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

[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.

 

[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.