PDA

View Full Version : Love flying, not keen on dying :))


eyesup
19th Dec 2013, 19:21
Hi everyone, allow me to introduce myself, as I am new here. My name is Andre, 39, living in Munich (though not German). I came across this forum in my ongoing research into (i) learning to fly and (ii) ultimately owning an aircraft. I am hoping you might be able to share some advice about the risks associated with GA, and then interestingly enough, with Touring Motor Gliders ("TMG") as a class of aviation, to help guide me to the best means (i.e. the safest means) of getting into (and staying in) this incredible sport.

In a nutshell, I would like to pursue my private pilot's license, on a TMG. There is a school near the city that offers our equivalent of a PPL, on a TMG (Dimona H36 / X-Treme) . Before I take to the skies, I have a few burning questions about TMG specifically, which are proving very hard to find a credible answer on (mainly due to limited granularity in reporting data). I'm generally quite an anxious person, though my anxiety is marginally overshadowed by my love of flying. As a father of 2 young kids I do however have a responsiblity to my family, etc, etc (including "not to die in fiery plane wreck"). I am struggling with balancing the sheer joy and exhilaration (indulgence) of flying versus the risk of leaving my kids as orphans or even worse, incapacitated due to injury etc. Not a nice thought, but one that I can't seem to shake. I have a pang of guilt for wanting to fly knowing that it is somewhat selfish, as I get such enjoyment out of it. My main questions therefore relate to safety, of not just GA in general, but of TMG more specifically, as a sub-segment within GA.

To start with, several people have likened the risks associated with General Aviation to those of riding a motorbike. This obviously puts me off ever wanting to fly or own a plane, as I associate riding a motorcycle with being exposed to risks well outside my own control. More specifically, there are too many external variables associated to riding a motorbike (at least on the road) that I cannot control but which could kill me. I will therefore (again, as a father of 2 young kids) never own or ride a motorcyle. This is beyond my boundary of acceptable risk. My interpretation of this principle with GA and TMG is a little different though, in that most of the risks associated with flying are well within my control. I imagine I could do things to bring flying well below my threshold of acceptable risk. Specifically, things like good training, learning good airmanship, not flying in bad weather or IMC conditions, proper pre-flights, checks, etc are all within my control. If I make a conscious decision to be as "safe as possible" a pilot, even at the risk of being a boring / unadventurous pilot, then so be it. The exhilaration of flying for me comes from simply being in the air, not necessarily being upside down / sideways / whatever else in the air. I am therefore naturally drawn to TMG as they seem to fit my risk profile (among GA alternatives) best. My logic for this is as follows :


TMG seem fairly "steady" in the air. More so than LSA (another alternative) or regular C152 / 172.
I have the improved gliding performance (again, only over a C152 / 172) in case I ever need it. Simply put, in the event of an engine out, I have more time to choose a suitable place to land than I would in most other planes.
I like the feature of airbrakes/spoilers, which again give me the perception of greater control. One can descend more sharply (i.e. with greater speed and therefore more safely) than with a C152 / 172. Again,
I understand TMG have in general a lower stall speed than other GA alternatives, again, reinforcing my impression that these are fairly steady aircraft with fairly docile flight characteristics.
I therefore chose TMG to learn to fly as they seem "safer" than the GA alternatives. I recognise that the pilot is what makes a plane safe, but I also acknowledge that some aircraft are inherently less safe than others (just google LSA accident statistics, and you'll see what I mean)

I would love to hear any feedback or thoughts on my impressions above. I realise these could be way-off, hence this post. My burning questions are really : How safe are TMG ? Any safer / less safe than other GA alternatives ? For the purpose of clarity, I think of a TMG as a Diamond Katana X-treme / H36 Dimona, or Grob G109 a / b. If you were advising someone of the safest way to get into aviation, what advice would you give them ? (other than staying on the ground or flying RC planes :))

Oh yeah, one last question - would having a parachute on while I'm flying be a waste of time ?

I would be truly grateful for any views / opinions / experiences that you'd be willing to share, and many thanks in advance

Regards from Munich
Andre

Ultranomad
19th Dec 2013, 23:29
I'm afraid you are asking the wrong questions, as your perception of safety and risk is quite unsound. Safety is not about an emotional aversion of all risks but rather about their comprehensive assessment, continuous awareness and proper mitigation. Essentially, there is no such thing as an "acceptable boundary" of the total unmitigated risk - all risk factors should be mitigated to an ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) level; however, an individual risk factor may indeed be considered acceptable in an unmitigated form when an assessment shows it to be minor compared to other risks even when those are mitigated. For example, we teach our children to pay attention to traffic lights to mitigate the risk of being killed in a traffic accident, but we need not teach them to watch out for aircraft falling out of the blue sky directly on their heads, because that risk is much lower than the risk of a traffic accident even when they are already taught to be very careful on the street. Comparing cars and motorcycles, both types of vehicles are significant sources of risks on the risk scale of today's civilisation, and considering the car "acceptable" but the bike "unacceptable" is self-deception. Furthermore, while a motorcycle is less safe on the road than a car, the related risks are well recognised, so accident avoidance training programs are much more popular among motorcyclists than among four-wheel drivers, and a well-trained motorcyclist is obviously safer on the road than a totally absent-minded car driver.

One major problem with emotional risk aversion is the lack of systematic risk assessment - that is, one can easily overlook a major but insidious (or popularly disregarded) risk for fear of a minor but obvious (or exaggerated) one. Thus, for example, when flying as an airline passenger, you are much more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to the airport than in an aircraft crash. Another problem with an emotion-based approach is that even when the ratio of specific risk factors is evident, the risk mitigation process may dramatically change it - a minor factor of unmitigated risk may unexpectedly become the leading one after all safety measures have been put in place just because this factor is less amenable to mitigation.

Coming back to your original topic, the biggest risk factor in case of both TMG and other aircraft is not the aircraft but yourself. Human factors are most frequent cause of accidents in today's aviation, and their share in the total number of accidents is only increasing. So, if I were you, I would choose a school based on the quality of their training rather than the aircraft they operate, and would concentrate my efforts on gaining and maintaining good airmanship skills. Keep in mind that airmanship is a much broader concept than just flying an aircraft, and acting safely is actually the most important aspect of airmanship.

flarepilot
19th Dec 2013, 23:56
hi

I know nothing about touring motor gliding

nor would I want to do it.

I do know flying though.


While an engine failure is a possibility, have you had an engine failure in your automobile? what did you do? how did you handle it? when you learned to drive did anyone tell you what to do if you had an engine failure while driving?

well, you would be trained in such things at a reputable flying school, even a bad flying school might train you well enough.


I don't care for the 152 or 172...but the Piper Cherokee/Warrior/Archer series is very comfortable and in the same class.


IF you limit your self to flying in good weather, in the daylight, over familiar and relatively hospitable terrain, you should do ok.

I've taught many people to fly and to the best of my knowledge they are all well over the last thirty years plus.


the anxiety...I had one student who shook, physically, before a lesson and I told him to give up on flying...he did.

do you shake?

good luck

and , read "STICK AND RUDDER"

Andy_P
20th Dec 2013, 02:37
As a motorcyclist, I would say that a plane is probably safer simply because everyone in the sky is better trained.

However, neither riding or flying are more dangerous than walking down the street, provided you know what you are doing.

abgd
20th Dec 2013, 04:00
I'm afraid I agree with half of what Ultranomad says, and disagree with the other half: your questions are perfectly sensible.

I would disagree quite strongly that a moderately dozy driver is more dangerous than a sharp motorcyclist, for example. I regularly see kids in A&E who have gotten high on drugs or alcohol, pulled some kind of ridiculous stunt and walked away from car crashes with glass and blood in their hair but who suffered no more serious injury. In contrast, I have seen a few motorcyclists who were brought into A&E in several bags (one had his arm in a cooler bag - ultimately not required). My understanding was that they were riding in an exemplary fashion.

Whilst it's true that the pilot is the most important factor in the safety of any aircraft, a sensible pilot chooses a sensible aircraft. There are certainly aircraft out there e.g. the Gee-Bee that are so unforgiving that they frequently pay back with death what might, in another aircraft, merely result in a fright. Even amongst more mainstream types, there are large differences in the safety profile. I wouldn't criticise anyone who had reason to want to fly a Gee-Bee, but wouldn't suggest it for commuting either.

A while back I trawled through the NTSB database looking at Long-EZ and Vari-EZ crash statistics. I've lost them now, but as I recall over half of off-airport landings resulted in a fatality, whereas only a few per-cent of Piper Cub engine failures did. As a general rule, lower stalling speeds result in a safer aircraft. My view was that if I lived in an area with lots of airports, I might fly a Long-EZ. However, I fly over rugged terrain and after reading the statistics, I reconsidered.

Where I would agree, is that it's important not to get too caught up on any single cause of accidents: you have to try to avoid all of them. My own feeling is that flying can be made acceptably safe. One of the big differences between flying and motorcycling is that in the air, you are primarily responsible for your safety. On a motorbike other drivers can kill you quite easily however well you ride. My feeling would be that we get too caught up on causes of accidents such as mid-air collisions and engine failures, where another party is at least partly to blame, whereas most accidents are due to our own pilot errors.

obgraham
20th Dec 2013, 04:58
In my part of the US we have plenty of motorgliders, as towplanes are few and far between.

The pilots of the motorgliders (Katanas, Taifuns, Stemmes, Ximangos) all act, fly, and behave like regular powered aircraft PPL's. They follow all the same regulations. The physics and aeronautical concepts are the same.

The only area in which they might be safer is in the landing process, as their landing speeds are low, such that in a pinch they can land on a neighborhood street. And yes, this is a big thing for low-time recreational pilots.

The downside, in my opinion, is that there might be a tendency to think "well, I'm in a glider, nothing bad will happen even if my skills aren't that great". Disaster awaits that attitude.

I agree with others -- find a good school which will teach you good flying habits and good judgement, regardless of the equipment used.

abgd
20th Dec 2013, 05:04
However, neither riding or flying are more dangerous than walking down the street, provided you know what you are doing.

Twoddle. Sorry, but it is.

General aviation is dangerous by any reasonable definition. Even if you're supremely careful, well trained and competent. Even good people get killed.

There are 3 ways of dealing with this:

1) Stop flying

2) Be in denial

3) Look at the risks objectively. Accept them. Do what you can within reason to reduce them.

Options 1 and 3 are perfectly acceptable, provided that 3 doesn't lead to a disabling degree of anxiety.

m.Berger
20th Dec 2013, 07:27
Read Stick and Rudder. If that does not put you off then nothing will.
Risk. My motorcycling friends think it is crazy that I gave up motorbikes because I felt them to be too dangerous but I fly an aeroplane. Flying is dangerous and you can get killed. There are a million things that can get you killed; only one of them will kill you and you do not get a choice. It is not possible to know which one and so you either live life in a sterile bubble, waiting for God or live dangerously knowing that the odds are in your favour. That is up to you. If you are too frightened then why do you want to fly?
The correct state of mind is excitement at the challenge. If that is not in you, do something else.

Lord Spandex Masher
20th Dec 2013, 07:34
the anxiety...I had one student who shook, physically, before a lesson and I told him to give up on flying...he did.

do you shake?

good luck

I know a bloke who was so nervous before flying that he used to puke during the wak around. He was flying Harriers though and went on to be a test pilot.

He should have just given up though hey?

flarepilot
20th Dec 2013, 08:33
if he was flying harriers, he may have done it on a carrier...maybe he was seasick

but nice of you to clean up after him.


no, really, this is an indictment of British food , right?

Jan Olieslagers
20th Dec 2013, 09:03
have you had an engine failure in your automobile? what did you do?

There is NO comparison between engine failure in a car vs. a plane. I regret having to point that out, I thought it should be obvious to anyone with even the slightest notions about flying.

sharpend
20th Dec 2013, 09:08
Interesting point made in this topic. Should we wear parachutes. I suppose the answer is complex.

1. What aeroplane do we fly? Most are quite capable of landing in a field, assuming there is an available field, so don't fly over big towns or water :)

2. The RAF trained us pilots to parachute jump. Maybe better to run into a hedge at 10 mph than to hit the ground on the end of a parachute at 30 mph.

3. Is you parachute going to work? When was it last serviced?

4. They are not cheap.

5. Jolly useful if the wing comes off though, but unlikely unless you hit someone or pull 10 G.

The list in endless. Personally I would not even use the parachute fitted to a Cirrus unless I really had to.

John R81
20th Dec 2013, 09:09
Dangerous? What about

Motorcycling?
Horse riding?
Using a chainsaw?
Scuba diving?
Rock climbing?
etc?

Of these I believe that horse riding tops the 'high-risk' rating based on injuries! Life Insurance companies rate Skydiving, scuba diving and mountain climbing as more risk than aviation (in any form).

Many things can get you killed. Unless you abstain the only things that reduces risk are training and attitude.

You cite motorcycling (as do others) as being too dangerous. IAM or ROSPA training - if those skills are then applied (back to your attitude) - will reduce your likelihood of causing an accident by over 90% and reduce your risk of being involved in an accident (whoever caused it) by 75%. So it's not 'risk-free' but the risk can be managed. I ride a motorcycle most days, have done since I was 17, and now commute in heavy city traffic. Yes, even in winter. No, I have not been knocked-off my bike by a car since undertaking IAM training in 1982.

I fly helicopters (statistically more dangerous than fixed-wing) and my daughter is currently training for a commercial helicopter license. Get the best training, set your limits and stay within them, constantly apply all of your skill and judgement, and when you have your license don't stop trying to improve / train.

Applies to aircraft, motorcycles, chain saws, horses, and everything else that 'might' be dangerous.

flarepilot
20th Dec 2013, 09:26
jan


both are engines


if an engine quits in a car while you are pulling out and you suddenly stop in the middle of a road, or a track, you can be in trouble...as a car or train can hit you.

i went through formal driver's training and was never taught what to do if an engine in a car quits.

engines in planes are usually better maintained in planes than in cars and even have two sets of spark plugs (piston).


sorry jan, i do think there are comparisons.

Now, I do realize that as a pilot you should be trained to handle engine failures and with my other provisos about daylight, and terrain...someone should be able to handle things without jumping out with a parachute.


if you want to really scare the original poster, talk about mid air collisions.

out west in the USA (near the capital of Nevada) a business jet collided with a glider.

the jet landed (belly landing) safely. the glider pilot had a parachute as the glider fell apart in the sky.

so, let's scare everyone with talk of collision, airborne fire, vertigo and other things.

flarepilot
20th Dec 2013, 09:34
eyesup

it sounds like you have an issue about control. and that's fine, but at some point it is YOU and YOUR PLANE vs the sky.

the sky will win if it wants to, and you must be able to think and avoid the problems.

Lindbergh flew from NY to Paris without a parachute. And that was 86 years ago...engines are pretty darn reliable.

there is a plane called a cirruss that has a parachute built into the plane itself...maybe you would like that plane ? of course it didn't save someone from hitting the side of a building.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
20th Dec 2013, 09:36
The biggest factor in safety is you, and your attitude. I know lots of motorcyclist who have been riding all their lives and never had a serious accident (they generally had some near misses when they were young and less aware). They have all taken post-qualification training such as Bikesafe or IAM because motorcycling is potentially more dangerous than car driving as one is exposed more to the bad driving of others. But 'awareness' training can greatly lessen that risk though of course it can never totally remove it.

The same with flying. You are less at risk from the mistakes of others when in an aeroplane than when on a bike, but there are more insidious things that can bite you. Perhaps the biggest is your attitude to weather... 'get home itis' is a big killer in recreational flying.

Engine failure is probably the worst mechanical 'gotcha' that can happen. It's rare but it does happen. Real nasties like structural failure and fire in the air are thankfully almost unheard of, though the former can result from loss of control of the aeroplane in a weather-related scenario. I have had engine failure on take off, and I know quite a few others who have. A great deal of PPL training is about dealing with it. However I knew a guy who suffered it on take off and died. But he let it stall and spin as the speed bled off as he held the climb attitude. His mayday call was, apparently, exemplary though. He just forgot to fly the aeroplane. Ask yourself if you might do that as well. Personality type is an important safety factor in the air.

So get the best training you can and once you are qualified, stay as current as you can. And be careful extending the edges of your flying envelope.

Learning to 'drive the aeroplane' is the easy bit (though it won't feel like it at the time!). Developing high airmanship skills takes effort and application and self-awareness. But it's the latter that makes the difference where safety is concerned.

vabsie
20th Dec 2013, 09:56
I had the same questions as the original poster before I started my training 4 years ago (see my original posts). I was obsessed with best glide ratio!

I therefore think that in the context of someone who does not have extensive real life experience with this topic they are all reasonable questions.

I agree with Jan though -An engine failure in a car is mostly nothing more but inconvenient - different for anything that flies!!

eyesup - You already know more than you think, train with a good school, do your bit in reading up bits and pieces as you probably have done anyway, and like you say - no reason to fly in crap weather.

Vabsie

eyesup
20th Dec 2013, 09:57
Gents / Ladies (if applicable), thanks for all the replies. I appreciate them all. A few points :

1. I include this research as part of my first steps to becoming a safe pilot, specifically to (i) understand and then (ii) as best as possible manage the risks involved. To that end, every reply is helpful, especially those that took some time and thought to post.
2. From research and from the above replies, it's clear that pilot related risks outweigh any other. This ever-growing list is surely the best focal point for my risk mitigation, I accept that.
3. That said, there is also clearly a risk spectrum for aircraft types. At the risk of upsetting some forumites or making an ill-informed statement, I would contend that many LSA are not as safe as regular GA aircraft (a fact support by the statistics). I would also contend that some GA planes are safer than others (e.g the Diamond DA20/40 are statistically far safer than C152 /172's and even a BRS fitted Cirrus, on a standardised data basis). So, choosing to fly GA, and then choosing one with a superior safety record, would be a good start, surely ?
4. Assuming I manage the pilot related risks as best I can, what could I do to better manage the risks related to the type of aircraft that I fly ? I moved away from LSA after much research as they are in my view simply less safe as most GA alternatives (on a standardised data basis) . I also stopped flying microlights (as a student pilot) for exactly that reason. A light airframe + low wing loading meant I got blown around a lot more and was more exposed to strong and unanticipated gusts of wind. Now that I want to get back into flying, I am simply looking for the "safest" (relatively speaking) form or point of re-entry into flying.
5. I recognise, this is more to do with "how" I fly, than "what" I fly, but the "what" is still a factor, albeit a smaller one.

So here is what I know :

1. There seems no statistical basis for thinking TMG are safer than other GA alternatives. They may in fact be less stable due to low wing loadings
2. The Diamond DA20/40 range are known to be safer than most GA alternatives. Fewer crashes, fewer fatals. Low stall rates, good glide rates.
3. Failing that, the C172 / taper wing PA28 seems really good alternatives. Alternately something with a low stall speed
4. The remaining risk, as they say, is up to me

Just for the record, my anxiety is not completely unfounded. I was a student pilot on trikes at a microlight school in South Africa when my instructor crashed with a student on board. They were practising EO landings over the strip and the student froze on the control bar and they hit the deck at 45 deg. Both survived but student lost his leg. I switched to GA, my instructor there was on a commercial flight off the Mozambique coast, flew into a storm, IFR, crashed and died. Now, you could argue both accidents had nothing to do to with the plane (one trike and one King Air), and you'd be right, but had the student been in a C172 and not a weight shift, freezing on the "controls" (i.e. bar) would not be an issue. As for the instructor that flew into the storm, well, see my earlier point about focusing on the pilot as a risk factor. In a way I am grateful for my anxiety as it makes me think of (and aim to manage) risks that perhaps others would not.

piperboy84
20th Dec 2013, 10:04
Dangerous? What about

Motorcycling?
Horse riding?
Using a chainsaw?
Scuba diving?
Rock climbing?
etc?

You forgot marriage

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Dec 2013, 10:22
There is NO comparison between engine failure in a car vs. a plane. I regret having to point that out, I thought it should be obvious to anyone with even the slightest notions about flying.
Indeed.


In an aircraft, after shoving the nose forwards you've probably got minutes to think about it, decided what to do, plan, then act.


In a car (and this has happened to me twice) you've got to barge your way through however many lanes of nose-to-tail juggernauts with no means of indicating to them that you are not under full control. It isn't fun - you're dealing with seconds and feet, not miles and minutes.

Steevo25
20th Dec 2013, 10:28
I don't think there is anything wrong with pre-flight nerves or worrying about what could happen. For myself, it promotes that extra careful factor.

Before I started flying I had a fear of flying and heights even in a commercial airliner. I never thought I would ever do a PPL. It was only that I was bought a trial lesson as a present and realised how much I did actually like flying when I was in control.

Even now just over a year after getting my PPL, I still get the pre-flight nerves and still go through what if scenarios before I fly. For me, I feel this is a good thing and much better than jumping in an aircraft thinking that nothing will ever happen and have nothing but total confidence.

My own opinion is that generally the type of flying that I do is safe. I have had an engine failure and am still here to tell the tale. It wasn't anywhere near as bad as I expected it to be.

Everything we do in life is a risk and people die everyday from the most outrageous of things so there are 2 options. Either lock yourself away somewhere and just hope the roof doesn't cave in. Or go out and enjoy yourself while you can.

cockney steve
20th Dec 2013, 10:37
Riding a motorcycle is not, of itself, dangerous....sharing an environment with a load of unaware, incompetent, minimally trained motorists is the killer.

