Oshkosh arrivals

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:42:30 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

And in spite of those who would like to think we pilots are an elite group,
there's about the same proportion of stupidity in aviation as in the general
population.

I find that statistic difficult to accept; perhaps I don't exactly
understand what you mean by "the same proportion." (Are you saying
that 50% of airmen have two digit IQs?)

The vast majority of the general population would find mastering the
art and science of aviation beyond their ken. Even metrology alone is
incomprehensible to most folks.

Now, it would surprise me if the "10 deaths per year", or even the "6 deaths
per year" claim is supported by historical data.

I thought the time period under discussion was the week or so during
AirVenture, not per year.

2005 Nall Report information:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html
Total Fixed-Wing GA accidents in 2004: 1,413, 290 fatal. (pp 2)

Personal Flying Accidents: 748 total/ 168 fatal

Personal flying (for example: visiting friends or family,
traveling to a vacation home or for recreation) represents about
half (50.1 percent) of all GA flying (involving fixed-wing general
aviation aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less), but
accounts for 73.8 percent of fatal and 70.6 percent of nonfatal
accidents (Figure 25). This type of flying accounted for nearly
three-quarters (72.9 percent) of all weather-related accidents,
and 75.6 percent of weather-related fatal crashes. Fuel management
is another challenge for pilots on personal flights; three out of
four of the total, and 87.5 percent of the fatal fuel management
accidents occurred during this type of flying. Personal flights
also accounted for 72.1 percent of all descent/approach accidents
(77.1 percent of the fatals), and 72.9 percent of landing
accidents (88.9 percent of the fatals).

But even so, with fatalities running around 2000/year (a little less recently),

Where did you get that figure? The total number of GA ACCIDENTS in
2004 was 1,413, and the total number of fatal accidents was 290
totaling 510 fatalities.

given the huge amount of GA traffic at Oshkosh, I'm not even convinced that 6
or 10 deaths per year is all that out of line with the overall GA population.

First, we should be discussing the number of FATAL ACCIDENTS occurring
at AirVenture, not the number of FATALITIES (for it is an accident
that generates a news story or NTSB report). That error (290 vs 2,000
[your figure]) is probably the source of your lack of concern at the
appalling rate of fatal accidents that occur as a result of
AirVenture.

In any event, one would have to have statistics about the AirVenture
accidents to validate your assertion against the Nall Report.

What's really annoying is that this sort of predictable outcome is somehow
considered unusually bad by those outside aviation (or those within, for
that matter).

The general public bestows a smattering of god status on pilots; after
all, we do hold human lives in our hands to a much greater extent than
say, a bus driver. When we fail to meet those expectations, it shakes
the public trust they have placed in us.

People kill themselves doing stupid things all the time. The
only reason we don't have more motor vehicle fatalities each year is that
the vehicles themselves have been made so much safer. We have more
accidents than ever (due to rising population), but fatalities have remained
roughly level at around 50,000 per year. But is that because people have
gotten smarter? Nope...they're just as dumb as they've always been. We've
just engineered some of the risk out of driving.

That, and the fact that the velocities involved and unforgiving nature
of aviation tend to make what would be a routine matter to a motorist
(say engine failure), a life and death emergency for air travel.

Similar advancements have not made it to aviation,

With the obvious exception of the ballistic parachute, XM real-time
weather information, GPS navigation, ....

But if the accident rate at Oshkosh, or in GA generally, reflects poorly on
pilots specifically, then it reflects poorly on humanity in general. Those
who look down upon all the people causing accidents forget just what kind of
animal a human is after all.

Like I said at the beginning of this follow up article, the general
population doesn't have to pass a written and practical examination
that airmen must. I believe that sets airmen apart from the general
population, just as college grads are a considerably unique group
compared to the general population.

But, my point is, that here we have pilots making a rather large
national statement (AirVenture), but killing themselves in the public
view while doing it. That can't be good PR for GA.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
I find that statistic difficult to accept; perhaps I don't exactly
understand what you mean by "the same proportion." (Are you saying
that 50% of airmen have two digit IQs?)

