On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:39:48 -0500, Gary Drescher wrote:

Hardly. It's true that the fatality risk is enormous--perhaps even on the
order of 1% or more. But in the (very unlikely) hypothetical situation Matt
describes--that the flight is the only way to save one of his kids--a 1%
fatality risk is well worth it. So Matt's risk-benefit analysis is
completely reasonable.

Do you have anything to back up your statement?

On Matt's situation, you are talking about a pilot who's mind is now
severely distracted by an emergency, not trained to fly a plane under
duress of get there itis. Talk about missing checklist items by rushing
through things to get there.

Matt was saying my flying over the top with a VFR licence was a bad
piloting decision. Would you say that was a bad decision or a good
decision?

I question the decision to launch under conditions he describe as a "good
piloting" decision. AS you say yourself, the risk factor is enormous, so
much more then my decision to fly VFR over the top.

I would think that no matter how bad a medical condition is, there are many
other means to accomplish getting there other then having a very distracted
pilot with get there itis.

Allen