Get your Private w/30 hrs or 20...

bigr

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
142
Total Time
.
Last night on A&E bill curtis really did his homework. if you didn't see it, the show was about how dangerous GA is.

at some point during the show, curtis said that it takes 20 hours of dual flight instruction and 10 hours of solo flight time to get your "pilots license".

we are saved again by the illustrious journalism profession.
 

Unchilled

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2002
Posts
69
Total Time
~250
Perhaps he was referring to Recreatioanal Pilot or the new Sport Pilot. OR maybe he doesn't have a clue...
 

skeezer

Yo
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
324
Total Time
3,700
Or perhaps they were correct but could have been a little more accurate about their statement.

To get the private pilot certificate you need a minimum of 40 hours of flight time, of which a minimum of 20 hours must be training with an authorized instructor and a minimum of 10 must be solo flight training.

Just another example of how journalists can manipulate the truth to make it sound bad.

Skeezer
 

MetroSheriff

Hittin' the road...
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
854
Total Time
268
skeezer said:
Or perhaps they were correct but could have been a little more accurate about their statement.

To get the private pilot certificate you need a minimum of 40 hours of flight time, of which a minimum of 20 hours must be training with an authorized instructor and a minimum of 10 must be solo flight training.

Just another example of how journalists can manipulate the truth to make it sound bad.

Skeezer
You are correct in that they could have been more accurate in the stating of required time for each of the pilot certificates.

However, the point is still well taken, that at 40 hours, the average newly minted private pilot doesn't know his a$$ from a smoking hole in the ground.

Don't get me wrong, the last thing GA needs is more government involvement or legislation. But when it comes to GA safety, journalists don't have to do much in the way of manipulation to make it look bad. The accident record speaks for itself.

As for Phil Boyer, he is nothing more than a politician and talking head. To say that "GA is inherently safe..." is a crock and severely mistates the truth. I would argue that GA flying is inherently dangerous and the only things that mitigate the danger are good training, proper maintence, application of good judgement, and a mature and professional approach to the undertaking.

Call it good airmanship...a trait that many pilots lack. Again, the accident record speaks for itself.
 
Last edited:

bobbysamd

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
5,710
Total Time
4565
Private hours

As a practical matter, most people need more than the 40. Probably 55-75 is more realistic. And, there's no sin in that. Sometimes, it takes time to pick up on certain parts of the training and to shore up weak areas.
 

skeezer

Yo
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
324
Total Time
3,700
I guess what bugged me the most about the show was how they made GA seem so incredibly dangerous which is BS. They said something like 600 people die a year in small plane crashes and the show implied that makes GA unsafe.

In 2000 41,821 people were killed in automobile accidents. That number includes passengers and pedestrians, not just the drivers. 9,418 fatal crashes occured in dry weather conditions at night. Why isn't the infrared heads-up display required on all vehicles? We could save thousands of lives!!

Hell, there were 3,053 fatal crashes where vehicles struck shrubberies. Where is the expose on the dangers of shrubberies?

Over 40,000 people die each year because of car accidents, yet reporters that know nothing about GA can make us sound dangerous by maipulating the truth.

Oh well, I guess one good thing is that if the press keeps making flying sound really dangerous then I can get more chicks. Afterall, chicks dig the daredevil, bad-boy image! :D

Peace Out!

Skeezer
 
Last edited:

flyboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Posts
277
Total Time
28yrs
I was particularly disturbed by the way that the wife/mother that lost her family was so assured that it was the plane's fault and not that of the pilot. From the evidence on that one, it sounds like a stall resulting in a spin. I don't think you could hardly blame the plane for that. Did they ever say what aircraft they were in? If there were 4 or five passengers and the pilot and full of fuel, and this was not a C-421 or a PC-12, then it sounds like pilot error to me. I just get tired of listening to this crap. They talk about general aviation aircraft as if they just "fall" out of the sky everyday for no apparent reason when they obviously don't know jack squat about aviation.
 

Unchilled

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2002
Posts
69
Total Time
~250
MetroSheriff said:



However, the point is still well taken, that at 40 hours, the average newly minted private pilot doesn't know his a$$ from a smoking hole in the ground.

This is only my lowly opinion, but I think that statement is complete BULLSH*T

:D
 

MetroSheriff

Hittin' the road...
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
854
Total Time
268
Unchilled said:


This is only my lowly opinion, but I think that statement is complete BULLSH*T

:D


Let me rephrase then. When I had 40 hours, I thought I knew an awful lot about flying. It wasn't until a got down the road a few thousand hours that I realized how very little I actually knew back then.

The same could be said for driving a car at 16. Or arguing with your parents at 17.

Get it?

Something tells me I am not the only one who went through this, but I could be wrong....
 

MetroSheriff

Hittin' the road...
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
854
Total Time
268
Unchilled said:


Again, in my opinion, you're way off base:

Flying is inherently dangerous. Absolutely. That's why not just any Joe Blow can go up and fly around anytime he wants to. That's why certificates and the FAA exist.


the only things that mitigate the danger are good training, proper maintenance, application of good judgement, and a mature and professional approach to the undertaking.


Absolutely. But every certificated pilot has had training and is required to assure his/her aircraft has proper maintenance. Good judgement and a professional approach to the undertaking is a part of having the right to hold a pilot certificate. Therefore, by your definition of "mitagating danger" all certificated pilots theoretically would have successfully "mitigated" the danger in aviation. However, do folks get pilot certificates without necessarily having all these attributes? Absolutely. But this occurs at every level of Aviation. You can't just pin this type of problem on General Aviation.

So is it really crock to say GA is inherently safe? Heck No. With your logic, you'd have to say every plane that has ever gone into the sky was inherently a dangerous undertaking. Flying is dangerous. Busting Regs is really dangerous. Pilots doing dumba$$ things can be equated in both. Regulations exist for a reason, and they're busted, and pilots do various stupid things at all levels of Aviation. You can't just put the "stupid pilot" blame on GA!


Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth. Last thing I want to do is start pissin' people off.

:D

Perhaps "inheretnly" and "dangerous" are a bit strong. Perhaps
it would be more appropriate to say that it is a "potentially risky activity" which is much safer when untertaken by mature and responsible individuals.

I think the point is the same. I also think we are saying much the same thing, albeit in different ways. There is danger to flying. A responsible, proficient pilot mitigates the majority of the risk. There are bad pilots at all levels of aviation, that is true. The vast majority can be found in the ranks of GA. I would opine again, the accident record speaks for itself.
 

FL000

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
1,577
Total Time
1500
MS,

I'm with you. There is a reason that "license to learn" is a cliché. I still learn something new each time I get into the cockpit, and probably will do so until the day I retire.
 

MetroSheriff

Hittin' the road...
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
854
Total Time
268
THANK YOU.

I knew someone out there got my original point. I was not trying to insult lowtime GA pilots. We all were there once. I was just stating what I believed to be one truism that was brought up on the the A&E show.
 

Vandal

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2002
Posts
347
Total Time
1
At a 141 school you can get your license in well under 40 hours, btw.
 

onetaco

Active member
Joined
Mar 1, 2002
Posts
31
Total Time
1100
skeezer said:
I guess what bugged me the most about the show was how they made GA seem so incredibly dangerous which is BS. They said something like 600 people die a year in small plane crashes and the show implied that makes GA unsafe.

In 2000 41,821 people were killed in automobile accidents. That number includes passengers and pedestrians, not just the drivers. 9,418 fatal crashes occured in dry weather conditions at night. Why isn't the infrared heads-up display required on all vehicles? We could save thousands of lives!!

Hell, there were 3,053 fatal crashes where vehicles struck shrubberies. Where is the expose on the dangers of shrubberies?

Over 40,000 people die each year because of car accidents, yet reporters that know nothing about GA can make us sound dangerous by maipulating the truth.

Oh well, I guess one good thing is that if the press keeps making flying sound really dangerous then I can get more chicks. Afterall, chicks dig the daredevil, bad-boy image! :D

Peace Out!

Skeezer
Skeez,
I've also been thinking along those same lines. The media has done a wonderful job of scaring people away from aircraft, and airline travel. Someone needs to report on how many people the media has killed by scaring them into their cars instead of taking a plane to grandma's house. After all it's WAY more likely you're going to die in an auto than on a commercial airline.
 

FlyinBrian

Office Slut
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
355
Total Time
1300
At a 141 school you can get your license in well under 40 hours, btw
If by "well under" you mean 35, I suppose you're right.

Anyway, here's the deal. Most everything in life could be considered inherently dangerous. Getting your 2000 lb. wheeled death mobile out on the highway doing 70 is inherently dangerous. Walking down the street is inherently dangerous. That is to say these activities, by their nature, involve the distinct possiblity of being killed or maimed every time you participate in them.

That does not mean that we should not participate in them, or that we cannot overcome the inherent danger through training, situational awareness, professionalism and common sense.

Aviation (general and otherwise) is still the safest means of transportation out there if you examine the accident record. This is largely attributable the amount of training and demonstrated ability that are required of certified pilots.

If this sounds like the same old dull mumbo jumbo, that's becuase it is. It doesn't sell well in a prime-time slot.
 

bobbysamd

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
5,710
Total Time
4565
Things that are inherently dangerous

Crossing the street downtown in the face of spastic, tunnel-visioned drivers is inherently dangerous. For that matter, driving downtown in the face of spastic, tunnel-visioned pedestrians who don't abide by walk signals is dangerous to both parties.

Riding motorcycles might be considered as dangerous, even if you wear a helmet. Some drivers fail to look for bikers. You can always spill a bike, even if there are no cars in sight.

Doing nearly anything carries certain risks. You accept part of the risk or you can be a shut-in. Even that may be dangerous. You can slip in the shower or fall down the stairs.

It is ludicrous to say that general aviation is inherently dangerous. Some people might argue this point, but it is no more dangerous than other kinds of aviation. Compare it to automobiles. How many people perform a pre-drive inspection of their cars (may not be a bad idea)? E.g., pull a wheel and see if the brake linings are worn down or the pads and rotors are worn or scored. How many people check oil before they drive? Check tires for wear before they drive?

How many regular drivers take 40 hours of training before they take a driving test? Perhaps some do and shouldn't be driving altogether. What about driving reviews and driving proficency checks? For that matter, absent seatbelt laws, how many people drive unbelted? You wouldn't dream of it in your airplane.

Remember, too, that someone can be a perfectly horrendous driver with many tickets (violations) and never lose their driver's license. Incur too many violations on your pilot certificate, or even one big one, and you know where that leads.

I'm not trying to be funny. Think about it. Pilots take a great deal of training and, if they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, scrutinize their aircraft thoroughly. If something's wrong with the aircraft, they get it fixed or do not fly it. The point is, aviation is safe for a reason. Great pains are taken to ensure it is safe. Try making drivers go through the same drill, and then you'd have a news story. No, I don't "pre-drive" my car :D but I sure keep up its maintenence.
 
Last edited:

MetroSheriff

Hittin' the road...
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
854
Total Time
268
FlyinBrian said:


If by "well under" you mean 35, I suppose you're right.

Anyway, here's the deal. Most everything in life could be considered inherently dangerous. Getting your 2000 lb. wheeled death mobile out on the highway doing 70 is inherently dangerous. Walking down the street is inherently dangerous. That is to say these activities, by their nature, involve the distinct possiblity of being killed or maimed every time you participate in them.

That does not mean that we should not participate in them, or that we cannot overcome the inherent danger through training, situational awareness, professionalism and common sense.

Aviation (general and otherwise) is still the safest means of transportation out there if you examine the accident record. This is largely attributable the amount of training and demonstrated ability that are required of certified pilots.

If this sounds like the same old dull mumbo jumbo, that's becuase it is. It doesn't sell well in a prime-time slot.
Very well put. You made my origianal point better than I did. I would add the one caveat, that within the aviation industry, GA by its' very nature, is going to have a higher % of accidents that stem from pilot error. Whether it is lack of skill, judgement, or just plain ol' stupidity, or some combination thereof. Perhaps it is lack of time, or perhaps lack of commitment to a "recreational" activity, the net result is the same...stall, spin, crash, burn. It is inevitable, and unfortunately, it will not change.
 

172driver

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2002
Posts
744
Total Time
4000
If you compare operations flown/hrs flown to accidents, is GA really any more risky than other areas of aviation?
 
T

TDTURBO

172driver said:
If you compare operations flown/hrs flown to accidents, is GA really any more risky than other areas of aviation?
I think you meant, "other areas of recreation"..............


On that note, here are the stats

Activity Fatalities Per Million Hours

Skydiving 128.71
General Aviation 10.11
Motorcycling 8.80
Scubadiving 1.98
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling 0.88
Waterskiing 0.28
Bicycling 0.26


I would say if GA is more dangerous than motorcycling, we still have a way to go with regard to safety!
 

Unchilled

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2002
Posts
69
Total Time
~250
TDTURBO said:


I think you meant, "other areas of recreation"..............


On that note, here are the stats

Activity Fatalities Per Million Hours

Skydiving 128.71
General Aviation 10.11
Motorcycling 8.80
Scubadiving 1.98
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling 0.88
Waterskiing 0.28
Bicycling 0.26


I would say if GA is more dangerous than motorcycling, we still have a way to go with regard to safety!
No, I'm pretty sure he meant it when he said "other areas of Aviation" Did you read the thread?

Just out of curiosity, where did you get those stats? Who the hell keeps track of how many hours everybody swims or rides a bicycle? Sheesh, I ride and swim nearly erveryday I don't have a clue how many hours I've done either one. And I'm still alive too. :D
 
Top