Safety, yet again...

Longworth wrote:

My Lowrance Airmap 100 uses Jeppesen database with 28 day cycle.

Is that both obstacle and nav data?

--
Peter

Grumman-581 wrote:

Awh 'ell... Just being alive is dangerous... If you don't watch out, sooner
or later, ya' gonna die...

This guy might have been "safely" sitting on the couch, watching TV:

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2006/04/24/news/breaking_news/doc444c973802890513232178.txt

If he isn't the poster child for getting out and living, I don't know
who is. He'd be alive today, if he were out flying! G

("Grumman-581" wrote)
No cell towers around? =8^(

In the middle of a #%^&*n' swamp? Nawh, not likely...


Radio towers...

http://www.1450wgns.com/tower.html
Back in 1946, when Cecil Elrod constructed the Good Neighbor Station, the
engineers knew that placing the tower and ground system in a swampy area
would dramatically increase the signal strength and coverage. The design of
the new PiRod tower with Kintronic's folded dipole antenna take even greater
advantage of the water.


Montblack

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

By and large, I have a greater degree of control over the risks involved
with flying an airplane than I do with the risks involved in driving a
car on the highway. I take steps to mitigate the risks in aviation and,
as a result, I do indeed believe that I'm generally safer in the
airplane than in the car.

With respect, you are kidding yourself if you believe that.

You have convinced yourself that you are sufficiently skilled and cautious to
overcome at least a 700% disparity in fatal accident rates--or greater if you
use the statistics Jay posted. Do you really believe that you possess
sufficient superiority to all other GA pilots to achieve this immunity?
Where do you think that puts you on the pilot bell curve? Most pilots think
they're right there with you, and therefore a bunch of you have to be wrong.

From what I know of your flying, I presume you do not limit yourself to trips
around the pattern on pretty days; you demand utility from your piloting and
your airplane. This means that you take risks, and, by any empirical measure
we have available, your risks flying are far greater than your risks driving.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"Margy Natalie" wrote:


Make sure you add don't fly ...(within 20 miles) of convective weather.

A nice rule, but down here in Thunderstorm Alley it would keep you on the
ground a lot.

http://www.weatherpages.com/variety/thunderstorms.html

Where CBs are an almost daily event 5 months of the year, one has to be a
bit more discriminating about what constitutes a really dangerous storm,
or one's flying will be severely restricted.

Average of 79 days a year? All day? Static?

Most of those 79 are concentrated in summer. There is a morning shift of
CBs and an afternoon shift, and some days they overlap. This sometimes
happens every day for a month. Thunderstorms are my cross to bear; that's
why I think the 396 is the greatest aviation gadget ever.

Not even a 20 mile gap?

I mean there are plenty of days in the summer when you'd have trouble getting
out of Mobile on time if you *insisted* on a 20-mile gap. Even if you did
dart out when you saw an opening, you might then have to land short of your
destination and wait until there was a 20-mile clear path and radius to that
airport. If I had all day to sit around FBOs waiting for just the right
moment, I suppose I wouldn't care.

Most of the summer sea breeze boomers on the Gulf Coast do not need a 20-mile
separation for safety. 10 miles is plenty.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Jay,

The fact that you list both GA and auto fatality statistics implies
that you wish to compare them in some way. So I must ask why you would
wish to eliminate spt's from the equation, while not eliminating sdt's
(stupid driver tricks)? Surely you must realize that many auto
fatalities are the result of sdt's (eating/talking on phone/driving
with not enough sleep/drinking/etc...) - acts that you undoubtably
avoid just as you avoid spt's. Are you simply trying to comfort
yourself in the feeling that GA flying is safer than it really is?

Note - I am not discounting the higher probability of someone else's
sdt killing you while you drive, while it's likely that you would only
die from your own spt while flying.

-CK

A PIREP Jay wrote up about a flight to Las Vegas a month or two back
comes to mind - I think Jim Burns was the PIC with Jay a passenger. If
I recall correctly, there were multiple legs flown through high winds
on that trip - high enough to cause sickness to the pilot and
passenger(s), and enough to damage the aircraft during one landing. If
they had died, some would have labeled that flight a SPT.

The fact is that most accidents (car, plane, boat, etc) are caused by
one or more misjudgements/mistakes. We are all human and are all prone
to making mistakes. Certainly we can improve our odds somewhat by not
deliberately doing "stupid" things. But it only takes one mistake to
kill you one time...