I would be surprised if it's very far from that. I've met plenty of dumb
pilots. I'd guess the majority of GA pilots know little beyond the rote
knowledge required to pass the written exam and oral, and the limited
physical coordination required to keep a Cessna 172 under control.

If you extend the survey to include airline/cargo pilots and business
aviation, I suspect the quality improves somewhat. But even so, I have seen
in every profession a fair number of people who somehow met the minimum
qualifications, and yet really don't know how to do their job right. I
can't imagine that aviation has somehow escaped that truism.

[...]
Now, it would surprise me if the "10 deaths per year", or even the "6
deaths
per year" claim is supported by historical data.

I thought the time period under discussion was the week or so during
AirVenture, not per year.

Last I checked, AirVenture happens only once a year.

[...]
Where did you get that figure? The total number of GA ACCIDENTS in
2004 was 1,413, and the total number of fatal accidents was 290
totaling 510 fatalities.

See my other post.

given the huge amount of GA traffic at Oshkosh, I'm not even convinced
that 6
or 10 deaths per year is all that out of line with the overall GA
population.

First, we should be discussing the number of FATAL ACCIDENTS occurring
at AirVenture, not the number of FATALITIES (for it is an accident
that generates a news story or NTSB report).

Why? The two are roughly proportional, and the numbers posted in this
thread about the issue are fatalities. I'm just trying to keep it
consistent.

[...]
The general public bestows a smattering of god status on pilots; after
all, we do hold human lives in our hands to a much greater extent than
say, a bus driver.

Who does? Not me. Not you (unless you've got an airline job I don't know
about).

[...]
That, and the fact that the velocities involved and unforgiving nature
of aviation tend to make what would be a routine matter to a motorist
(say engine failure), a life and death emergency for air travel.

As I already wrote in my post.

Similar advancements have not made it to aviation,

With the obvious exception of the ballistic parachute, XM real-time
weather information, GPS navigation, ....

Note the use of the word "similar". That is, with respect to
crash-worthiness. None of the technologies you mention help make a crash
more survivable. Most do very little to even address the *cause* of
crashes, if at all. Even the ballistic parachute isn't something that would
have helped in most crashes.

[...]
Like I said at the beginning of this follow up article, the general
population doesn't have to pass a written and practical examination
that airmen must.

You don't really need to know much to pass those tests.

I believe that sets airmen apart from the general
population, just as college grads are a considerably unique group
compared to the general population.

And again, I disagree that college graduates are "a considerably unique
group". Other than the piece of paper they posess, they are basically the
same as everyone else, especially if you are looking mainly near the middle
of the curve (outlyers always complicate things). I have met plenty of
people who graduated from college without learning a damn thing, and I've
met plenty of people who never went to college who still know quite a lot.

But, my point is, that here we have pilots making a rather large
national statement (AirVenture), but killing themselves in the public
view while doing it. That can't be good PR for GA.

So what? No crash is good PR for GA. And yet, pilots keep crashing.

My point is simply that you people who are surprised and dismayed crashes
happen at Oshkosh need a reality check. Especially about the "surprised"
part.

Pete

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:09:03 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

I thought the time period under discussion was the week or so during
AirVenture, not per year.

Last I checked, AirVenture happens only once a year.

But the time period is one week. The frequency of AirVenture is once
annually, and not germane to this branch of the discussion tree.

[...]
Where did you get that figure? The total number of GA ACCIDENTS in
2004 was 1,413, and the total number of fatal accidents was 290
totaling 510 fatalities.


The point is, that the average rate of fatal accidents is 5.6/week,
but out of all the ~800,000* GA flying operations that occur each
week, 36% of the fatal operations occur during the AirVenture week
(based on two fatal accidents per event) occur at AirVenture. This
seems like a disproportionately large percentage of weekly fatal
accidents, but without AirVenture operational statistics, it's
difficult to quantify the magnitude of that percentage.

