Safety Worries
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Staffordshire
Age: 46
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Worries
Hi,
I have had 3 PPL lessons up to yet and am really looking forward to passing my PPL and buying my own little airplane (probably Cessna 172 or Piper Warrior)
I have 2 small children and always have at the back of my mind on how i can make my hobby safer.
I have come up with the following and am pretty sure it would be nigh on impossible to kill myself in a small aircraft if piloted sensibly whilst adhering to the following :
Matt
I have had 3 PPL lessons up to yet and am really looking forward to passing my PPL and buying my own little airplane (probably Cessna 172 or Piper Warrior)
I have 2 small children and always have at the back of my mind on how i can make my hobby safer.
I have come up with the following and am pretty sure it would be nigh on impossible to kill myself in a small aircraft if piloted sensibly whilst adhering to the following :
- Have Diesel Conversion (diesel doesnt explode no where near as much as petrol does on impact)
- Have one of them BRS fitted incase a loss of wing etc
- Carry a life raft, gps, various other safety equipment
- Budget 1.5x the normal amount for maintenance
Matt
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: someplace between FAF & MAPt
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want maximum safety you want to look towards modern aircraft... think Cirrus (air bags, BRS, good record etc..)
Diesel wont make a difference.... they still seem to have their 'issues' and on the face of it (corrected no doubt...) seem more prone to problems... the speed you hit the ground when it goes wrong is what counts... the post incident fire is an event that happens after, unlikely to make a large difference
Think Injected engines... more to manage but no Carb to Ice up
hope it helps
Diesel wont make a difference.... they still seem to have their 'issues' and on the face of it (corrected no doubt...) seem more prone to problems... the speed you hit the ground when it goes wrong is what counts... the post incident fire is an event that happens after, unlikely to make a large difference
Think Injected engines... more to manage but no Carb to Ice up
hope it helps
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Staffordshire
Age: 46
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I have inherited some money so could get a newer one. But would prefer obviously to spend as little as possible. I love flying and seem to go through a battle in my mind on how selfish i am putting my kids at risk of being fatherless.
P.S I wouldnt call £50,000 alot of money these days.
Matt
I have inherited some money so could get a newer one. But would prefer obviously to spend as little as possible. I love flying and seem to go through a battle in my mind on how selfish i am putting my kids at risk of being fatherless.
P.S I wouldnt call £50,000 alot of money these days.
Matt
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have inherited some money so could get a newer one. But would prefer obviously to spend as little as possible. I love flying and seem to go through a battle in my mind on how selfish i am putting my kids at risk of being fatherless.
Ensure that you get good and thorough training, it will be this that will help you walk away from an [unlikely!] incident/accident.
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, if you have some budget restraints, consider buying a share in a good quality, well maintained aircraft, rather than outright ownership in a lesser model.
But I'd go with what others have said, invest the money in good training. I'd guestimate more aircraft have landing "issues" due to bad piloting skills/decision-making than due to maintenance problems.
But I'd go with what others have said, invest the money in good training. I'd guestimate more aircraft have landing "issues" due to bad piloting skills/decision-making than due to maintenance problems.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, I'd agree with all that's been posted so far.
The most important part of any aircraft is the fleshy thing that moves the controls and makes the decisions. Make sure you are trained at a good school by an experienced instructor and make sure you keep up your knowledge level.
Once you have your licence in your mitts, think about doing further training such as the IMC or Aerobatics to increase your skill level and confidence.
Fly regularily, don't leave big gaps as your knowledge base will atrophy.
Keep an eye on the little ones on the apron and make sure that you enjoy yourself.
Flying isn't that dangerous if you do it well!
The most important part of any aircraft is the fleshy thing that moves the controls and makes the decisions. Make sure you are trained at a good school by an experienced instructor and make sure you keep up your knowledge level.
Once you have your licence in your mitts, think about doing further training such as the IMC or Aerobatics to increase your skill level and confidence.
Fly regularily, don't leave big gaps as your knowledge base will atrophy.
Keep an eye on the little ones on the apron and make sure that you enjoy yourself.
Flying isn't that dangerous if you do it well!
Moderator
Alphamatt,
I'll try to be positive here, so as to be helpful....
Any type certified aircraft, produced by an established manufacturer, well maintained, skillfully flown by a well trained pilot, within the accepted safe practices, will be as safe as any other. The "extras" won't make it much safer than it left the factory, unless very specialized operations require them - then they're required anyway!
Diesel engines are fantastic in machines which operate on the surface of the earth, they seen to have not yet established themselves well for aviation use. I am presently contracted by an airframe manufacturer to evaluate for approval, the replacement of diesel engines with "old time" gasoline engines in their prime model. If it's good enough for them, it should be for you. Diesel will find it's place in general aviation aircraft - eventually...
Parts do not fall off well maintained, properly flown aircraft. Parachute not required. Heavy and expensive, and a false sense of security. Once you deploy it, you are no longer in control of the aircraft. If you were not committed to be in control of the aircraft for the whole flight, you should not start one. I would never want to surrender the opportunity to control the aircraft during a landing.
Don't let the GPS distract you from safe flying, and traffic avoidance. If you're flying off shore a raft is not only a good idea, it's a requirement. Other than that, it, and the parachute, equal one person you will not be able to carry in the aircraft.
Budget 100% of the cost of normal maintenance, and accomplish normal maintenance well, without missing any opportunity to get it right.
Get good training! Practice. Get more good training. Practice. Realize that no matter how well you're doing, you have made mistakes, and should have scared yourself. Be scared, you'll remember what scared you, and get it better next time.
Let's use, as an unfortunate case study: JFK Junior. I'm sure that we can all agree, that he was probably not limited in finances to apply to his hobby of aviation. He flew a safe, well maintained aircraft, with proper safety equipment? I expect so... Well trained? Perhaps... Practiced, apparently not enough!
The pilots who have scared me the most, while I have flown for the purpose of mentoring them, were those who presented themselves, with their very expensive, well maintained, safely equipped aircraft, and then behaved as though all of that expendature would keep them safe, whether they flew well or not. This is not sensible behaviour. Even the most expensive aircraft can be crashed by an inadequate pilot. Even a defective junker has a good chance of being safely landed my a skilled, prepared pilot.
I observe that many of the cheapskate pilots, who fly the "modest" aircraft, seem to actually be safer (in terms of fewer accidents, and injuries). They're (we're) the "mongrals" of aviation, and seem to be paying more attention to the things that really matter. The guy I bought my plane from, was buying a bigger, better one. He had (and has) never had a license, or an accident. He flew sensibly (unless you think it's sensible to have an actual license!). It was a statisical fact for many years that pilots who operated their aircraft illegally on Mogas in the United States, were much less likely to have a fuel exhaustion/mismanagement accident. They were simply paying more attention to what they were doing, so as not to get caught! The pilots spending the big bucks on Avgas, seemed to pay less attention...
I own a proper liferaft. I wore a parachute for a few hundred of my many thousand hours of flying (when doing so was a legal requirement). I never used either.
Enjoy reading and learning here, and all of the other great places to grow your skills. Leave the fancy stuff for much later, it justs distracts you, and tricks you into false security. Train for real security instead!
Pilot DAR
I'll try to be positive here, so as to be helpful....
Any type certified aircraft, produced by an established manufacturer, well maintained, skillfully flown by a well trained pilot, within the accepted safe practices, will be as safe as any other. The "extras" won't make it much safer than it left the factory, unless very specialized operations require them - then they're required anyway!
Diesel engines are fantastic in machines which operate on the surface of the earth, they seen to have not yet established themselves well for aviation use. I am presently contracted by an airframe manufacturer to evaluate for approval, the replacement of diesel engines with "old time" gasoline engines in their prime model. If it's good enough for them, it should be for you. Diesel will find it's place in general aviation aircraft - eventually...
Parts do not fall off well maintained, properly flown aircraft. Parachute not required. Heavy and expensive, and a false sense of security. Once you deploy it, you are no longer in control of the aircraft. If you were not committed to be in control of the aircraft for the whole flight, you should not start one. I would never want to surrender the opportunity to control the aircraft during a landing.
Don't let the GPS distract you from safe flying, and traffic avoidance. If you're flying off shore a raft is not only a good idea, it's a requirement. Other than that, it, and the parachute, equal one person you will not be able to carry in the aircraft.
Budget 100% of the cost of normal maintenance, and accomplish normal maintenance well, without missing any opportunity to get it right.
Get good training! Practice. Get more good training. Practice. Realize that no matter how well you're doing, you have made mistakes, and should have scared yourself. Be scared, you'll remember what scared you, and get it better next time.
Let's use, as an unfortunate case study: JFK Junior. I'm sure that we can all agree, that he was probably not limited in finances to apply to his hobby of aviation. He flew a safe, well maintained aircraft, with proper safety equipment? I expect so... Well trained? Perhaps... Practiced, apparently not enough!
The pilots who have scared me the most, while I have flown for the purpose of mentoring them, were those who presented themselves, with their very expensive, well maintained, safely equipped aircraft, and then behaved as though all of that expendature would keep them safe, whether they flew well or not. This is not sensible behaviour. Even the most expensive aircraft can be crashed by an inadequate pilot. Even a defective junker has a good chance of being safely landed my a skilled, prepared pilot.
I observe that many of the cheapskate pilots, who fly the "modest" aircraft, seem to actually be safer (in terms of fewer accidents, and injuries). They're (we're) the "mongrals" of aviation, and seem to be paying more attention to the things that really matter. The guy I bought my plane from, was buying a bigger, better one. He had (and has) never had a license, or an accident. He flew sensibly (unless you think it's sensible to have an actual license!). It was a statisical fact for many years that pilots who operated their aircraft illegally on Mogas in the United States, were much less likely to have a fuel exhaustion/mismanagement accident. They were simply paying more attention to what they were doing, so as not to get caught! The pilots spending the big bucks on Avgas, seemed to pay less attention...
I own a proper liferaft. I wore a parachute for a few hundred of my many thousand hours of flying (when doing so was a legal requirement). I never used either.
Enjoy reading and learning here, and all of the other great places to grow your skills. Leave the fancy stuff for much later, it justs distracts you, and tricks you into false security. Train for real security instead!
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airframe parachutes
Hi Alphamatt,
ABSOLUTELY!!!
Broomstick.
Parts do not fall off well maintained, properly flown aircraft. Parachute not required. Heavy and expensive, and a false sense of security. Once you deploy it, you are no longer in control of the aircraft. If you were not committed to be in control of the aircraft for the whole flight, you should not start one. I would never want to surrender the opportunity to control the aircraft during a landing.
Broomstick.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is absolute nonsense to say that a newer type aircraft is safer. On the contrary, old well proven designs (PA28, C172) are more likely to have had all their faults ironed out, and even they from time to time have AD's sprung.
Diesel engines (the only ones available currently) are totaly unproven. Thielert just went bust after providing the bulk of the diesel engines, and all those had very limited life and many failures.
I would say get the best training possible, get the best maintenance possible on a well seasoned type aircraft which is well within your capability and dont try to get for the most modern equipment but for the most proven one.
It is all about prudence.
Finally fly as much as you can and even then get yourself tested by an instructor AT LEAST once a year
Diesel engines (the only ones available currently) are totaly unproven. Thielert just went bust after providing the bulk of the diesel engines, and all those had very limited life and many failures.
I would say get the best training possible, get the best maintenance possible on a well seasoned type aircraft which is well within your capability and dont try to get for the most modern equipment but for the most proven one.
It is all about prudence.
Finally fly as much as you can and even then get yourself tested by an instructor AT LEAST once a year
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alphamatt
Almost every fatal accident (or accident in which serious injury is sustained) in light aircraft is a consequence of pilot error. For example, the vast majority of forced landings are survivable if the pilot maintains control, selects and achieves a reasonable landing site. Therefore the best way of securing a safe outcome in inevitably to ensure you are well trained AND, as importantly, maintain your skills and currency throughout your “career”.
There remain just a few scenarios where piloting skill will still not secure a successful outcome. These include forced landings at night, ditching, structural failure, mid air collisions and weather encounter.
Forced landings at night are inevitably more often than not a lottery. Pilot skill will still give a reasonable chance of a successful outcome but the perfect glide into the side of a barn is still not health inducing. Therefore either don’t do it (fly at night) or fly an aircraft with a parachute.
Ditching, whilst usually successful (pilot skill), invariably ends up with hypothermia killing the passengers and crew. Never fly over water without a raft and / or an immersion suite.
Structural failure almost never happens. Either don’t worry about it (probably as much chance of happening as winning the lottery) or buy an aircraft with a chute. Avoiding aerobatic aircraft might help.
Mid air collisions result in the same outcome as structural failure. Therefore a chute is the only realistic means of improving the outcome. However, a better solution is to reduce the risk of collision avoidance in the first place. In reality everyone will tell you the chances of a mid air is remote, very remote. Never the less personally I wouldn’t fly without some form of CAS, (given a portable unit can cost only a few hundred pounds) and I would ensure I have a sound understanding of what I can do to reduce the risk – well covered on this forum.
Weather continues to be a significant reason cited for pilot fatality. Almost always the weather in itself is the precursor to the accident. For example, CFIT is ultimately pilot error, not a feature of the weather. All weather accidents can be avoided by being cautious about the weather you fly in. Assuming you fly for pleasure, you have no need to push weather limits, and if you do, expect the weather to bite. Pilot training and some of the above when it does bite will help secure a successful outcome.
In short if you exclude every accident which was ultimately down to pilot error and took all the precautions I have mentioned (and maybe a few others I haven’t included) flying is extremely safe.
Almost every fatal accident (or accident in which serious injury is sustained) in light aircraft is a consequence of pilot error. For example, the vast majority of forced landings are survivable if the pilot maintains control, selects and achieves a reasonable landing site. Therefore the best way of securing a safe outcome in inevitably to ensure you are well trained AND, as importantly, maintain your skills and currency throughout your “career”.
There remain just a few scenarios where piloting skill will still not secure a successful outcome. These include forced landings at night, ditching, structural failure, mid air collisions and weather encounter.
Forced landings at night are inevitably more often than not a lottery. Pilot skill will still give a reasonable chance of a successful outcome but the perfect glide into the side of a barn is still not health inducing. Therefore either don’t do it (fly at night) or fly an aircraft with a parachute.
Ditching, whilst usually successful (pilot skill), invariably ends up with hypothermia killing the passengers and crew. Never fly over water without a raft and / or an immersion suite.
Structural failure almost never happens. Either don’t worry about it (probably as much chance of happening as winning the lottery) or buy an aircraft with a chute. Avoiding aerobatic aircraft might help.
Mid air collisions result in the same outcome as structural failure. Therefore a chute is the only realistic means of improving the outcome. However, a better solution is to reduce the risk of collision avoidance in the first place. In reality everyone will tell you the chances of a mid air is remote, very remote. Never the less personally I wouldn’t fly without some form of CAS, (given a portable unit can cost only a few hundred pounds) and I would ensure I have a sound understanding of what I can do to reduce the risk – well covered on this forum.
Weather continues to be a significant reason cited for pilot fatality. Almost always the weather in itself is the precursor to the accident. For example, CFIT is ultimately pilot error, not a feature of the weather. All weather accidents can be avoided by being cautious about the weather you fly in. Assuming you fly for pleasure, you have no need to push weather limits, and if you do, expect the weather to bite. Pilot training and some of the above when it does bite will help secure a successful outcome.
In short if you exclude every accident which was ultimately down to pilot error and took all the precautions I have mentioned (and maybe a few others I haven’t included) flying is extremely safe.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lymington
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't buy an aircraft at all unless you are flying hundreds of hours per year. I suggest using a scheme like Cumulus Rentals where you are given your own personal key to a new or almost new Cirrus:
- No maintenance responsibilities
- No overheads
- No depreciation
- No club sign-offs for flights
- Nice clean fast plane
Its just like owning a plane without the hassle. Keep you big money in your pocket, not down the drain.
In my opinion the Cirrus is as safe as you can get. In addition to BRS (it amazes me when people talk down parachutes, crazy), the glass cockpit systems are easy to use, you'll never get lost, and the aircraft can be fully automated which massively reduces workload. A great IFR aircraft.
But as previously mentioned, the aircraft won't be the cause of a crash, YOU WILL. Its all about currency, attitude, and training. I don't feel comfortable unless I do at least 50hrs per year. Although I have taken my kid flying a few times, I don't feel comfortable taking him from a moral perspective, he isn't old enough to make the choice and would not be able to get out on his own in the case of an accident.
- No maintenance responsibilities
- No overheads
- No depreciation
- No club sign-offs for flights
- Nice clean fast plane
Its just like owning a plane without the hassle. Keep you big money in your pocket, not down the drain.
In my opinion the Cirrus is as safe as you can get. In addition to BRS (it amazes me when people talk down parachutes, crazy), the glass cockpit systems are easy to use, you'll never get lost, and the aircraft can be fully automated which massively reduces workload. A great IFR aircraft.
But as previously mentioned, the aircraft won't be the cause of a crash, YOU WILL. Its all about currency, attitude, and training. I don't feel comfortable unless I do at least 50hrs per year. Although I have taken my kid flying a few times, I don't feel comfortable taking him from a moral perspective, he isn't old enough to make the choice and would not be able to get out on his own in the case of an accident.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most important bit of kit is the nut behind the stick. Best get your skills up to scratch if you really want to keep you family safe.
Your choice of aircraft is almost immaterial and the best investment you can make is in training and thereafter, in flying regularly to maintain currency.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Staffordshire
Age: 46
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou all for your posts. Very imformative. I am going to put some of the money to good use and get training for IMC and Night and join a shared group.
Matt
Matt
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Essex, Innit
Age: 55
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest (my knowledge of BRS performance is limited to say the least) does anyone on here know whether a successful deployment is possible during a severe spin or would you end up being strapped into an aircraft that has been rendered uncontrollable due to fouling of the control surfaces?
Morning all, enq.
Morning all, enq.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: in the mist
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard that in a few cases where the chute has been used (in tests or otherwise) the rate of descent is still significant. Pilots and passengers have had legs broken on touchdown.
