ex Military Jet Trainers (JP's, L39 etc.)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My view
SaS,
If Joe Bloggs has enough dosh to buy himself an L39, and he end up stacking it into a field and biting the dust, then that has been his choice. If the ejector seats don't work / he doesn't know how and when to use them, then that is his fault. So long as he has insurance to pay for the clean up.....
If you want to ride your bike at 150mph, and you come off and hit a tree and bite the dust, equally who cares, it was your choice......We could always take the American I-don't-want-to-get-sued approach and wrap everyone up in cotton wool so you can't even burn you hand on a hot cup of coffee.....
It starts to become a problem when innocent bystanders end up getting caught up in it. If you ride your bike into a bus load of people and take half of them out with you, then that is what pisses people off. Likewise if Joe Bloggs flies his L39 into a crowd at an airshow, then this is unacceptable. Out of interest, how many innocent bystanders have been wiped out by PPLs in their jets?
EA
If Joe Bloggs has enough dosh to buy himself an L39, and he end up stacking it into a field and biting the dust, then that has been his choice. If the ejector seats don't work / he doesn't know how and when to use them, then that is his fault. So long as he has insurance to pay for the clean up.....
If you want to ride your bike at 150mph, and you come off and hit a tree and bite the dust, equally who cares, it was your choice......We could always take the American I-don't-want-to-get-sued approach and wrap everyone up in cotton wool so you can't even burn you hand on a hot cup of coffee.....
It starts to become a problem when innocent bystanders end up getting caught up in it. If you ride your bike into a bus load of people and take half of them out with you, then that is what pisses people off. Likewise if Joe Bloggs flies his L39 into a crowd at an airshow, then this is unacceptable. Out of interest, how many innocent bystanders have been wiped out by PPLs in their jets?
EA
Last edited by englishal; 24th Nov 2003 at 22:58.
Presumably these risks should largely be addressed by
(a) The Instructor who signs him off as qualified on type for the CAA.
(b) The Display Authorisor who signs him off as fit to display the type, and dictates his display limits.
G
(a) The Instructor who signs him off as qualified on type for the CAA.
(b) The Display Authorisor who signs him off as fit to display the type, and dictates his display limits.
G
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Politically, the most important issue is that of potential collateral damage on the ground. This is a very crowded group of islands, especially in the South, and one big nasty crash with civilian casualties might spell the end of the whole business. That is why I do not want to see XH558 back in the air, nor a Lightning. Wonderful to watch, but the consequences of an accident are horrific, and the tabloids and the politicians would revert to the old standby of 'do something, however stupid'.
englishal,
I have to disagree with your first paragraph as one irresponsible individual's actions may result in draconian legislation which impacts on responsible owners/pilots.
Some of the comments regarding whether an accident occurred at a display or during a display practise are, I feel, not really relevant to this thread. The difference to Air Show organisers is very important, as they are interested in statistics relating to crowd safety and the public perception of airshow safety. However, what we are discussing is accidents that occur during low level aerobatics and maximum performance high g or high angle of attack manoeuvring. In other words, it is the flight phase that is important. There may be extra pressures on a pilot at a display, but there again there may be during a practise also (DA renewal, display currency etc).
Perhaps we need to look for common threads in civilian jet accidents. I would suggest categorising the causes as follows:
- Departure from controlled flight.
- Controlled Flight Into Terrain: low flying; aerobatics; disorientation.
- Take-off and landing on inappropriate runways.
- Error of judgement following technical malfunction (i.e. the accident could have been avoided/mitigated by alternative actions).
- Technical malfunction.
Obviously, some accidents will have multiple causes.
Another important categorisation is whether pilot and crew fatalities could have been avoided if:
- A de-activated ejection seat had been live.
- Ejection had been attemted (when it hadn't).
- An ejection had been made inside seat parameters (when actually it had been made outside).
Then we could look at experience and currency/recency! If anyone has easy access to all of the accident reports, categorising them would be interesting.
Rgds
L
I have to disagree with your first paragraph as one irresponsible individual's actions may result in draconian legislation which impacts on responsible owners/pilots.
Some of the comments regarding whether an accident occurred at a display or during a display practise are, I feel, not really relevant to this thread. The difference to Air Show organisers is very important, as they are interested in statistics relating to crowd safety and the public perception of airshow safety. However, what we are discussing is accidents that occur during low level aerobatics and maximum performance high g or high angle of attack manoeuvring. In other words, it is the flight phase that is important. There may be extra pressures on a pilot at a display, but there again there may be during a practise also (DA renewal, display currency etc).
Perhaps we need to look for common threads in civilian jet accidents. I would suggest categorising the causes as follows:
- Departure from controlled flight.
- Controlled Flight Into Terrain: low flying; aerobatics; disorientation.
- Take-off and landing on inappropriate runways.
- Error of judgement following technical malfunction (i.e. the accident could have been avoided/mitigated by alternative actions).
- Technical malfunction.
Obviously, some accidents will have multiple causes.
Another important categorisation is whether pilot and crew fatalities could have been avoided if:
- A de-activated ejection seat had been live.
- Ejection had been attemted (when it hadn't).
- An ejection had been made inside seat parameters (when actually it had been made outside).
Then we could look at experience and currency/recency! If anyone has easy access to all of the accident reports, categorising them would be interesting.
Rgds
L
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ea,
What a crass statement, that is just the sort of attitude that would ensure that this nanny state would stop us flying anything bigger than a paper plane unless it was for an airline.
Zlin,
As you say, flying does attract all sorts of individuals, but I feel the most important attribute a safe pilot needs is the 'right' attitude. There are a huge number of dinner party pilots out there, who are only interested in being seen as a 'sky gods' and usually their flying ability often matches their attitude.
The clothes somebody wears doesn't necessarily mark them out as a bad pilot or good pilot. Often a gro bag is actually a very sensible item of clothing, if however they customise it with epaulettes!
I would hate for pilots to be clones, but there is wide margin between a pro having fun and an amateur showing off. (I don't take pro/am in this sense to mean being a commercial/military or private pilot, but in the idea of some professionalism and competance what ever the experience, basically not pushing it until you are uncomfortable, but leaving some capacity to deal with problems)
How many people's last words were "watch this"?
I'll definately agree about airline pilots and airfix models! I stuck myself to the table quite a few times as a kid when I tried to speed up the model building process with fast drying epoxies!
What a crass statement, that is just the sort of attitude that would ensure that this nanny state would stop us flying anything bigger than a paper plane unless it was for an airline.
Zlin,
As you say, flying does attract all sorts of individuals, but I feel the most important attribute a safe pilot needs is the 'right' attitude. There are a huge number of dinner party pilots out there, who are only interested in being seen as a 'sky gods' and usually their flying ability often matches their attitude.
The clothes somebody wears doesn't necessarily mark them out as a bad pilot or good pilot. Often a gro bag is actually a very sensible item of clothing, if however they customise it with epaulettes!
I would hate for pilots to be clones, but there is wide margin between a pro having fun and an amateur showing off. (I don't take pro/am in this sense to mean being a commercial/military or private pilot, but in the idea of some professionalism and competance what ever the experience, basically not pushing it until you are uncomfortable, but leaving some capacity to deal with problems)
How many people's last words were "watch this"?
I'll definately agree about airline pilots and airfix models! I stuck myself to the table quite a few times as a kid when I tried to speed up the model building process with fast drying epoxies!
Lomcevak,
I'm pretty certain that the analysis doesn't currently exist in the form you suggest (arguably it should). I've seen the analysis CAA has used in it's own decision making, which is basically by type and hours flown and doesn't seem to look all that deeply at the way the aircraft are being operated, pilot experience and training, and other factors that you rightly suggest somebody should be thinking about.
The accident reports are all available, at-least back to 1996, on the AAIB's website at www.aaib.dft.gov.uk so it would be fairly straightforward to search against each known warbird type on the G-register (which you can pull from the CAA G-INFO page) and do an analysis of that nature.
G
I'm pretty certain that the analysis doesn't currently exist in the form you suggest (arguably it should). I've seen the analysis CAA has used in it's own decision making, which is basically by type and hours flown and doesn't seem to look all that deeply at the way the aircraft are being operated, pilot experience and training, and other factors that you rightly suggest somebody should be thinking about.
The accident reports are all available, at-least back to 1996, on the AAIB's website at www.aaib.dft.gov.uk so it would be fairly straightforward to search against each known warbird type on the G-register (which you can pull from the CAA G-INFO page) and do an analysis of that nature.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a crass statement, that is just the sort of attitude that would ensure that this nanny state would stop us flying anything bigger than a paper plane unless it was for an airline.
My point is that we should have freedom to choose, flying a JP is no more dangerous in the right hands that flying say a twin. Put a 100hr C152 PPL in a Seneca, or a Baron with 6 hrs of training, in my opinion, is a highly dangerous thing to do. Can you really fly a twin in 6hrs? JAR says you can. I wouldn't though. I have around 50 hrs multi time now, and only now do I feel comfortable and safe in a ME aircraft, though I don't take it for granted and I certainly am wary that the thing can bite if not respected.....as I'm sure most PPL "fast" jet pilots are....
Likewise, I wouldn't do 6hrs of conversion training and then take the helm of a jet, it'd be madness, and from the people I know who do fly ex-military trainers, there is no way they'd be let loose after only a few hours of instruction. So I reckon that pilots in charge of say a JP are more competent than the average PPL anyway. They are better trained, most will already hold higher ratings (eg Instrument, ME etc), and probably 99% will have been through some sort of aerobatics course...
EA
Last edited by englishal; 27th Nov 2003 at 15:27.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ea,
The freedom for all of us to be able fly any machine we like, is exactly the issue I want to protect. There are around 6 accidents a year throughout Europe in ex military a/c, with a total of around 350-400 machines that is a serious problem. If we as the pilot community don't try to reduce this, then eventually it will be done for us and we may not like the result.
Unfortunately stats as well as common sense show that experience is a factor in some accidents (some are bad luck or mechanical failure but the majority are pilot error, any easy tag to hang however.)
Being wary that something can 'bite' says to me that a pilot has not reached a sufficient level to be able to control or understand their machine properly. The handling notes and experience of others should allow you to see what the envelope and limitations are. Step outside it and the a/c will 'bite', but it is you who provoked it. If you know the a/c well enough and the issues surrounding it, then hopefully you are less likely to get into trouble because of a handling error.
The average JP pilot maybe more competent. I don't know how you could judge it though without a pop idol type contest. Skill levels are very subjective and we all think that we are better than we probably are. (except for me, I KNOW I'm marvelous!
) The only way of checking is by a test and long term evaluation scheme of each individual.
Don't confuse licences, hours etc. with competence. Just because somebody has a PPL doesn't mean they are unsafe and consequently just because you have an ATPL with all the bells and whistles doesn't make you perfect either.
6 hours of training is pretty laughable for a high performance machine if the only experience the prospective pilot has was in a cessna or the like. My view on this may be very different from most people on this forum, since I get paid to go flying and somebody else pays for any conversions onto different types I fly, therefore to me cost is not an issue. Not true in the 'real' world.
The freedom for all of us to be able fly any machine we like, is exactly the issue I want to protect. There are around 6 accidents a year throughout Europe in ex military a/c, with a total of around 350-400 machines that is a serious problem. If we as the pilot community don't try to reduce this, then eventually it will be done for us and we may not like the result.
Unfortunately stats as well as common sense show that experience is a factor in some accidents (some are bad luck or mechanical failure but the majority are pilot error, any easy tag to hang however.)
Being wary that something can 'bite' says to me that a pilot has not reached a sufficient level to be able to control or understand their machine properly. The handling notes and experience of others should allow you to see what the envelope and limitations are. Step outside it and the a/c will 'bite', but it is you who provoked it. If you know the a/c well enough and the issues surrounding it, then hopefully you are less likely to get into trouble because of a handling error.
The average JP pilot maybe more competent. I don't know how you could judge it though without a pop idol type contest. Skill levels are very subjective and we all think that we are better than we probably are. (except for me, I KNOW I'm marvelous!
) The only way of checking is by a test and long term evaluation scheme of each individual.Don't confuse licences, hours etc. with competence. Just because somebody has a PPL doesn't mean they are unsafe and consequently just because you have an ATPL with all the bells and whistles doesn't make you perfect either.
6 hours of training is pretty laughable for a high performance machine if the only experience the prospective pilot has was in a cessna or the like. My view on this may be very different from most people on this forum, since I get paid to go flying and somebody else pays for any conversions onto different types I fly, therefore to me cost is not an issue. Not true in the 'real' world.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being wary that something can 'bite' says to me that a pilot has not reached a sufficient level to be able to control or understand their machine properly
Anyway, I agree to disagree as I won't be changing my view and you won't be changing yours
Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, we can agree to disagree, but I always feel that if an instructor hasn't shown all the nasty handling issues in any a/c, then they haven't done their job correctly.
Lomcevak has a good point about categorising all the relevant accidents. I'll try and do so over the next few days and see what it really looks like. Some accidents will have multiple causes (as is usual) but I'll try and stick to the major causes and effects.
I would like to have this discussion split between 'normal' flying and displays, the causes of accidents are usually different and I'd rather compare like with like if possible.
the point about fatalities in situations where;
"- A de-activated ejection seat had been live.
- Ejection had been attemted (when it hadn't).
- An ejection had been made inside seat parameters (when actually it had been made outside)."
Is to my mind vital, ejection seats/systems are crucial in some circumstances. Eg the JP crash at Bradwell, Strikemaster crash, JP incident caused by malfunctioning O2 system, L39 at Duxford.
These are but a few of the accident reports on the AAIB site as linked by Genghis. For example
L 39 Report
A report that shows that unfamiliarity on type caused a horrific crash that will have far reaching effects.
The statement "During the investigation, two unrecorded (by either AAIB or CAA) incidents of L-39 Normal braking failure occurring in the UK in the late 1990's were described. It appeared that both aircraft were then on foreign registers (but operating in the UK) and neither pilot considered that it was appropriate to notify the authorities, despite the fact that one of the aircraft was damaged as a result. Following numerous inquiries, brief verbal accounts were obtained."
Is pretty scary, if the previous pilots had commented on this issue, would the fatality have happened at all? May be not. We all require the latest information in relation to flight safety, if not, what is the point of a body such as the AAIB or the CHIRP program?
Lomcevak has a good point about categorising all the relevant accidents. I'll try and do so over the next few days and see what it really looks like. Some accidents will have multiple causes (as is usual) but I'll try and stick to the major causes and effects.
I would like to have this discussion split between 'normal' flying and displays, the causes of accidents are usually different and I'd rather compare like with like if possible.
the point about fatalities in situations where;
"- A de-activated ejection seat had been live.
- Ejection had been attemted (when it hadn't).
- An ejection had been made inside seat parameters (when actually it had been made outside)."
Is to my mind vital, ejection seats/systems are crucial in some circumstances. Eg the JP crash at Bradwell, Strikemaster crash, JP incident caused by malfunctioning O2 system, L39 at Duxford.
These are but a few of the accident reports on the AAIB site as linked by Genghis. For example
L 39 Report
A report that shows that unfamiliarity on type caused a horrific crash that will have far reaching effects.
The statement "During the investigation, two unrecorded (by either AAIB or CAA) incidents of L-39 Normal braking failure occurring in the UK in the late 1990's were described. It appeared that both aircraft were then on foreign registers (but operating in the UK) and neither pilot considered that it was appropriate to notify the authorities, despite the fact that one of the aircraft was damaged as a result. Following numerous inquiries, brief verbal accounts were obtained."
Is pretty scary, if the previous pilots had commented on this issue, would the fatality have happened at all? May be not. We all require the latest information in relation to flight safety, if not, what is the point of a body such as the AAIB or the CHIRP program?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, we can agree to disagree, but I always feel that if an instructor hasn't shown all the nasty handling issues in any a/c, then they haven't done their job correctly.
An instructor can show you nasty handling tendancies until the cows come home, but there may be that time in the future when you come across a combination of events which may catch one by surprise. It pays to be a bit wary, until one has an awful lot of experience.Anyway, nuff said....
Cheers
EA
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EA,
SASlowly will only stop a thread when his posting is the last one!
He wrote:
Where does he draw the line?
FD
SASlowly will only stop a thread when his posting is the last one!
He wrote:
OK, we can agree to disagree, but I always feel that if an instructor hasn't shown all the nasty handling issues in any a/c, then they haven't done their job correctly.
FD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the constructive comments chaps.
My statement was a bit sweeping, but the gist is that you shouldn't need to be 'worried' about any a/c you fly. If you're stressed, then your available mental capacity is reduced and you are more likely to make poor judgements if the a/c does something unexpected. Very few of us here are test pilots(there's certainly one who's posted on this thread however) and the vast majority of handling problems are well documented on any type, especially JP's. If you read enough or talk to an old hand, then hopefully you will avoid getting into dodgy situations.
Accidents are usually caused by a chain of events, not just by one handling error. This is what we need to eliminate, rather than the big f***ups that are much easier to deal with in the long term.
CB, I tried writing on the monitor, but I could never get it to stay on the page.
My statement was a bit sweeping, but the gist is that you shouldn't need to be 'worried' about any a/c you fly. If you're stressed, then your available mental capacity is reduced and you are more likely to make poor judgements if the a/c does something unexpected. Very few of us here are test pilots(there's certainly one who's posted on this thread however) and the vast majority of handling problems are well documented on any type, especially JP's. If you read enough or talk to an old hand, then hopefully you will avoid getting into dodgy situations.
Accidents are usually caused by a chain of events, not just by one handling error. This is what we need to eliminate, rather than the big f***ups that are much easier to deal with in the long term.
CB, I tried writing on the monitor, but I could never get it to stay on the page.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but the gist is that you shouldn't need to be 'worried' about any a/c you fly
I was taught to be wary by a 2500hr MEI, who had 600hrs multi time. As soon as you let you guard down and become complacent, will be when you die.
Doh, I just couldn't let it lie could I
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be a bit careful when you throw around figures like 6 hours. Six hours would just about get you through circuit and basic handling training in a JP - enough to give the student the confidence to fly a circuit solo. Display flying is a totally different kettle of fish, and requires many hours of training and practice. The CAA examiners, like Rod Dean (who is a fast jet pilot in his own right) would not clear a civilian to fly or display something like an L39 or JP until he was satisfied that the individual was capable. It has nothing to do with stats or rules - it's about professional integrity and judgement.
Display organisers are bound by the rules - it doesn't matter whether the participant is civilian or militery - he has to have a civilian or military endorsement that he or she is competent or safe to fly the cleared manoeuvres. Practice displays at the venue are incredibly valuable - it takes the unfamiliarity value out of the equation, and gives you the layout of ground features to assist with display planning. Crashes during display practice should be counted as display accidents, even though they are not witnessed by the public - the lessons learned are equally valuable, that pilots might learn from the mistakes of others.
Display organisers are bound by the rules - it doesn't matter whether the participant is civilian or militery - he has to have a civilian or military endorsement that he or she is competent or safe to fly the cleared manoeuvres. Practice displays at the venue are incredibly valuable - it takes the unfamiliarity value out of the equation, and gives you the layout of ground features to assist with display planning. Crashes during display practice should be counted as display accidents, even though they are not witnessed by the public - the lessons learned are equally valuable, that pilots might learn from the mistakes of others.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anybody tell me what the legal standpoint with JP's that are operated in clubs. i.e buy a membership at £345 and get a "FREE" flight in a JP.
How does this work on a permit to fly a/c?
What would the fall out be from an accident that killed a member of the public?
How do these companies/clubs get public libility insurance?
Is there a catch all disclaimer that must be signed?
How does this work on a permit to fly a/c?
What would the fall out be from an accident that killed a member of the public?
How do these companies/clubs get public libility insurance?
Is there a catch all disclaimer that must be signed?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take it you ask because there is someone operating such a scheme.
Rather than using a lot of bandwidth why not ask those that operate it for the answers? That would surely be the best way to get those questions anwered.
Or are you thinking of setting us such a scheme yourself?
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but your questions seem to be formulated to do some shroud waving.
FD
Rather than using a lot of bandwidth why not ask those that operate it for the answers? That would surely be the best way to get those questions anwered.
Or are you thinking of setting us such a scheme yourself?
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but your questions seem to be formulated to do some shroud waving.
FD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definately not setting up a JP 'club' of my own FD. Not sure what you mean by shroud waving?
I've done a quick evaluation of the Historic a/c accidents in the AAIB website and then tallied these to the current numbers of those a/c flying today. ie not including the crashed machines.
The types I looked at were:
Hurricane: 10 on U.K reg. 0 accidents
Spitfire: 33 on U.K reg. 7 accidents (1 display, 6 'normal' flying) 4 fatalities
JP: 30 on U.K reg. 6 accidents (0 display, 6 'normal' flying) 4 fatalities
L-39: 3 on U.K reg. 1 accident ('normal' flying) 1 fatality
L-29: 5 on U.K reg. 1 accident (Display) 1 fatality
Harvard: 21 on U.K reg. 3 accidents (normal flying) 0 fatalities
Lockheed Lightning: 0 on U.K reg. 1 accident (display) 1 fatality
Hunter: 32 on U.K reg. 3 accidents (1 display, 2 'normal' flying) 1 fatality
Mosquito: 0 on U.K reg. 1 accident (display) 2 fatalities
Sea Fury: 1 on U.K reg. 1 accident ('normal' flying) 1 fatality
This gives a total of 137 Total a/c, 24 accidents (5 display, 19 'normal' flying) and 16 fatalities.
When you consider the number of hours these type of machines fly, it makes pretty sobering reading.
Stats can be manipulated to mean anything you wish, but I've tried to be as conscientious and un-biased as possible.
I've done a quick evaluation of the Historic a/c accidents in the AAIB website and then tallied these to the current numbers of those a/c flying today. ie not including the crashed machines.
The types I looked at were:
Hurricane: 10 on U.K reg. 0 accidents
Spitfire: 33 on U.K reg. 7 accidents (1 display, 6 'normal' flying) 4 fatalities
JP: 30 on U.K reg. 6 accidents (0 display, 6 'normal' flying) 4 fatalities
L-39: 3 on U.K reg. 1 accident ('normal' flying) 1 fatality
L-29: 5 on U.K reg. 1 accident (Display) 1 fatality
Harvard: 21 on U.K reg. 3 accidents (normal flying) 0 fatalities
Lockheed Lightning: 0 on U.K reg. 1 accident (display) 1 fatality
Hunter: 32 on U.K reg. 3 accidents (1 display, 2 'normal' flying) 1 fatality
Mosquito: 0 on U.K reg. 1 accident (display) 2 fatalities
Sea Fury: 1 on U.K reg. 1 accident ('normal' flying) 1 fatality
This gives a total of 137 Total a/c, 24 accidents (5 display, 19 'normal' flying) and 16 fatalities.
When you consider the number of hours these type of machines fly, it makes pretty sobering reading.
Stats can be manipulated to mean anything you wish, but I've tried to be as conscientious and un-biased as possible.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the stats and every one agrees that we should all operate flying machines as safe as possible.
However what do they prove?
More people die when having coronary surgery than for an appendectomy. So do we abolish coronary surgery on the basis of that or can we understand that those who qualify for this sort of procedure have different risks than the population which undergo an appendectomy.
More non bikeriders get killed in motorcycle accidents than bystanders or 'members of the public' in any sort of General Aviation accident. What do we do? Ban motorcycles?
You're obviously a 'man with a mission' but not sure what the mission is.
And am at a complete loss how your quotation of the accident stats relates to the question you posted on here earlier today:
May be I am missing the point, if so please clarify the obvious.
FD
However what do they prove?
More people die when having coronary surgery than for an appendectomy. So do we abolish coronary surgery on the basis of that or can we understand that those who qualify for this sort of procedure have different risks than the population which undergo an appendectomy.
More non bikeriders get killed in motorcycle accidents than bystanders or 'members of the public' in any sort of General Aviation accident. What do we do? Ban motorcycles?
You're obviously a 'man with a mission' but not sure what the mission is.
And am at a complete loss how your quotation of the accident stats relates to the question you posted on here earlier today:
Can anybody tell me what the legal standpoint with JP's that are operated in clubs. i.e buy a membership at £345 and get a "FREE" flight in a JP. etc....
FD