Each individual pilot's comfort level and risk is going to determine the circumstances, if any, that they are willing to undertake that risk. For most of us, myself included, it would take some pretty extreme circumstances to make us consider flying a single engine plane over blue water...but applying a blanket 'idiot' label to anyone who would undertake the venture without considering the reasons or circumstances is, well...ignorant.
Of course. Pilots who fly over water in single engine piston light airplanes are, for the most part, idiots. As are pilots who profess a willingness to undertake and accept risk. Both ignorant, and stupid. Any pilot that develops a tolerance or comfort for risk is an idiot.
Most people who have been flying very long, (including all the airlines, the military, and insurance companies) reject this philosophy, instead embracing "Risk Management".
No, pilots who live in dreamworlds and suppose themselves to be masters of safety believe in risk management. Those of us who live in the real world believe in risk elimination. Hazards exist which become risks when put in play. Don't put them in play, don't create risks. Where risks exist, eliminate them by opening the back door. A single engine airplane may experience an engine failure. A hazard. One elects to fly it. A risk. One keeps a landing space beneath one's flight path at all times, and frequently trains to recognize and handle a power failure. Risk handled; the risk must exist as the result of an existing hazard, but with provision, the engine failure is no longer a hazard, and therefore, no longer a risk.
Risk management assumes that risks will occur, that we shall accept those risks, and that we will apply our useage and exposure of those risks in some sort of heirarchy that prioritizes how much acceptance we are willing to take.
Risk elimination stipulates that risk is unaceptable, and must be eliminated and or mitigated such that it no longer poses a threat. We don't accept and manage it, we don't accept it at all. The concept that a pilot has become informed and therefore has accepted a calculated risk is a cop-out; it's an assumption based on arrogance and foolishness, to say nothing of rampant ignorance. One is fooling one's self, as if labling the risk "calculated" has in any way mitigated it.
One who says "I'm willing to accept that level of risk" also says "this is my level of stupidity." That, mate, is the illousion of control.
This is a coping mechanisim that many pilots use to rationalize away thier own mortality. "As long as I am a good and careful pilot I will never die in a plane crash". Avbug professes to belive that it is possible to remove ALL risk from flying. Given enough training, excelent maintence, and reliable equipment there should never be another airplane crash ever. If we could just somhow controll EVERY SINGLE VARIBLE asociated with flying an airplane nobody else would die.
Don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing. Acceptance or risk, even to couch it in politically correct terms such as "risk management," is not acceptable. Again, acceptance is not acceptable.
I said nothing about who lives or dies. That topic is quite irrelevant. I said nothing about one being careful and therefore not dying. Those are your words; don't ascribe them to me.
The pilot who flies over water in his 172...several posters have suggested he carry water survival gear. Fair enough, and a very good idea. He won't last long without it. How are his swimming skills? Does he have the ability to treat water for an extended time? Does he understand survival? Can he right an inverted raft? Does he understand the hazard of drinking salt water? Does he understand hypothermia? Can he use a signal mirror? has a filed a flight plan? Has he undertaken underwater egress training, or does he have any experience finding his way out of wreckage or even a box in the water blinfolded, or in the dark? Is he really prepared?
Survival equipment is little good if one doesn't know how to use it, or can't use it. Understanding when to inflate a mae west, for example, is a life or death decision, as is understanding how to flood a cabin to afford egress. Has the 172 pilot undertaken a study of the waters over which he will be flying? Does he understand the currents, depth, frequency of travel of waterborne vessles in the area? Does he know the current water temperatures, and has he considered his survival times? Or did the pilot merely jump in the airplane and go fly?
If your goal is survival, then the outcome may certainly be doable. But if your goal is to exercise good judgement and proper airmanship, then avoiding the situation where a test of your survival skills may be required, is the order of the day. Be careful of scars earned in battles in which you should never have fought; these are not marks of honor, but signposts on your forhead which over time spell out the word s t u p i d. Like playing the kids game of hangman, quit early before that word is spelled out for the world to see.
Setting a lifelong goal of risk elimination isn't arrogant, nor is it the impossible dream. It's a way of life. The private pilot buzzes his friends, justifying it as both fun, and a part of somethin he does every day; after all, he flies low to land, he's low for the takeoff, therefore buzzing is practice for something he does every day. After all, he says, he's wiling to accept that level of risk; it's all about managing. it's okay. It's a calculated risk.
Two years ago a man told me that one afternoon. The next afternoon, the aftermath was being picked out of a tree, piece by piece. He calculated his risk, he managed it, and it destroyed him.
But at least it was a "calculated risk."
Tell me; what happens when you "calculate" wrong?
