Tragity

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!

Tony
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE


In article ,
".Blueskies." wrote:

Apparently at a Young Eagle event:

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

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!

The alternative is losses to two families. Is this better?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
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!

The alternative is losses to two families. Is this better?

It certainly can be if a family has two kids and they are both in one plane.
Splitting up kids from the same family is a not uncommon YE rule.


Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose 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!


The alternative is losses to two families. Is this better?

I don't think there is a better in this situation.

Matt

The alternative is losses to two families. Is this better?

Jose

I believe so - speaking from the position of someone who has already
lost a child.

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

The alternative is losses to two families. Is this better?

I believe so - speaking from the position of someone who has already
lost a child.

I am truly sorry about your loss. True, you might have lost two. But
you might have also lost none. That is the tradeoff for the other family.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Hi Jose

It really is a difficult decision.
My thoughts right now are leaning to not flying related kids in the same
flight, but I truly do take your point about two families grieving as
opposed to one.
This whole thread is such a tragedy - here we are trying to light a
spark under these kids to get them interested in flying, and then we
have this situation where they are killed on their first flight.
and of course we have to remember the pilot, who devoted his day to
giving kids this experience, and paid for it with his life.
There are no winners here - it is a very sad scenario.

Fly safe, and thanks for your post,

Tony
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE


In article ,
Jose wrote:

The alternative is losses to two families. Is this better?

I believe so - speaking from the position of someone who has already
lost a child.

I am truly sorry about your loss. True, you might have lost two. But
you might have also lost none. That is the tradeoff for the other family.

Jose

"tony roberts" wrote in message
news:nospam-E2DBEA.20582917102005@shawnews...
It really is a difficult decision.
My thoughts right now are leaning to not flying related kids in the same
flight, but I truly do take your point about two families grieving as
opposed to one.

Of course, this debate is moot. The two youngsters killed in this accident
weren't siblings.

Still, I find the "seperate the kids" line of thought to not be suited to
the real world, in spite of any rational basis for it. Families travel
together all the time. They do other things together all the time. They
are in constant danger of perishing simultaneously, through much of the
childhood of the children of a family. Even as adults, they are in similar
danger quite often.

Being a family means you do things together. If two children have a desire
to participate in a single flight together, I think some fear that they both
might die in the same accident isn't justification for sacrificing the
enjoyment they get from doing things together.

Spending any effort to keep siblings apart, when they have a desire to be
together, draws attention to a reasonably tiny risk of death, sacrificing
the enjoyment of the moment. An enjoyment of the moment that *ought* to be
the focus and primary motivating factor.

Not that I should need any sort of example, but one need only look to Jay
Honeck's travel with his family in his airplane. This sort of thing happens
all the time in the aviation world, just as families travel together in
automobiles all the time. It just doesn't make sense, from an "enjoy life"
point of view, to waste time trying to keep families apart.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"tony roberts" wrote in message
news:nospam-E2DBEA.20582917102005@shawnews...
It really is a difficult decision.

Still, I find the "seperate the kids" line of thought to not be suited to
the real world, in spite of any rational basis for it. Families travel
together all the time. They do other things together all the time. They
are in constant danger of perishing simultaneously, through much of the
childhood of the children of a family. Even as adults, they are in
similar danger quite often.

Being a family means you do things together. If two children have a
desire to participate in a single flight together, I think some fear that
they both might die in the same accident isn't justification for
sacrificing the enjoyment they get from doing things together.

I'm not a parent so ignore this if you wish. I would think if you have your
(say) 10 and a 15 year old kids along with their friends for YE flights that
the each of the kids would prefer to fly with one of his friends of the same
age than with his sibling.

It would still be a major tragedy if something should happen in another YE
flight with siblings or non-siblings. I hope it's at least another 1.2
million YE flights before the next tragedy.

I used to work for a company that had a policy that prohibited several
people from the same department to fly on the same airline flight. When a
group of us would fly to Singapore, we would fly 2 separate days. I usually
flew on the first day but my luggage would arrive the next day. :-(

-Greg B.

Not that I should need any sort of example, but one need only look to Jay
Honeck's travel with his family in his airplane. This sort of thing
happens all the time in the aviation world, just as families travel
together in automobiles all the time. It just doesn't make sense, from an
"enjoy life" point of view, to waste time trying to keep families apart.

Mary and I have debated this for over a decade, now -- and I believe there
is no better answer than this:

Life is a terminal condition. Live it for all its worth, now, cuz you could
be struck down with Lou Gehrig's disease at any time. (See Lane Wallace's
"Flying" column this month for a sobering report on what kind of a bad hand
life can deal you.)

We fly as a family, whenever and wherever we can, over 170 hours per year.
We fly in a single-engine plane, which gives us just one way of going up
(there are a hundred ways to come down), and it's 31 years old. We maintain
Atlas to the highest standards, but anything can happen at any time, and
we've trained extensively to handle those situations.

We don't fly at night, and we don't fly in bad weather. We always buy gas
from the same station, and always filter it before putting it in the plane.
We change the oil and filter every 25 hours. We never skate on a pre-flight
inspection, no matter how cold or hot. We usually have two pilots on board,
and the kids are trained to watch for traffic.

We fly from a lightly used, excellent general aviation airport. We have
three wide, long runways, low density altitude, little terrain to hit, and
an encyclopedic knowledge of the local and regional area. In our opinion,
we have reduced our risk of losing our children to an acceptable level.

But it's still our worst fear.

It's all about risk aversion, tempered with the sure knowledge that you
*will* die someday. Some people can't get out of bed in the morning
because of that pressure, while the rest of us push life to the limits.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"