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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Garret" wrote in message
... [...] I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N flights. But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights. As I said, no one ever does that. It's absurd to base any discussion on the idea that anyone does, and certainly on the idea that it's a common analysis generally useful to pilots. Pete |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"jd-10" wrote in message
... I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say it, I will: [ill-conceived, irrational, rude diatribe deleted] Probably more like everyone else has too much common sense to say what you said. There's a lot of people out there who would say exactly what you said, only they say it about flying in general. What makes your statements any more accurate than theirs? Pete |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"jd-10" wrote in message ... I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say it, I will: You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six loaded. Wow! That's not what I was thinking at all. I don't think I'll be flying at night over the Sierra(s) anytime soon, but I'm not making any personal assumptions about anyone in this newsgroup who does. On another note, I mentioned that I fly over the Sierra(s) frequently in my single. I still think that if the engine died, I would too, even in CAVU VFR. There is just nowhere to land. I don't perceive myself as one of those people of whom you speak. (waiting for assinine comment that I *am* one of those people) Say what you will. This is an acceptable risk for me. Adam N7966L Beech Super III |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"jd-10" wrote in message ... In article , Matt Whiting wrote: People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It depends on the circumstances I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say it, I will: You are a * PLONK! Regardless of whether or not I agree with the gist of the post.... |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"jd-10" wrote in message ... In article , Matt Whiting wrote: People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It depends on the circumstances I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say it, I will: You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six loaded. You are a corpse waiting to happen. If you fly with your wife, she is as well. It's death-wish assholes like you that give all the reasonable and prudent GA pilots a bad name. You're no different than a guy I used to see in Montana, at the annual Schafer fly-in. I saw him drink two beers and then jump in his 185 and go fly. At the time, I told a friend "that guy is a corpse waiting to happen. He's one of those guys who thinks **** won't happen to him, and one of these days he's going to paint himself into a corner he can't get out of." Less than a year later, the guy was dead, killed in a collision with a cumulo-granite not far from Schafer, scud running. He took two others with him, the son of a bitch. You remind me of that guy. No regard for your own safety, much less the safety of others. I hope you wise up before you kill your wife. -- JD-10 I would rather fly over the mountains at night in a single engine than drive on today's highways theres way to many people out there that are on some kind of mind altering substance "pansy pills" and some people think calling some one you dont know a "*****ing* fool" may not be the safest thing to do in this day and age also. If I seen someone down 2 beers and junp in to an airplane I would do what ever was in my power to try and stop the person from taking off. But from what you said you could also be a fool for just sitting and talking about it doing nothing. Ohh!!! There is a big diffreance in flying over mountians at night in a single engine airplane. Than drinking and flying! Some of us weigh risk in different ways, in this part of the country even if it were during the day we may only have a 3 to 5% better chance of surviving if it was daytime. The terrain we fly over sometimes it can take 4 to 6 hours to walk a mile in it and most the time no wreckage can be found. People in Seattle Area did they ever find that L39 that disappeared in the cascades this fall? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote 45. Who won the bet? :-) Matt I lost. I saw something lately, saying that people's brains do not develop the part that has to do with risk assessment, until after 25. I guess you are immature for your age. Tell me, what was so important, that the flight could not wait until morning? -- Jim in NC |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote: "Ron Garret" wrote in message ... [...] I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N flights. But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights. As I said, no one ever does that. Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short. rg |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Garret" wrote in message
... Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short. You claim that someone does. In order to truthfully make that claim, you would have to know of such a person. If you knew of such a person, it would be trivial for you to say who that person is. The only logical conclusion from your refusal to say who that person is, is that you are untruthful when you claim that someone does. As far as "arguing", well...if you're not willing to support your statements with any factual evidence, I can see why you have such a low tolerance for "arguing". Pete |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm ...
Not the combination of words I would choose to use - but I'm sure we all got the essence of what you're trying to say! For me though - seriously - I do wonder just how much being "PC" does detract from safety messages. Often I've wondered if the point would be better illustrated by a short audio/visual presentation showing unsanitised dismembered corpses & injured passengers screaming with pain & listening to children breaking down at funerals when they tell everyone how much they miss their dad. Been there - done that. For me the fact that my kids need a dad weighs heavy on my mind. Sure, some may argue that it's safer not to fly at all - for me it was all about compartmentalising the risks - avoiding those I felt were unacceptable (eg night flight in a 150 over mountainous terrain) - and taking all appropriate steps to minimise others (eg wearing a life jacket over water - carrying additional survival equipment on cross country flights etc). One might think of me as a pilot who won't fly if there is so much as a cloud in the sky, but not so - in reality I only have to cancel very few because of unacceptable weather and other factors. I don't feel I'm at risk on days where the weather is less then ideal - and I'm not afraid to take a look at some of the bad stuff from a few angles - but I have a certain switch in my head that says "to push it past this point is dangerous - it limits my options - and I'm just not going to do it" - perhaps a good standard might be "would you do this or that on a VFR flight test with the testing officer along side"? For me, I'd like to think that "thinking safety" is now instinctive to how I conduct my flying - I see this same attitude in many professional crews of heavy metal - and yet I NEVER see it amongst the GA pilots I have regular personal contact with (them being the breed that keep killing themselves). In contrast I see a large number who think they're 10 foot tall and bullet-proof. This puzzles me - I'd love to know just what the formula is that turns "safety unconscious" GA pilots into "safety aware" professional crew. Any ideas gratefully accepted. For me it's all about striving to be a superior pilot - and accomplishing that by using superior judgement to avoid situations that require the use of (perhaps?) superior skill. CC "jd-10" wrote in message ... In article , Matt Whiting wrote: People talk about safety like it is an absolute and it simply isn't. It depends on the circumstances I've read this entire thread and while everyone else is too PC to say it, I will: You are a *****ing* fool. As big a fool as the OP. Flying single-engine in the mountains at night is like playing Russian roulette with 4 of six loaded. You are a corpse waiting to happen. If you fly with your wife, she is as well. It's death-wish assholes like you that give all the reasonable and prudent GA pilots a bad name. You're no different than a guy I used to see in Montana, at the annual Schafer fly-in. I saw him drink two beers and then jump in his 185 and go fly. At the time, I told a friend "that guy is a corpse waiting to happen. He's one of those guys who thinks **** won't happen to him, and one of these days he's going to paint himself into a corner he can't get out of." Less than a year later, the guy was dead, killed in a collision with a cumulo-granite not far from Schafer, scud running. He took two others with him, the son of a bitch. You remind me of that guy. No regard for your own safety, much less the safety of others. I hope you wise up before you kill your wife. -- JD-10 |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Colin W Kingsbury wrote: and after we turned about 270 degrees, he looked over and said, "boy, you're sure confused," and within about 15 seconds had us back on course & altitude. ATC didn't even mention it. ATC didn't see it. In a slow airplane, you fly in one place a long time, and ATC only sees a blip, not your airplane changing attitudes or heading. They're doing something else anyway; not much to hold their interest in a blip on the screen that never seems to move. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
Night Flying Tips | BoDEAN | Piloting | 7 | May 4th 04 03:22 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
FORSALE: HARD TO FIND CESSNA PARTS! | Enea Grande | Products | 1 | November 4th 03 12:57 AM |
Headlight for night flying | Paul Tomblin | Piloting | 22 | September 27th 03 09:32 AM |