The fact that you list both GA and auto fatality statistics implies
that you wish to compare them in some way. So I must ask why you would
wish to eliminate spt's from the equation, while not eliminating sdt's
(stupid driver tricks)?

It's not that I don't want to compare them -- I do, if only for the
purposes of comparison. Removing stupid tricks from both figures would
be okay by me.

Really, though, I don't care about the risks of driving. I *do* care
about the risks of flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:
By and large, I have a greater degree of control over the risks involved
with flying an airplane than I do with the risks involved in driving a
car on the highway. I take steps to mitigate the risks in aviation and,
as a result, I do indeed believe that I'm generally safer in the
airplane than in the car.

With respect, you are kidding yourself if you believe that.

I disagree. The reality is that the risks to you from other drivers on
the road are far greater than the risks to you from other pilots in the
air, with some possible limited exceptions. You can increase your risk
on the road by driving in a careless and reckless manner, and by using
poor judgment, just as you can in the air. You can mitigate the risk to
yourself on the road and in the air through education, training,
experience, and self-discipline. Whether you practice effective risk
management is entirely up to you.



You have convinced yourself that you are sufficiently skilled and cautious to
overcome at least a 700% disparity in fatal accident rates--or greater if you
use the statistics Jay posted. Do you really believe that you possess
sufficient superiority to all other GA pilots to achieve this immunity?
Where do you think that puts you on the pilot bell curve? Most pilots think
they're right there with you, and therefore a bunch of you have to be wrong.

To be honest, I haven't been following this thread very diligently, so I
don't know what statistics Jay posted, or what he was claiming. I also
don't place much value on statistics unless they are placed in their
proper context.

I believe that I possess better skills and judgment that a majority of
the accident pilots. A vast majority of GA accidents are caused by a
string of very poor judgments by the pilot(s) involved, and usually the
string of poor judgments appeared prior to the accident flight.

I believe that I can end up as a negative statistic, but I believe that
I won't end up as a negative statistic as long as I am smart enough to
know what I don't know, and conservative enough to call it quits before
I get into trouble.

Risk management through education, training, and continuous practice
(experience) can substantially decrease your chances of becoming a
negative statistic.



From what I know of your flying, I presume you do not limit yourself to trips
around the pattern on pretty days; you demand utility from your piloting and
your airplane. This means that you take risks, and, by any empirical measure
we have available, your risks flying are far greater than your risks driving.

I do not limit myself to nice sunny days with no wind, but I don't take
risks that I consider to be unnecessary. If it's too windy, if there's
ice, thunderstorms, or the weather is at minimums, I just don't go.
Part of my decision is based on my own skills and personal limitations,
and part of my decision is based on the capabilities and limitations of
the equipment that I fly. In any case, the end result is that I
mitigate the risk to an acceptable level which, for me, makes that 500
mile trip much safer than an equivalent trip in the automobile.

I should also note that I don't plow through midnight snowstorms at
80mph on the highway, either, but I can tell you first-hand that many
drivers apparently don't have the same approach to risk management that
I practice on the road.


JKG

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
While I am sure that you learned a great deal from your SNF trip I think
you
must agree that sections of your trip story were starting to read like an
accident report.

Traveling cross country in a light airplane is relatively more
dangerous than sitting on the couch. All sorts of things can happen,
and you must be prepared to handle them as best you can.

I know pilots that never leave the pattern, simply because of this
fact.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


I do not mean to suggest that I am adverse to risk. I think risk is an
integral part of a complete life. What I am opposed to is ignoring risk
(recklessness) or underestimating risk. Teenagers are unable to understand
the concept of consequence and therefore think they are invulnerable. This
leads them to accept levels of risk that they would avoid as adults. As
adults we try to diminish risk in order to increase our comfort level. I
suggest that the acknowledgment of risk is the first step to managing it. I
believe you are a conscientious pilot who is trying to be as safe as you can
be; I just think that you should acknowledge your own fallibility. Safety
like democracy requires constant vigilance, and as pilots we also require at
least one possible alternate strategy.



IMHO the current huge desire to guaranty complete safety is a quest for the
unobtainable and in many cases the price for increased safety is higher than
its benefit. It seems like every current event has made the 'person in the
street' feel unsafe and they want the government to fix it. I ran across
the following this week



"In our culture, these days, there is no core, no authenticity to our lives;
we have become dangerously preoccupied with safety; have dedicated ourselves
to ease. We live without risk, hence without adventure, without discovery
of ourselves or others. The moral measure of man is: for what will he risk
all, risk his life?" Susan Musgrave