Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

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

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

bigr

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
142
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.
 
Perhaps he was referring to Recreatioanal Pilot or the new Sport Pilot. OR maybe he doesn't have a clue...
 
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
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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
 
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....
 
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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top