How safe is a new teenaged pilot?

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

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.

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"

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

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"

"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

"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.

"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

"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

"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