Pilots are trained to a much higher standard of competency, though there are many who learn to jump through the hoops without really understanding much in depth.....It's a lot safer up there! less crowded, better -trained,all the others have the same awarenes as you, IE...A collision could be fatal, you can't pull into a layby if the donkey stops.....
Here's where I agree with the O.P's choice...A TMG , whilst not being the fastest of flying-machines, has an excellent glide-ratio and a relatively low landing-speed. the laws of physics dictate that a low-speed landing has alower chance of death or injury, than a higher-speed arrival at Terra -firma.

I started a thread on this very subject( why aren't Motor-gliders more popular)
Generally , apart from the large wingspan and ground-handling issues which can limit small-field use, they seem to have a lot of benign characteristics which go a long way to mitigating the risks of Aviating...there again, Flexwing Microlighting would also appear to be in the "slow, safe, low wing-loading" category.

As a kid, I was walking home from Sunday-school (Church ) I turned round to call my sister and was hit from behind by a woman -learner on a motorcycle, thrown over a fence and fortunately landed on long grass. the lady wound up with her motorcycle embedded in the Church's chain-link wire-mesh fence...she was more shook up than me! that's about the time Religion and I went off in opposite directions. :}
First-hand experience that , sometimes, you have no control over risk.
I subsequently learned to ride a motorcycle and still walk on pavements alongside cars, motorcyclists and bicyclists..also , of course, theres the hordes of other pedestrians busy poking buttons on their I-phone thingies, who think it's MY fault I get in their way!...(hope they walk into a lamp-post and argue with that!. )

Crash one
20th Dec 2013, 10:57
I'm not trying to be cruel here but I suggest you find some way to get over your anxiety first. Worrying about leaving your kids as orphans etc you are going to spend your life in a state of fear. Comparing flying with motorcycling or any other activity is skirting round the issue.There is a book "The Killing Zone" which describes what kills pilots & by far most things that kill pilots are the pilot, flying into bad weather when it could be avoided, over estimating his ability to perform manoeuvres, taking off with not enough fuel etc. These "accidents" all happen in the first few hundred (2--300) hours of a pilots flying career.
I personally am right in the middle of this killing zone with 200+ hours.
If you insist on removing all risk to your kids becoming orphaned your only choice is to join the local embroidery club or sit on a canal bank drowning worms!

Local Variation
20th Dec 2013, 10:58
Suggest the OP thinks talks direct to a local flying school or club. For instance, come the day a solo is required, will you take it?

I see students drop out at that point or just beyond when the realities of flying hit home based around this kind of topic. That is not a criticism, just the way it is. Flying is not for the faint hearted and the anxst comes from knowing the likely outcome of various undesirable scenarios. I don't think the aircraft type makes any difference.

If you are of a nervous disposition and need guarantees, then maybe this is not for you.

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Dec 2013, 11:32
I see students drop out at that point
I do quite often find myself thinking, on take-off, "hey, the only way I'm going to get down on the ground alive is if I do stuff right". I never have any conscious concerns about any of the non-pilot risk factors!

Steve6443
20th Dec 2013, 12:58
If you're that concerned about leaving your wife and kids behind, just ensure your insurance is firstly adequate in terms of financial support and secondly that it actually covers you, should the worst come to the worst.

I made sure my life insurance covered me for flying, if anything happens, as long as I'm not negligent, the wife and kids will be adequately provided for, then it's down to me to ensure I minimise the risks as best as possible. The question is: How far are you going to let minimising risk interfere with your fun? If you can't, you might as well stop right now.

As an example, I flew to the UK earlier this year from Hamm, crossing over via Dunkirk - Dover. On the way back, I decided to fly direct across the North Sea from Great Yarmouth to Middenzee in Holland. Now, I could have reduced my risk by flying down to Dover, across to Dunkirk and back, at an altitude where, in the event of an engine failure, I would have been able to glide clear of the water. So why did I choose to fly direct across the North Sea? Because I wanted to. If Lindbergh can cross the Atlantic in a single engine back in 1927, I'm sure I'm reasonably safe to fly across the North Sea in a modern C172.

However a healthy portion of fear means you probably won't make the mistake of flying into poor visibility when prudence dictates you should have stayed on the ground, so enjoy your hobby....

Steve6443
20th Dec 2013, 13:07
Quote:
I see students drop out at that point
I do quite often find myself thinking, on take-off, "hey, the only way I'm going to get down on the ground alive is if I do stuff right". I never have any conscious concerns about any of the non-pilot risk factors!

I only ever thought that once, that was on my first ever solo. I took off, marvelled in the fact that here was I, at the controls of an aircraft when it dawned on me: There is no-one else here to correct you, landing safely is all about you".

Since then I look to fly with other pilots and ask them for their critiques, so they can tell me what I can improve, I also record the flight on a GoPro to review it later. Now, receiving honest critique means I won't argue with them when they say "you could have done that better" but instead I will listen and review that with a) my checklist and b) the video.

Anything which keeps me learning to fly safer has to be ok in my eyes....

AdamFrisch
20th Dec 2013, 13:37
The risks in aviation are mitigable. You can in a way control and reduce the risks until they're as safe as commercial air travel. First of all, compared to driving, aviation doesn't depend as much on others. Meaning, that in traffic you can be ever so safe and yet be run into by some other numbnut. That risk is lower in aviation. So by not flying in bad weather, not skimping on maintenance, not running out of fuel, not doing aerobatics, not stalling, flying a reliable and slow landing plane, being well trained and current, etc, etc, you can bring the risk down to very low levels. To where it's just down to literally catastrophic mechanical failures. And I don't know what the statistics are for those, but I can tell you they're very rare.

As for anxiety, well I can tell you it goes away with experience. I used to have it, I used to get a knot in my stomach when I was driving to the airport. Took about 100hrs to get rid of. Having my own plane helped, too. I knew the maintenance and I knew what she could do. Today, I'm probably at my calmest when I fly, even calmer than sitting in traffic. Sure, there's the slight raise of blood pressure once in awhile when ATC traffic is heavy and you have multiple bogies to look out for, or when you're in really bad weather trying to get through, or when you have a mechanical malfunction. But no more than a tense scene in a thriller movie would give.

But ultimately, I fly a twin for just those reasons - to mitigate risk. I know the statistics, but for my own personal flying I don't feel safe flying singles over long stretches of water or over mountains, or night. So I put up with the extra cost of a twin to reduce this risk. It also depends on what you use the plane for. In my case it's for long cross country travel, and there I need to be able to cope with a lot of different environments. I can't always avoid mountains or water. But if you're just doing local flights to get the $100 hamburger, then all these things might be overkill and redundant.

flarepilot
20th Dec 2013, 13:41
after reading about your START in aviation (in places I would never like to go) dear original poster, I can see your fear.

Why not learn in a General Aviation Airplane in a First World Aviation country?

Just heard about the theatre or is it theater over there that had the roof collaspe in london.

things do happen when you do anything. people on the ground died in the lockerbie crash.

you could be sitting at home watching tv and plane falls on you...even with its engine running just fine!


dear WOMBAT...thanks for understanding about engine failures in cars vs planes. it is worrisome to read these other comments.

as you know, an airliner at 35000 feet can probably glide over 100 miles.


and even a small piper at 3000' probably has at least 3 minutes to find a place to land...THOUGH A WELL TRAINED PILOT ALWAYS HAS A FIELD IN MIND in which to land.


while I don't have the info in front of me, I can imagine a motor glider has a smaller crosswind limit, less ability on instruments and poorer ground handling, and that high aspect ratio wing would probably be worse in icing (not that you should be flying in icing).


knock on wood, but I've flown since 1975 and never had a full engine failure. flying light GA pistons, turboprops and jets.

so dear original poster, find a first rate place to learn to fly, with excellent maintenance . And numbers about certain planes can be offset by other problems.

I recall that certain super modern light GA planes have less capability to deal with lightning.


fly in very nice weather, near the home base, look for other planes and places to land all in daylight and things won't be so bad.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
20th Dec 2013, 15:16
....not doing aerobatics

Have to disagree with this one. Provided you are properly trained, are in a suitable aerobatic aeroplane, and at a safe height there is nothing remotely dangerous above other forms of flight about performing aerobatics.

Indeed I would go further and say that once you are happy at aeros you are a much safer VFR pilot. You will fly the aeroplane through feel and looking out, by angle of attack rather than speed, and you are most unlikely to be a stall / spin victim as you'll have been there so many times it is second nature and you'll recognise what the aeroplane is about to do even before it does it.

My own precision in flying and confidence in handling the aeroplane increased enormously once I became competant at aerobatting it.

eyesup
20th Dec 2013, 20:34
The risks in aviation are mitigable. You can in a way control and reduce the risks until they're as safe as commercial air travel. First of all, compared to driving, aviation doesn't depend as much on others. Meaning, that in traffic you can be ever so safe and yet be run into by some other numbnut. That risk is lower in aviation. So by not flying in bad weather, not skimping on maintenance, not running out of fuel, not doing aerobatics, not stalling, flying a reliable and slow landing plane, being well trained and current, etc, etc, you can bring the risk down to very low levels. To where it's just down to literally catastrophic mechanical failures. And I don't know what the statistics are for those, but I can tell you they're very rare.

As for anxiety, well I can tell you it goes away with experience. I used to have it, I used to get a knot in my stomach when I was driving to the airport. Took about 100hrs to get rid of. Having my own plane helped, too. I knew the maintenance and I knew what she could do. Today, I'm probably at my calmest when I fly, even calmer than sitting in traffic. Sure, there's the slight raise of blood pressure once in awhile when ATC traffic is heavy and you have multiple bogies to look out for, or when you're in really bad weather trying to get through, or when you have a mechanical malfunction. But no more than a tense scene in a thriller movie would give.

But ultimately, I fly a twin for just those reasons - to mitigate risk. I know the statistics, but for my own personal flying I don't feel safe flying singles over long stretches of water or over mountains, or night. So I put up with the extra cost of a twin to reduce this risk. It also depends on what you use the plane for. In my case it's for long cross country travel, and there I need to be able to cope with a lot of different environments. I can't always avoid mountains or water. But if you're just doing local flights to get the $100 hamburger, then all these things might be overkill and redundant.Thank you Adam, I appreciate the advice

Lord Spandex Masher
20th Dec 2013, 22:36
if he was flying harriers, he may have done it on a carrier...maybe he was seasick

but nice of you to clean up after him.


no, really, this is an indictment of British food , right?

No, it's an indictment of your idiotic suggestion that you should just give up if you're a bit nervous.

Perhaps you couldn't be bothered to teach though.

flarepilot
21st Dec 2013, 02:12
lord spandex masher


your personality is a combative one...perhaps you should be checked for diabetes/low blood sugar

if you would like to fight, do so by private message.


as all of my students are now safe, alive and flying for fun or to earn a living, I am proud of them...and that is over 33 years plus.


I am also proud that I can spot someone who shouldn't fly...that they might harm themselves or others.


terms like idiotic...I consider the source.


have a Merry Christmas spandex man. Maybe someone will give you

a. a personality

b. flying lessons with a good instructor

c. a winning lottery ticket so you can afford both of the above.

Lord Spandex Masher
21st Dec 2013, 07:51
Ok, let's break this down.

Combative personality. No, perhaps objectionable to stupidity. It's not fighting it's discussing, what are you? A shrinking violet?

Spotting someone who can't fly. Well, not many people can until they are taught to do so. Like I pointed out, and gave an example, just because you are nervous doesn't mean you can't fly and go on to good things. Perhaps you couldn't teach, or couldn't be bothered.

Maybe someone will give me a personality. In your very first sentence you told everyone that I had a personality. Which is it?!

eyesup
21st Dec 2013, 08:41
There is a book "The Killing Zone" which describes what kills pilots & by far most things that kill pilots are the pilot, flying into bad weather when it could be avoided, over estimating his ability to perform manoeuvres, taking off with not enough fuel etc. These "accidents" all happen in the first few hundred (2--300) hours of a pilots flying career.Just ordered it online, thank you ! :ok:

Crash one
21st Dec 2013, 10:42
Good for you, have a nice Xmas. Be assured flying is not in the least a dangerous hobby.

Cusco
21st Dec 2013, 10:56
Blimey eyesup: Are you sure you're not German?

Cusco :ok:

Gertrude the Wombat
21st Dec 2013, 11:24
Just ordered it online, thank you !
Read it for the stories, the statistical analysis is generally reckoned to be somewhat suspect.

newaviator
21st Dec 2013, 11:42
Student ppl here............ for years I contemplated learning to fly or not for various reasons , ability , cost , hazards etc , family commitments etc.

If you are dedicated to doing it get on with it , time waits for no one as I've found out , everything I contemplated has been eradicated with
excellent tuition , good aircraft maintenance , 100% confidence in the
aircraft and its systems , and full support of the other half ! at the point you go solo then you'll wonder why you ever worried about it.

Still a student - but love every minute of it , if it takes me a while to get my licence I'm not bothered ...........do it and enjoy it , I'm in no rush but
regret wasting so much time worrying about the variables.

Fly safe - you will be safe

Get on with it - you dont know what you are missing :ok:

vjmehra
21st Dec 2013, 11:42
eyesup I know you have had a bad experience with microlights (and GA) in the past, but just a thought...have you considered learning in the Ikarus C42?


I ask as I am in a similar situation to you (sort of), in that I had a few GA lessons, before my wife had a freak out and now is paranoid I will crash and burn if I set foot in a small plane.


Realistically unless she's happy I think its not a great idea to fly for me as it will potentially be in the back of my mind at all times (even though I was fine in my lessons), which is very frustrating as its something I've always wanted to do.


That said, something like the C42 offers a bit of a lifeline, it has a BRS (not all do, but many have them fitted which offers reassurance for the wife) and a very low stall speed. It also offers decent performance and comfort when compared to most microlights.


Better still, you can learn with a microlight instructor, get your licence then if you really do like the aircraft buy one of your own and with some small adjustments and additional training fly the GA version (you can't learn in the GA version unless you own it due to various regulations, hence unless you are 100% sure its the right plane for you, better to do it this way)!

CaptainChairborne
21st Dec 2013, 12:16
Hi Andre

It's difficult to know what to make of your original post. It reads as though you are obsessed with the dangers of flying and are trying to use statistics to rationalise a way to continue flying. Clearly this is not the case because you already have a good few hours in the air, it's a side-effect of the way these forums work.

I would say, however, that if you haven't been bitten by the flying bug by now, and safety is going to be a big concern, then you probably shouldn't carry on. Flying is an expensive and time consuming obsession and if you aren't getting a big buzz out of it, you will make your family and yourself much happier by staying on the ground

I do think your approach to the stats is hugely flawed. You are isolating one factor, aircraft type, when each accident was the result of a number of contributing features. The sample size for filtering by type is just too small to do this for many types of aircraft, you may just as well have a sex change because very few women pilots have fatal accidents

flarepilot
21st Dec 2013, 12:21
spandex, you are right, I should have said a NEW PERSONALITY for Christmas.


When you tell someone they should not fly and you lose money by doing so, you are doing someone a favor.

When you tell someone they should not fly and they are relieved and don't say, BUT I HAVE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS...you are doing them a favor.

When someone turns out to have an odd disorder and by telling them to not fly you have saved their lives...you are doing them a favor. (as an aside, I had a student who had over a 100 hours with another instructor, I took her on and she was doing very well. Sharp and doing fine. I kept things calm and her previous instructor had been a ''screamer'' (you know the type spandex...you seem to be like that)...but then, entering the pattern after I told her she was ready to be a pilot, she flew the downwind losing altitude, not turning base leg and oblivious to the altimeter...now flying the downwind at 300', I couldn't believe it and asked her to read me the altimeter...she said 800'(pattern alt). I told her she was at 300', we left the pattern , and I said, try it again: She did the same thing...suddenly oblivious to the altimeter...suddenly she had screwed things up.

And then I found out she was being forced to learn to fly by her father. That she really didn't want to learn how to fly, and that there was a deep disorder which made her want to fail.

I told her she didn't have to learn and I couldn't send her for a checkride, knowing that she would be taking her young son on flights with this terrible conflict within her.)

So spandex masher, life is not black and white, life is not pick a fight with a Yank. LIfe is not simply persevere, overcome nerves and all that.

Good luck getting that "NEW" personality...your present one should be recalled.

IF it was simply they were nervous, but wanted to fly and work at it...that would be different.

You gave an example of a harrier pilot throwing up...someone in the military (not too many civilian harrier pilots, right?) might be nervous and persevere and its not his money, right?


NO SPANDEX, you have a chip on your shoulder. Being a flight instructor was my job, it would not have been a bother to teach someone like I mentioned. I would have made more money, flying hours and been better off...I took a LOSS to do the right thing.

Try doing the right thing spandex, it might do you some good.

gasax
21st Dec 2013, 12:36
Interesting couple of posts Andre, do you really love flying?

From those posts it really does not seem that way. You appear to be very focussed on potential risks and trying to avoid them. The easiest way would be not to learn! Then you pick a comparatively obscure way of learning (TMG) and then try and find fault with it.

None of the GAA type accident statistics are particularly accurate - the collection and small sample size mean large levels of variability depending which countries, types etc are being looked at.

Then you agonise over turbulence and the aircraft being moved by it. That sounds like a lot of sailors I know who own perfectly good yachts but never sail them in less than perfect conditions. They make great floating caravans!

Either you want to fly enough to make you accept the risks - or you do not. As you have already worked out the largest single variant is the pilot. As you are not yet one then your life is for the moment in the hands of your instructor - a point not yet made in your posts but s you can see from the responses they vary quite a lot as well!

In short either you really do love flying and then turbulence and differing aircraft are comparatively unimportant or your concern is so great that logic cannot overcome it.

Piper.Classique
21st Dec 2013, 12:43
I ask as I am in a similar situation to you (sort of), in that I had a few GA lessons, before my wife had a freak out and now is paranoid I will crash and burn if I set foot in a small plane.

Divorce her? Which do you want more, a wife or a pilot's licence?

eyesup
21st Dec 2013, 14:09
Blimey eyesup: Are you sure you're not German?

Damn, now that you put it that way.......maybe be I have been here too long :bored:

eyesup
21st Dec 2013, 14:17
Interesting couple of posts Andre, do you really love flying?


There is no question about that. But, as an adult, with children etc, I also have a responsibility to be sensible. That's all this post is about. Does a love of flying preclude a proper assessment of the risks involved ?

Allow me to clarify a little more. I have family members who are commercial pilots. Their judgement on LSA and microlights in particular are fairly credible, as they have more hours than many of us combined. Both these family members have said that LSA and microlights get blown around way too much, and are particularly prone to LOC on finals, and RLOC. But hey, why would I listen to them, I love flying, right ?

eyesup
21st Dec 2013, 14:33
I do think your approach to the stats is hugely flawed. You are isolating one factor, aircraft type, when each accident was the result of a number of contributing features. The sample size for filtering by type is just too small to do this for many types of aircraft, you may just as well have a sex change because very few women pilots have fatal accidents I accept your point - although I would contend that while aircraft type (and class) are not the only factor, they are however clearly still a factor, and not an insignificant one at that.

I would say, however, that if you haven't been bitten by the flying bug by now, and safety is going to be a big concern, then you probably shouldn't carry on. Flying is an expensive and time consuming obsession and if you aren't getting a big buzz out of it, you will make your family and yourself much happier by staying on the groundI have the bug, but not to the exclusion of what I think are rational apprehensions. Would having the bug mean a disregard for understanding and managing the risks involved ?? Jeeezus, in that case I might not want the bug. But I sure do wanna fly.:E

Heston
21st Dec 2013, 15:04
Both these family members have said that LSA and microlights get blown around way too much, and are particularly prone to LOC on finals, and RLOC. But hey, why would I listen to them, I love flying, right ?


Well you certainly shouldn't listen to them on that topic since they clearly don't know what they are talking about! Utter tosh... Don't think that because they have many hours sitting in a commercial aircraft being flown by the autopilot that they know anything about flying little aeroplanes. Are you sure they haven't been unintentionally misleading you by talking up their sky-god status?


If you want to fly and have the finances to learn, then do it. If you don't want to do it, then don't - its not compulsory and people will not think less of you because of that decision.


Agonising about dubious safety statistics won't convince you one way or the other.


If I sound a bit irritated, its because I am.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
21st Dec 2013, 15:17
What's LOC and RLOC? I'm fascinated to know what I've been unknowingly subject to on final in the last 35 years flying small aeroplanes!

CaptainChairborne
21st Dec 2013, 15:22
Allow me to clarify a little more. I have family members who are commercial pilots. Their judgement on LSA and microlights in particular are fairly credible, as they have more hours than many of us combined. Do the commercial pilots have much time in microlights? There is a huge difference between clicking on the AP and AT in big iron and hand flying a microlight, experience on one doesn't necessarily translate to knowledge about the other.


Both these family members have said that LSA and microlights get blown around way too much, and are particularly prone to LOC on finals, and RLOC. But hey, why would I listen to them, I love flying, right ?There's no problem in getting blown around. This summer in England was the most convective I've experienced. I was getting kicked about at five thousand feet, and the Manchester LLR needed a lot of active flying, at no time did I feel unsafe. Part of the fun is feeling the wing under your wings, that doesn't mean it isn't safe

Loss of control on approach used to be a much bigger problem. There has been a lot of emphasis, in training, on stalls/spins on approach, and it is tested as part of the PPL. But it still happens, the two that spring to mind this year (not an exhaustive list :) ) are the PA-28 crash at Caernarfon and the PA-38 at Cranfield. Oh and there was the Tecnam at Newtownards, I think that was on approach. These weren't microlights (LSA??), not sure how many of those came to grief this year. Interestingly, there was only one fatality in those crashes, even though seven people were involved. RLOC is much, much more common in all types of aircraft - how many nosewheels were wrecked in this month's AAIB report? But you are rarely seriously injured (apart from wallet damage) in this type of accident

eyesup
21st Dec 2013, 16:23
Well you certainly shouldn't listen to them on that topic since they clearly don't know what they are talking about! Utter tosh... Don't think that because they have many hours sitting in a commercial aircraft being flown by the autopilot that they know anything about flying little aeroplanes. Are you sure they haven't been unintentionally misleading you by talking up their sky-god status?I think all pilots are a little prone to sky-god syndrome ;) But yes, I would trust their opinions because they've both got impeccable flying records, both graduated from PPL's to CPL's, and do for a living what we consider a hobby / past-time (or obsession, apparently). They would have nothing to gain by misleading me. In fact, as family, it would be the opposite. By the way, do a little research yourself and look into the cross-wind landing tolerances for LSA and Microlights versus regular GA aircraft. You'll be surprised, it's not utter tosh at all

Agonising about dubious safety statistics won't convince you one way or the other.I'm not agonising at all, this is all very interesting for me. It's called research.

If I sound a bit irritated, its because I am. I find that interesting. Why are you irritated ? Because someone (credible) has a differing opinion ?

What's LOC and RLOC? I'm fascinated to know what I've been unknowingly subject to on final in the last 35 years flying small aeroplanes! Worth noting I am referring to LSA and microlights specifically

LOC = Loss of Control. A well documented risk with LSA from base to finals and on finals.

RLOC = Runway Loss of Control. Also well documented risk with LSA on landing and take-off. Particularly prone to cross wind gusts, far more so than heavier GA alternatives.

For the purpose of clarity, LSA are defined as thise with MTOW not exceeding around 500 kg's (differs somewhat per country, in Germany it's 472 kg, see Light-sport aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft)). If some-one tells you these are as safe as regular aircraft, they're lying or they're misinformed.

A good pilot is one that keeps on learning, eh ? ;)

vjmehra
21st Dec 2013, 16:30
eyesup try not to let people get to you on here!


People on Pprune tend to be very passionate about flying and many have very strong views with regards to certain subjects.


I have found occasionally in the past that my questions antagonised people in the same way yours seem to be doing, like you I can't understand why, maybe people who have been flying for a while can't remember what it was like before they started, who knows?


Anyway, I'm sure everyone in their own way is trying to help, some just come across more helpful than others (no one in particular, I'm just generalising here), so whatever you do, don't lose faith, keep asking away until you have all the information you require to make an informed decision!

eyesup
21st Dec 2013, 16:40
But it still happens, the two that spring to mind this year (not an exhaustive list http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif ) I had to have a giggle at that, point taken :hmm:

Heston
21st Dec 2013, 16:42
If some-one tells you these are as safe as regular aircraft, they're lying or they're misinformed.

No mate, its you who are mis-informed. And its that that is irritating me. I mean I'm irritated on your behalf, because you are getting some very odd advice.


In a different life I was a management consultant (I know, spare me the jokes - I don't need to borrow your watch to tell you the time). In that world there is a phrase for what you are doing to yourself


"paralysis by analysis"


Stop doing research. Stop posting on here. Go and get some flying lessons. We had another saying: JFDI. That's Just Effing Do It.


Edit to add: I do fly for a living (instructor) and I have hundreds of hours on microlights. Whilst I agree that I'm always learning I do know that you're getting the wrong end of the stick. Lets take your assertion about cross-wind limits - all aircraft have a "demonstrated crosswind limit" - if there is a cross wind it is the PILOTs decision whether or not to fly in it (based on the aircraft performance and his/her own skill) - big jets usually have a greater cross wind limit than "regular GA" aircraft, so why based on your logic aren't you saying you shouldn't fly in a Cessna 150?

Shaggy Sheep Driver
21st Dec 2013, 16:46
Quote:
What's LOC and RLOC? I'm fascinated to know what I've been unknowingly subject to on final in the last 35 years flying small aeroplanes!
Worth noting I am referring to LSA and microlights specifically

LOC = Loss of Control. A well documented risk with LSA from base to finals and on finals.

RLOC = Runway Loss of Control. Also well documented risk with LSA on landing and take-off. Particularly prone to cross wind gusts, far more so than heavier GA alternatives.

For the purpose of clarity, LSA are defined as thise with MTOW not exceeding around 500 kg's (differs somewhat per country, in Germany it's 472 kg, see Light-sport aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). If some-one tells you these are as safe as regular aircraft, they're lying or they're misinformed.

A good pilot is one that keeps on learning, eh ?

Well, Indeed keep learning. But anyone who says (as that earlier post did) that light aircraft are subject to that really is clueless about flying and should be ignored. Just glad there's nothing out there (maybe evil spirits, ghosts or bogeymen and stuff) that threaten to smite light aircraft on final or on the runway that I've somehow missed over the decades of flying 'em! Actually, big ones are more affected by wind shear than small aeroplanes because of their greater mass and inertia!

Just because someone has an ATPL and n million hours watching an autopilot (or a handful of real hours and then the same hour N million times!) doesn't mean they are a skygod. Doesn't mean they aren't, either, of course!

Heston
21st Dec 2013, 16:59
Shaggy, I don't know about you but I'm beginning to feel like one of the Billy-Goats Gruff trip-trapping over that bridge...

eyesup
21st Dec 2013, 17:06
No mate, its you who are mis-informed. And its that that is irritating me. I mean I'm irritated on your behalf, because you are getting some very odd advice.Ok, if you need to replace logic with emotion, that's ok. Very un-management consultant like, though (although I understand the term is oft used generously)

Stop doing research. Stop posting on here. Go and get some flying lessons. We had another saying: JFDI. That's Just Effing Do ItWow, let's stop learning then. No more research, for it is "paralysing". Even if you don't fully understand what you're getting yourself into, just get into it !! Who needs research, risk assessment and mitigation anyway ?!? We already know all we need to know, of course, that's it !! And we shall flame anyone who dares to suggest otherwise.

I have spent, what maybe one to two hours on here in total, and that, according to you is a waste not just of your time, but mine too. I should thank you, for you have helped me identify a new and probably dangerous sydrome, the JFDI'itis. While it's not a clinical definition, it would probably read something like "forgoing proper or detailed risk assessment for the sake just f*cking doing it"

Heston - do a little research mate, as a previous 'management consultant' you are letting your peers down by your obvious disregard for it

CaptainChairborne
21st Dec 2013, 17:07
But yes, I would trust their opinions because they... (snip)
...do for a living what we consider a hobby / past-time (or obsession, apparently)

They really, really don't. What they do is much more demanding, complicated and difficult, but it is also completely different. Would you take a truck driver's advice on which small car to buy if he had no experience of it? Or an android app developer's advice on writing safety-critical control systems for, say nuclear power stations?

Having said that, I don't think any minds are going to be changed on either side here. No problem with that, we all make our own judgements about what is safe and what is fun and where the two meet. Doesn't have to be the same place for everyone, but on a forum like this, you are really going to struggle to persuade anyone that microlights/LSA are less safe than group A

eyesup
21st Dec 2013, 17:14
But anyone who says (as that earlier post did) that light aircraft are subject to that really is clueless about flying and should be ignoredhttp://flightdesign.com/files/Media/The%20Aviation%20Consumer%20-%20LSA%20Accidents.pdf

But wait, they must be trolls, surely ?? Oh no, wait, this is from the website of an LSA manufacturer.

Just because someone has an ATPL and n million hours watching an autopilot (or a handful of real hours and then the same hour N million times!) doesn't mean they are a skygod. Doesn't mean they aren't, either, of course!

Now hold on just a second, it is ME that is the uninformed one! I will defend that title vehemently ! That said, you're giving me a real run for my money. I said CPL, not ATPL. a King Air and a PC 12 are by no means ATPL. But you weren't going to know that before making your comment, were you ?:D

CaptainChairborne
21st Dec 2013, 17:59
http://flightdesign.com/files/Media/...0Accidents.pdf (http://flightdesign.com/files/Media/The%20Aviation%20Consumer%20-%20LSA%20Accidents.pdf)

But wait, they must be trolls, surely ?? Oh no, wait, this is from the website of an LSA manufacturer. But wait a minute, that link contains the following:

Seven years worth of data shows that landing accidents among LSAa are higher than for GA as a whole, but fatal accidents match the overall average

One caveat up front: Even though we looked at 10 manufacturers of LSAs for a seven-year reporting period, by our calculation, this sums to about 1440 aircraft and a calculated total fleet hours of 960,000. By aviation statistical standard, these are small numbers, thus any calculated rates are susceptible to wide swings based on just a few occurrences. In our view it is too soon to draw blanket conclusions about LSA fleet safetly in general I'm not sure how that supports your case? As I suggested earlier; landing accidents are unlikely to widow your wife and orphan your children

eyesup
21st Dec 2013, 18:19
But wait a minute, that link contains the following:
At least you read it. It supports my case simply by pointing out (with the available data) that LSA are more susceptible to R-LOC and cross-wind related incidents than regular GA airplanes. I was previously told that this was complete "tosh", yet there is some evidence to support it. Perhaps I was trying to make the point to people who have better insight and/or data...

Crash one
21st Dec 2013, 18:56
I don't think this is a case of one aircraft type being safer than another, it is all down to the pilot, attitude of mind, the go-nogo decision etc. There are times when the forecast at Leuchars military says "No significant weather". Wind 300deg 25knots. My runway is 240deg & in my 600kg bugsmasher with it's 12knot demonstrated crosswind thing, that is not a "Nosig" situation!!The CAA has decreed that microlights are safe enough for them to allow them to fly at the discretion of the pilot. Fixed wing GA group A the same. You learn what not to do with each type. The boundaries may be different for each type & may be more easily crossed. But that is not the fault of the aircraft.

MartinCh
21st Dec 2013, 19:01
eyesup,

The JFDI was meant as go flying (safely). You're writing stuff in smart-arsy way bit - that's the vibe I'm getting. Just FYI.

I tell you one 'story'. I had one guy staying in housing (this is USA in 2012) who drove 2000 miles in his car across States to Oregon to 'continue' learning to fly a helicopter. He stopped/was put off by one of his instructors getting killed on R44 ferry from Califofrnia, two guys, one 'building time' and more junior. There was some mechanical crankshaft malfunction, but also they pilots didn't enter autorotation in time/correctly.

He kept on and on voicing his concerns blah blah blah. He then flew once with friendly and semi-experienced heli instructor, packed up and left. He thought he wants to et back, but obviously had some mental issues/block/whatever. Instructor also concluded that he's not meant to be a pilot and for his training received etc, he had some weird statements etc.

Sure, training and teaching little R22 helicopters is way more dangerous, one doesn't need stats to know. Design not ideal, handling that can break it up inflight, flying low level, doing maneuvres that prang it easily, list goes on.

Out of my 700 hrs in the air, I felt safest in glider. I'm rotorhead and have power fixed wing time/ratings, but there's difference. If you want to go ahead with TMG, fine. You'll learn to land it power on, power off. More rounded 'emergency training' than 'GA Cessnas', although that depends on country/school how much really useful power off glide aproaches etc are done to the ground, proper spin in/out and avoidance.

LOC, RLOC etc. Yes, as someone mentioned, accident as in pranging the ship, on landing/flaring/groundlooping, seldom results in fatal/serious injury. Yes, gettng too slow on full flap setting, bleeding off airspeed in low level turn/too tight/too much rudder pullin back on stick etc, that can kill. So does mostly running out of fuel, LOC in IMC flying VFR, CFIT and the likes. Flying day VFR on nice day, keeping lookout, usual stuff, pretty safe stats speaking.

Nitpicking and sayin DA20 or DA40 is safer than Cessna, hmm. One can find stats to fit own 'agenda' or desired outcome. Yes, they're great looking, glide well etc. If they were as common as C152, C172 and Pa28, then the amount of stupid crashes and fatalities would skyrocket. As well as the amount of Diamonds flown for personal use/in training.

Glide ratio shouldn't be likened to low stalling speed as for survivability of field landing losing engine power. It depends on the L/D polar. Some aircraft have best L/D at higher speeds. If you fly little airplane, fly high enough to have better options of landing spots/reachin them below. R22 heli has about 3:1 ratio in autorotation. If flying over built up area or without big empty chunks of land, I'd rather land heli (preferably not R22, though) than SEP 3axis microlight, GA etc.

Your airline pilot family members probably did not touch too wide variety of GA aircraft. Did their training in Piper or cessna, then went to fly big stuff very likely. There's also big difference between two stroke oldie Rotax trike powered hangglider and Europa, Dynamic etc. Early history of microlights (engine reliability) and dragginess and RoD at power idle as well as being pretty light, have not made for good stats.
Remember, most of the accidents in GA airplanes is on private ops, often flow by owners, which is where wrong ADM, not keeping emergency trainign skills good enough etc, more likely than other areas of aviation.

One major problem with emotional risk aversion is the lack of systematic risk assessment - that is, one can easily overlook a major but insidious (or popularly disregarded) risk for fear of a minor but obvious (or exaggerated) one.

To conclude, these words above rang the bell. Drawing from my recent experience as R22 instructor, one 40yo 'student' knocking off some time in US, was uneasy in fairly mild turbulence flying in one gorge in Oregon. Forecast was great for that otherwise quite windy destination, very scenic, so we went. He decided not to hand-fly and wanted to turn back purely due to mild turbulence, as he did his training last winter in England. I was not concerned, let him know in easygoing way that we're not gonna fall out of skies etc. Anyway, I did the autopilot for a while. We landed, enjoyed the view, lunch at airport diner, refuelled, flew back.

On way back, I was again getting bit tired of flying over river out of gliding range (poor ratio in autorotation) to river shore/highway. I suggested flying either higher or closer laterally. NO NO NO was the reply. Not anywhere closer to the ragged steep hills giving off mechanical turbulence. Nor he'd climb higher as best compromise between avoiding turbulence and not having to ditch in water when one can land somewhere to walk from.

He then said that he doesn't want to get to low G situation (serious turbulence can upset the heli and cause inflight breakup, limited recovery input situation could happen, but unlikely). I already stressed earlier that I have been flying in worse and that level is acceptable/safe. This focus on not getting to low G situation completely disregarding/downplaying possible engine/powertrain failure and benefit of being within gliding range of suitable area. Well, better than ditching in middle of Columbia river at least.

Monocock
21st Dec 2013, 19:54
eyesup,

For someone who started off painting a picture of "I'm naive and looking for advice", you've posted some pretty knowledgable stuff since then.

One could be forgiven for suggesting that you're stirring up trouble.

Thud105
21st Dec 2013, 20:05
I've been flying for a while. I have never heard of "LOC = Loss of Control. A well documented risk with LSA from base to finals and on finals".
G-LoC yes, LOC.no. Ditto RLOC.
Oh, and for the puposes of accuracy, LSA is a US definition, and does not even exist in Europe. The MAUW is 1,320lbs, whcih is 599kg. It is slightly higher for amphibians.
The 472.5kg limit is for German ULAs that are fitted with a BRS - otherwise its 450kg.
You're not only talking rubbish - its not even well-informed rubbish.
Personally I think you're a Troll. However, on the off-chance that you're not I can solve your dilemma. You have exactly the wrong attitude to be a Sport Aviator. Save your money and everyone else's time and stay indoors. That should be safe.

eyesup
21st Dec 2013, 20:35
I've been flying for a while. I have never heard of "LOC = Loss of Control. A well documented risk with LSA from base to finals and on finals". Perhaps I've just done a little more homework than you have.

Personally I think you're a Troll. However, on the off-chance that you're not I can solve your dilemma. You have exactly the wrong attitude to be a Sport Aviator. Save your money and everyone else's time and stay indoors. That should be safe.I see. Thank you for that gem. I take from your statement that my desire to understand and as best as possible mitigate the risks involved, is deemed the wrong attitude. Indeed, then perhaps I would rather not be a sport aviator, but a safe and responsible one instead.

eyesup
21st Dec 2013, 20:42
One could be forgiven for suggesting that you're stirring up trouble. I have no intention of stirring up trouble, and I am certainly not a troll. I am simply looking for credible advice. To this end, the "JFDI" responses reinforce my view that many pilots out there simply do not understand some of the risks involved, and are frustrated when there is someone who challenges their own long-held misconceptions. So, I understand I'm hitting a few nerves, and the emotional responses are to be expected.

For someone who started off painting a picture of "I'm naive and looking for advice", you've posted some pretty knowledgable stuff since then. I will take that as a compliment, thank you. I am simply trying to understand the risks involved as best I can, and it is my hope to connect to people who have done the same

eyesup
21st Dec 2013, 20:48
The JFDI was meant as go flying (safely). You're writing stuff in smart-arsy way bit - that's the vibe I'm getting. Just FYI.Martin, the JFDI was hardly meant politely. It's a pity that at least trying to be well informed and cite credible examples comes off as smart-arsy, but point taken. Your reply is on the whole very helpful, thank you.

Thud105
21st Dec 2013, 21:02
You might want to start 'your' homework by clarifying exactly what you think an LSA is. You've pontificated at some length about them yet (as I clearly demonstrated but you choose to ignore) you don't even know what an LSA is.
As for mitigating risk it was John Donne who wrote that " A ship in harbour is safe. But that is not what ships are for." Flying an aeroplane entails risk. This may not have ocurred to you, but you can be thousands of feet in the air and travelling possibly hundreds of miles an hour. Flying by definition has an element of risk. That's actually why many pilots fly aerobatics,warbirds or go cross-country in sailplanes. As I said (and I mean this honestly) just do something else. You strike me as the kind of under-confident person that does have accidents, and then blames (and sues) everyone else while taking no responsibility.

Jan Olieslagers
21st Dec 2013, 21:08
Perhaps now is a good time to come back to the opening point?

"Love flying, not keen on dying."

I think few us are keen on dying - yet all of us are going to. Better do what you love to do while there's time left.

eyesup
21st Dec 2013, 21:12
you don't even know what an LSA isYou may have missed my earlier post where I offered a link to what I understand LSA to be, in which it clearly mentioned variations by country/region. Here it is again :

Light-sport aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft)

Seems pretty decent insight to me

You strike me as the kind of under-confident person that does have accidents, and then blames (and sues) everyone else while taking no responsibility. Nope, on the contrary, I assume full responsibility for all my actions and decisions, and therefore seek to make both as qualified as possible. That will be the basis for my confidence. I understand this approach does not appeal to everyone though, and there are some to whom either ignorance or denial (or both) are far more palatable.

Thud105
21st Dec 2013, 21:21
When you start quoting Wiki as your primary reference source I'm afraid you really do have no credability left.
I don't suppose you've got a link to LOC and RLOC by any chance? And have ANY of the actual aviators out there ever heard of LOC and RLOC?

Lone_Ranger
21st Dec 2013, 21:31
GLOC yes, LOC or RLOC, nope never come across those untill reading this thread

tecman
21st Dec 2013, 21:37
OP, I believe you are being too hard on the LSA scene, in that the comparisons of accident stats are not always comparing like with like. I have been flying for about 30 yrs as a PPL and enjoy both 'heavy' GA aircraft and LSAs. If I take my current P2002 JF puddle jumper - which is a certified version of an LSA-class aircraft - as an example, I would be very hard pressed to view it as a more dangerous aircraft than the better-known GA models. Quite the contrary, in fact. Low stall speeds, 22 kt demonstrated crosswind, docile but nice handling etc.

In several countries, I see the published stats do not do any sort of selection for pilot hours, training, and so on. So you'll see LSA stats which include extremely new pilots, trained to a minimum local recreational aviation standard, mixed with GA stats. As several other posters have noted, it's all about the pilot. If you normalize for that element, I'd be surprised if the new breed of LSAs look significantly worse than Cessnas, Pipers etc.

Finally, I just observe that I have known several intelligent people, who obtained PPLs without too much difficulty, who have left flying behind because of an inability to reconcile risks. Most often this has happened just after they obtained a licence, which I think is a pity. While respecting their decisions, I suspect that a bit of hard-core GA flying on their own or with others would have helped to build confidence. There's never any cause for complacency on any flight in any aeroplane but these days I observe many more risks to my life and limb than a couple of hours a week of recreational flying.

flarepilot
21st Dec 2013, 21:42
when I first saw "LOC" in this thread, I thought of LOCALIZER (part of the instrument landing system )>


there are many examples of multiple use abbreviations, so I suggest that to any poster, write the full expression out, like, I've read about LOSS OF CONTROL (henceforth LOC).

or I could say, what does: TR stand for?

thrust reverser

transformer rectifier

type rating.


so, lets all not panic, and WIKIPEDIA, for whatever you think, is not a bad, easy resource, often pointing to actual regulations, or other more highly held sources.


Merry Christmas to all.

Lord Spandex Masher
21st Dec 2013, 23:49
When someone turns out to have an odd disorder and by telling them to not fly you have saved their lives...you are doing them a favor. (as an aside, I had a student who had over a 100 hours with another instructor, I took her on and she was doing very well. Sharp and doing fine. I kept things calm and her previous instructor had been a ''screamer'' (you know the type spandex...you seem to be like that)...but then, entering the pattern after I told her she was ready to be a pilot, she flew the downwind losing altitude, not turning base leg and oblivious to the altimeter...now flying the downwind at 300', I couldn't believe it and asked her to read me the altimeter...she said 800'(pattern alt). I told her she was at 300', we left the pattern , and I said, try it again: She did the same thing...suddenly oblivious to the altimeter...suddenly she had screwed things up.

And then I found out she was being forced to learn to fly by her father. That she really didn't want to learn how to fly, and that there was a deep disorder which made her want to fail.

I told her she didn't have to learn and I couldn't send her for a checkride, knowing that she would be taking her young son on flights with this terrible conflict within her.)

So spandex masher, life is not black and white,

IF it was simply they were nervous, but wanted to fly and work at it...that would be different.



Right, so all of that is at odds with your original post about anxiety and shaking then. Well done for completely missing out all of the pertinent details initially.

Must try harder.

CaptainChairborne
21st Dec 2013, 23:53
I have no intention of stirring up trouble, and I am certainly not a troll. I am simply looking for credible advice. To this end, the "JFDI" responses reinforce my view that many pilots out there simply do not understand some of the risks involved, and are frustrated when there is someone who challenges their own long-held misconceptions. So, I understand I'm hitting a few nerves, and the emotional responses are to be expected. So you come to ask for advice and when you get it and it disagrees with your opinion you rubbish it. I notice that you've had the same advice here and on Flyer, and still you think it is because the people most experienced in the field are more ignorant than you. So what happens when someone is advising you on the things to do and to avoid when you are joining the circuit? Or how to set up your approach in a crosswind? Believe me, we don't only 'know' the risks, we experience them first hand every time we fly P1, and most of us are very chastened and humbled by them - regularly

To become a safe and successful pilot, you need to learn to take advice from those who know more than you - I've learned a lot from the generosity of other pilots and I'm grateful to them for that. Could you?

What did you expect from these threads? That we would give you a model of TMG that is guaranteed not to crash? That was never going to happen. Everytime we get into our aircraft we risk our lives, but we will have done the same when we got into our cars to drive to the airfield, or to drive to work, or to take our children to school. All the rest really is trolling. We aren't going to persuade you that flying is ultra safe and you aren't going to persuade us that our hobby is wild, reckless and foolish.

Like I said, I don't think any minds are going to be changed on either side, so lets leave it there

flarepilot
22nd Dec 2013, 00:11
LORD SPANDEX MASHER

observing symptoms is only the start of the process of finding out what is wrong.

you still have that chip...let me know if you want someone to knock it off.

I'd say your symptoms do merit checking into diabetes.

or perhaps your spandex is too tight somewhere.

so glad I am not you

Brian Abraham
22nd Dec 2013, 05:24
Lord Spandex Masher, a copy of a post from elsewhere on the forumI wouldn't worry too much about what flarepilot has to say... he/she is not a pilot!
It's our old friend SSG posting under about his 100th identity.

eyesup
22nd Dec 2013, 06:52
So you come to ask for advice and when you get it and it disagrees with your opinion you rubbish it

Indeed, I have come here for advice, which for the most part, I have received. I am just astounded that some responses (e.g "JFDI") seem to have no credible basis at all. An emotional response because the research I have done dares to suggest that certain aircraft types could be deemed, under certain conditions, less safe than others.

We aren't going to persuade you that flying is ultra safe and you aren't going to persuade us that our hobby is wild, reckless and foolish.


Neither of which were at any point intended to be the case.

so lets leave it there

Yes, let's do that. To each their own

Piper.Classique
22nd Dec 2013, 07:20
So, do we have any volunteers to teach this guy to fly?




No?





Thought not.

eyesup
22nd Dec 2013, 07:36
So, do we have any volunteers to teach this guy to fly?

No?

Thought not.On the contrary, I have had private email from two different forumites offering me additional links, information and a bit of perspective on the kind of bias that I might come across here.

I'll take my lessons from someone I trust, thanks. With any luck they're a little less smug...

Thud105
22nd Dec 2013, 08:24
I'm still waiting for links to LOC and RLOC. You did say they were well-documented.

Lord Spandex Masher
22nd Dec 2013, 08:32
LORD SPANDEX MASHER

observing symptoms is only the start of the process of finding out what is wrong.

you still have that chip...let me know if you want someone to knock it off.

I'd say your symptoms do merit checking into diabetes.

or perhaps your spandex is too tight somewhere.

so glad I am not you

You're a qualified medical expert now? I thought instructors were there to teach flying not delve into the medical history of students.

What you actually said was
the anxiety...I had one student who shook, physically, before a lesson and I told him to give up on flying...he did.

No fact finding or any of that. He shook because he was anxious so you told him to give up. You should have elaborated fella. Then you wouldn't have looked lazy or stupid because there is no way that I would give up on a student just because they were anxious.

Go ahead and knock that chip off.

eyesup
22nd Dec 2013, 08:48
I'm still waiting for links to LOC and RLOC. You did say they were well-documented

You're kidding. You haven't heard of something so therefore it doesn't exist ? Check the FAA Safety Team web page. You have heard of the FAA haven't you ? If not, you may have a bigger problem.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
22nd Dec 2013, 09:01
Finally, I just observe that I have known several intelligent people, who obtained PPLs without too much difficulty, who have left flying behind because of an inability to reconcile risks.

It's a pretty well understood phenomenon. They generally comprise two types: those who have 'done it' (got the licence) and want to move on to the next box to tick, and those who found they didn't really like it but persevered until they qualified (the less determined personalities drop out earlier).

Actually, as a brad new PPL, one knows not a lot about flying. 35 years later I'm still learning about flying. It's a licence to learn. As one learns, one's opinions about aspects of aviation change.

Thud105
22nd Dec 2013, 09:04
Give it up pal. Your Troll cover is blown. I've course I've heard of loss of control. I've actually done some flying. Do you even have a licence?
Similarly you said that LSA's weigh this and that all over the world - they don't. A ULA is a sort of light sport aircraft, as is a VLA. They're relatively light aircraft, mostly used for sport flying. An LSA (Light Sport Aircraft, not light sport aircraft) is an FAA category, where the aircraft is built to ASTIM standards. They have strict criteria for speed, weight equipment etc. You said that in Germany an LSA is 472kg. It isn't - that's a German ULA, (and it can only weigh 472.5 with a BRS, otherwise its 450kg). The LSA category doesn't exist in Germany. So it would appear that you do not even fully understand the aviation regulations of the country where you currently live - yes?
As I said earlier, you're not only spouting rubbish, its ill-informed rubbish.

Heston
22nd Dec 2013, 09:04
Its a real shame :( I'm going away for a few days and will not have internet access. I'll miss this thread and the chuckles it brings every time I open it. Keep it up guys and gals so I've got something to look forward to when I get back.


Seasons greetings xxxxxx

eyesup
22nd Dec 2013, 09:07
I'll miss this thread and the chuckles it brings every time I open it

'tis the season to be jolly :ok:

Give it up pal. Your Troll cover is blown. I've course I've heard of loss of control

Jeeezuss. So now that I give you the reference you've nagged for (which you really ought to have known already), that's your reply. Sure, you'd heard of LOC :hmm:

Easier to call someone a troll than to post a sensible reply. :D

Thud105
22nd Dec 2013, 09:27
Did anyone else have any joy googling the well-documented R-LOC or RLOC?
Because despite its well-documented status I had none.
Oh, and what is this German LSA of which you speak?
I called you a Troll because that is what you clearly are.
Do you accept or deny my assertion that you do not even fully understand the aviation regulations of the country where you currently live? Its a simple enough question.

Echo Romeo
22nd Dec 2013, 09:46
I thought everyone understood what RLOC means, it's 'revolving line of credit' :ok:

eyesup
22nd Dec 2013, 09:56
Did anyone else have any joy googling the well-documented R-LOC or RLOC?Probably not, so therefore it surely does not exist. Larry Page knows everything, if it is not on Google, there is clearly no such thing. You weren't kidding, you really are that ignorant.

Oh, and what is this German LSA of which you speak?Please see this link :

FK-Lightplanes (http://fk-lightplanes.com/)

In Germany, these are classed as UL, and subject to a MTOW of 472.5 kg. In the US, they are classified as LSA. If you look really, really closely, you will notice, that despite the different regulations, and whether they're flown in the US or in Germany, they are in fact (wait for it.....................) the same aircraft.

Do you accept or deny my assertion that you do not even fully understand the aviation regulations of the country where you currently live? Its a simple enough question A little rich from someone who had no idea what LOC is. Or wait, you actually did know what LOC is but you were testing me to see if I really knew what it was, and when I posted you a link to the US aviation regulator, you pointed out that yes, of course, you knew what it was. Sure. Before you challenge my understanding of local regulations perhaps you should at some point, visit the website of yours. Just a suggestion. Use it, don't use it (I'll hazard a guess at which of those options you'll choose)

I completely accept your assertion that I do not *fully* understand the aviation regulations where I currently live. Hence, my research. You know, research ?? Oh, never mind....:ugh:

Thud105
22nd Dec 2013, 10:01
Sorry pal. A number of people here have tried to help you, but you just won't be told. Should you ever try and become a pilot (and with your know-it-all attitude I'd strongly advise against it) its sort of a given that when you're offered advice or instruction you might want to consider taking it.
Stick to Flight Simming. I understand that Microsoft have mitigated the risks rather well.

flarepilot
22nd Dec 2013, 10:30
LSM

too bad it wasn't LSMFT

a student shook, an instructor realized that the shaking was an abnormal level...think paint shaker at a hardware store.

delving into the students feelings I asked if he really wanted to learn to fly

he said no.

I told him he shouldn't fly then.

short story made long, all to show LSM that his world of, ''stiff upper lip" and all that doesn't fly.


OH, and a medical expert? No. But certainly if you saw someone that you thought may have a medical problem, you would have them consult a doctor before they spent a small fortune on learning to fly, and then not being able to exercise their airmans certificate.

tell us all LSM, if your copilot on the big jet showed up shaking, for no good reason, would you let him occupy the right seat on a revenue flight?

well, maybe you would...I wouldn't . I would delve.

oh wait...knowing you and that chip, all of your copilots probably shake.

CHIP BOY

eyesup
22nd Dec 2013, 10:43
that when you're offered advice or instruction you might want to consider taking it.LOL, that made my day, thank you ! When that poorly substantiated advice tries to convince me that LSA are safer than research (from some fairly credible sources) and therefore logic tell me it is, yes indeed, I will ignore it. That's the thing with advice, see. You need to understand what it's based on before you blindly follow it. In your case I imagine it is based on emotion and / or bias, whereas I prefer to use advice based on experience, research, or data. None of which, so far, you have been able to offer. Let's leave it there, shall we?

