Love flying, not keen on dying :))
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Munich, Germany
Age: 49
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting couple of posts Andre, do you really love flying?
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 ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Munich, Germany
Age: 49
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Munich, Germany
Age: 49
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
If I sound a bit irritated, its because I am.
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!
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 ?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by Heston; 21st Dec 2013 at 16:55.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Munich, Germany
Age: 49
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Stop doing research. Stop posting on here. Go and get some flying lessons. We had another saying: JFDI. That's Just Effing Do It
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
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But yes, I would trust their opinions because they... (snip)
...do for a living what we consider a hobby / past-time (or obsession, apparently)
...do for a living what we consider a hobby / past-time (or obsession, apparently)
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Munich, Germany
Age: 49
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://flightdesign.com/files/Media/...0Accidents.pdf
But wait, they must be trolls, surely ?? Oh no, wait, this is from the website of an LSA manufacturer.
But wait, they must be trolls, surely ?? Oh no, wait, this is from the website of an LSA manufacturer.
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
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