Fatal accidents
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On what basis can we say that flying is more or less safe than motoring?
Almost whatever measurements you use will be slewed.
By passenger/mile is slewed as plane journeys tend to be longer and accidents tend to occur at the beginning/end of the cycle.
By accidents per journey is slewed because when a 'plane crashes the odds are you will die, when a car crashes the odds are you won't.
and so on .........
Almost whatever measurements you use will be slewed.
By passenger/mile is slewed as plane journeys tend to be longer and accidents tend to occur at the beginning/end of the cycle.
By accidents per journey is slewed because when a 'plane crashes the odds are you will die, when a car crashes the odds are you won't.
and so on .........
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
capetonian
Flying a light single engine piston with a PPL is substantially more risky than flying Easyjet or Ryanair with two crew holding ATPs.
Flying a light single engine piston carries a greater risk than driving your car.
I believe its simular to riding a high powered motorbike.
I dont have the details here but I am sure someone will give you the stats
Pace
Flying a light single engine piston with a PPL is substantially more risky than flying Easyjet or Ryanair with two crew holding ATPs.
Flying a light single engine piston carries a greater risk than driving your car.
I believe its simular to riding a high powered motorbike.
I dont have the details here but I am sure someone will give you the stats
Pace
Moderator
Umm, you mean that
doesn't work!? My seven year old daughter has been picking up a stone most everywhere we land, and we've been getting home just fine. She found a very pretty piece of quartz today. Soon I will have flown home the start a very pretty driveway!
On the other hand if pebbles work, I guess water must be lucky too, 'cause when I take her in the amphib, she just comes home a bit wet, but no pebble!
(including for example lucky pebbles)
On the other hand if pebbles work, I guess water must be lucky too, 'cause when I take her in the amphib, she just comes home a bit wet, but no pebble!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should a newbie pilot with a green licence inform his passenger that he is new and inexperienced before taking that passenger for a flight thus giving them the chance not to take the flight.
What you do with your own life is one thing what you do with others is another matter?
Would we all still fly for fun if it was completely safe though?
Something that irritates me with modern cars is the stupid blind spots where the front pillars are made so large and so far in front of you that it's almost impossible to see around corners. They then stick in a 3 foot deep dash board and pretend that makes the car safer. They also stick in power assisted everything to take every last ounce of enjoyment out of driving. I'm glad this hasn't happened in the design of GA aircraft yet!
What a bunch of candyasses...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
I understand what you are saying but how are you defining 'risk'? What do the stats tell you?
If the stats show that 1 motorbike journey in 100 ends in an accident, and 1 light a/c journey in 100 ends in an accident, are they equally 'risky'?
You could say yes, but then if the motorbike accidents result in death 40% of the time and the a/c accidents result in death 80% of the time, then flying appears more dangerous.
If you extrapolate it to passenger miles flown/driven, you will get yet another misleading statistic.
Flying a light single engine piston with a PPL is substantially more risky than flying Easyjet or Ryanair with two crew holding ATPs.
Flying a light single engine piston carries a greater risk than driving your car.
I believe its simular to riding a high powered motorbike.
I dont have the details here but I am sure someone will give you the stats
Flying a light single engine piston carries a greater risk than driving your car.
I believe its simular to riding a high powered motorbike.
I dont have the details here but I am sure someone will give you the stats
If the stats show that 1 motorbike journey in 100 ends in an accident, and 1 light a/c journey in 100 ends in an accident, are they equally 'risky'?
You could say yes, but then if the motorbike accidents result in death 40% of the time and the a/c accidents result in death 80% of the time, then flying appears more dangerous.
If you extrapolate it to passenger miles flown/driven, you will get yet another misleading statistic.
I'm still here.......
I gave up driving on two wheels about 50 years ago, when I became convinced that too high a proportion of car drivers were trying to kill me. I have been car/van driving and flying ever since.
My point is that different activities are affected differently by ones own safety approach to them. Flying is broadly speaking as safe as a pilot decides to make it a careful motorcyclist - they do exist - can still be wiped out by a careless driver.
A regulatory system is a significantly less effective factor (although it may prolong the life of a pilot with less inhibitions about killing himself and others).
My point is that different activities are affected differently by ones own safety approach to them. Flying is broadly speaking as safe as a pilot decides to make it a careful motorcyclist - they do exist - can still be wiped out by a careless driver.
A regulatory system is a significantly less effective factor (although it may prolong the life of a pilot with less inhibitions about killing himself and others).
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope I'm not tempting fate here, but as someone who's tried to avoid motorbikes for years, and reluctantly switched to 2 wheels after a move to london a year back.. I'm finding massive parallels between bikes and planes.. and finding the bike surprisingly satisfying as an exercise in observation and anticipiation.
In the greater part you do set your own risk level for either. Yes, on a bike you can get blindsided by the idiot in a car, in a plane there are also the odd unfathomables. But from what I've seen so far the true 'outrageous circumstance' moments are rare - in the main case it's impatience and a lack of understanding. I believe you can manage the risk to a large exetent in either case - the aircraft angle is well covered, on the bike - by hanging back, expecting and leaving room for people to do stupid things. For example, it may not be unreasonable from a motorcyclists point of view to travel rapidly between two lanes of traffic - but when you consider how hard it is for that car changing lanes to a) see you, and b) judge your approach speed when they're thinking at an almost stationary speed, maybe not.. Part of me thinks that bikes intrinsically attract demographic that is more inclined to be impatient and pushy..
In the greater part you do set your own risk level for either. Yes, on a bike you can get blindsided by the idiot in a car, in a plane there are also the odd unfathomables. But from what I've seen so far the true 'outrageous circumstance' moments are rare - in the main case it's impatience and a lack of understanding. I believe you can manage the risk to a large exetent in either case - the aircraft angle is well covered, on the bike - by hanging back, expecting and leaving room for people to do stupid things. For example, it may not be unreasonable from a motorcyclists point of view to travel rapidly between two lanes of traffic - but when you consider how hard it is for that car changing lanes to a) see you, and b) judge your approach speed when they're thinking at an almost stationary speed, maybe not.. Part of me thinks that bikes intrinsically attract demographic that is more inclined to be impatient and pushy..
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 63
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine failure in a GA single has over 80 % chance of avoiding major injury or death. The survival rate is significantly lower in light twins, especially LOC in proximity to the ground. Accident rates peak 80 - 200 hours overall flying time. There is a gradual improvement with most of the significant safety gains from pilot error occurring in the first 500 hours.Accident rates go up again just a little over 1500 hours experience in GA flying, perhaps due to complacency, however never going anywhere near the risk of sub 500 hours pilots.
As far as age goes, the safest pilots are between 50 and 55 years of age, with pilots in their sixties being safer than pilots in their 30's. Pilots under the age of 25 are especially risky, and under 20 years of age highly risky.The age related safety figures apply equally to ppl's, cpl's, or atpl's.
Night flight in GA aircraft Vfr is about the same risk as riding a motorbike.
Most deaths in GA are CFIT, weather related, Loss of contol at low altitude, fuel, or VMC into IMC.
WOrk hard. to sytematically eliminate the above risks from your flying. Practice your emergency routines regularly. Flw with abundant caution. Avoid flying over inhospitable coutry if you can avoid it. If you feel uncomfortable with your situation in the air , act decisively toward the conservative option. Actively plan for a wide range of contigencies.Be current, healthy, hydrated, rested and non-distracted when you fly.
So if you want to be thrilled,go on the first solo night flight of an 18 year old friend who has 85 hours experience ,over inhospitable terrain in marginal weather after a big night out.....etc etc
If you want to live, a pleasant flight in the day and good weather, with a 1000 hour 53 year old GA pilot who doesnt drink, had a great sleep, and who has a lovely neat kneeboard and flies regaularly, over open terrain, I could happily go to sleep in the aircraft with plenty of confidence.
As far as age goes, the safest pilots are between 50 and 55 years of age, with pilots in their sixties being safer than pilots in their 30's. Pilots under the age of 25 are especially risky, and under 20 years of age highly risky.The age related safety figures apply equally to ppl's, cpl's, or atpl's.
Night flight in GA aircraft Vfr is about the same risk as riding a motorbike.
Most deaths in GA are CFIT, weather related, Loss of contol at low altitude, fuel, or VMC into IMC.
WOrk hard. to sytematically eliminate the above risks from your flying. Practice your emergency routines regularly. Flw with abundant caution. Avoid flying over inhospitable coutry if you can avoid it. If you feel uncomfortable with your situation in the air , act decisively toward the conservative option. Actively plan for a wide range of contigencies.Be current, healthy, hydrated, rested and non-distracted when you fly.
So if you want to be thrilled,go on the first solo night flight of an 18 year old friend who has 85 hours experience ,over inhospitable terrain in marginal weather after a big night out.....etc etc
If you want to live, a pleasant flight in the day and good weather, with a 1000 hour 53 year old GA pilot who doesnt drink, had a great sleep, and who has a lovely neat kneeboard and flies regaularly, over open terrain, I could happily go to sleep in the aircraft with plenty of confidence.
Last edited by Mimpe; 12th Sep 2011 at 13:40.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
I understand what you are saying but how are you defining 'risk'? What do the stats tell you?
If the stats show that 1 motorbike journey in 100 ends in an accident, and 1 light a/c journey in 100 ends in an accident, are they equally 'risky'?
You could say yes, but then if the motorbike accidents result in death 40% of the time and the a/c accidents result in death 80% of the time, then flying appears more dangerous.
If you extrapolate it to passenger miles flown/driven, you will get yet another misleading statistic.
I understand what you are saying but how are you defining 'risk'? What do the stats tell you?
If the stats show that 1 motorbike journey in 100 ends in an accident, and 1 light a/c journey in 100 ends in an accident, are they equally 'risky'?
You could say yes, but then if the motorbike accidents result in death 40% of the time and the a/c accidents result in death 80% of the time, then flying appears more dangerous.
If you extrapolate it to passenger miles flown/driven, you will get yet another misleading statistic.
aircraft do very well and horses very badly on a per mile basis. cars are exceptionally good on a per journey basis. however, on all measures I have seen developed world light aircraft are worse than developed world cars, and closer to bikes.
in the UK big airline jets are best, FAA operated corporate jets next, then aoc jets, aoc other (I believe then non AOC owner flown IFR), training, PPL operations, gliders and finally at a pretty shocking level gyrocopters (I can't remember where helicopters come in the list).
the group of owner flown IFR, training, PPL has a broadly similar rate of fatal accidents vs. motorcycles when looking at the sensible numbers of per hour, per mile, per journey (with journey least favourable and per mile most) (this is all from memory of various bits of academic analysis.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to see the stats for non pilot error deaths in light aircraft. IE where the pilot did everything absolutely right and could have done absolutely nothing to prevent his/her death.
Being a newbie PPL I'm still at the stage where I see people making decisions on the ground and think 'Well I wouldn't do that but what do I know' but I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that they maybe shouldn't be doing that regardless of experience. Although mouth shut and ears open at my stage obviously.
As far as risk goes, it goes with the hobby. I'm not talking about pro pilots here, just people who don't have to fly in light aircraft if they choose not to. I'm an ex motorcyclist, never had a prang other than sliding on some black ice once and rubbing some footrest and handlebar off but then I used to be a defensive driver. Still am when driving a car. My old man told me to treat everyone else on the road as an idiot and you won't go far wrong, I apply the same philosophy to flying. I also use the old maxim of if it can go wrong it will, so I'm always looking for a field to land in and I certainly am not over keen flying in hilly terrain unless there's an out.
It seems to me there are lots of things you can do to minimise risk, it depends how much you value your own skin (and others) I suppose.
Being a newbie PPL I'm still at the stage where I see people making decisions on the ground and think 'Well I wouldn't do that but what do I know' but I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that they maybe shouldn't be doing that regardless of experience. Although mouth shut and ears open at my stage obviously.
As far as risk goes, it goes with the hobby. I'm not talking about pro pilots here, just people who don't have to fly in light aircraft if they choose not to. I'm an ex motorcyclist, never had a prang other than sliding on some black ice once and rubbing some footrest and handlebar off but then I used to be a defensive driver. Still am when driving a car. My old man told me to treat everyone else on the road as an idiot and you won't go far wrong, I apply the same philosophy to flying. I also use the old maxim of if it can go wrong it will, so I'm always looking for a field to land in and I certainly am not over keen flying in hilly terrain unless there's an out.
It seems to me there are lots of things you can do to minimise risk, it depends how much you value your own skin (and others) I suppose.
Last edited by thing; 12th Sep 2011 at 14:31.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing - you need to learn from them. Trust me they are everywhere, and you are usually correct in the assertion - that you would not do it that way. Plenty of us have seen the most stupendous decisions taken by people who should have known better, and they get away with it until the day they pile into a hill
Kid I know died on Friday. Driving his motorbike, hit a pot hole, fell off, under the wheels of a car. Lost the helmet on the way off.
A crazy accident - but, was he going too fast, did not spy the pot hole, and sods law that a car just happened to be passing?????
A terrible accident, however, I feel at lot of GA pilots make their own safety. Obviously an accident will occur where the pilot did everything, and fate happened to look the other way
That, unfortunately, is life.
Kid I know died on Friday. Driving his motorbike, hit a pot hole, fell off, under the wheels of a car. Lost the helmet on the way off.
A crazy accident - but, was he going too fast, did not spy the pot hole, and sods law that a car just happened to be passing?????
A terrible accident, however, I feel at lot of GA pilots make their own safety. Obviously an accident will occur where the pilot did everything, and fate happened to look the other way
That, unfortunately, is life.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kernow
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Understood, but the legislative controls should (note should) address the safety of 2nd and 3rd parties (that's why the law in general allows you to fall off cliffs). Whether they go far enough in warning passengers of low time pilots is another matter.
In assessing and accepting risks it must be done against the background of existing control measures and some of those will be legislative.
Going right back to the start of this thread: the use of statistics as a measure of risk, is depending on their presentation and interpretation, probably highly flawed. Following your point, general flight safety (i.e. fatalities per hour flown by aircraft type) statistics don't apply to a low time pilot caught out by bad weather.
Understood, but the legislative controls should (note should) address the safety of 2nd and 3rd parties (that's why the law in general allows you to fall off cliffs). Whether they go far enough in warning passengers of low time pilots is another matter.
In assessing and accepting risks it must be done against the background of existing control measures and some of those will be legislative.
Going right back to the start of this thread: the use of statistics as a measure of risk, is depending on their presentation and interpretation, probably highly flawed. Following your point, general flight safety (i.e. fatalities per hour flown by aircraft type) statistics don't apply to a low time pilot caught out by bad weather.
Moderator
Whether they go far enough in warning passengers of low time pilots is another matter.
The fact that there are "high time" pilots against whom to compare other pilots, is not the concern of the regulator. Who knows, perhaps the "low time" pilot, who spend the preceding years in front of Flight Simulator might actually be better that the old high time pilot at making the best of fancy avionics!
If the regulator insisted on "high time" before a pilot could fly pax without having to warn them, the minimum number of hours to qualify for a license would be in the hundreds, and all the students would give up (except for those few who needed the few hundred hours just to get the license in the first place!)
Spot on, DAR. If you're licensed, you're licensed and you're arguably safer at 70 hours having recently passed than at 270 but having only feetingly met an instructor at any point in the past few years.
And I take it all back about pebbles, if you're getting home every time then they must work. I've got an anti-tiger pebble like that, I've been carrying it around for over twenty years and I've never once been attacked by a tiger.
And I take it all back about pebbles, if you're getting home every time then they must work. I've got an anti-tiger pebble like that, I've been carrying it around for over twenty years and I've never once been attacked by a tiger.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But with a little experience (and I by no means have much of it) one also inevitably starts to accept lower personal minimas. I can today fly in a lot worse weather than when I started. Then, if there was a cloud in the sky I got nervous and would think twice about it. Today I'll happily fly with low ceilings as long as I have an escape route and options. In fact, I actually think it's important to do so, to hone one's decision making skills.
I have an upcoming flight from California to Chicago in the week VFR (if all goes to plan) and I have to say I'm a little apprehensive crossing both the Sierra Nevadas and the Rockies as the weather in that area has been a bit dodgy. Water and mountains still make me slightly uncomfortable even with 2 engines. Good thing is I have time on my hands, so any hint of trouble and I'll either wait it out or go around it.
I have an upcoming flight from California to Chicago in the week VFR (if all goes to plan) and I have to say I'm a little apprehensive crossing both the Sierra Nevadas and the Rockies as the weather in that area has been a bit dodgy. Water and mountains still make me slightly uncomfortable even with 2 engines. Good thing is I have time on my hands, so any hint of trouble and I'll either wait it out or go around it.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot Dar
My comments are nothing to do with regulations or whether a newly qualified pilot is licenced to carry pax or not.
My comments were directed at one poster who thought he had the rights to judge his own risks and suffer the consequences of taking those risks.
I purely pointed out that on the whole passengers are not aviation knowledgable and not in a position to make their own risk decisions.
They should be aware of the experience of the pilot who is holding their lives in his hands so they can either accept or reject that flight.
New pilots are just one example another example maybe a hot shot IMC pilot who risks a single in bad weather, icing and high winds.
The PAX are probably unaware that the aircraft never mind the pilot is not up to the job (I am thinking of a couple of recent CFIT accidents one where the Captain should have been shot for what he did.
Airlines have multiple back up systems, far better performance, deicing and anti ice. Two pilots trained to far higher standards than the PPL hence the far lower accident rate.
The PAX should be far better informed of who they are flying with and the capabilities of the aircraft re weather that they are flying in.
This is so that they can make their own risk choice on risk.
The new pilot sporting a pair of raybans might look the part but IMO should state that he is a recently qualified pilot of low experience.
The passenger can then make his /her own judgement?
An old instructor of mine used to judge pilots by saying " would you be happy to send your two 8 and 10 year olds up with that guy" ?
There are plenty of experienced and unexperienced pilots who my answer would be NO, NO, NO!!!
Its all very well saying X is licenced so must be good but I know a few licenced Dick heads who you wonder how they ever got a licence and who gave it them.
Pace
My comments are nothing to do with regulations or whether a newly qualified pilot is licenced to carry pax or not.
My comments were directed at one poster who thought he had the rights to judge his own risks and suffer the consequences of taking those risks.
I purely pointed out that on the whole passengers are not aviation knowledgable and not in a position to make their own risk decisions.
They should be aware of the experience of the pilot who is holding their lives in his hands so they can either accept or reject that flight.
New pilots are just one example another example maybe a hot shot IMC pilot who risks a single in bad weather, icing and high winds.
The PAX are probably unaware that the aircraft never mind the pilot is not up to the job (I am thinking of a couple of recent CFIT accidents one where the Captain should have been shot for what he did.
Airlines have multiple back up systems, far better performance, deicing and anti ice. Two pilots trained to far higher standards than the PPL hence the far lower accident rate.
The PAX should be far better informed of who they are flying with and the capabilities of the aircraft re weather that they are flying in.
This is so that they can make their own risk choice on risk.
The new pilot sporting a pair of raybans might look the part but IMO should state that he is a recently qualified pilot of low experience.
The passenger can then make his /her own judgement?
An old instructor of mine used to judge pilots by saying " would you be happy to send your two 8 and 10 year olds up with that guy" ?
There are plenty of experienced and unexperienced pilots who my answer would be NO, NO, NO!!!
Its all very well saying X is licenced so must be good but I know a few licenced Dick heads who you wonder how they ever got a licence and who gave it them.
Pace
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, it's like driving - I have tons of friends who have driver's licenses, but who have zero feel for driving and are dangerous.
I have one who's drives more than anyone else I know (100miles a day most days), yet still can't drive to save his life. Always too fast, not concentrated, talking, fiddling, always involved in episodes and parking accidents etc, blaming everyone else for being bad drivers when he's the dangerous one. Lovely guy and a dear friend, but not a good driver. No amount of experience is going to change this.
I have one who's drives more than anyone else I know (100miles a day most days), yet still can't drive to save his life. Always too fast, not concentrated, talking, fiddling, always involved in episodes and parking accidents etc, blaming everyone else for being bad drivers when he's the dangerous one. Lovely guy and a dear friend, but not a good driver. No amount of experience is going to change this.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a lot of that is down to mechanical empathy. I know loads of high time drivers who accelerate/brake throughout the whole of their driving. They have no understanding of machinery.
One of the nicest things my flying instructor said to me when I was a stude was 'You have feel for the aircraft.' I like to think I have for any machine but it was nice all the same.
I don't think you can learn empathy, you either have it or don't, it doesn't make you necessarily dangerous if you don't have it but you can tell almost immediately people who don't. They are the sort who make you think 'I wish you wouldn't do that..' not because it's dangerous but because it's just not right, it doesn't 'gel' with the machine.
I suppose there will be two camps reading this, those who think 'Yeah I know what he means' and the other camp goes 'Eh?' If you're going 'Eh?' then if the cap fits........
One of the nicest things my flying instructor said to me when I was a stude was 'You have feel for the aircraft.' I like to think I have for any machine but it was nice all the same.
I don't think you can learn empathy, you either have it or don't, it doesn't make you necessarily dangerous if you don't have it but you can tell almost immediately people who don't. They are the sort who make you think 'I wish you wouldn't do that..' not because it's dangerous but because it's just not right, it doesn't 'gel' with the machine.
I suppose there will be two camps reading this, those who think 'Yeah I know what he means' and the other camp goes 'Eh?' If you're going 'Eh?' then if the cap fits........
Moderator
Pace, I completely agree with the sentiment of what you are saying, and believe me, my wife and kids do not fly privately with anyone I have not "approved of", but I'm fortunate, in that I am fairly well qualified to judge a pilot's skill in that realm, and being the husband/dad, have the right to do so, without incurring society's wrath.
If, on the other hand, I come on PPRuNe, and assert that "low time" pilots should fly with passenger carrying privilege restrictions, all the new pilots here will whine me to death.
It was not too long ago, we were discussing this here: http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...new-pilot.html (sorry to seem to single you out Adrian, it was not intentional). But the experienced pilots in the group tend to wince when the "low time" pilots express their intent to do those things in planes, and with passengers, that we still think twice about.
I remember. I did a lot of not so bright things in planes, and probably grazed fate more often than I knew (never bent a plane in flight though!). It might have happened while flying yesterday, but it's statistically more likely it was in my first few hundred hours, more than 30 years ago.
In hind sight, it was probably the few hundred hours I did as a 14 and 15 year old passenger with my buddy, where I saw first hand what not to do. Lucky me, getting to watch, and live through someone else's mistakes, so I could learn, and repeat only a few of them.
I did quite a lot of "mentoring" flying with Doctor/Dentist/Lawyer types in their fancy floatplanes and amphibians. I though began thinking I was going for a fun lunch, I soon learned that the boss sent me along to keep them safe. I realized that the fresh pilot's license, and a few hundred thousand dollars invested in a plane, does not take away the risks - only experience can, and lots of it. JFK Jr. might have realized this a few hundred feet above the ocean, at Mach 0.7. He was probably a nice fellow, but he just never had the opportunity to learn on his own (scare himself solo), before he had to live up to the pressure of the image with passengers....
Discouraging and demeaning new pilots is not the way to make things better here. Imposing immeasurable restrictions is not the way either. Only cheerful mentoring, and setting, and presenting, a good example of caution from the old timers, will keep our industry safe, and growing. (And, by the way, an instructor rating does not automatically make you an "old timer"!)
"Low time" pilots (whoever you are) learn your limitations cautiously, either solo, or with qualified supervision. Then, take your passengers in circumstances well within those limitations. Caring pilots never carry passengers to the limitations of the pilot or the plane!
If, on the other hand, I come on PPRuNe, and assert that "low time" pilots should fly with passenger carrying privilege restrictions, all the new pilots here will whine me to death.
It was not too long ago, we were discussing this here: http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...new-pilot.html (sorry to seem to single you out Adrian, it was not intentional). But the experienced pilots in the group tend to wince when the "low time" pilots express their intent to do those things in planes, and with passengers, that we still think twice about.
I remember. I did a lot of not so bright things in planes, and probably grazed fate more often than I knew (never bent a plane in flight though!). It might have happened while flying yesterday, but it's statistically more likely it was in my first few hundred hours, more than 30 years ago.
In hind sight, it was probably the few hundred hours I did as a 14 and 15 year old passenger with my buddy, where I saw first hand what not to do. Lucky me, getting to watch, and live through someone else's mistakes, so I could learn, and repeat only a few of them.
I did quite a lot of "mentoring" flying with Doctor/Dentist/Lawyer types in their fancy floatplanes and amphibians. I though began thinking I was going for a fun lunch, I soon learned that the boss sent me along to keep them safe. I realized that the fresh pilot's license, and a few hundred thousand dollars invested in a plane, does not take away the risks - only experience can, and lots of it. JFK Jr. might have realized this a few hundred feet above the ocean, at Mach 0.7. He was probably a nice fellow, but he just never had the opportunity to learn on his own (scare himself solo), before he had to live up to the pressure of the image with passengers....
Discouraging and demeaning new pilots is not the way to make things better here. Imposing immeasurable restrictions is not the way either. Only cheerful mentoring, and setting, and presenting, a good example of caution from the old timers, will keep our industry safe, and growing. (And, by the way, an instructor rating does not automatically make you an "old timer"!)
"Low time" pilots (whoever you are) learn your limitations cautiously, either solo, or with qualified supervision. Then, take your passengers in circumstances well within those limitations. Caring pilots never carry passengers to the limitations of the pilot or the plane!
