Safety, yet again...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
e) Never fly at night

You're missing some great views.

I know. But it's one aspect of risk that Mary and I have agreed is
easily avoidable. Once the kids are on their own, we'll go back to
night flying, I'm sure.

I'm with you on the rest, except maybe the IFR part, once I'm
instrument rated. To me there's IFR, and there's _IFR_.

IFR flight is MUCH more dangerous than VFR flight. The statistics of
single-pilot IFR flight are quite appalling, and have kept Richard
Collins (of Flying Magazine) in a job for forty years.

It's not IFR flying that's dangerous, but the conditions under which those
flights are conducted.

Geez, Jay, every airline flight is conducted under IFR...

IFR flight is MUCH more dangerous than VFR flight. The statistics of
single-pilot IFR flight are quite appalling, and have kept Richard
Collins (of Flying Magazine) in a job for forty years.

It's not IFR flying that's dangerous, but the conditions under which those
flights are conducted.

Geez, Jay, every airline flight is conducted under IFR...

Duh, Matt -- we're not talking about the airlines here. We're talking
about Spam Can IFR flight, which by any statistical measure remains
light years more dangerous than day VFR flight.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Um, if you actually READ my account, we performed a 180 and landed the
plane.

If I hadn't READ the original story, that anecdote wouldn't have popped
into my mind when enjoying your latest thread, no? Actually, I thought you
would have been slightly impressed with the fact that some drop in the
Usenet ocean actually remembered a two year-old story of yours.

I believe this is the prescribed procedure to follow when one
runs into deteriorating weather?

In any case, flying at 700 feet *prior* to your 180 was the act to which I
was referring. With the literal explosion of 1,000+ foot digital towers
going up around the country, were you were absolutely certain that the
particular area in which you were scud running was clear of these obstacles
before dropping down to that altitude?

Are you implying that prior to embarking on your return trip, you checked
the VFR chart notams for that lengthy route, from Florida to Iowa, in the
event you needed to drop below a 1,000 ft ceiling in low visibility
somewhere along the way? Was your wife in the right seat following your
exact route on the VFR sectional chart to ensure your continued clearance
of all charted objects? If you really did that then I *sincerely* am
impressed with the thoroughness of your VFR flight planning skills and your
cockpit resource management skills.

However, if not, then dropping below a lowering ceiling in low visibility
over an unfamiliar area certainly would be classified as an SPT, regardless
of the outcome.

--
Peter

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

Your list is comprehensive and no doubt helpful, with the exception of
items
D and E, which taken together I consider a net negative.

Interesting that you would say that, John. Why is not flying IFR, and
not flying at night "taken together a net negative"?

Because by eschewing night and IFR/IMC operations you exempt yourself from
two-thirds of the operational environmental exposure that will, by
contributiing to your overall broad base of experience, help to prevent you
from making one of those "stupid pilot tricks". Nothing to go crazy over --
I just think you'd likely be a better all-around aviator with night and
instrument experience. I will acknowledge, however, that unless you are
likely to fly regularly in the IFR system, your policy may well be best. A
rusty instrument pilot who doesn't realize it is a dangerous thing indeed.
I'm forming opinions from a pov where IFR ops were so normal that somewhat
reduced viz and relatively mild wx systems were really non-events.

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
Hell, what's the rate for auto trips versus walking to the store? :~)


A fatality to that one person in America, who still walks to the store,
would skew the numbers as dramatically as the one fatal accident in the
super-safe Concorde program.

http://www.concordesst.com/accident/accidentindex.html
The web page is titled "Accident" .....(singular).


Montblack

On 2006-04-24, Jay Honeck wrote:
IFR flight is MUCH more dangerous than VFR flight. The statistics of
single-pilot IFR flight are quite appalling, and have kept Richard
Collins (of Flying Magazine) in a job for forty years.

It depends on sector. Business GA flying (not corporate, but someone
flying their personal C182 somewhere on business) seems to have a much
better safety record than pleasure GA flying - despite the added 'get
there itis' factors that business GA will undoubtedly entail (and the
amount of IFR that business GA would also entail).

The difference between the business flyer of a light GA plane and the
pleasure flyer, someone going on a trip every so often for vacations or
whatever - is probably the business flyer is a LOT more current on IFR
procedures than the pleasure IFR flyer. With VFR, you can get away with
a bit of uncurrency - scraping the rust off isn't that hard, and you can
probably do it without hurting yourself. But someone barely IFR current
going out on a high workload IFR trip is another matter entirely.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...


The difference between the business flyer of a light GA plane and the
pleasure flyer, someone going on a trip every so often for vacations or
whatever - is probably the business flyer is a LOT more current on IFR
procedures than the pleasure IFR flyer.


This ia an excellent point. I'd like to see the data on accident:last flight
for GA.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...


The difference between the business flyer of a light GA plane and the
pleasure flyer, someone going on a trip every so often for vacations or
whatever - is probably the business flyer is a LOT more current on IFR
procedures than the pleasure IFR flyer.


This ia an excellent point. I'd like to see the data on accident:last
flight for GA.
Pick a bunch from the NTSB reports; you'll find that many (most ?) had the
pilot not maintained currency, frequently by substantial margins. Not only
is it a blunder in maintaining control, but even worse, dealing with
equipment failures.

How much of the problem of single pilot IFR is matter of workload? Minimum
equipment for IFR is still a massive task when handled alone. How about
antiquated equipment (ie, a King 105 vs a 155 with flip-flop frequencies)?
Lack of at least (or knowing how to properly operate) even a simple
autopilot?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Better than that, actually, I had a huge, color moving-map GPS
stationed front and center, that showed the precise location of every
obstruction along my route of flight.

you do NOT want to know how many obstructions are not listed or
are listed in the wrong place.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Jay, I think Matt was differentiating IFR versus IMC. I fly IFR much more
than I do VFR but I fly in VMC much more than I do IMC.

Back to you original post, I too have thought about how to extrapolate the
stupid pilot tricks and careless pilots out of the equation. I've come to
the conclusion that it's too subjective to get a reliable statistic. What
dangerous to one pilot may be routine for another. You can get dizzy if you
over-analyze the myriad of risk vs. reward factors that come into play on
any given flight.

What's interesting about the stats that you posted is that pilots occupy the
extremes at both ends. The next question a safety-concious pilot must ask is
how can they emulate the Part 121 pilots (in terms of training and to a
lesser extent equipment) as much a possible while still retaining the joy of
flight. That answer, like how people fly, will be different for each pilot.

Although I don't play a lot, the game of Poker can teach some real-life
strategies in that you try and acquire the best hand you can possibly get.
Then you just have to go with what you got.

Marco







"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
IFR flight is MUCH more dangerous than VFR flight. The statistics of
single-pilot IFR flight are quite appalling, and have kept Richard
Collins (of Flying Magazine) in a job for forty years.

It's not IFR flying that's dangerous, but the conditions under which
those
flights are conducted.

Geez, Jay, every airline flight is conducted under IFR...

Duh, Matt -- we're not talking about the airlines here. We're talking
about Spam Can IFR flight, which by any statistical measure remains
light years more dangerous than day VFR flight.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"




Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com