Young Eagle Safety

john smith wrote:

Just think how much easier it would have been with a high-wing airplane
and two doors!

And it gets even easier with a high-wing aircraft with three doors. :-)

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

We have a couple of planes that are less than new and that support our
YE events. An airplane is an airplane to the kids. They just want the
flight. Now if there is a bright yellow RV-4 on the line, everyone wants
that.

As for the number of kids per flight, our pilots generally fill the
plane. Unless it is a special event where it will be the pilot and one
child. I have been at a rally where someone was loading up a Cessna
Citation. I may as well be in a airliner.


-------------
Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI


George Patterson wrote:
TaxSrv wrote:

You simply do not take aloft the child of a parent,
standing right there and talking to you even briefly, trying
actually to sense what you're like, without a serious feeling of
responsibility.


Excellent point. I was uncomfortable presenting my aircraft for young
eagles flights simply because the paint had gotten pretty bad (Maules
used to have really poor paint jobs). I would never have made those
flights if I suspected that the aircraft was in less than top mechanical
condition.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your
neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"Gary Drescher" wrote:

Having a Y/E aboard is one of the safest ways to fly.

Cool. But could you elaborate please? How did you calculate the
number of hours flown? What do you mean by nonserious
incidents? And how do you know how many such incidents (and
how many serious incidents) there have been, if there's no
comprehensive reporting system in place for them?


If 500,000 flights, call it 200,000 hours for the flights. Much of
this occurs at a planned Y/E event, so it can be presumed NTSB will
note that relevant fact. A word search through the reports on
keywords should turn them up.

The rate is so low

What is the rate?


I again queried up the accidents to date. It appears now a total
of 10 Y/E accidents (but 2 reports involve planes colliding on a
taxiway, for duplicate reports). However, there was one "possible
Y/E" fatal in 1998 in Colorado, and one serious injury to one
occupant -- hard landing. All others were no injury to occupants,
as common on landing/T-O accidents, which are the remaining cases.

The overall accident rate is in this period is then 10/100K hours,
at 5/100K for Y/E, it's twice as safe using the raw data,
fender-benders included.

that it isn't necessary to adjust for the fact that most
accidents occur within a few miles of an airport,

That's a fact? What's its source?

Just "read that" somewhere, but looks true. Flip through any
sample month of NTSB reports and count 'em up. If 60%, then we're
up to about 2.5 times as safe.

Stats can't account for pilots flying also homebuilts and
antique/classic taildraggers, statistically not as good (on
taildraggers I'm guessing). Can't account for these events
typically on Sat-Sun, sharing a busy pattern with others, and a
fatigue factor if a busy event. So the actual rate for this
activity is likely better yet.

Fred F.

Thanks for the further details!

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
news
"Gary Drescher" wrote:
Cool. But could you elaborate please?

If 500,000 flights, call it 200,000 hours for the flights. Much of
this occurs at a planned Y/E event, so it can be presumed NTSB will
note that relevant fact. A word search through the reports on
keywords should turn them up.
...
The overall accident rate is in this period is then 10/100K hours,
at 5/100K for Y/E, it's twice as safe using the raw data,
fender-benders included.

A problem with this methodology, it seems to me, is that other YE pilots
have reported here that it's possible to decide *retroactively* whether a
flight counts as a YE flight--a pilot might take the form along in the plane
and either turn it in afterward (assuming the pilot survived) or not. If
that's true, then we don't really know what proportion of flights may have
had accidents (fatal or otherwise) that were not reported as YE flights,
even though the flight would have been reported as such if it'd been
successful. That alone could easily distort the statistics by a factor of
two or more.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote:

If that's true, then we don't really know what proportion
of flights may have had accidents (fatal or otherwise) that
were not reported as YE flights, even though the flight
would have been reported as such if it'd been successful.
That alone could easily distort the statistics by a factor of
two or more.

I agree, and NTSB stuff enables "approximate" methodology. Except
that a number of minor accidents aren't reported to NTSB in
general, so a similar % for Y/E won't distort comparisons.