* http://www.aopa.org/special/newsroom.../activity.html


But, my point is, that here we have pilots making a rather large
national statement (AirVenture), but killing themselves in the public
view while doing it. That can't be good PR for GA.

So what?

So a nationally publicized GA event shouldn't be the poster child for
GA fatalities and incompetence.

My point is simply that you people who are surprised and dismayed crashes
happen at Oshkosh need a reality check. Especially about the "surprised"
part.

We disagree.

Without the AirVenture operational statistics, we'll never know who's
correct.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
But the time period is one week. The frequency of AirVenture is once
annually, and not germane to this branch of the discussion tree.

Says you. Given that the traffic surrounding Oshkosh is not limited to a
single week, and given that GA traffic in general has a significant increase
during the period that is affected by Oshkosh, and given that the quoted
statistics are stated for "Oshkosh" and not for a specified time period, I'd
say it makes quite a lot of sense to look at Oshkosh incidents relative to
the total annual count. Otherwise, you have do a LOT more statistical
analysis than your simplistic "per week" count, controlling for all the
variables that make an Oshkosh week very different from other weeks during
the year.

I agree that comparing to annual statistics is a simplification as well, but
it's a simplification that removes all of the variables that you'd have to
correct for if you're going to analyze it based on the Oshkosh time period
specifically. And comparing on an annual basis shows that pilots are quite
effective at crashing planes and killing people year-round. We could stop
Oshkosh altogether, and not make any noticeable change in the annual
accident rate.

The point is, that the average rate of fatal accidents is 5.6/week,
but out of all the ~800,000* GA flying operations that occur each
week, 36% of the fatal operations occur during the AirVenture week
(based on two fatal accidents per event) occur at AirVenture.

You are assigning any fatalities associated with Oshkosh, but are
arbitrarily assigning the time period as a week. That's a flaw in your
thinking.

Also, you are assuming that flying operations during the week of Oshkosh are
comparable to flying operations during every other week of the year. That's
a flaw in your thinking.

Also, you are assuming that flying operations during a summer week are
comparable to flying operatings during a winter week. That's a flaw in your
thinking.

Also, you are assuming that the relative hazard associated with Oshkosh,
where there's an *extremely* high density of air traffic, is comparable to
the relative hazard at any other airport, regardless of how few operations
that airport may see. That's a flaw in your thinking.

Your thinking has a lot of flaws in it.

So a nationally publicized GA event shouldn't be the poster child for
GA fatalities and incompetence.

Why not? It's a poster child for every other aspect of GA. Why should it
not be a poster child for the truth that GA is filled with incompetent
pilots?

The only real surprise here might be that many people might be surprised to
find that GA has so many incompetent pilots. But since so many people are
incompetent generally, in truth it's not even a surprise that so many people
are incompetent to recognize that incompetence is a general human condition,
and not excluded from GA.

My point is simply that you people who are surprised and dismayed crashes
happen at Oshkosh need a reality check. Especially about the "surprised"
part.

We disagree.

Of course you disagree. You're surprised and I'm saying you shouldn't be.
I would be surprised if you *didn't* disagree.

Without the AirVenture operational statistics, we'll never know who's
correct.

The operational statistics of AirVenture have nothing to do with whether you
should be surprised or not.

Pete

I agree that comparing to annual statistics is a simplification as well, but
it's a simplification that removes all of the variables that you'd have to
correct for if you're going to analyze it based on the Oshkosh time period
specifically.

The more flights, the more crashes. It's that simple. At the very
least, dividing the number of accidents by the number of airport
operations would make a much more enlightening comparision. Yes, there
are other variables, as you indicated. But I suspect that the sheer
number of operations at Oshkosh would overwhelm most of the other
variables to first order.

