable). But: that weekend we were supposed to fly to cape may But: I was supposed to fly with my wife and a friend of hers that I never met before. But: moderate turbulence on the way was forecasted But: the plane we were supposed to fly (Piper 180) has a "limp" right shock absorber and leaky breaks. Nothing I can't handle ... I can land without breaks. I usually land well within 1000 feet of runway barely touching the breaks. All of the facts above, taken singularly would not present a problem for me. I can take gusts. I can take turbulence. I can take a relatively long cross country. I can take strangers in the plane. I can take limp landing gears and leaky breaks. One at a time. Two of the above would make me think twice. All of them togheter are WAY outside of my envelope. Please keep in mind that none of the things were really THAT bad. I knew that. 11 gusty to 18 is nothing. I have done it plenty of times and the Piper 180 is VERY stable in crossiwinds (I used to do this in the 172 all the time which is a lot worse). My wife's friend flies in puddle jumpers all the time and according to her she can take any weather and she is not scared at all. The brakes are leaky but I don't generally use brakes other than if I am in a hurry to get out of the runway in case people need to land. I can land on one wheel (keeping the limp wheel off the runway for a bit) and my landings are generally soft (especially lately). But all of these factors just made me stop in my tracks and just say No. I am reading this book and I am thinking: am I taking this too seriously? Am I refusing to fly when it's perfectly safe to do so? Am I being too careful? But the most pressing question that is gravitating my mind is: am I "damaging" my experience by avoiding danger and risk and thus never learning how to deal with it? Is it wise not to push the envelope at all? Wouldn't it be wiser to push a little bit more and just learn how to deal with the problems? I mean ... you gotta see the problem and solve it in order to learn anything and if I am too defensive of a flyer ... I will never learn. Give all of the above considerations ... should I have flown last weekend instead? I am still thinking about this ... and i don't know that i have the answer ... yet. And I don't know if I will have the answer out of the killing zone ... at 400 hours. Or 1000. -- Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL My on-line aviation community - http://www.thepilotlounge.com Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:16:28 GMT, "Marco Rispoli"
wrote: snipped..... But the most pressing question that is gravitating my mind is: am I "damaging" my experience by avoiding danger and risk and thus never learning how to deal with it? Is it wise not to push the envelope at all? Wouldn't it be wiser to push a little bit more and just learn how to deal with the problems? I mean ... you gotta see the problem and solve it in order to learn anything and if I am too defensive of a flyer ... I will never learn. Give all of the above considerations ... should I have flown last weekend instead? I am still thinking about this ... and i don't know that i have the answer ... yet. And I don't know if I will have the answer out of the killing zone ... at 400 hours. Or 1000. Marco, I have been reading your posts since you started. You sound like you have a good head on shoulders and you have a healthy respect for the responsibility of flying. You ask good questions and show no false bravado. I don't even know you, but I'd fly with you in a heartbeat. I'm in the zone, too. And yes, I read the book and I take the message seriously. I think you're doing fine and just the fact that you are aware of the issue and also aware of the consequences of retiring to a cocoon confirms that. It's an exhilarating but unsettling situation when all of sudden you are no longer under the wing of a CFI. Most everyone feels a certain level of discomfort at first. You have to continually, but gradually, expand your experience envelope at a pace that suits you. You'll find that, as time goes on, you become more comfortable with less than perfect conditions. At the same time, you still have to honor personal limits and make objective decisions. Don't worry about it, you're fine. One last thing. I do know a pilot that has 150 hours and has gone almost nowhere. He remains within ten miles of the airport and rarely lands anywhere else. While your fears of remaining in the zone by not expanding your horizons may be valid, you have already demonstrated that this is not something that will happen to you. Keep flying and be concious of the zone, but don't let it scare you too much! Rich Russell |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
BTW, I read "The Killing Zone" too (just nearing 300 hours).
The only problem (and it's a minor one) with statistics is that to believe in them is to make a pilot feel as if he/she is just a victim of 'The Fates'. This is also the problem with John King's big announcement about 'the big lie' that I'm sure you've all heard about. If I believed in such determinism/fatalism I would sell my gear and give up flying and never have a second thought about it. The 'beauty' of flying is that we (individually) control many more of the risks than any other activity (like driving, for example). The risk of a midair is rare, but the risk of some drunk or distracted driver plowing into to you at 65 MPH, on the WAY to the airport is MUCH more likely - AND it is a situation that we have little or no control over,,,, unlike most of the aspects of flight. We are EACH individuals loaded chock-full with self-determinism as pilots. It is our attention to detail, from the briefing to the takeoff that affects the safety of our flights. So, don't ignore the 'details' and sound judgment ,, keep your proficiency well-honed AND enlist the services of your favorite CFI, now and then, to have a good 'objective' assessment of where you are at in your flying capabilities and I will be so bold to suggest that you have very little chance of getting 'bit'. I'm a little 'scared' now,,, in a few more minutes I have to do some site visits for clients and WILL HAVE TO DRIVE ON THE FREEWAY WITH ALL THOSE DARNED AUTOMOBILE/TRUCK DRIVERS,,,,,, YIKES!!!!!! ;-) -- -- =----- Good Flights! Cecil PP-ASEL Student-IASEL Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond! Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery - "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet" - Cecil Day Lewis - |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Great post!
I haven't read it but qualitatively, it rings true to me. I think feeling like you are on the bloody edge of your own compentence is a feeling we've all had and one that most of us seek out. It's the definition of challenge. Having some fear and being cautious is healthy I think Regarding leaky brakes and shocks and pushing the envelope. Pilots I look up to don't fly with a bad brakes. They get it fixed. There will be enough instances where you *discover* you have a bad brake and have to exercise those "land in the first 1,000" skills. No need to knowingly fly into such a situation. Ditto with the shocks. It seems the longer you fly you either: 1) get more cautious and take fewer risks because you know things will go wrong anyway and you need all the help you can get to overcome them or 2) get more complacent and take more risks because you know things will go wrong anyway but you can usually overcome them. The trip with the xwinds, shocks, brakes, and passenger is one of those situations where you are "picking up the package by its string". ....As in a passage from Flying Magazine many years ago. Some 'ol sage, when asked what the secret was to a long, safe flying life, said, "Avoid the terrain, don't run out of fuel, and don't pickup a package by its string" I always liked that one. It does require awareness that packages were once bundled up with string rather than tape. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Marco Rispoli" wrote in message et...
only 294 more to go before I am out of the Killing Zone. When you think you are out of the Killing Zone - that's when you'll really be dangerous. -- Gene Seibel Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html Because I fly, I envy no one. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Marco Rispoli" wrote in message
t... Here's a pilot profile Between 50 and 350 hours ... This is the killing zone and that profile fits me to a T. The problem I have with the Killing Zone is that the author never establishes that the fatality rate per hour of flight time is any greater for pilots in the 50-350 hour range than for pilots with any other level of experience. What he establishes instead is that the annual fatality rate per quantile of flight experience is elevated in that range of experience. But it's conceivable, for instance, that disproportionately many hours each year are flown by pilots in that range. Then, you'd expect disproportionately many fatalities in that range even if each hour flown by a pilot in that range is as safe (or even safer) than an hour flown by other pilots. Because he hasn't normalized by the annual hours flown, the author hasn't established that pilots in the designated "zone" have any elevated risk at all. --Gary |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Well, let's not go overboard either.
You took up flying because you enjoy it, right? If you come to the point where you no longer enjoy it, then don't make a point of pride out of it. Our psychological mind set has a lot to do with the outcome of everything we undertake. Without considering flying, all of us have seen talented, intelligent people get themselves into situations where they were subjugated - perhaps they "gave" power to someone else, who was able to manipulate them, perhaps through anxiety about a professional situation they got into a situation where they looked stupid, and everything they did only made them look more clueless, when you KNOW they have far greater talent and ability than that. As pilots and (perpetual) students, we are constantly trying to improve our risk management - however in our efforts I wonder if we don't sometimes create situations that actually degrade our performance. Look at the VFR into IMC problem. It has been drilled into us that an inadvertent foray by a VFR pilot into IMC is guaranteed to reduce his life expectancy to 23 seconds. Well that's not necessarily true, and neither is it a correct reading of the experiments cited to support it. With just a little bit of training, pilots can be expected to do much better - well over a minute in some cases! Seriously, I read an article recently in which a pilot recounts his foray into IMC. He enlisted the help of his non-pilot passengers - one to watch the AI, and to "yell" if it moved. Another to do the same with the VSI, the altimeter, etc. Well OK - he found a solution and came out of it alive, and good for him, but my impression in reading the article was that his greatest weakness was his attitude. He took it as a given that the situation was unsurvivable, when at the same time he demonstrated that he knew exactly what to do. In this case, I believe his training about risk actually hindered his performance, and with a little less of the "23 second" self-fullfilling prophecy, he would have improved his performance immeasurably. Many pilots have pretty interesting stories about early solo flights. The first time you think you're lost, and there's no instructor to bail you out. How many thoughts go through your mind before you finally decide "Wait a minute . . . I know how to do this"? After this, some assurance is gained, and every new challenge, despite the anxiety it produces, can be met with the LEARNED (not born-with) problem solving attitude - provided of course that you have not grossly overstepped your limits. To be honest, in the example cited here I don't think I would have flown either. I don't like the "leaky brakes" thing, particularly with passengers who place their trust in me. So it's not the decision I question, but all the brow-beating. I'm interested in hearing others' opinion here - even those who say I'm way off - but I think to fly safely (not to mention enjoyably) we should be more serene in our judgement of managable risks vs imprudence. G Faris |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I think I mentioned before that I don't feel ready. That's good... it will (should) make you a more careful pilot. I am worried about the pilot that that has not worries. (Alfred E. Newman comes to mind... "what, me worry?") Its healthy to question yourself... "am I prepared for this flight?" "Do I feel confident with the weather situation en-route?" You WILL feel more comfortable with more hours. Actually, for me it wasn't until I got my Commercial rating on top of an instrument rating that I spent more time enjoying the flight than sweating the details. Stick to the checklists, and scan the instruments (engine instruments too!) Don't ever get too confident. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
Trial Of Woman Accused Of Killing Military Husband Postponed | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 24th 04 12:05 AM |
spin zone | Ralph Griffith | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 14th 03 07:10 AM |
Spin Zone | Ralph Griffith | Piloting | 0 | August 14th 03 06:52 AM |