On a serious/fatal Y/E flight, EAA will know about it if their up
to $1 million insurance coverage is sought after, and hence will be
reported to NTSB.

I think it's sufficient to stand back 10 feet and look at NTSB
data, and Y/E activity does appear safer. It's like crop-dusting.
We know it's hazardous and NTSB says so; the actual comparative
rate doesn't matter much except to insurance companies. But note
there, the premium cost of the EAA insurance is small, even if EAA
kicks in some, and it covers other liability hazards for a chapter
and its members.

Fred F.

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

If that's true, then we don't really know what proportion
of flights may have had accidents (fatal or otherwise) that
were not reported as YE flights, even though the flight
would have been reported as such if it'd been successful.
That alone could easily distort the statistics by a factor of
two or more.

I agree, and NTSB stuff enables "approximate" methodology. Except
that a number of minor accidents aren't reported to NTSB in
general, so a similar % for Y/E won't distort comparisons.

As far as we know, accidents that go unreported entirely are no less common
among YE flights than among other flights. But there's an entirely
different, additional distortion that I'm addressing: if there are many
flights that might not count as YE flights if there's an accident, but will
count as YE if there's not an accident, then that will sharply distort the
comparison (especially for serious or fatal accidents, which are almost
certainly reported to the NTSB).

On a serious/fatal Y/E flight, EAA will know about it if their up
to $1 million insurance coverage is sought after, and hence will be
reported to NTSB.

Hm, does the NTSB necessarily know about crash-related insurance claims,
settlements, or lawsuits? If a plaintiff says a flight was a YE flight and
the EAA denies it, would the NTSB necessarily report the lawsuit or its
outcome? (Does the EAA's $1M coverage have the usual GA cap of $100K per
passenger? That certainly limits the incentive for lawsuits.)

--Gary

A problem with this methodology, it seems to me, is that other YE pilots
have reported here that it's possible to decide *retroactively* whether a
flight counts as a YE flight--a pilot might take the form along in the plane
and either turn it in afterward (assuming the pilot survived) or not.

What is the incentive for doing this? By not filling out and sending in
the form first, insurance coverage is lost, and it's only needed if
there =is= a crash.

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

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
A problem with this methodology, it seems to me, is that other YE pilots
have reported here that it's possible to decide *retroactively* whether a
flight counts as a YE flight--a pilot might take the form along in the
plane and either turn it in afterward (assuming the pilot survived) or
not.

What is the incentive for doing this? By not filling out and sending in
the form first, insurance coverage is lost, and it's only needed if there
=is= a crash.

It's not necessarily a deliberate strategy. The pilot might just consider it
more convenient to mail the form sometime after the flight and rack up the
YE hours; no one expects to die on their next flight. But if the pilot and
the form don't survive the flight, the intention to send it afterward is
thwarted.

Although the feeling isn't rational, I always feel a bit silly asking an FBO
to mail my liability-waiver and flight-plan forms before my Angel Flights
(there's usually no mailbox handy). I force myself to do it anyway, but I'm
certainly tempted to just bring the forms along and mailing them later.

--Gary

The pilot might just consider it more convenient to mail
the form sometime after the flight and rack up the YE hours;

What do YE hours buy the pilot?

Although the feeling isn't rational, I always feel a bit silly asking an FBO
to mail my liability-waiver and flight-plan forms before my Angel Flights
(there's usually no mailbox handy). I force myself to do it anyway, but I'm
certainly tempted to just bring the forms along and mailing them later.

It should be sufficient for those forms to be on the ground and in
friendly posession. It would at least show intent, and can be dropped
silently in the mailbox afterwards with nobody the wiser. Or is it
necessary for the EAA to do something with the forms for them to have
effect?

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

"Jose" wrote in message
...
The pilot might just consider it more convenient to mail
the form sometime after the flight and rack up the YE hours;

What do YE hours buy the pilot?

We pilots seem to enjoy accumulating and tabulating hours of various sorts.


--Gary