The only real surprise here might be that many people might be surprised to
find that GA has so many incompetent pilots. But since so many people are
incompetent generally, in truth it's not even a surprise that so many people
are incompetent to recognize that incompetence is a general human condition,
and not excluded from GA.

There's also a difference between "incometent" and "imperfect". Where
is the line? Sure I can find clear examples in each camp, but what are
the examples for which you (or anyone else) would not be sure which camp
it belongs in?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:19:25 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
But the time period is one week. The frequency of AirVenture is once
annually, and not germane to this branch of the discussion tree.

Says you.

Yes. You are correct.

This branch of this discussion began with Message-ID:
, and refers to EAA
AirVenture. EAA AirVenture 2006 takes place July 24 through 30 at
Wittman Regional (OSH). That is the sole time period to which I was
referring.

Given that the traffic surrounding Oshkosh is not limited to a
single week, and given that GA traffic in general has a significant increase
during the period that is affected by Oshkosh, and given that the quoted
statistics are stated for "Oshkosh" and not for a specified time period, I'd
say it makes quite a lot of sense to look at Oshkosh incidents relative to
the total annual count.

Of course, you are free to hold your opinions and discuss what you
like, but I prefer to limit my discussion in this thread to the period
of time during which EAA AirVenture is held.

Otherwise, you have do a LOT more statistical
analysis than your simplistic "per week" count, controlling for all the
variables that make an Oshkosh week very different from other weeks during
the year.

Personally, I find limiting the analysis to the time period in which
EAA AirVenture is held easier, but lacking EAA AirVenture operational
statistics is problematic.

It is precisely the unique nature of AirVenture and its national news
coverage that moves me to point out the embarrassment caused by errant
airmen attendees.

I agree that comparing to annual statistics is a simplification as well, but
it's a simplification that removes all of the variables that you'd have to
correct for if you're going to analyze it based on the Oshkosh time period
specifically.

I don't know to what variables you are referring.

Regardless, it is not the fact that pilots crash with which I am
taking issue; it is the apparently disproportionate number of them
that occur and are reported in the national news media during EAA
AirVenture that I find surprising.

And comparing on an annual basis shows that pilots are quite
effective at crashing planes and killing people year-round. We could stop
Oshkosh altogether, and not make any noticeable change in the annual
accident rate.

That is probably true, but it fails to explain the _disproportionate_
number of crashes that occur during EAA AirVenture.

The point is, that the average rate of fatal accidents is 5.6/week,
but out of all the ~800,000* GA flying operations that occur each
week, 36% of the fatal operations occur during the AirVenture week
(based on two fatal accidents per event) occur at AirVenture.

You are assigning any fatalities associated with Oshkosh, but are
arbitrarily assigning the time period as a week. That's a flaw in your
thinking.

I'm assigning fatalities? I don't think so.

I'm not even discussing fatalities; I'm discussing fatal accidents
that occur during EAA AirVenture week. It is the accidents that
generate new coverage, not the number of people involved in them.

The time period of EAA AirVenture is on week from Monday to Sunday. I
seek to compare the number of fatal accidents (not fatalities) that
occur at EAA AirVenture to the average number of fatal accidents that
occur annually. It seems like EAA AirVenture attendees may have more
than their share of fatal accidents than the general population of
airmen.

Also, you are assuming that flying operations during the week of Oshkosh are
comparable to flying operations during every other week of the year. That's
a flaw in your thinking.

I don't believe that for a minute. You are jumping to unfounded
conclusions.

It is precisely the unique nature of EAA AirVenture operations by
attendees that I am seeking to illuminate.

Also, you are assuming that flying operations during a summer week are
comparable to flying operatings during a winter week. That's a flaw in your
thinking.

So, you feel that the fatal crashes of EAA AirVenture attendees are
precipitated by the season of the year? I'd need to see some
substantiating information before I'd swallow that analysis.

Also, you are assuming that the relative hazard associated with Oshkosh,
where there's an *extremely* high density of air traffic, is comparable to
the relative hazard at any other airport, regardless of how few operations
that airport may see. That's a flaw in your thinking.

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I'm questioning the wisdom of
creating such a hazardous situation.

Your thinking has a lot of flaws in it.

Apparently, I have failed to make my thoughts clear enough for you to
comprehend them.

So a nationally publicized GA event shouldn't be the poster child for
GA fatalities and incompetence.

Why not? It's a poster child for every other aspect of GA. Why should it
not be a poster child for the truth that GA is filled with incompetent
pilots?

We apparently disagree significantly about this issue. Given that
remark, I doubt I will be able to sway you to my way of thinking, and
I will cease to attempt it.

The only real surprise here might be that many people might be surprised to
find that GA has so many incompetent pilots. But since so many people are
incompetent generally, in truth it's not even a surprise that so many people
are incompetent to recognize that incompetence is a general human condition,
and not excluded from GA.

My point is simply that you people who are surprised and dismayed crashes
happen at Oshkosh need a reality check. Especially about the "surprised"
part.

We disagree.

Of course you disagree. You're surprised and I'm saying you shouldn't be.
I would be surprised if you *didn't* disagree.

Without the AirVenture operational statistics, we'll never know who's
correct.

The operational statistics of AirVenture have nothing to do with whether you
should be surprised or not.

Pete

I just finished listening to the LiveATC that Montblack posted.
I don't think I've heard anything more foolish or stupid in an
alledgedly experienced pilot.

Painful to listen to.

On 30 Jul 2006 17:05:45 GMT, (Blanche Cohen)
wrote:

I just finished listening to the LiveATC that Montblack posted.
I don't think I've heard anything more foolish or stupid in an
alledgedly experienced pilot.

Painful to listen to.

Keep listening, eventually you'll find another winner.

Normally I go over IFR across the lake with my route being 3BS D- LDM
(NDB) D- LDN (VOR) D- OSH. I've always been cleared straight in to
OSH 27, or vectored to one of the other approaches even on half way
decent days, but none were clear bright sunshine and any one where I
was *should* have had a clearance, but I have met more than one out
there when the visibility wasn't much more than one and 1500.

One day headed over when the weather in Michigan was pure crap up to
between 6000 and 7000 and well below minimums for most airports
without an ILS I heard a King air out of one of the smaller airports
NE of Traverse City asking Minneapolis Center for a pop-up to OSH from
a controller busier than a one arm paper hanger with the itch. After
a number of calls it was evident he wasn't going away so the
controller pointedly told him to call FSS and file. A bit less than
10 minutes later he was back. Said he couldn't raise FSS. (Probably
didn't have a enroute chart with the FSS frequency on it) You could
hear the controller sigh. (I think they came out with the 150 mile
rule the next year)

You could tell where the west shore of Lake Michigan was located as
the clouds formed a wall that went up to about 10,000 from bases of
1000 to 1500. OTOH is was solid up to about 6000 over the lake. I
don't know what the bases were out there. It was solid and I never
saw even a thinning let alone any holes for vfr to let down.
Visibility was poor. At times the wing tips were hazy. Underneath
was strictly low level skudd running.

Then this year there was a twin headed for OSH with a reservation
which is now required. I don't know how long they've been required,
but I had one way back in 95 on my first flight over.. At any rate he
wanted to modify his flight plan, land at one of the big airports here
in Michigan, and then continue on to OSH. The exasperated controller
finally told him to go away. Either cancel the FP and go VFR of fly it
as filed. This guy is an ATP who is normally in the left seat in the
"big iron".
He may have read the NOTAM as he had the reservation, but he sure
didn't pay attention to the rest of it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger" wrote in message
...

Normally I go over IFR across the lake with my route being 3BS D- LDM
(NDB) D- LDN (VOR) D- OSH.


That's a helluva route. LDN VORTAC is in Virginia. Perhaps you meant
3BS..LDM..MTW..OSH.