A disturbing statistic

Bob Noel wrote:

In article . com,
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:


Nothing beats walking for safety,


yet my most serious accident occurred while I was walking
and required surgery, a 14 day hospital stay, was out of
work for more than to months, and I'm still recovering.

Where you walking during good daylight conditions? Were you on a
sidewalk or otherwise away from motor vehicles?

I'm not being coy; there is walking then there is walking.

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Jose wrote:


I think what we need to do is look at what
differentiates personal flying from all other forms of GA and figure
out what makes it more dangerous, rather than looking at every other
form (they're all safer) and figure out why.

I think the answer is fairly evident: Personal flying is not done often
enough by those who do it.


another viewpoint is: Pilots are not managing the risks.

It doesn't matter how often you fly. The pilot that flies within
his abilities is going to have less risk than the pilot that
flies beyond his abilities.

bottomline: it's not about total hours, it's about risk management.


The capabilities of the aircraft have a lot to do with the risk
management equation.

I was far more capable when I was flying an L-1011 IMC than I was flying
a Comanche 250 IMC.

Miscalcuations about ice, etc, are very unforgiving in a Comanche 250.
Not so in an L-1011 (or Citation X).

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

another viewpoint is: Pilots are not managing the risks.

It doesn't matter how often you fly. The pilot that flies within
his abilities is going to have less risk than the pilot that
flies beyond his abilities.

bottomline: it's not about total hours, it's about risk management.

To wit: Scott Crossfield

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:

Nothing beats walking for safety,

yet my most serious accident occurred while I was walking
and required surgery, a 14 day hospital stay, was out of
work for more than to months, and I'm still recovering.

Nothing is 100% safe.

Quite!! A Islamofascist might play bumper cars on the sidewalk.

Jim Macklin wrote:


Lidle had a fast airplane and a CFI.



Not that fast, he had the SR20.

Jose wrote:
I was including this kind of business flying as "personal flying". Do
the statistics separate it out?
Yes - and it is MUCH safer.

Does this "business flying" include bizjets?

No. Professionally flown is a separate (and even safer) category.

That would skew the
statistics. I would include (as personal flying) only that business
flying that is piloted by the person wanting to make the trip.

That is how the Nall Report does it.

I would be interested in a rule you
would consider a net good.

Well, it was not my stated position that they existed, merely that the
potential for the other (rules that are not a net good) does. But ok,
let me try to think: (I'm on Usenet; I'm out of practice!)

1: requirement for an instrument rating to fly IFR.

Because otherwise people would blunder around in IMC without training?
Seriously? There are actually quite a few people who fly IFR without
an instrument rating. I don't mean VFR in IMC, either. They file and
fly in the system. These days, we have a lot more IFR in IMC crashes
(loss of control, CFIT) than we have VFR into IMC crashes - but all
those people have instrument ratings. The ones doing it illegally
don't seem to crash.

At least one person I know who used to do it routinely before he
finally got legal and got one is now an airline captain.

What's important for flying IFR is skill and knowledge, not a piece of
paper from the FAA. I find there is little correlation between the
two.

Truth is, a person with no instrument rating isn't going to file and
fly IFR unless he is confident he can do it. Someone with an
instrument rating is likely to assume he can do it (since he has the
rating and is legal).

2: BFR/wings

Because you belive a BFR is effective at keeping people sharp? Most
BFR's are a joke. Most people who are serious about their flying do a
lot more recurrent training than the BFR.

3: (old?) requirement for minimum VFR hours before pursuing an
instrument rating (learn how to look out before we teach you to look in)

Rule is gone now, but that's not so much the point. Some people are
ready for an instrument rating at 100 hours. Most are not. All the
rule ever accomplished is holding back the ones who were.

4: More stringent requrements for a commercial or ATP rating.

But now we're in commercial territory. With a profit motive, people
will be tempted to do dumb ****. I agree with rules for commercial
activity. I simply think that they don't have a place for private
operators. The marine world actually operates that way. Private boats
have almost no rules (unless they are quite large) but start operating
for hire, and regulation kicks in.

Michael

Sam Spade wrote:
True enough. However, my observation is that pilots who limit
themselves to nothing but good VFR daytime operations never do become
experienced (they quit after a few hundred hours because flying just
isn't useful under those restrictions), so that doesn't help.

Depends whether the self-imposed limit is imposed going into the game or
much later on after the cat has shed several lives. ;-)

True enough. My point is that you don't get to be an experienced and
capable pilot without taking some significant risks somewhere along the
line.

Michael

Bob Noel wrote:
another viewpoint is: Pilots are not managing the risks.

It doesn't matter how often you fly. The pilot that flies within
his abilities is going to have less risk than the pilot that
flies beyond his abilities.

The problem is that if you don't fly often enough, you will not have
the abilities to safely fly on an average day in average conditions.
At that point, your risk management becomes flying easy hops on
bluebird days only. Then that gets boring and you quit.

Michael

The point is that turn radius is directly related to speed.
It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower speed than
Lidle was flying his SR20 and thus make the turn. Putting
aside the fact that the NTSB investigation is barely begun,
certain facts are known. Airplanes have flown the East
River for many years. Basic flight skills should have
allowed the flight to be completed safely. It was pilot
error, the question is why did the pilots make the error?



"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
|
| Lidle had a fast airplane and a CFI.
|
|
|
| Not that fast, he had the SR20.

Does this "business flying" include bizjets?
No. Professionally flown is a separate (and even safer) category.

I would include (as personal flying) only that business
flying that is piloted by the person wanting to make the trip.
That is how the Nall Report does it.

Then the relative safety of "business flying" is news to me. I'll have
to look further. Thanks.

1: requirement for an instrument rating to fly IFR.
Because otherwise people would blunder around in IMC without training?

Because it codifies the required training. Absent such a requirement,
people would blunder around in IMC without =sufficient= or =appropriate=
training.

What's important for flying IFR is skill and knowledge, not a piece of
paper from the FAA. I find there is little correlation between the
two.

I suppose that's your point. But I suspect that there is enough
correlation to warrant the instrument rating rules. Even the cheaters
have a standard to go by.

2: BFR/wings
Because you belive a BFR is effective at keeping people sharp?

Because I believe that it helps keep the ones that don't fly often
enough up to a minimum standard. A BFR for someone who flies a lot is
probably going to seem like a joke. A BFR from a responsible CFI for
someone who doesn't, will probably involve more. Sure some will slip
through the cracks - nothing is perfect.

Some people are
ready for an instrument rating at 100 hours. Most are not. All the
rule ever accomplished is holding back the ones who were.

I think that is a good thing. "Being ready for" an isntrument rating is
not sufficient, IMHO, especially in this electronic world. I think that
one must be well in the habit of looking OUTSIDE before one starts to
look inside. Otherwise, one may never get into the habit of really
LOOKING outside.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.