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

[TDTURBO]

No, I'm pretty sure he meant it when he said "other areas of Aviation" Did you read the thread?

The reason that I didn't think he meant "other areas of aviation" is GA is the undisputed king of danger as compared to 121 0r 135 ops.

[QUOTEJust 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.


Plane and Pilot, page 42.....July 2002 issue.

 

[Timebuilder]

It's true.

When compared to the other segments of aviation, particularly 121 and 135, general aviation has more incidents and accidents. The reason, as Metrosheriff alluded to, is training and operating limitations under the regulations.

Let's suppose that a bonanza pilot had to get six month recurrent training at FlightSafety, or that he was preventd from taking off into IMC in zero-zero conditions. His v-tail wouldn't be known as the "forked tail doctor killer", would it?

I, too thought that I knew a lot about flying at less than 200 hours, but all of that changed when I started my CFI training, and I still make a point of learning something every day. I am convinced that keeping the idea in my head that I know just enough to get through every flight alive is a valuable attitude, and that the idea that I am some sort of "top gun" would surely get me killed.

I think of it as risk management.

 

[av8raaron]

I'd venture a guess that any "pilot" safety problems with GA aren't the fault of the FAA, flight schools, or most pilots. It's the simple fact that in all actuality there's no real standardization between sources of flight instructions. What this leads into is a variety of individuals with various levels of judgement getting into the cockpit. I've long maintained that it's no great feat to teach somebody to fly. To allow somebody to gain the type of experience that produces good judgement is an entirely different proposition. Think about it - a newly minted private pilot with 50 hours is allowed to do pretty much anything in the air, given a simple enough aircraft and no flight into IMC. Then again, consider the number of accidents from low time pilots that resulted in the pilot being overconfient in themselves, their aircraft, or were simply doing something that was, for lack of a more accurate term, stupid. It seems to me the FAA (or somebody else, I can't quite remember) did a study a couple years back to find out how low a private pilot without an instrument rating would typically do in continued flight into IMC. The answer was that unless they immediately executed a 180-degree standard rate turn, they'd crash due to controlled flight into terrain in an average of 178 seconds.

The point to my little rambling diatribe is this: there's a difference between the ability to control an aircraft and the ability to consistantly make good decisions from the left seat. The press however, dosen't know or care about this, so every time we have some idiot on TV like the whole Jessica Dubroff fiasco, kid-ignoramus flying into a skyscraper in Miami, or just a spate of GA incidents, the press decides to tell America that GA is inherently unsafe, when in reality the incidents are the result of a few pilots exercising poor judgement and falling victim to the aeronautical equivalent of natural selection because of it.

 

[ShawnC]

If I goto the restroom, thats inhierently dangerous.

Flying is safer than many other activites that one can do, do I even hesitiate to take my family up on a clear day, no. Why because flying is safe when it is undertanken in a safe manner,

That means no scud running, no busting regs, no doing anything that would get one killed.