Update on Denver plane crash...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

95 hours is plenty to be proficient in an aircraft, just not when they're
your only 95 hours, as your second statement pointed out. For an
experienced
pilot, though, 95 hours is plenty (but no level is ever "enough").

The military takes students with no flight experience and turns them into
competent pilots. What type of aircraft do the Air Force/Navy pilots use to
start their training and how long before they advance to the more complex
aircraft?

Earl G

Probably not important, but you are making an assumption that since the
airplane only had 95 hours on it that the pilot only had 95 hours in type.

We don't know if the pilot had previously owned Bonanzas, or if he had been
renting them for a number of years.

Based on the information we have been presented with, we have no way of
determining the pilots experience level, and consequently, we have no way of
knowing if inexperience contributed to the accident...


"Sam" wrote in message
om...
"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
. net...
"Sam" wrote in message
om...
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...04/detail.html

1)Looks like somebody either told them of the stall (whether it was my
email or not) and they corrected the article. Sounds like they
misquoted the flight sim tech as I had thought.

2)What an unfortunate and strange crash. The ink must've still been
wet on that guys PPL, and he's flying around in a complex, high power
Bonanza w/ his student pilot daughter at the controls? Why do people
do this?? What a waste of life and airplane.

The article says he owned it for 6 months - It is not unreasonable to
assume
he had been trained in it and was fairly competent in it. The
speculation
about the ink being wet and such is silly. Perhaps you could not handle
the
plane, or other fresh pilots when they just come out of a 152 or 172,
but it
is not impossible to have a fairly low time pilot be able to fly that
plane.
(They handle quite nicely - things just happen quicker...)

If I had the money I would have bought a plane like that instead of a
grumman cheetah for my training. Why not?


Maybe I don't have a good answer for your question. I just recently
started training as a student pilot, so I don't have a lot of
experience. I've been reading about aviation and looking through
these newsgroups (admittedly subjective opinions) for several years,
and the combo of new pilot, complex, high performance plane, and
apparent student training (of his daughter) seems like it would be a
bit much for someone that just started training in January.

Its been said that these types of a/c can easily get ahead of you, but
you always have the option of slowing things down to a manageable
level. So if someone were to train in one of these w/ a good
instructor, perhaps it's not all that bad to start w/ one if you're
careful and understand the risks.

It'll obviously take awhile before all the info is gathered on this
case, and luckily there were a couple of witnesses. But we at least
know the owner (or his daughter) stalled the a/c at low altitude and
crashed. The a/c only had 95 hours on it, so it's not like he had
tons of time in it. 95 hours is a lot to me, but I know it's not
enough to be "proficient" in the a/c, particularly if you're a new
pilot. Stalling any aircraft unintentionally = you are not proficient
in the plane. Allowing a student pilot to have control of the a/c at
low altitudes would say to me the guy is not too keyed in on risk
management either.

"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
link.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

95 hours is plenty to be proficient in an aircraft, just not when
they're
your only 95 hours, as your second statement pointed out. For an
experienced
pilot, though, 95 hours is plenty (but no level is ever "enough").

The military takes students with no flight experience and turns them into
competent pilots. What type of aircraft do the Air Force/Navy pilots use
to
start their training

Much more complex than a C172 whatever it is.

and how long before they advance to the more complex
aircraft?

By about 300 hours (IIUC) they're ready for F-16's and the like.

I also understand they spend a lot of time in ground school first, and they
are selected for their educational background, physical characteristics
(coordination, hand-eye, etc.), attitude....

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Probably not important, but you are making an assumption that since the
airplane only had 95 hours on it that the pilot only had 95 hours in type.

We don't know if the pilot had previously owned Bonanzas, or if he had
been
renting them for a number of years.

He bought it new and had a virtually brand new PPL.


Based on the information we have been presented with, we have no way of
determining the pilots experience level, and consequently, we have no way
of
knowing if inexperience contributed to the accident...

See above.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message ...
Probably not important, but you are making an assumption that since the
airplane only had 95 hours on it that the pilot only had 95 hours in type.

We don't know if the pilot had previously owned Bonanzas, or if he had been
renting them for a number of years.

Based on the information we have been presented with, we have no way of
determining the pilots experience level, and consequently, we have no way of
knowing if inexperience contributed to the accident...


From the NTSB investigators...

He received his student pilot certificate in January, and only
recently obtained his PPL.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ...
"Sam" wrote in message
om...
The a/c only had 95 hours on it, so it's not like he had
tons of time in it. 95 hours is a lot to me, but I know it's not
enough to be "proficient" in the a/c, particularly if you're a new
pilot.


95 hours is plenty to be proficient in an aircraft, just not when they're
your only 95 hours, as your second statement pointed out. For an experienced
pilot, though, 95 hours is plenty (but no level is ever "enough").

Yeah, I'd agree w/ that. It'll be interesting to see what his total
time is. I'm sure the a/c didn't arrive w/ 0.0 hours on it.

One of my buddies carries no insurance at all. He owns/flies a Cub, two
182's, two Agwagons, a Baron, a Beech 18, a Cessna 414 and two helicopters,
a Hiller and a Jet Ranger. The helicopters and the Agwagons are used in his
business, although since he is sitting on a pile of money it doesn't matter
if he ever sprays again.



"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
Yes but there's no legal requirement to be insured.

No...only the cash to pay the premiums.

Or not pay any premiums at all. I know of at least two aircraft that are
flown uninsured, however, this is because they are slow and have very
low hull values so insurance is almost certainly a dead loss for the
owners.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...


Having said that, if you can afford a new A36, you can probably afford
the premiums (which I am guessing are over 10k/year.)

If you own a new A36 and don't owe any money on it there's no reason for
hull insurance.