Are pilots really good or just lucky???

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Matt,


Why? I'd be sad if my wife or one of my kids died, however, if I get
killed, I won't be sad at all! :-)



Well, if you claim you want the best for your beloved ones, what would
trouble them relatives more - to be dead or to lose you to death?


What part of the smiley didn't you understand?

Matt

Dave,

. I just think others deserve a more conservative
standard of caution


I was just trying to say that you might deserve it, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dan,

Would you say that the
ferry pilots think their lives are worth less than their children's?


Well, coming back to the OP example, there was A LOT more amiss than
taking the kid. But other than that, yes, I would like to think that I
would not put myself to a higher risk than my kids. Thus, if I think
it's ok to do, it would be ok to take my kids, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Dan,


Would you say that the
ferry pilots think their lives are worth less than their children's?



Well, coming back to the OP example, there was A LOT more amiss than
taking the kid. But other than that, yes, I would like to think that I
would not put myself to a higher risk than my kids. Thus, if I think
it's ok to do, it would be ok to take my kids, too.

Yes, the original example was prettyh extreme, however, I do agree with
others in being more conservative with passengers than when alone. I
tend to take a lot of risks that I find acceptable and others don't, so
I err on the side of caution with others.


Matt

"Dan Luke" wrote
Nope, I disagree -- I think. Assuming our passenger on the $100
hamburger trip is just as ignorant about flying as the one going 400
miles to a business neeting, isn't he entitled to the same cautious
discretion from his pilot as the serious traveler?

Sure - but that's not the point I'm making. On that $100 burger
flight, he's going along to enjoy the flight. So are you. You're
willing to accept a risk to do this. Why should he not be willing to
accept the same risk? At that point, it does turn into a question of
why his life is worth more than yours.

With a flying buddy I've made a $100 hamburger trip with low IMC all the
way just because, well, that's what we like to do, sick-os that we are.

I'm going to argue that this is something you're really doing for
training and/or experience value. Sure, you enjoy training. So do I.
So does any good pilot, really - because someone who doesn't will
never do it enough to become good. But in this case, you're getting
something from the flight the non-pilot passenger isn't - you're
becoming a better pilot. Sure, that might also be true on a sunny VFR
hamburger hop - but only marginally so.

That's a notably elevated risk level over a nice VFR trip, IMO, given
the airplane I fly. I would never invite a non-aviation savvy passenger
on such a trip, even if I knew he would enjoy it.

I concur - I just think you're not thinking your reasons through to
their logical conclusion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not the purpose of the
flight but the risk level that should make the pilot consider whether
his passengers would decline the trip if they really knew the score.

But the crucial parameter, IMO, is not risk itself but the
risk-benefit ratio. And I think it makes no sense to assume your
passenger should require a higher ratio of benefits to risks than you
do.

I must say that, aside from Angel Flight, I get very few passengers
because, as much as I enjoy giving rides, I don't sugar coat the risks
for people. I flat out tell them that flying in a light aircraft is
more dangerous than riding in a car, and that tends to dampen a lot of
folks' enthusiasm.

My experience is similar, and I find it interesting that you bring up
Angel Flight. For these people, the benefit of the trip is at least
as great as it is for you. They may not get much out of the flight
itself, but they REALLY need to be there and generally don't have
other realistic options. Therefore, they are willing to accept more
risk.

But yes - being honest about the risks DOES dampen a lot of folks'
enthusiasm. I suspect this is why most pilots are not honest about
the risks - their wives would probably never fly with them if they
were.

Michael

Michael wrote:
: But yes - being honest about the risks DOES dampen a lot of folks'
: enthusiasm. I suspect this is why most pilots are not honest about
: the risks - their wives would probably never fly with them if they
: were.

Being honest with yourself about the risks of flying is one of the hardest
parts, IMO. I tend to explain to people who ask that it's a varying shade of grey
from one level of risk to another and it's difficult to draw the line. If you didn't
take *any* risk for *anything*, you'd never drive anywhere either. It's just that
driving is a more socially normal and thus more socially acceptable risk than flying.

Besides, most of the risks involved in driving are due to the other dumb****s
on the road. Thus, in driving the other guy gets to kill you. In flying it's almost
always your fault so you get to kill yourself (and whomever else is with you). It can
be from a variety of factors (weather most notably), but in the end the decision to
go and the screwups that lead to a problem are almost always pilot error.

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Michael" wrote:
That's a notably elevated risk level over a nice VFR trip, IMO, given
the airplane I fly. I would never invite a non-aviation savvy passenger
on such a trip, even if I knew he would enjoy it.

I concur - I just think you're not thinking your reasons through to
their logical conclusion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not the purpose of the
flight but the risk level that should make the pilot consider whether
his passengers would decline the trip if they really knew the score.

But the crucial parameter, IMO, is not risk itself but the
risk-benefit ratio.

Well, that's what I'm saying, or attempting to say.

And I think it makes no sense to assume your
passenger should require a higher ratio of benefits to risks than you
do.

No, but he should not have to accept a lower ratio, either.

Are we agreeing to argue about a point we've not agreed to argue about our
disagreement about?

...I find it interesting that you bring up
Angel Flight. For these people, the benefit of the trip is at least
as great as it is for you. They may not get much out of the flight
itself, but they REALLY need to be there and generally don't have
other realistic options. Therefore, they are willing to accept more
risk.

Yep, AF patients are a special case. I take no special weather precautions on
their behalf other than maybe for comfort reasons: if it's good enough for me
it's good enough for them.

But yes - being honest about the risks DOES dampen a lot of folks'
enthusiasm. I suspect this is why most pilots are not honest about
the risks - their wives would probably never fly with them if they
were.

I suspect many pilots would not fly *solo* if they were honest about the
risks; witness how often we see the "drive to the airport..." old wives' tale
in these newsgroups.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Michael wrote:

"Dan Luke" wrote

Nope, I disagree -- I think. Assuming our passenger on the $100
hamburger trip is just as ignorant about flying as the one going 400
miles to a business neeting, isn't he entitled to the same cautious
discretion from his pilot as the serious traveler?


Sure - but that's not the point I'm making. On that $100 burger
flight, he's going along to enjoy the flight. So are you. You're
willing to accept a risk to do this. Why should he not be willing to
accept the same risk? At that point, it does turn into a question of
why his life is worth more than yours.

But your enjoyment may be much greater than that of your friend. Any
value equation has two variables, cost and benefit. The value of one's
life is the cost side, you can't look at that alone.


With a flying buddy I've made a $100 hamburger trip with low IMC all the
way just because, well, that's what we like to do, sick-os that we are.


I'm going to argue that this is something you're really doing for
training and/or experience value. Sure, you enjoy training. So do I.
So does any good pilot, really - because someone who doesn't will
never do it enough to become good. But in this case, you're getting
something from the flight the non-pilot passenger isn't - you're
becoming a better pilot. Sure, that might also be true on a sunny VFR
hamburger hop - but only marginally so.


That's a notably elevated risk level over a nice VFR trip, IMO, given
the airplane I fly. I would never invite a non-aviation savvy passenger
on such a trip, even if I knew he would enjoy it.


I concur - I just think you're not thinking your reasons through to
their logical conclusion.

I think he is. He's making a value judgement. You are making
effectively a cost assessment. They aren't the same analysis at all.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not the purpose of the
flight but the risk level that should make the pilot consider whether
his passengers would decline the trip if they really knew the score.


But the crucial parameter, IMO, is not risk itself but the
risk-benefit ratio. And I think it makes no sense to assume your
passenger should require a higher ratio of benefits to risks than you
do.

Exactly, however, if they derive less benefit from the flight than you
do and you each place the same "worth" to your life, then you benefit to
cost ratio is higher for the same flight and thus you may well be
willing to assume more risk because of that.


I must say that, aside from Angel Flight, I get very few passengers
because, as much as I enjoy giving rides, I don't sugar coat the risks
for people. I flat out tell them that flying in a light aircraft is
more dangerous than riding in a car, and that tends to dampen a lot of
folks' enthusiasm.


My experience is similar, and I find it interesting that you bring up
Angel Flight. For these people, the benefit of the trip is at least
as great as it is for you. They may not get much out of the flight
itself, but they REALLY need to be there and generally don't have
other realistic options. Therefore, they are willing to accept more
risk.

I think that is generally true and I found that when I was flying
AirLifeLine flights (I think they've since merged iwth Angle Flight).
In those cases, I used my best judgement on making IFR flights.


But yes - being honest about the risks DOES dampen a lot of folks'
enthusiasm. I suspect this is why most pilots are not honest about
the risks - their wives would probably never fly with them if they
were.

I've never tried to downplay the risks and so far have never had anyone
balk at flying with me.


Matt

And I think it makes no sense to assume your
passenger should require a higher ratio of benefits to risks than
you
do.

No, but he should not have to accept a lower ratio, either.

Are we agreeing to argue about a point we've not agreed to argue about
our
disagreement about?

OK, I give up. What DOES that mean?

Seriously - I think we've now narrowed our range of disagreement to
what our passengers get out of joyrides (meaning flights going nowhere
in particular made for no particular reason). I think they get as much
out of it as we do, you seem not to agree.

Michael

"Michael" wrote:
Are we agreeing to argue about a point we've not agreed to argue about
our disagreement about?

OK, I give up. What DOES that mean?

Heh. It means I might have lost track of exactly what point I was making.

Seriously - I think we've now narrowed our range of disagreement to
what our passengers get out of joyrides (meaning flights going nowhere
in particular made for no particular reason). I think they get as much
out of it as we do, you seem not to agree.

I don't. No way the average person gets as much out of a flight I'm piloting
as I do. If he did, he'd become a flying nut like me.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM