Article: Older pilots crashing in disproportionate numbers

http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California...229286CA.shtml

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:30:20 GMT, "City Dweller"
wrote in ::

http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California...229286CA.shtml


Journalist Pearson's article seems to be questioning the wisdom of the
lack of medical certificate requirement in the new Sport Pilot
designation in light of Associated Press' research that they claim
shows a disproportionate number of accidents among older pilots:

Following a rash of plane crashes involving older pilots in
Southern California, The Associated Press analyzed five years of
federal pilot licensing documents and aviation crash data. The
analysis showed that pilots in older age groups were in a
significantly higher percentage of crashes than they represented
among all pilots.

Implicit in Mr. Pearson's article is the premise that the underling
cause of the alleged disproportionate number of accidents among older
pilots is medical related. Of course, there is no good evidence for
that assumption, and it could as easily be explained with over
familiarity with aviation, complacency, and a resultant lack of due
diligence toward flight planning.

Without more information about the specifics of the AP's analysis,
it's difficult to know the validity of their "research" given the
usual plethora of inaccuracies of most aviation news stories.

The article's premise is based on the fact that older pilots have more
accidents, considering how many older pilots are vs younger pilots.
But....could it be that older pilots fly more often due to having more
money and more time? It seems to me they do. I know many, many young
pilots who dont fly much at all. And most GA airplanes are owned by
older pilots. Owners fly more than renters. Older pilots fly more
hours.

It seems to me they should be comparing the accidents PER HOUR FLOWN,
not per number of pilots....

Thus the whole premise of the theory is wrong.

I would have a difficult time accepting ANYthing the Associated Press,
or most of our media outlets, put forth. They usually have an agenda,
and they always want to generate interest through controversy.
Trust no survey or research unless you see the original questions.
When our kids were little, I taught them to always ask about the money
when a survey was quoted. Who paid, and who has an interest? That
usually points to the results; the survey or research itself wasn't
necessary.

AFter reading the article, my first question was why didn't AP do a
study on automobile accidents? There's more of them, more fatalities,
and it is difficult to get older folks out from behind the wheel.

I'm thinking aviation is easier to pick on, since there are fewer
pilots than drivers, and old folks don't equate flying with personal
freedom, as they do with driving.

"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
The article's premise is based on the fact that older pilots have more
accidents, considering how many older pilots are vs younger pilots.

Actually: who cares?

The numbers are so insignificant when compared to hundred of other ways to
die... or be killed by someone else.

About the same number as drowning and boating accidents.

1/10th the number of pedestrians killed.

About 1/20th the number of people shot.

About 1/25th of the number of people who die from plain old falls.

Less than the number of bicyclists killed.

Cops kill nearly half as many people as GA aircraft do.

Hell, some estimates have DOCTORS (and legal drugs) killing more than 10
times the number of people that GA does, just by their mistakes.


So I can think of many more probably ways to die other than being killed as
.... or by ... an aging pilot.

There's more of them, more fatalities,
and it is difficult to get older folks out from behind the wheel.

I'm thinking aviation is easier to pick on, since there are fewer
pilots than drivers, and old folks don't equate flying with personal
freedom, as they do with driving.

I think you hit it on the head. Older people who cannot fly are not
deprived of their lifebloood (notwithstanding the bloke in Iowa). But
take driving away, especially in large areas of the country, and the
elderly are pretty much abandoned.

Everything carries a risk, and I think the immense difference in quality
of life between being able to drive, and being cooped up at home with
almost no way to buy a can of beans on your own, is worth the risk of
having older people behind the wheel. Especially if they realize their
own limitations and abide by them.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

It seems that the issue is being dodged here. I've thought about this for some time, and I'd like to see some discussion.

I have friends who are getting on, and who can barely drive a car. They are still flying planes. It would seem to me that flying a plane is more difficult than driving a car. While I certainly wouldn't want someone else telling me I couldn't fly anymore, I would like to think I have the responsibility to at least fly in a manner so that no one else could be hurt if I lost control of the plane, if not the will to quit flying completely when my reflexes are dulled, and my eyesight shot.

I know this is a sensitive subject, and I don't mean to hurt anyone. I hope that I live to be an old, old man myself. But it is a fact that when you get old, your abilities start to fade. This is a fact as painful as that of our mortality. While this factor is different for different people, and there may be 90 year old pilots who are more skilled than most 40-year old pilots, if you live long enough these things will happen to you.

I'm all for freedom, and I would never support taking away someone's right to fly. I understand the media's habit of focusing on certain issues for hidden agendas, and I believe this article may be related to what I perceive as an attack on general aviation. But the issue is still valid and relevant.

About 15 years ago I ran into a fellow at Oshkosh selling a beautiful
polished metal Cessna 170. It was his 80+ year old Dad's airplane.
They also had to take away his driving keys too. I asked which went
first - the ability to drive or to fly? He thought more than a bit
before stating that really it was his ability to drive.

Driving is more difficult than flying, car are not stable
and there is traffic all the time. But that said, neither
cars or planes are safe in the hands of a person who has
lost "normal" reaction times. When you get your DL renewed
or a new medical they check your vision to see if you can
tell the difference between a stop sign and a school bus or
an E and F. I've seen a lot of old people (Q-tips) behind
the wheel and they scare me.

I think that a Nerf football or baseball should be used by
doctors and DL examiners to test reaction times, without
being warned [except by signs posted] the examiner should
toss the ball AT the applicant from about 5-10 feet away.
This should be done to young and old alike [no
discrimination.] If they did not at least react BEFORE the
ball hit them by trying to dodge, catch or deflect the ball
before it passed them, they are either on drugs, drunk, too
old and should not be driving or flying. IMHO.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"nrp" wrote in message
oups.com...
| About 15 years ago I ran into a fellow at Oshkosh selling
a beautiful
| polished metal Cessna 170. It was his 80+ year old Dad's
airplane.
| They also had to take away his driving keys too. I asked
which went
| first - the ability to drive or to fly? He thought more
than a bit
| before stating that really it was his ability to drive.
|

In article ,
Jose wrote:

There's more of them, more fatalities,
and it is difficult to get older folks out from behind the wheel.

I'm thinking aviation is easier to pick on, since there are fewer
pilots than drivers, and old folks don't equate flying with personal
freedom, as they do with driving.

I think you hit it on the head. Older people who cannot fly are not
deprived of their lifebloood (notwithstanding the bloke in Iowa). But
take driving away, especially in large areas of the country, and the
elderly are pretty much abandoned.

Everything carries a risk, and I think the immense difference in quality
of life between being able to drive, and being cooped up at home with
almost no way to buy a can of beans on your own, is worth the risk of
having older people behind the wheel. Especially if they realize their
own limitations and abide by them.

Jose

I have a friend, former Chief Pilot for Eastern, who just turned 90. He
is mentally sharper than a lot of people half his age -- and he still
flies! Another old Eastern pilot, Joe(?) Miller, just turned 100 and
still flies his Bonanza. He landed somewhere and tried to rent a car and
was told that he was too old! How about them apples?