Experience Question

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Oh? When you typed "don't have enough confidence" you meant "needlessly
paranoid?" Ok, I'll take your word for it now that you explained it.

Yes, I consider not having enough confidence the exact same thing as being
needlessly paranoid. What is so difficult about that for you to agree with?

Furthermore, you forgot to quote the other part of that sentence: "in the
skills that they actually DO have". In other words, I'm simply talking
about an accurate evaluation of their ACTUAL abilities, not the
overconfidence you describe.

You have to admit that there was some wiggle room there.

I have to admit no such thing.

Pete

It's not like you're taking them rock climbing, for crying out loud.

Oh, no, not a rock climbing dig!

Come on guys, after all the complaining about non-aviators being
ignorant about aviation matters (such as safety) you'd think people on
this groups would be a little more mindful of activities that they do
not know that much about.

I am an avid pilot and avid climber. In my mind they are *very* similar
activities. Both are inherently risky, but both can be very safe if you
know what you are doing. They also both offer an wide spectrum of
positions to take with respect to risk vs. action. For example, some
pilots do not fly IFR, or do not fly "hard" IFR, or fly own
twin-engine, or won't fly at night, etc.

Same is with climbers. Some will only climb at the gym, some will only
top-rope, some don't trust themselves to set anchors and will always
get a second opinion, some will climb only with partners they know very
well, some will only lead on sport routes, some will only attempt
"trad" climbing 3 levels below what they can do on top-rope, etc.

For example, if you are on a properly rigged "top-rope" climb (meaning
the rope is attached to a pully system anchored at the top of the
climb) and the anchor is triple redundant, and your belayer is
competent, there is *no way* you are going to fall more than a foot or
two. (that's not to say that can't lead to a bonked head or twisted
ankle) Oh, and the helmet protects against the bonked head.


All these adjustments weigh skill, intelligence, and knowledge against
"fun" and "adventure." You choose where you want to be.

Like flying safely, climbing safely is *all* about judgement.

-- dave j
-- PP-ASEL, Instr., working on commercial
-- climber, 5.10ish on top rope, leads 5.8 sport, 5.7 trad

wrote in message
oups.com...

It's not like you're taking them rock climbing, for crying out loud.

Oh, no, not a rock climbing dig!

I guess I should have posted in HTML so I could increase the font size for
the smiley for folks like you?

Still, last I read, the fatal accident rate for certain sports, including
rock climbing, is significantly higher than that for flying. In terms of
risk exposure for a single outing, comparing rock climbing to flying is not
far off from comparing flying to driving.

The reason for this difference may be different between flying and rock
climbing, compared to between flying and driving. But nevertheless, as far
as I know the difference does exist (maybe it's changed recently?).

Pete

It's true, folks like me can be kinda sensitive.

You have a good point about the relative risk rates of climbing and
flying. Honestly, it's very hard to find comparative data. And it's not
even clear what would be comparative? Deaths per year per 100,000
practitioners? That would not distinguish between people who climb/fly
a lot or a little? Or deaths per 100,000 hours? That would not account
for the fact that people don't climb continuously for hours like pilots
fly. Also, how does one account for the level of training? (There's no
climber's certificate, though sometimes I think there should be.) So
it's hard.

You also could try to separate out certain types of particularly
dangerous climbing that that most climbers don't do, such as solo free
climbing. (ie, no rope, no mistakes allowed). Fact is, climbing often
attracts a certain type of risk taker, and to be honest, many climbers
are just not as thoughtful as pilots -- but that doesn't mean that
climbing is to blame.

What is definitely true is that your chance of injury (scraped skin,
twisted ankles, broken bones) is a good deal higher for rock climbing
than flying. Death, however, is going to be much closer.

In any case, I'm really pushing my luck, because I sometimes fly to go
climbing!
And do think, my mother used to joke that her precious children should
only be allowed to play checkers -- and then, only wearing goggles.

-- dave j

wrote in message
oups.com...

It's true, folks like me can be kinda sensitive.

I was thinking more just the poor eyesight. But if it's a sensitivity
issue, maybe the larger smiley would have helped that too.

You have a good point about the relative risk rates of climbing and
flying. Honestly, it's very hard to find comparative data. And it's not
even clear what would be comparative?

Therein lies the rub. Even for the basic flying vs driving comparison,
there's debate as to the "correct" way to compare them. The relative ratios
don't come out the same for all methods (in fact, I'm pretty sure *none* are
the same).

The same thing is true for comparing flying to rock climbing, of course. Or
any other activity. Which comparison one chooses depends often as much on
what point the person making the comparison is trying to make, as it does on
any objective desire to provide the most relevant and accurate comparison.

I'm not saying I have a perfect way to compare the various activities. Just
that, for various measures, certain activities are consistently more or less
(depending on the activity) dangerous than flying.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" writes:

wrote in message
oups.com...

It's not like you're taking them rock climbing, for crying out loud.

Oh, no, not a rock climbing dig!

I guess I should have posted in HTML so I could increase the font size for
the smiley for folks like you?

Still, last I read, the fatal accident rate for certain sports, including
rock climbing, is significantly higher than that for flying. In terms of
risk exposure for a single outing, comparing rock climbing to flying is not
far off from comparing flying to driving.

Per mile traveled? I'd certainly expect it to be different! :-) :-)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
In terms of
risk exposure for a single outing, comparing rock climbing to flying is
not
far off from comparing flying to driving.

Per mile traveled? I'd certainly expect it to be different! :-) :-)

Funny, yet exactly my point in a following post.

Fred Choate wrote:
Hello All....

This may sound silly, but I would like to hear some opinions on a matter
presented to me this evening.

I recently got my ticket. I started 5 years ago, and due to certain
circumstances, I had to take 4 1/2 years off, then I picked up and did 10
more hours of training to prep for the checkride. My total hours to date
are 63.8 with 26.7 of those being solo time.

Okay, that being said, my In-Laws made a comment to me tonight about flying
with my children. Actually, they put it in the context of "do you really
think it is a good idea to fly with your children until you get more
hours....." followed by "....Larry (one of the In-Laws) didn't fly with
family members until he had 300 hours....".

I didn't even respond. My question to you folks is simply, how long did you
all wait before you decided it was safe to fly with your family?
Myself.....my kids were the first passengers I took up, and I felt
completely safe, prepared, and at ease with them in the aircraft with me.

I took friends and family up right away, within probably a week or so,
I'd have to check my log to say for sure as that was 27 years ago. My
instructor, who was also the DE who gave me the flight ride, said that
his basic test wasn't the PTS, but was the grandchildren test. If he
didn't trust a candidate to take up his grandkids on the next flight
after the flight ride, then they didn't pass.

I figured afterwards that if he felt I was safe with his grandkids, then
I was safe with my own family. :-)

Matt

In a previous article, "Fred Choate" said:
with my children. Actually, they put it in the context of "do you really
think it is a good idea to fly with your children until you get more

"The FAA says that I'm a safe pilot. What are your qualifications to
state otherwise?"

I took my wife and kids up for a short flight the day I passed my check
ride. I took my wife on an international flight at night to an airport
I'd never been two weeks later.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I don't have a sense of humour, merely an over-exaggerated sense
of revenge.
-- Stephen Harris

Paul Tomblin wrote:
I took my wife and kids up for a short flight the day I passed my check
ride. I took my wife on an international flight at night to an airport
I'd never been two weeks later.


You're a brave man. I remember my first solo nighttime cross country flight: I
hadn't seen any lights for a while so I assumed I was over the countryside just
to the west of Wilmington, NC. I called into ILM approach and reported my
position as about 20 miles west of ILM. They gave me a squawk code and then
confirmed my actual position as 15 miles EAST of the airport... out over the
Atlantic Ocean... heading for Burmuda!

Oops....

I guess you can say I learned about flying from that. As I said before, God
grants a special dispensation to newbies and morons. No harm was done... and
nobody was there to witness it except me. Thank you, Lord.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE