A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

JFK Jr.'s mean ol wife



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old July 3rd 03, 04:11 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"CurlyNJudd" wrote in message ...

I am not awake enough this morning to dissect and comment on your stats, but
your latter comments are extremely relevant. A good pilot is safer than a
bad driver, and I have to think that there are more genuinely bad
drivers/1000 than there are bad pilots/1000.


The problem with this argument is that everybody thinks they are a good driver/pilot.


Ads
  #32  
Old July 3rd 03, 05:12 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Marten Kemp"
You believe this in spite of the fact that the fatal accident rate is

700%
higher for personal flying than for driving?


Sir, can you substantiate that amazing assertion?
Citations, websites, etc?


You mean you DIDN'T know that? Have you ever heard of the Nall Report?
I thought most pilots of any experience knew the relative fatal accident
rates of driving and flying. Check out the sites Ron Natalie posted.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #33  
Old July 3rd 03, 05:16 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Aldrich" wrote:
The problem with this argument is that everybody thinks they are a good

driver/pilot.

I think hours flown to accidents/incidents is as good an indicator as
any.

2000+hours, no accidents, no incidents.


Perhaps you are a far above average pilot, but that anecdote does nothing to
prove that you are safer flying than driving. My Uncle Wilson smoked cigars
every day of his adult life - and inhaled. He lived to be 93 years old. Does
that prove smoking is safe?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #34  
Old July 3rd 03, 09:11 PM
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Ace Pilot) wrote:

Dan,

I agree that the attitude of "I'm a great pilot so nothing bad can
happen to me" is likely to lead to trouble. Bad things can and do
happen while flying, but preflight planning, proper training and good
judgment are needed to deal with them. But are you going even further
and saying that all pilots should believe that they could make a
decision as stupid as the one JFK made? If I honestly believed that I
was so inexperienced and lacked the training to recognize that I was
making such a stupid decision, I wouldn't get in an airplane. And I'd
like to think that nearly all pilots would exercise that level of
sound judgment.

I think there needs to be a distinction between most pilots claiming
they would exercise better judgment than JFK and claiming they are
better than the average pilot. Average pilots do not kill themselves
in plane crashes, i.e., JFK was not average. I think the
rationalization that occurs in these newsgroups is that one would not
make as poor a decision as JFK did, not that ones decision-making
ability is better than the average pilot.

Do you believe that you could, one day, make a stupid decision
resulting in a catastrophic outcome? If so, how do you justify getting
in an airplane and taking that risk? [That comes across as rather
critical/insulting, but I don't mean it that way in the least. I'd
really like to hear your views on this matter. I think this discussion
could yield some very valuable ideas, perhaps even change the way I
view risks.]

Ace


I think, under the right circomstances, ANY pilot can make some really
STUPID decisions, includinr our friend, " acepilot88."

All it takes, is a series of performance-inhibiting factors: stress,
physical impairment, diminished weather, fatigue, etc.

From wghat I have read about JFK Jr's flight, he had these conditions in
spades!

I regularly fly with ATPs and ex-military pilots, with tens of thousands
of hours -- they put their pants on the same way as I do -- both legs at
a time.

--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ≥Random Signatures≤ into your Preferences folder.
  #35  
Old July 3rd 03, 09:47 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ace Pilot" wrote:
But are you going even further
and saying that all pilots should believe that they could make a
decision as stupid as the one JFK made?


I certainly believe that about myself. I am constantly on guard against it.
(BTW, I don't believe JFK's decision was all that monumentally stupid. In my
short 700-hour flying career, I've made some that were just as
questionable - the difference is that I lucked out and he didn't.)

If I honestly believed that I
was so inexperienced and lacked the training to recognize that I was
making such a stupid decision, I wouldn't get in an airplane. And I'd
like to think that nearly all pilots would exercise that level of
sound judgment.


That's where you're leaving the door open for the Devil: you think you're
immune to your own bad decisions.

I think there needs to be a distinction between most pilots claiming
they would exercise better judgment than JFK and claiming they are
better than the average pilot.


That's a distinction without a difference.

Average pilots do not kill themselves
in plane crashes,


Huh?

i.e., JFK was not average. I think the
rationalization that occurs in these newsgroups is that one would not
make as poor a decision as JFK did, not that ones decision-making
ability is better than the average pilot.


Whatever; the illusion of superiority persists.

Do you believe that you could, one day, make a stupid decision
resulting in a catastrophic outcome?


Of course I do. Better pilots than I do it all the time. Remember that 700%
higher fatal rate?

If so, how do you justify getting
in an airplane and taking that risk?


'Most everything in life is a risk/benefit choice.

[That comes across as rather
critical/insulting, but I don't mean it that way in the least. I'd
really like to hear your views on this matter. I think this discussion
could yield some very valuable ideas, perhaps even change the way I
view risks.]


No offense taken. This is usenet, after all! :^)

What I see in other pilots is simple refusal to recognize the *real* risks
in what we do. If they did face it I believe many would stop flying, so
instead they soothe themselves with this "drive to the airport" nonsense.
This warm, fuzzy cloud of rationalization they fly in leads to just the kind
of situation JFK got into. That they can continue to believe such a thing is
a wonderment, but people will believe what they want to, facts be damned.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #36  
Old July 3rd 03, 09:56 PM
Kevin Darling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Ace Pilot) wrote in message . com...
I think there needs to be a distinction between most pilots claiming
they would exercise better judgment than JFK and claiming they are
better than the average pilot. Average pilots do not kill themselves
in plane crashes, i.e., JFK was not average.