Thud105
22nd Dec 2013, 10:48
Is that the same research where you told us all about German LSAs, or how well-documented R-LOC is? Oh, and my advice is based on several thousand hours, in everything from fast jets to sailplanes and including ULAs, VLAs and yes LSAs. You say that for example the FK-12 is the same whether its operated as a ULA or LSA. You base this on the fact that they look the same (you've never flown one, have you?) I've flown the -12. At the ULA MAUW of 472.5 the wing-loading (you might want to look that up) is a bit low so it does get bounced around a bit, while the useful load is poor. Flown as an LSA
of 600kg its better all round and a great little airplane. Stick to flight sims pal. Nice and safe, risk completely mitigated.

eyesup
22nd Dec 2013, 12:58
Stick to flight sims pal. Nice and safe, risk completely mitigated.

And perhaps you should continue to dispense such sage advice based on your thousands of hours not knowing what LOC is, or relying on google as your primary source of aviation terminology. Don't let your sky god complex get ahead of you now, that could be dangerous.....

Steve6443
22nd Dec 2013, 13:05
Just going to get some popcorn..... anybody fancy taking bets whether this thread will run longer than (Motorway Flying (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/526954-motorway-flying.html) did? Perhaps the MODs can set up a special award for the most entertaining thread.... I'm not sure which is better as yet, but must say this thread is highly entertaining......:)

Thud105
22nd Dec 2013, 13:23
I can find no reference to R-LOC anywhere. Emailed a few buddies who between them have over 100,000 hours. No joy. Has anyone else ever heard the well-documented term R-LOC? Anyone? Anyone at all?
I've just had a thought - its a Microsoft FS term isn't it?

Steve6443
22nd Dec 2013, 13:23
Quote:
Stick to flight sims pal. Nice and safe, risk completely mitigated.
And perhaps you should continue to dispense such sage advice based on your thousands of hours not knowing what LOC is, or relying on google as your primary source of aviation terminology. Don't let your sky god complex get ahead of you now, that could be dangerous

eyesup: I have my PPL, am willing to send you a scan of it to prove it, but I've NEVER heard of LOC or RLOC - I had to google it just to find out what that meant. Now, I'm no SkyGod, nor do I make any pretence at being one, but having my licence and flying frequently, I feel I am able to give some insight into risk mitigation about my hobby - at least, I feel I can give you more insight than you'll get from any uninitiated to general aviation can - and I'm sure 90% of the other contributors in this thread fall into the same category, are also willing to allow you to benefit from their knowledge and experience.

My point is this: we might not know what RLOC / LOC is, but each and every one of us here makes a conscious decision before we go flying, we weigh up the risks involved in our hobby before we line up and depart so instead of throwing around abbreviations which you have picked up here and there (which are more or less known within the industry), instead of criticising those who would offer you an insight from their own perspective, why not listen to those insights?

I learnt to fly because I was scared stiff of flying. Now I love it, I fly as often as I can. As long as we all follow the rules, the risk is mitigated - mainly due to check lists, systems and controls. So as I have previously stated: if your concern is leaving your wife / children behind, just ensure your life assurance covers the risk of private flying (mine does, the cost of adding general aviation coverage to it is €2 / €1000 coverage / year.) and go learn to fly. Yes, your dependants might miss you if you make a balls up and crash, but at least they'll be financially secure and you'll have enjoyed flying whilst you can.....

Thud105
22nd Dec 2013, 13:34
I can find no reference to R-LOC anywhere. Emailed a few buddies who between them have over 100,000 hours. No joy. Has anyone else ever heard the well-documented term R-LOC? Anyone? Anyone at all?
I've just had a thought - its a Microsoft FS term isn't it?
Anyway, you asked for info about light sport aircraft but don't seem to even be able to grasp that although a ULA FK-12 and LSA FK-12 look the same, they do not fly the same.
Look up the term wing-loading and try and work out why if one airplane weighs 472.5kg and the other identical looking one weighs 600kg they fly differently.

Dave Wilson
22nd Dec 2013, 13:37
If you spend all of your life assessing and apportioning risk to all of your activities you would never get anything done. Yeah flying can be risky for a variety of reasons, so what? If we all stay in bed all day then the chances of being killed in an air/road/rail/sea accident are significantly reduced.

You don't have to analyse it to the nth degree. Just accept there is some risk involved as with all adventurous activities. Then decide to do it or not do it, it's not a hard call to make.

WestWind1950
22nd Dec 2013, 13:37
eyesup......

I learned flying on a TMG back in 1983, got my PPL for it in 1984. I then turned to Pipers, etc. because I had 2 kids and hoped to take my kids along for flights. I was really addicted to flying and had some really nice flights. In March this year I survived my (only) serious accident...in a TMG. As is often the case, the PIC made some mistake...... he was a very experienced pilot (82 yrs. old with 8000+ hours)...... he did NOT survive (and I am now in a wheel chair).

Don't be so afraid! Your drive to the airfield is more dangerous. Do what you want and learn all you can! Your best safety insurance is knowledge!

Flyingmac
22nd Dec 2013, 14:11
LOL, that made my day, thank you

I know what LOC is but this has defeated me.:confused:

Cusco
22nd Dec 2013, 17:00
Interesting to see that over on the Light Side where a no flaming on the Studes forum rule exists this thread has already died the death....

JDA2012
22nd Dec 2013, 17:12
You realise that, statistically, flying VFR in VMC in controlled airspace is far more likely to lead to a mid-air collision than flying IFR in IMC in uncontrolled airspace? If you're going to fly based on a risk assessment you do have to follow through on the logic rather than what may intuitively feel safe! :E

eyesup
22nd Dec 2013, 18:10
I can find no reference to R-LOC anywhere. Emailed a few buddies who between them have over 100,000 hours. No joy. Has anyone else ever heard the well-documented term R-LOC? Anyone? Anyone at all?But you said you already knew what that was ? You're now beginning to contradict yourself, which I suppose is to be expected.

Look up the term wing-loading and try and work out why if one airplane weighs 472.5kg and the other identical looking one weighs 600kg they fly differently.(draws a long breath). You have missed the point, in your emotionally charged rant. The fact is.........LSA have more Runway Loss of Control (that would be spelt R-LOC, just in case you were wondering) than regular GA aircraft - mostly attributed to their vulnerability to cross-winds, and gusts in particular. Again, RELATIVE TO GA ALTERNATIVES. It doesn't matter a toss whether it's 472.5 kg here and 600 or whatever it is over there. It's about the category they are registered in, and that data (incidentally from the US with it's heavier LSA than here in Germany!) supports the finding. Why is that so hard for you to accept ? Are you as stubborn in the air as you are in this forum? Please then let me know when & where you are flying for if you are in the air I would prefer not to be.

You could call them whatever you want, but the higher incidence of running off runways compared to GA is acknowledged. Except by you, who of course has better experience, data and insight. Because you've flown an FK 12, right ? Of course you have ;) (despite not knowing it was from Germany)

Your obsession with the sim thing is quite interesting though. I have more real hours than sim hours (pretty easy since I have no sim). Now, in the interests of sending this thread to it's natural death, just answer one (ok, it's actually two) last question(s) for me : Are you really that ignorant (tell me you've been joking all along), or are you actively in denial ?

You don't have to analyse it to the nth degree. Just accept there is some risk involved as with all adventurous activities. Then decide to do it or not do it, it's not a hard call to make. Dave, thank you, you are right. Thing is though, and I openly admit this (and therefore started the OP), is that I simply don't believe I properly understand the risks involved, yet. There has indeed been some very helpful advice and even contact on this forum. However, there have also been (like many other things in life I guess) some folks who despite clear, logical and substantiated facts still choose to argue - for whatever reason

Jan Olieslagers
22nd Dec 2013, 18:32
I simply don't believe I properly understand the risks involved

Risks can't be understood. Try to, and you can only fail. Risks can, to a very basic degree, be assessed in statistics.

eyesup
22nd Dec 2013, 19:08
Risks can't be understood. Try to, and you can only fail. Risks can, to a very basic degree, be assessed in statistics.

Sorry Jan, I respectfully disagree, that is a really shortsighted statement to make. Research, data and statistics are all there to help you. It takes a little effort, but risks can and should be understood, and then managed as best as possible. That is your job as PIC of whatever you fly.

Jan Olieslagers
22nd Dec 2013, 19:12
Well, ok, then. As others have said, you do seem to have all the required info at hand, and to know what criteria to decide by. Nothing more we can do for you, then. Happy flying!

eyesup
22nd Dec 2013, 19:23
eyesup......

I learned flying on a TMG back in 1983, got my PPL for it in 1984. I then turned to Pipers, etc. because I had 2 kids and hoped to take my kids along for flights. I was really addicted to flying and had some really nice flights. In March this year I survived my (only) serious accident...in a TMG. As is often the case, the PIC made some mistake...... he was a very experienced pilot (82 yrs. old with 8000+ hours)...... he did NOT survive (and I am now in a wheel chair).

Don't be so afraid! Your drive to the airfield is more dangerous. Do what you want and learn all you can! Your best safety insurance is knowledge!

Westwind, thank you for sharing that with me / us, and I mean that most sincerely. I am very sorry indeed to hear of this. I wish you well with your recovery, both physically and emotionally. I have a myriad questions about what went wrong, and why, but simply out of respect for you and your late friend, I will leave how much you wish to share entirely up to you.

Again, thank you, and all the very best
Andre

Molemot
22nd Dec 2013, 20:15
The past 6 pages are a total waste of space. If you want to fly......then FLY!! There is no known substitute. If you want to live forever, stay in bed.

Most people die there, anyway.....

Saab Dastard
22nd Dec 2013, 20:36
This is going nowhere.

Move on, everyone.

Go flying, or failing that, just go.

Have a nice, politically correct, non-religiously specific, healthful and safe, security conscious festive season. :)

SD

Dave Wilson
22nd Dec 2013, 20:41
Eyesup may I ask a serious question? Do you analyse the risk of driving to the same extent as you do flying? If not, why not? What about climbing the ladder to clear out the guttering come Autumn?

If you are not a troll, and I'm seriously beginning to doubt it then I would stay away from aviation, simply because of the enormous stress it is going to place on you. That, believe it or not is not meant to be a slight against you. You may reply that you are trying to assess the risks as a father (I'm the father of two and the grandfather of three, I take my eight year old grandson flying), but if it worries you so much then why do you want to do it? It is risky, everything has risk involved. If you need to define and assess the risk as much as you seemingly want to, then may I respectfully suggest that aviation is probably not for you.

Being a pilot seems to demand a certain personality type, and I'm not a psychologist, just reflecting on the people I know who are pilots. You have to ask yourself if you are of that personality type.

eyesup
22nd Dec 2013, 20:48
Well I guess that's that then. Thank you for the input, most of which was very helpful, but all of which was revealing. No trolls here mate :mad: