Tragity

Jonathan Goodish wrote in
:

In article nospam-4015AC.19342216102005@shawnews,
tony roberts wrote:

I fly Young Eagles through 2 different clubs.
Prior to this accident we had been discussing changing our rules to
prohibit 2 kids from the same family to fly in the same plane.

We should all look at this. Loss to the family, liability - let's
split them up - everyone wins!


Knowing what I know as a certificated pilot, I would be very reluctant
to permit my child(ren) to fly with an unknown pilot. However, I
would much rather have my child(ren) in a single-engine airplane with
a competent pilot than in a car on the highway. There is no doubt in
my mind that there is much less risk in the former than in the latter.
If the competence and proficiency of the pilot is not known, then the
risk is considerably higher.



JKG

Hrmmm..

That just makes too much sense... In a car, you have at least as much
chance of dying as the result of someone ELSES stupidity as your own,
while in an aircraft the vast majority of possible fatal incidents are
under your direct control as the Pilot....

I can only think of a few instances where someone elses stupidity comes
into play... mid air (contributory), runway incursion,.... of course a
mechanic who screws something up that is not visible on inspection......


--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"ET" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Goodish wrote in
:
Knowing what I know as a certificated pilot, I would be very reluctant
to permit my child(ren) to fly with an unknown pilot. However, I
would much rather have my child(ren) in a single-engine airplane with
a competent pilot than in a car on the highway. There is no doubt in
my mind that there is much less risk in the former than in the latter.
If the competence and proficiency of the pilot is not known, then the
risk is considerably higher.

That just makes too much sense...

Only if you ignore all the actual data that's been discussed here.

In a car, you have at least as much
chance of dying as the result of someone ELSES stupidity as your own,
while in an aircraft the vast majority of possible fatal incidents are
under your direct control as the Pilot....

I can only think of a few instances where someone elses stupidity comes
into play... mid air (contributory), runway incursion,.... of course a
mechanic who screws something up that is not visible on inspection......

The problem is that these "few instances" already add up to a higher
fatality rate *by themselves* than the *total* fatality rate for driving.
All the other, far more common ways to die in an airplane--the pilot
errors--are *in addition* to that already higher rate.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
:

"ET" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Goodish wrote in
:
Knowing what I know as a certificated pilot, I would be very
reluctant to permit my child(ren) to fly with an unknown pilot.
However, I would much rather have my child(ren) in a single-engine
airplane with a competent pilot than in a car on the highway. There
is no doubt in my mind that there is much less risk in the former
than in the latter.
If the competence and proficiency of the pilot is not known, then
the
risk is considerably higher.

That just makes too much sense...

Only if you ignore all the actual data that's been discussed here.

In a car, you have at least as much
chance of dying as the result of someone ELSES stupidity as your own,
while in an aircraft the vast majority of possible fatal incidents
are under your direct control as the Pilot....

I can only think of a few instances where someone elses stupidity
comes into play... mid air (contributory), runway incursion,.... of
course a mechanic who screws something up that is not visible on
inspection......

The problem is that these "few instances" already add up to a higher
fatality rate *by themselves* than the *total* fatality rate for
driving. All the other, far more common ways to die in an
airplane--the pilot errors--are *in addition* to that already higher
rate.

--Gary



So, GA deaths due to mid-airs, runway incursions, and hidden A&P/AI
screw-ups add up to a higher fatality rate than driving???? HA! I just
don't see that....

I read the ntsb reports every month, and while I have done no math of
the causes, etc... I see very few mid-air fatalities, even fewer (if
any) runway incursion fatalities, and just a few hidden mechanic screw
up (although it is likely that more than a few of those "they just went
down & we don't know why" fatalites could be hidden mechanical).

I DO read alot about fuel exhastion, stalling on final, stalling on
takeoff, trying to take off with too much weight and/or at too high a
density alt... etc...

Quit frankly if the rate is as high as you say for the 3 above causes,
BRS should be selling a HELL of a lot more all-plane parachutes!

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

In article ,
ET wrote:
That just makes too much sense... In a car, you have at least as much
chance of dying as the result of someone ELSES stupidity as your own,
while in an aircraft the vast majority of possible fatal incidents are
under your direct control as the Pilot....

I can only think of a few instances where someone elses stupidity comes
into play... mid air (contributory), runway incursion,.... of course a
mechanic who screws something up that is not visible on inspection......

There is risk in everything that we do. Driving in a car, even with a
competent driver, has to be riskier than flying in a well-maintained
single engine airplane with a competent and proficient pilot.

Unfortunately, it seems to be very difficult to assess the competency
and proficiency of a dead pilot after the accident. The only statistics
I've ever seen appear to lump all pilots together, with some exceptions
for data on certificates and ratings, which still don't do much to
assess the pilot's skill or judgment. Human beings in the pilot
community often try to deflect attention away from the dead pilot by
calling the that person a "great pilot" or "very experienced," which
doesn't help if the pilot wasn't faithful to those traits. While most
accidents appear to point to pilot error, there are some very good
pilots who just happen to draw the short straw that day. However, the
same observation is possible with virtually any activity.

I can't drive 1 mile down the road without having someone cut me off,
slam on their brakes and turn without signaling, cross the center line
into my lane, etc. I don't have any of those concerns in flight. I'm
sorry, but I simply can't believe that I'm safer on the road than in
flight, based on my own first-hand experience.

I haven't been following this thread, so I'm not sure what the latest is
on the accident that started this thread. Based on what I've read,
though, it sounds like a botched landing and an incorrect or unlucky
recovery. If that's the case, the cause will likely point to pilot
error that could have been prevented by better skill, judgment, or both.



JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote in
:

In article ,
ET wrote:
That just makes too much sense... In a car, you have at least as much
chance of dying as the result of someone ELSES stupidity as your own,
while in an aircraft the vast majority of possible fatal incidents
are under your direct control as the Pilot....

I can only think of a few instances where someone elses stupidity
comes into play... mid air (contributory), runway incursion,.... of
course a mechanic who screws something up that is not visible on
inspection......

There is risk in everything that we do. Driving in a car, even with a
competent driver, has to be riskier than flying in a well-maintained
single engine airplane with a competent and proficient pilot.

Unfortunately, it seems to be very difficult to assess the competency
and proficiency of a dead pilot after the accident. The only
statistics I've ever seen appear to lump all pilots together, with
some exceptions for data on certificates and ratings, which still
don't do much to assess the pilot's skill or judgment. Human beings
in the pilot community often try to deflect attention away from the
dead pilot by calling the that person a "great pilot" or "very
experienced," which doesn't help if the pilot wasn't faithful to those
traits. While most accidents appear to point to pilot error, there
are some very good pilots who just happen to draw the short straw that
day. However, the same observation is possible with virtually any
activity.

I can't drive 1 mile down the road without having someone cut me off,
slam on their brakes and turn without signaling, cross the center line
into my lane, etc. I don't have any of those concerns in flight. I'm
sorry, but I simply can't believe that I'm safer on the road than in
flight, based on my own first-hand experience.

I haven't been following this thread, so I'm not sure what the latest
is on the accident that started this thread. Based on what I've read,
though, it sounds like a botched landing and an incorrect or unlucky
recovery. If that's the case, the cause will likely point to pilot
error that could have been prevented by better skill, judgment, or
both.



JKG

I agree with you...

FYI the start of this thread was the death of 2 Young Eagles and the
pilot. On a go-around apparently, for yet unknown reasons, the plane was
unable to gain altitude and crashed after clipping some trees. NTSB
report is not yet up, but here is the link from the original post:

http://www.komonews.com/stories/39753.htm

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams