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

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)

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

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

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 -

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.

"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.

"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

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

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.