I am in The Killing Zone

In article ,
says...


I do ascribe to the premise that they are approximately equal in
danger level to the participant. That, however, is based upon pure
numbers without any regard for other factors. While deaths may be
statistically equivalent there is a very significant difference
between the two activities. When flying, your fate is much more in
your hands than it is when your driving a motorcycle. When I fly, I
know that if I am going to die on that flight that the probability of
my death being the result of my own error is extremely high. While
driving my motorcycle, I am much more at the mercy of what is going on
around me and, if I die on that ride, there is a much greate chance
that my death is the result of something other than my own error.
That's not to say that bikers don't screw up and kill themselves, but
there are many, many incidents where bikers are killed by deer,
drunks, people running lights, "Officer, I never saw the bike", and so
on.

The net result is that, even though I have vastly more experience on
the bike (almost a Dudley-esque level), I feel safer when I am flying
because I know that I have a greater degree of control over my
destiny.



I agree with that too. The chances of your being killed "by someone else"
while flying are small. You are boss.

G Faris

"Joe Johnson" wrote in message news:2Xkwc.5825

I'm a newly minted PP-ASEL and I'm as scared (though not as eloquent) as
Marco. Are you saying the whole thesis in The Killing Zone is based on
such
an elementary methodological error?

Don't be afraid, just be aware and prepared.

I read a statistic back in the early '90s that said that newly-minuted
private pilots were less at risk than pilots in the 150-hour range, because
their training and discipline was more current and they have flown more
regularly than somebody like me, who logged a couple of hours a year until
just recently. I'm at 150 hrs now, and thankful that I'm in a training
program again because I can see how some of my skills have rusted that,
without IFR training, I would have forgotten about all together. Other than
that I'd probably me more of a danger to myself than I was at 50 hrs.

-c

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message

If your CFI didn't know that it was closed for noise, she/he might not
have
known had it been closed for safety-related reasons. This is exactly the
issue I've found myself having with "instructor in command" (nice label,
BTW!).

Personal example: I failed my PPL checkride because of the Xctry section,
where I picked a private field as a waypoint. My instructor, who moved from
another state, referred to the field all the time. I should have known
better; I had already suspected he was wrong, but who argues with their
instructor? When the examiner asked "Where's your waypoint?" and I
pointed to an old, abandoned airstrip, he pointed to a field near it and
said "Nope. THAT'S the airstrip. The owner is a farmer, and when he wants
to fly, he checks his windsock and mows the field accordingly. You should
have been taught not to use private airstrips as waypoints."

I should have stuck with my hunch and picked a different waypoint when I
practiced the SAME cross country with the instructor onboard the day before.

-c

"Teacherjh" wrote in message

With or without an instructor, why would a grass strip be a problem?

Ask the FBO. IT is pretty much universal that if you rent and airplane,
you
must land on a paved strip 2000 feet long or longer. It probably has
something
to do with insurance. I won't even attempt to fathom their reasoning.

That's what I was told. An instructor of mine was fired for having me land
on a grass strip. The sad thing was, not only was he one of the best
instructors I've ever had, I had landed (as a passenger) at the same grass
strip in the same FBO's aircraft when the OWNER of the FBO gave me a
discovery flight.

-c

"Cub Driver" wrote in message

I go out of my way to land on grass. I hate that SQUEAK! when I land
on asphalt.

At the glider towing facility at McMinnville, Oregon, the lady who flies the
cropduster/tow plane lands on the grass next to the asphalt because, she
says, it's easier on the tires.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...
Personal example: I failed my PPL checkride because of the Xctry section,
where I picked a private field as a waypoint. My instructor, who moved
from
another state, referred to the field all the time. I should have known
better; I had already suspected he was wrong, but who argues with their
instructor?

I do. But then I suppose most people here wouldn't find that surprising.
It turns out that I'm right almost all the time, but not 100%.

When the examiner asked "Where's your waypoint?" and I
pointed to an old, abandoned airstrip, he pointed to a field near it and
said "Nope. THAT'S the airstrip. The owner is a farmer, and when he wants
to fly, he checks his windsock and mows the field accordingly. You should
have been taught not to use private airstrips as waypoints."

I should have stuck with my hunch and picked a different waypoint when I
practiced the SAME cross country with the instructor onboard the day
before.

There may be reason not to pick a particular private airstrip as a waypoint.
However:

* I fail to see how the airstrip in question here was a sufficiently
poor waypoint to justify failing you on your checkride. Did the error
create a hazard, or a significant error in your groundspeed calculation? I
doubt it did. I doubt it had ANY effect whatsoever on anything important.

* Lots of private airstrips are fixed firmly to the ground, and are
every bit as reasonable as a waypoint as a paved public airport. To claim
that "you should have been taught not to use private airstrips as waypoints"
is every bit as erroneous as if someone claimed "you can always use private
airstrips as waypoints".

Frankly, sounds to me as though you and your instructor got a bum rap by an
overly critical examiner.

Which is not to say you shouldn't argue with your instructor. You should
always question what they say, if you don't understand what they said or why
they said it. Sometimes you'll find out the instructor was wrong, and
sometimes you'll learn with greater depth about how and why they were right.
But either way, there's a benefit.

Pete

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:27:38 -0700, "gatt"
wrote:

You should
have been taught not to use private airstrips as waypoints."

That seems rather odd to me. Among my waypoints are my house, the
Newmarket gym, the town of Durham, Littlemark Island, a couple of
exits on I-93, and the southeast corner of an unnamed lake in Maine,
not to mention two private airstrips. A waypoint is any easily
recognized point that you might want to use for navigation, plus those
where you might want to land sometime.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:18:01 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

The net result is that, even though I have vastly more experience on
the bike (almost a Dudley-esque level), I feel safer when I am flying
because I know that I have a greater degree of control over my
destiny.

Bingo.

When I ride, I am in a constant state of alertness -- partially for my own
performance, but mostly for those around me.

When I fly, I am in a constant state of alertness -- partially for those
around me, but mostly for my own performance. (And the performance of my
aircraft.)

I am much more comfortable dealing with my own abilities and limitations;
thus, although it may be an illusion, I feel much safer flying.

Jay,
I don't think it is an illusion. Your awareness of the issue and your
alertness to your performance "make" it safer. I believe that you
have the ability to tip the scales in this situation. No smoke and
mirrors required.
Rich Russell

(G Farris) wrote
I agree with that too. The chances of your being killed "by someone else"
while flying are small. You are boss.

Actually, the closest I ever came to dying in an airplane, it was
because someone else (an air traffic controller) lost situational
awareness.

Michael