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

[FL000]

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]

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]

At a 141 school you can get your license in well under 40 hours, btw.

 

[onetaco]

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!

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]

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]

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 but I sure keep up its maintenence.

 

[MetroSheriff]

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]

If you compare operations flown/hrs flown to accidents, is GA really any more risky than other areas of aviation?

 

[TDTURBO]

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]

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.