Most experienced CFI runs out of gas

(Michael) wrote in
om:

Andrew Sarangan wrote


Another interesting aspect of the Nall report is that student pilots
accounted for fewer accidents even though they accounted for more
flying hours.

I don't think that's interesting at all. It's hard to get hurt if you
never do anything. Student pilots fly under restrictions that would
make aviation useless - in fact, they are specifically prohibited from
doing most of the things that would make flying useful at all.
Unfortunately, I am lately seeing a trend among instructors to make
solo endorsements so restrictive that the student is never challenged,
and to avoid challenging flights dual as well. I have no doubt that
makes the training numbers look good, but the important question is
what happens AFTER the training, when the student goes out on his own
and starts using the airplane - especially those first few hundred
hours before real experience is gained, when the student relies most
on his primary training. I bet those numbers don't look so good.

Michael




In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were only
1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being
increasingly prohibited from doing useful things?





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

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
7...
(Michael) wrote in
om:

Andrew Sarangan wrote


Another interesting aspect of the Nall report is that student pilots
accounted for fewer accidents even though they accounted for more
flying hours.

I don't think that's interesting at all. It's hard to get hurt if you
never do anything. Student pilots fly under restrictions that would
make aviation useless - in fact, they are specifically prohibited from
doing most of the things that would make flying useful at all.
Unfortunately, I am lately seeing a trend among instructors to make
solo endorsements so restrictive that the student is never challenged,
and to avoid challenging flights dual as well. I have no doubt that
makes the training numbers look good, but the important question is
what happens AFTER the training, when the student goes out on his own
and starts using the airplane - especially those first few hundred
hours before real experience is gained, when the student relies most
on his primary training. I bet those numbers don't look so good.

Michael




In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were only
1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being
increasingly prohibited from doing useful things?

Without supporting data those numbers are totally meaningless.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in news:jzfmd.8294$tM7.1298
@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com:


"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
7...
(Michael) wrote in
om:

Andrew Sarangan wrote


Another interesting aspect of the Nall report is that student
pilots
accounted for fewer accidents even though they accounted for more
flying hours.

I don't think that's interesting at all. It's hard to get hurt if
you
never do anything. Student pilots fly under restrictions that
would
make aviation useless - in fact, they are specifically prohibited
from
doing most of the things that would make flying useful at all.
Unfortunately, I am lately seeing a trend among instructors to make
solo endorsements so restrictive that the student is never
challenged,
and to avoid challenging flights dual as well. I have no doubt
that
makes the training numbers look good, but the important question is
what happens AFTER the training, when the student goes out on his
own
and starts using the airplane - especially those first few hundred
hours before real experience is gained, when the student relies
most
on his primary training. I bet those numbers don't look so good.

Michael




In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were
only
1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being
increasingly prohibited from doing useful things?

Without supporting data those numbers are totally meaningless.


http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.34Statistics%20of%
20Flying.htm#Statistics%20of%20Flying


The Nall report supports the 2003 data.







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

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
7...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in news:jzfmd.8294$tM7.1298
@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com:


"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
7...
(Michael) wrote in
om:

Andrew Sarangan wrote


Another interesting aspect of the Nall report is that student
pilots
accounted for fewer accidents even though they accounted for more
flying hours.

I don't think that's interesting at all. It's hard to get hurt if
you
never do anything. Student pilots fly under restrictions that
would
make aviation useless - in fact, they are specifically prohibited
from
doing most of the things that would make flying useful at all.
Unfortunately, I am lately seeing a trend among instructors to make
solo endorsements so restrictive that the student is never
challenged,
and to avoid challenging flights dual as well. I have no doubt
that
makes the training numbers look good, but the important question is
what happens AFTER the training, when the student goes out on his
own
and starts using the airplane - especially those first few hundred
hours before real experience is gained, when the student relies
most
on his primary training. I bet those numbers don't look so good.

Michael




In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were
only
1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being
increasingly prohibited from doing useful things?

Without supporting data those numbers are totally meaningless.


http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.34Statistics%20of%
20Flying.htm#Statistics%20of%20Flying


The Nall report supports the 2003 data.

Still useless information for comparison purposes.

If you have better data to the contrary please let us know. Gene Whitt is a
long time contributor to this group and an experienced CFI. I consider him
a dependable source of information, just as much as AOPA.


"Dave Stadt" wrote in news:JoBmd.29523$Qv5.27913
@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:




http://www.whittsflying.com/Page6.34Statistics%20of%
20Flying.htm#Statistics%20of%20Flying


The Nall report supports the 2003 data.

Still useless information for comparison purposes.

Andrew Sarangan wrote
If you have better data to the contrary please let us know. Gene Whitt is a
long time contributor to this group and an experienced CFI. I consider him
a dependable source of information, just as much as AOPA.

The point is not that the information is undependable - the point is
that it is useless. Total number of accidents tells us nothing unless
we also know ALL of:

Hours flown
Experience level of the pilots
Types of missions flown

We have no real data on the last two, and only rough estimates on the
first. Anecdotally, I've noticed that as time goes on, the mission
profile tends to change.

A good friend of mine learned to fly in the early 1960's. He soloed
at 15. No, it wsn't legal. He was taught by a cropduster in a Champ.
He soloed in 4 hours. He then flew over, picked up a friend, and
they headed up to Wisconsin - from Texas. They flew at night with no
night training - and no lights. And none of this was particularly
unusual then, but it would never happen now.

The mission profile was a lot different then, so comparing accident
totals (or even accident rates) is not meaningful. It's hard to get
hurt if you never do anything.

Michael

Andrew Sarangan wrote
In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were only
1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being
increasingly prohibited from doing useful things?

I don't have data for 1947.

In 1955 Piper alone built over 1000 TriPacers - plus other aircraft.
In 2003, all US manufacturers combined didn't build that many piston
airplanes.

Michael

In article , Andrew Sarangan
wrote:
In 1947 there were over 9000 aviation accidents. In 2003 there were only
1500 accidents. How is safety improving if the students are being
increasingly prohibited from doing useful things?

In 1947, not only were virtually all light planes taildraggers (meaning
lots of groundlooping), airfields were short, weather forecasting wasn't
as good, instrumentation for weather flying was not fitted to many light
planes (even most trainers now have the full IFR kit), the planes
were lower powered (the typical trainer of '47 was an 85hp C140 on
the more powerful end, 65hp aircraft were more typical - leading
to higher risk mountain and hot weather flying), wake turbulence
wasn't understood and NAVAIDs in many instances simply didn't exist.

Not to mention in 1947, Cessna made more C140s alone than the entire
light plane industry's output in 2003.

The more telling stats is that despite Britain's more regulated aviation
environment, the British accident rate is HIGHER than in the US.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote
The more telling stats is that despite Britain's more regulated aviation
environment, the British accident rate is HIGHER than in the US.

Of course. All safety rules inevitably make things less safe.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
Dylan Smith wrote
The more telling stats is that despite Britain's more regulated aviation
environment, the British accident rate is HIGHER than in the US.

Of course. All safety rules inevitably make things less safe.

Oddly, it pertains to crime (skyrocketing in the UK) as well.


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