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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
You can reasonably expect that the son learned his flying habits from the
dad. If the dad is calm collected and level headed, the son is likely to be a safe pilot. If he is a risk taker, short tempered and aggressive, you might want to think twice. anon wrote in news Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend who is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He grew up flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft manufacturer. These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is increased risk of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him fly with his friend, but we want to be reasonable. I would appreciate any data or guidance this group could provide. Thanks Peter |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Roger wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:22:24 -0400, "Gary Drescher" wrote: "Peter" wrote in message ... Gary Drescher wrote: The standard reference for small-plane safety statistics is the Air Safety Foundation's Nall Report (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf). As far as I know, there are no good statistics about the safety of new pilots vs. more-experienced pilots. That report includes the statement that "ASF studies have shown that low pilot time in type is often a significant contributing factor in accidents." But I didn't see any specific data there to back it up. Yup. Plus, low time in type is different from being recently licensed as a pilot. "It seems" as if I read some where a freshly minted pilot is one of the safest times, but ... that is an old and foggy memory. The report referenced above indicates that student pilots have only about half the number of accidents (7.7%) that one would expect based on their percentage of the total pilot population (15.3%). It also mentions factors that may account for this: level of supervision and flying only under good conditions. One of the worst times is some where around 500 hours. The accompanying chart plots a histogram of accidents vs. PIC hours of experience but unfortunately doesn't normalize it to the number of pilots in each band and the number of hours flown by them. Yup. Paul Craig's book The Killing Zone has the same problem. Without normalization, the data tell us nothing about how safety might vary as a function of experience. The perception that around 500 hours is more risky may come from that non-normalized chart in the report since it shows a high percentage of accidents associated with the pilots who had up to 500 hours of experience as PIC. But, as mentioned before, this data needs to be normalized relative to the number of pilots and hours flown before one can draw any conclusions about relative safety. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In article , anon wrote:
Our 17 year old son want to fly as a passenger with his 17 year old friend who is a brand new pilot. We think the boy is level-headed and mature. He grew up flying with his dad who is a retired test pilot for an aircraft manufacturer. These credentials not withstanding, I'm guessing that there is increased risk of accidents with new pilots. We are uncomfortable about letting him fly with his friend, but we want to be reasonable. Newly qualified pilots will (generally speaking) always be a riskier proposition than experienced pilots. However, I have known novice teenage pilots who I'd fly with LONG before some experienced older pilots. If your son's friend is a regular hanger-out at the airfield they fly out at, you can probably get a feel for what type of pilot he is from other people at the airfield. Pilot communities are quite tightly knit. We always had a pretty good idea who at our airport was 'looking for a grid reference'. -- 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" |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in
Just make sure that they don't try flying across one of the great lakes, especially at night. Is that your best cautionary suggestion? Your recommendation is hysterical in nature and of almost no relevant preventative value. Think or shut up. moo |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
In article k4Vge.77243$WI3.40856@attbi_s71, Jay Honeck wrote:
A 17 year old boy is basically a fleshy container of hormones, with great stamina, questionable stability, and loads of bravado. This is NOT necessarily a great fit with being a new pilot -- especially when you put two of these guys inside the same vehicle. I'd agree; not NECESSARILY a great fit, but you do have to know the pilot in question. The youngest pilot I know was one of the line guys at Houston Gulf airport; I would have had NO qualms letting him fly my Cessna 140 with an appropriate checkout. However, there are some people I wouldn't even take as passengers! Most of the younger pilots I have known I feel I could trust with my plane too. There are a few I wouldn't, but there are also quite a few older pilots I wouldn't trust with an RC model let alone full scale! -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Grumman-581"
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:bkVge.74706$r53.48513@attbi_s21... I'm hoping that this says that teenage pilots are better than teenage drivers. Or the sample size is not large enough for the insurace companies to draw meaningful statistics... Frankly, there's probably not a high percentage of teenage pilots... Flying is expensive and most teenagers don't have the money to do it... But, 30 years ago, they did. Does anyone have accident stats that justify the concerns expressed in this thread? I don't think so. Idle speculation about the obvious is intellectually unattractive and emotionally unsatisfying. moo |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Happy Dog" wrote in message news wrote in Just make sure that they don't try flying across one of the great lakes, especially at night. Is that your best cautionary suggestion? Your recommendation is hysterical in nature and of almost no relevant preventative value. Think or shut up. Actually, his advice is both relevant and subtle. The issue under discussion is teen-age judgement and the above advice relates to judgement, although whether the accident was due to age, judgement, a combination, or a fuel leak of some nature is still undecided. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"EastWing" wrote in
"Happy Dog" wrote in message news wrote in Just make sure that they don't try flying across one of the great lakes, especially at night. Is that your best cautionary suggestion? Your recommendation is hysterical in nature and of almost no relevant preventative value. Think or shut up. Actually, his advice is both relevant and subtle. The issue under discussion is teen-age judgement and the above advice relates to judgement, although whether the accident was due to age, judgement, a combination, or a fuel leak of some nature is still undecided. IOW, of no relevant interest specific to teenage pilots. Restricting night flights over water to pilots over 19 years of age would be a useless and idiotic restriction. Think or shut up. moo |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck"
Still, you're right about the youthful indiscretions, but I wouldn't be too quick to judge _all_ 17 year boys by that standard. I certainly never took risks when driving at that age, but I consider myself more the boring exception to the rule. I was an exceptionally cautious driver at age 17, too. Yes, because you were a scared one. BFD. But that's only because at age 15 I stole my mother's car, and went joy riding with three friends -- one of whom proceeded to wrap that car around an oak tree. You are an admitted idiot. Based on your own admitted stupidity do you presume to judge others. Taking responsibility is to your credit. But the probative value of your cautionary tale is as useful as a discussion of whether Hans or Gretel's respective biological imperatives were to blame for their near demise. moo |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck"
A 17 year old boy is basically a fleshy container of hormones, with great stamina, questionable stability, and loads of bravado. This is NOT necessarily a great fit with being a new pilot -- especially when you put two of these guys inside the same vehicle. Reasonable extrapolation. Stats please. There are very good reasons that car insurance for 17 year old boys costs exponentially more than for adults. They generally have poor judgment, and are known to end their statements -- and sometimes their lives -- with "Watch this!" Personally, I'd be VERY reluctant to allow my son to fly with another 17 year old boy. Because he's inadequately trained? Too hormonal? (Women are this way all the time, right?) Driver training and pilot training are worlds apart. The standards, both for instruction and evaluation, are nearly incomparable. Nobody thinks this should be different. Flight training, by the book we all use, pretty much, assumes all students are dangers unto themselves and others. Driver education, by comparison, is a joke. Was your experience any different? moo |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
NTSB: USAF included? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 10 | September 11th 05 10:33 AM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Piloting | 114 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |