I am in The Killing Zone

In article ,
says...



I think one needs to keep in mind that we are indoctrinated into the
automobile world as soon as we are born. From the first ride home
from the maternity ward, we grow up with cars being an integral part
of every phase of life. It's no wonder to me that the dangers
involved are dismissed because everyone accepts that the automobile is
as normal to everyday life as the bathtub. That goes for the
accidents, too. Not many are fortunate enough to have this same early
indoctrination into the aviation world, thus it typically is not
regarded as a normal part of living.
Rich Russell


That's true - and it's one of the difficulties in making meaningful
statistical comparisons. The sample size for automobile use is just so great.
We spend a significant portion of our lives in automobiles. After sleeping, it
must be one of the highest time activities for average people in
industrialized nations.

Today I spent four hours in the car and one hour and a half in a Cessna 172. I
guess my risk in the car was probably greater, but I put a lot more attention
into safety considerations on my flight. Even though I'm a very
safety-conscious driver, we just don't evaluate the risk in the same way,
because it's such a "standard" part of our everyday lives.

In the old adage about rural life " Birth sometimes occurs in cars, death
usually, and conception always!"

G Faris

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:43:19 +0000 (UTC), (G Farris)
wrote:

Today I spent four hours in the car and one hour and a half in a Cessna 172. I
guess my risk in the car was probably greater

I used to tell my wife the same thing ("the most dangerous part of
flying is over when I park the car at the airport") but it's not
really true. As posted, flying is more comprable to riding a
motorcycle than driving a car.

But perhaps you meant that 4 hours car 1.5 flying. Yes, that may
well be true. Most of these comparisons are done on an hour-for-hour
basis, but sometimes on a passenger-mile basis.

I recently saw comparisons on the safest passenger vehicle. It wasn't
a SUV or a pickup, as one might assume, but a Toyota Avalon. (In this
case, only driver fatalities were counted, so as to avoid being skewed
by passengers.) Then I realized what was going on: Avalon, Accord,
Camry, then Civic, Corolla, etc -- the more likely a young man was to
drive the vehicle, the more dangerous it appeared to be. Even the
Subaru Outback is significantly more dangerous than the Avalon, but
then you don't see as many middle-aged women driving Outbacks, and you
never see a young man driving an Avalon.

I wonder how much of flying's apparent dangers (and motorcycles' too?)
comes not from the vehicle but from the driver?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

Great post!

I haven't read it but qualitatively, it rings true to me.

I think feeling like you are on the bloody edge of your own compentence is a
feeling we've all had and one that most of us seek out. It's the definition
of challenge. Having some fear and being cautious is healthy I think

Regarding leaky brakes and shocks and pushing the envelope.

Pilots I look up to don't fly with a bad brakes. They get it fixed. There
will be enough instances where you *discover* you have a bad brake and have
to exercise those "land in the first 1,000" skills. No need to knowingly
fly into such a situation. Ditto with the shocks.

It seems the longer you fly you either:

1) get more cautious and take fewer risks because you know things will go
wrong anyway and you need all the help you can get to overcome them

or

2) get more complacent and take more risks because you know things will go
wrong anyway but you can usually overcome them.

The trip with the xwinds, shocks, brakes, and passenger is one of those
situations where you are "picking up the package by its string".

....As in a passage from Flying Magazine many years ago. Some 'ol sage, when
asked what the secret was to a long, safe flying life, said,

"Avoid the terrain, don't run out of fuel, and don't pickup a package by
its string"

I always liked that one. It does require awareness that packages were once
bundled up with string rather than tape.

It does require awareness that packages were once
bundled up with string rather than tape.

For years after this became a non-issue, the local post office had a
fierce-tempered clerk named Wally who kept a ball of string behind the
counter. If you gave him a taped package, he handed it back with the
string, and until you'd tied it to his satisfaction, he wouldn't
accept it for mailing.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote:

For years after this became a non-issue, the local post office had a
fierce-tempered clerk named Wally who kept a ball of string behind the
counter. If you gave him a taped package, he handed it back with the
string, and until you'd tied it to his satisfaction, he wouldn't
accept it for mailing.

Yet another reason for the success of UPS.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

"Marco Rispoli" wrote in message et...

only 294 more to go before I am out of the Killing Zone.


When you think you are out of the Killing Zone - that's when you'll
really be dangerous.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

"Marco Rispoli" wrote in message
t...
Here's a pilot profile

Between 50 and 350 hours
...
This is the killing zone and that profile fits me to a T.

The problem I have with the Killing Zone is that the author never
establishes that the fatality rate per hour of flight time is any greater
for pilots in the 50-350 hour range than for pilots with any other level of
experience. What he establishes instead is that the annual fatality rate per
quantile of flight experience is elevated in that range of experience. But
it's conceivable, for instance, that disproportionately many hours each year
are flown by pilots in that range. Then, you'd expect disproportionately
many fatalities in that range even if each hour flown by a pilot in that
range is as safe (or even safer) than an hour flown by other pilots. Because
he hasn't normalized by the annual hours flown, the author hasn't
established that pilots in the designated "zone" have any elevated risk at
all.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:xJ4wc.6579$Sw.1544@attbi_s51...
"Marco Rispoli" wrote in message
t...
Here's a pilot profile

Between 50 and 350 hours
...
This is the killing zone and that profile fits me to a T.

The problem I have with the Killing Zone is that the author never
establishes that the fatality rate per hour of flight time is any greater
for pilots in the 50-350 hour range than for pilots with any other level
of
experience. What he establishes instead is that the annual fatality rate
per
quantile of flight experience is elevated in that range of experience. But
it's conceivable, for instance, that disproportionately many hours each
year
are flown by pilots in that range. Then, you'd expect disproportionately
many fatalities in that range even if each hour flown by a pilot in that
range is as safe (or even safer) than an hour flown by other pilots.
Because
he hasn't normalized by the annual hours flown, the author hasn't
established that pilots in the designated "zone" have any elevated risk at
all.

--Gary

I'm a newly minted PP-ASEL and I'm as scared (though not as eloquent) as
Marco. Are you saying the whole thesis in The Killing Zone is based on such
an elementary methodological error?

Are you saying the whole thesis in The Killing Zone is based on such
an elementary methodological error?


There are many things in (popular) statisics that are based on elementary
methodological error. Sometimes this is deliberate (9 out of 10 doctors
reccomend...), sometimes not (most auto accidents occur within 25 miles of
home). As long as you are aware that 82.3% of statistics are bogus, your
understanding of reality will be unimpaired.

I have not read the Killing Zone, though I have heard of its claims. I would
say that the thing to take home is that there will come a time in ones flying
career when one thinks they "have it down" and start getting just a little bit
careless. You take shortcuts, you skip things, you extend the envelope too
far. That's when you get bit.

That said, underconfidence will also bite you. You are PILOT IN COMMAND, and
you need to fly with confidence. No matter the conditions, evaluate them, make
your decision, and execute it, remaining in command of the flight, because the
laws of physics and human nature are ready to pounce. Just don't let this
authority become bravado.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh wrote:

That said, underconfidence will also bite you. You are PILOT IN COMMAND,

Yes, this is an important point. One must not mentally hand over control to
anyone else. It's a trap I recently discussed with some other pilots: Who
is PIC when flying with an instructor.

This is the instructor with whom I did my instrument work, and with whom I'm
doing at least some of my commercial work. But *I* am in charge, and I
cannot assume that he's there to "bail me out" if there's ever a bad choice
being made.

In a way, it's a difficult line. I've always thought that one reason for
flying with an instructor was to push one's personal envelope. So
conditions that might be just beyond my personal minimums are something I'd
try out with an instructor on board. In a sense, this is a case where I am
hoping for a "bail out" should I get in over my head.

I've not thought about it quite this way before, and I'm curious what others
might think.

- Andrew