Well, umm. I mean, really ABOVE average pilots (think airshow and
airline) also kill themselves in plane crashes... some very dumb. It
can and does happen to the best, which might be what you're saying?

I think the rationalization that occurs in these newsgroups is that
one would not make as poor a decision as JFK did, not that ones
decision-making ability is better than the average pilot.


By all accounts, JFK usually hired a CFI on these trips as a safety
pilot. That day, everything went classically wrong: the CFI wasn't
available, the actual weather was worse than reported, his wife
delayed her arrival at the airport by several hours, and they had a
wedding to go to, which meant by that time, travel by air was needed.
(Perhaps he should've hired another pilot.)

But we don't know what actually went wrong. He was getting IFR
training, and I've flown to the islands at night myself, and know that
certainly he should've had no problem keeping upright using his
instruments. But that doesn't count other distractions. Personally,
I figured that one of his passengers decided to crawl up into the
copilot seat for the approach. Perhaps he leaned over to help with
the seatbelt. Perhaps she tilted the yoke. Perhaps his bad foot
meant he leaned on the rudder. Who knows?

The point is, it doesn't necessarily mean he was a bad pilot, or one
outside his depth (frankly, it doesn't seem that way despite what so
many others say). It just means a chain of events lead to an
accident. When such a chain comes out okay by sheer luck, a pilot
writes one of those "I learned about flying from that" articles. When
luck fails, we get a (usually common) type of accident.

Kev
  #37  
Old July 3rd 03, 09:58 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Highfllyer" wrote:
I have been both flying and driving for fifty years.

In fifty years I have never scratched a passenger.

In fifty years of driving I have been nearly killed twice, and I did lose

a
passenger.


How many flying hours vs. driving hours do you have? How many flying trips
vs. driving trips have you made?

Richard Collins illustrated the reality of this best: he pointed out that,
in his long life, he knew far more people who had been killed in plane
crashes than ones who had been killed in car crashes. This is true even
though the exposure to flying is far smaller than the exposure to driving
for the population. Try this: how many celebtities can you name who have
been killed in plane crashes versus ones who have been killed in car
crashes? What is the relative exposure of celebrities to each form of
travel?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM



  #38  
Old July 3rd 03, 09:59 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Marten Kemp" wrote:
Hitting the gear lever could also have some, ah, unfortunate consequences.


Really? Gosh!
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #39  
Old July 5th 03, 10:37 PM
Jonathan Birge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Highfllyer" wrote in message
...
JFK was flying on a night when the weather was legally VFR.

If he HAD realized that it could be ACTUALLY IFR, while still being easily
VFR LEGALLY and as reported by the aviation weather people he might not

have
messed up.


Reading this, I started to wonder why the FAA doesn't define IFR in terms of
horizon reference, and then it occurred to me that the basis for the IFR/VFR
distinction is mainly aircraft separation. I bet it was only after the fact
that IFR/IMC began to seem synonymous, but my guess is that they were
originally intended to be completely orthogonal concepts. IFR rules were
intended to keep aircraft separated. If you look at all the definitions for
legal VFR flights (i.e. cloud separation and visibility) you'll see that
they are geared towards visual separation of aircraft, with little (or no?)
consideration to flying by visual reference. In time, I think people began
to see them the VFR rules as neccesary and sufficient criteria for VFR
flight.

So, here's a thesis to discuss: was the FAA's original intent with IFR/VFR
distinction simply aimed at aircraft separation and not focused on the issue
of aircraft control by instruments? If you think about it, the fundamental
reason for ATC is to separate aircraft. If there are circumstances where one
could see another airplane to avoid it, but one cannot see the ground (e.g.
New Mexico at night) then the FAA's position seems to be go ahead and fly on
instruments without talking to us.


  #40  
Old July 5th 03, 10:46 PM
Jonathan Birge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
It could happen to ANY of us, under the right circumstances.


There are very few accidents for which I don't feel that way, but I have to
say JFK's was one of them. When I read about some guy doing barrel rolls 10
feet over the runway (Jeffco, Colorado a few years ago right as I was
taxiing to take off) I don't really think there's much I can learn from it
that I don't already know. Similarly, when a guy takes a single engine
airplane VFR over miles and miles of ocean at night I can't really say it
could've happened to any of us. I don't think I'd attempt to make his flight
during the DAY let alone at night. If you're going to go to Martha's
Vineyard in a single engine, you do it where you're going to be over water
for three miles, not ten or twenty (whatever his farthest shore distance was
going to work out to be).

The man didn't deserve to die, especially not in such a terrible way, but
what he did was really careless and more an example for Kennedys to learn
from (they tend to think they are invincible) than the rest of us to learn
from. It wasn't a flight where things slowly got out of hand. They got out
of hand the second he decided to fly direct instead of staying along land.

My personal wild guess is that he was acutely depressed and probably not
worrying about his safety the way most of us would. I don't actually think
he's actually as stupid as the accident would suggest. I just think he no
longer cared so much and wasn't thinking very rationally or clearly.

-Jonathan


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
REAL NAVY LIFE B.C. Mallam Naval Aviation 2 February 10th 05 02:20 AM
'Room Temperature' Anthony Home Built 11 August 23rd 04 07:36 PM
Pat Tillman's wife is available Jim Military Aviation 1 April 27th 04 07:12 PM
WW 2 Ace, Richard Bongs, wife dies Fitzair4 Home Built 2 October 3rd 03 05:02 AM
Air Force wife, kids found dead Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 July 19th 03 04:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.