How to talk to non-pilots

[Cap'n Jack]

You can't fly GA and declare yourself exempt from GA statistics. Same as saying: I only smoke cigarettes on weekends/after a drink/don't inhale/etc so the cancer statistics don't apply to me...
Those retarded pilots that crash doing stupid things are you and me.

You're still not making your point clear to me. Do you do these "stupid things"? I don't.

One of the common "stupid pilot tricks" is running out of fuel. If I make sure the plane is topped off before departing, and treat the plane as if it has 1/2 the range listed in the POH, am I not greatly reducing the opportunity for a crash?

Or showboating down low- I have zero chance of that accident happeniing if I don't do it.

VFR into IMC- again, watch the weather. I'll grant this can be done, especially in haze. I have aborted a flight and returned to the airport because, although technically VFR, the weather was practically IFR.

There are actions that a person can take that improve their safety statistics. There are also actions they do to reduce their safety.

To use your analogy, I don't smoke, so I reduce my chances of cancer. I'm not saying the stats in either case don't apply to me. But I can make decisions that improve my odds.

 

[el con]

When someone asked me if I'm scared to fly I say no. I know there are statistics that all have mentioned, but I calculate the risk and minimize the chances.
I am in control of what weather I fly in, time of day or night, aircraft maintenance, where and when,and so on as most of us do. I'm more of a "What might happen if I were to do this" kind of a pilot, than a "Hey watch this" or " If you thought that was awesome,watch this"
My wife Diz on the other hand is extremely cautious, the first thing she did when I started flying was to buy 2 parachutes, one for her and one for the dog

 

[Anthony]

You can't fly GA and declare yourself exempt from GA statistics. Same as saying: I only smoke cigarettes on weekends/after a drink/don't inhale/etc so the cancer statistics don't apply to me...
Those retarded pilots that crash doing stupid things are you and me.

Maybe you, not me. So you have no control over how you live your life. Do you look both ways when you cross the street, or put on a blindfold?

 

[SCCutler]

A decade ago, I was one of those great unwashed. I spent months reading the daily list of NTSB probable cause reports on the old safetydata.com site, and concluded it was mostly poor decisions/complacency among pilots. I completed a Part 141 ground school and had my private ASEL knowledge test done before I ever started flight training, figuring I'd explored the dark corners to the best of my ability.

Statistically, if you strive to avoid stall/spin, VFR into IMC, and fuel management goofs your risk of a fatal accident plummets.

Sound approach, rational decision. Hats-off to you for so doing!

I think the best answer is along the lines of: "In a car or on a motorcycle my safety is at least as much the result of other's actions vs when flying it's almost entirely up to me. Therefore I can be just as safe as I want to be when flying but have much less control over safety when driving a car or riding a motorcycle.

With one exception (an adult who shunned helmets and killed himself when he dumped his bike on a curve) every person I've know that's been killed or seriously injured on a bike had an accident caused by the driver of another vehicle that failed to see the motorcycle and either pulled out right in front of it or turned across the bike's path from the opposite direction.

I inherently love motorcycles - they are beautiful machines, go fast, all the stuff I love. Nonetheless, I am glad I did not get into riding them when I was young and exceptionally stupid; there is every reason to believe I'd have done myself in with stupid decisions and resultant actions. Now, I'd still love to ride, but would never consider regularly riding in a big city environment - too many boneheads out to kill you! When I am retired to the bucolic countryside, I can certainly see myself riding, in which event the question will be, "cruiser or sport bike?" I think sporty will win, but who knows...

When someone asked me if I'm scared to fly I say no. I know there are statistics that all have mentioned, but I calculate the risk and minimize the chances.
I am in control of what weather I fly in, time of day or night, aircraft maintenance, where and when,and so on as most of us do. I'm more of a "What might happen if I were to do this" kind of a pilot, than a "Hey watch this" or " If you thought that was awesome,watch this"
My wife Diz on the other hand is extremely cautious, the first thing she did when I started flying was to buy 2 parachutes, one for her and one for the dog

Nice!

Hey, tell Ed we said "Hi," miss him...

 

[gismo]

You're still not making your point clear to me. Do you do these "stupid things"? I don't.

One of the common "stupid pilot tricks" is running out of fuel. If I make sure the plane is topped off before departing, and treat the plane as if it has 1/2 the range listed in the POH, am I not greatly reducing the opportunity for a crash?

Or showboating down low- I have zero chance of that accident happeniing if I don't do it.

VFR into IMC- again, watch the weather. I'll grant this can be done, especially in haze. I have aborted a flight and returned to the airport because, although technically VFR, the weather was practically IFR.

There are actions that a person can take that improve their safety statistics. There are also actions they do to reduce their safety.

To use your analogy, I don't smoke, so I reduce my chances of cancer. I'm not saying the stats in either case don't apply to me. But I can make decisions that improve my odds.

I think it's pretty obvious that any individual pilot can eliminate a significant portion of the risks that have generated those lousy (as in discouraging) aviation safety statistics but never deliberately crossing certain lines. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that such a pilot is never going to run out of fuel, stall at low altitude, or get into weather they're not quite proficient to handle, it just means they are (a lot?) less likely to suffer any of those fates. And I think it's hard to say how much this intent will statistically improve one's odds but I like to believe it's enough to at least bring it up to par with automobile travel. If only I could prove that.

 

[Ted]

I think it's pretty obvious that any individual pilot can eliminate a significant portion of the risks that have generated those lousy (as in discouraging) aviation safety statistics but never deliberately crossing certain lines. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that such a pilot is never going to run out of fuel, stall at low altitude, or get into weather they're not quite proficient to handle, it just means they are (a lot?) less likely to suffer any of those fates. And I think it's hard to say how much this intent will statistically improve one's odds but I like to believe it's enough to at least bring it up to par with automobile travel. If only I could prove that.

+1...

There are three kinds of NTSB reports that I see:

1) The pilot who was asking to die
2) The plane that killed the pilot
3) The otherwise good pilot who made a mistake

Any of us can be in category 3. We have certain control over category 2 (specifically with our maintenance practices and what we fly), and we have great control over 1.

 

[Anthony]

I think it's pretty obvious that any individual pilot can eliminate a significant portion of the risks that have generated those lousy (as in discouraging) aviation safety statistics but never deliberately crossing certain lines. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that such a pilot is never going to run out of fuel, stall at low altitude, or get into weather they're not quite proficient to handle, it just means they are (a lot?) less likely to suffer any of those fates. And I think it's hard to say how much this intent will statistically improve one's odds but I like to believe it's enough to at least bring it up to par with automobile travel. If only I could prove that.

I can't prove it either, but I am speculating it is safer than automobile travel, especially if you compare "incidents", not just fatalities.

 

[dell30rb]

What are the accident stats for a commercially rated (or higher) pilot flying GA? Isn't that pretty comparable to riding in a car?

I refuse to believe that the GA statistics apply to everyone. They can be separated into groups. Are you telling me that a pilot who has a PPL, no recurrent training other than BFR, flies 60 hours a year in a high performance, complex single carries the same risk as a pilot who flies 150 hours a year in a spam can, is instrument current and proficient, and takes a voluntary IPC with an instructor every 6 months? The former pilot is high risk and the latter is low risk. Insurance rates verify this. The risks are manageable. Sure, some crazy **** can happen to a careful pilot and bring him to grief, or a careful pilot can make a stupid mistake. It happens.

The bottom line is that you can put yourself into a low risk category. You don't have to fly 150 hours a year or earn an instrument rating either. A safety conscious attitude, retaining proficiency is all that is needed. The example I gave was just of a pilot who, in the insurance company's eyes is judged likely to be safety conscious and proficient.

A great book which investigates accidents and presents a lot of info on aviation risk management is The Next Hour by Richard Collins.

 

[dell30rb]

Also to the OP.. I'll take anyone flying that wants to go, but I don't invite anyone unless they explicitly express interest.

People are really funny about this stuff. I had one friend say directly to me that he would really like to come flying sometime. So anytime I had an extra seat I would invite him. He always had something else going on. After a few tries, I said out loud to a couple friends who were flying with me one afternoon "Yeah, i keep trying to invite Stu, but he never seems to be able to come" and one of the other guys in the plane said that ol' Stu had confessed to him that he was terrified of small airplanes. I quit inviting him to come.

Another experience, I have a friend who says she really wants to come flying, but is scared to. I've tried pretty hard to get her to come (and so have some friends who come flying with me frequently) and its always a negative. I'd never pressure anyone except she repeatedly insists that she wants to try it. She is one of those scaredy-cats who is terrified of everything (ghosts, distant thunder to name a few) and I think wants to 'conquer' some of her fears. I kinda doubt she'll like flying and she'll probably freak out at the first hint of turb but since she wants to conquer her fears i'm willing to try a short hop on a nice, smooth day. She freaks out regularly and would not hold it against me.

 

[TommyG]

Just remember, There are no old bold pilots! I always tell people there are too many things out there that can kill me anyway. I ride a motorcycle, I play it safe and set my limitations, I won't ride during rush hour, rain, or chance of rain. I don't go flying if I feel there's a good chance of bad weather, if I think something is wrong with the plane, etc. I never live in fear, and I most importantly don't live with "What If's". I look at a situation and think what are my chances of something going wrong. If the risk goes up, I don't go. If something happens when I go. I will handle it my best and make the smart decision at that time. Know your limitations and what you are capable of, the more you fly the less limitations you will have, but some will always be there, it's the fools that feel they have none.

 

[Jim Logajan]

You can't fly GA and declare yourself exempt from GA statistics. Same as saying: I only smoke cigarettes on weekends/after a drink/don't inhale/etc so the cancer statistics don't apply to me...
Those retarded pilots that crash doing stupid things are you and me.

Aircraft accidents are not generally random events just because we happen to use statistics to analyze them.

If I were relying only on statistical analysis (I would never rely only on that) then if I want to lower my risk, I should find the statistical subcategories that show the lowest risks and do whatever is needed to move myself into one of those subcategories.

Of course, it is possible to find via statistics some useless subcategories - like discovering people who wear green underwear are never involved in accidents and then attempting to emulate them in hopes of reducing one's risk.

It is possible to "exempt" oneself from the worst of the statistics by analyzing not just the statistics, but the causal chains and acting accordingly. (This happens to be true of the smoking example; according to statistics and reasonable causal mechanisms, there are things one can do to lower the probability of getting lung cancer and still smoke.)

 

[Palmpilot]

I can't prove it either, but I am speculating it is safer than automobile travel, especially if you compare "incidents", not just fatalities.

The data I have seen indicates that cars have more accidents per mile than even GA aircraft, but GA aircraft have five times as many fatal accidents, so if you eliminate the roughly 80% of fatal accidents that the Nall report classifies as "pilot-related," that would seem to put you about even with cars. Of course, these data are not precise, but they can give us a rough idea.

 

[PW_Plack]

...Actually if you could pull turbine aircraft (as I mentioned earlier) out of general aviation then motorcycles would be safer...

It's important to realize that many of the factors that make turbines statistically safer have nothing to do with engine reliability. When you start getting into corporate, fractional, and other kinds of flying in which safety is professionally managed and audited, it mitigates the human factors which cause most accidents.

I suspect that if you had a professional dispatch department double-checking your weather, a second set of eyes on weight-&-balance, hard limits on duty time and crew rest, frequent flight reviews and recurrent training, and closer monitoring of your physical fitness, your piston aircraft could close the gap substantially.

 

[kontiki]

The way I see it, the big difference between flying and driving is that a terrible flying accident is likely to involve falling where a terrible driving accident will not.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Thinking yourself safe enough to beat the odds sure sounds like a dangerous attitude to me.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Thinking yourself safe enough to beat the odds sure sounds like a dangerous attitude to me.

Your sentence doesn't make sense. Be careful what you are trying to say, because it is very dangerous to treat airplane accidents as random events whose probability is not amenable to change.

 

[TMetzinger]

When we talk about the relative risks of flying and driving:

A statistically significant population is more likely to die in a GA plane than in a car, given equal exposure. The rate of fatal accidents is much higher.

The following two facts are true:
Statistics don't describe individuals
You are much less likely to die because of the errors of someone else in a GA plane than you are in a car. So your own ability to trap errors and be safe can have a big effect on your individual safety.

That said, the fatal error rate in GA flying shows that while we may all think we're "above average" like Lake Wobegon children, it's a lousy bet.

Or in plain english:
If you fly a GA airplane with the proper amount of care, you can be safer in your airplane than you are in your car.
but
Most pilots do not fly their GA airplane with the proper amount of care, and so most are not safer in their airplanes than they are in their car.

Trying to convince someone that "flying" is "safe" is a losing game. The best you can do is convince someone that you are careful.

 

[ronnieh]

Paul, that was exactly my point. Blaming a plane for killing somebody is like blaming a gun for killing somebody. I know the turbine engines are many times more reliable however, catastrophic engine failure does not kill as oftern as poor decisions and lack of skills. That is why I said if you take out the turbines then the accident/fatality rate I believe would go way up. No way to prove that since they are all lumped together. You would have to look at every accident and pull out the turbines. Anyway you cut it flying small piston planes is dangerous. On Beech Talk there is a topic called Plane Talk. The thread "Do you ever get cold feet" (last post Feb. 3) has some very good information on this topic.

 

[gismo]

The way I see it, the big difference between flying and driving is that a terrible flying accident is likely to involve falling where a terrible driving accident will not.

Not always the case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osocGiofdvc

There have been plenty of serious aircraft accidents that occurred on the ground.

 

[Palmpilot]

Your sentence doesn't make sense. Be careful what you are trying to say, because it is very dangerous to treat airplane accidents as random events whose probability is not amenable to change.

Good point. Resignation (what's the use?) is one of the FAA-identified hazardous attitudes.

AC 60-22 See page 11 (page 14 of the file)

 

[PW_Plack]

...Anyway you cut it flying small piston planes is dangerous...

Ronnie, my conclusion is subtly different from yours. It is not the reciprocating chunks of forged aluminum that are more dangerous, it's the casual preparation and attitudes of most pilots who typically fly them. Engine failures en route would never lead to a fatality if we all planned far enough ahead to be able to glide to the next airport or flat terrain. Yet, when they occur, NTSB considers engine-outs a primary causal factor in fatal crashes which follow.

This is what I wrestled with through all those months of studying accident reports before I started flying. I took instruction for my Private ASEL in a Champ, but was interested in eventually flying experimental gyroplanes. Groen Brothers Aviation, a developer of that aircraft class, concluded the risk of a fatality in a gyroplane is roughly 23 times as dangerous as in general aviation overall, which means about 2,300 times as deadly per 100,000 hours flown as airline travel.

And yet, based on the laws of physics, they should be the safest of all powered aircraft (and were in the 1930s). They can't stall or spin, won't exceed about +2.5 G no matter how hard you yank on the stick, laugh at turbulence due to very high wing loading, and land at near zero ground speed. Essentially, unless you intentionally enter sustained negative G and unload the rotor to an RPM from which recovery is not possible, a well-designed gyroplane is as benign as an aircraft gets.

What I found in this statistically most-hazardous class was a design issue now gone from the US market, and some training deficiencies, but mainly stupid pilot tricks. This is aggravated by FAA policies which reduce access to training and factory-built machines, and a decades-old outlaw tradition which makes it difficult for a safety culture to catch on. If I hadn't satisfied myself that a major portion of the risk involved human factors, which are within my control to mitigate, I would never have gone forward.

Labeling piston aircraft more dangerous is a little like saying runny noses cause colds. Airplanes don't generally kill pilots. In at least 4 of 5 cases, it's the other way around.

 

[ronnieh]

Paul, did you actually read my last post? I think I said that engine failure is not what kills it is poor decision making and lack of skills. This is more prevalent in the small piston engine aircraft thus making the small piston plane more dangerous. The turbines are normally better equipped, and flown by pilots with more experience and a higher skill level. This is not true in every specific case but is true in general terms. Where do we disagree?

 

[TMetzinger]

Paul, did you actually read my last post? I think I said that engine failure is not what kills it is poor decision making and lack of skills. This is more prevalent in the small piston engine aircraft thus making the small piston plane more dangerous. The turbines are normally better equipped, and flown by pilots with more experience and a higher skill level and a restricted number of choices. This is not true in every specific case but is true in general terms. Where do we disagree?

FTFY, at least where the for-hire ops are concerned. Even part 91 turbine fliers often have similar "rules" enforced by insurance, company policies, or owners.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Thinking yourself safe enough to beat the odds sure sounds like a dangerous attitude to me.

Please explain how this works. I gave you the most common "stupid pilot tracks" and I explained how I manage the risks for each of them. Why am I just as likely as someone who, buzzes the neighorhood for example, to have an incidence with an aircraft?

 

[ronnieh]

Tim, not sure if we just agreed or not. Normally the insurance, company policy and the owners are concerned with experience and training or did I miss something? Not sure about the "choices".

 

[TMetzinger]

Thing like "no circling approaches at night", "no starting an approach if the weather is reported below minimums", and other choices (often risky ones) that folks operating privately under part 91 are free to try but folks operating for hire, or under tighter rules or advanced training are not free to try (or are better educated on the risks).

So we're in agreement. There's more flight discipline (in general) when you move up to bigger/faster/more capable aircraft, just because of the training environment.

 

[PW_Plack]

...Where do we disagree?

Ronnie, only in the conclusions, "making the small piston plane more dangerous" and "Anyway you cut it flying small piston planes is dangerous."

I think there are ways you can "cut it" to make flying small piston planes about as safe as flying turbines.

There are actually risks in the turbine world we don't have in the piston world. If I'm planning to fly my wife to dinner and the weather turns iffy, I'll cancel the reservation for the 172 and eat closer to home. The guy who's flying paying passengers will have to manage the clouds and ice.

 

[ronnieh]

OK, Tim my bad. You are saying that colmmercial operators often have those rules and part 91 MAY have them, often due to insurance, company policy, or owners. Got it. We are in agreement.
Paul, if it makes you more comfortable to think you can make flying small piston planes as safe as turbines, that is fine with me. You do and think whatever makes you the most comfortable. I said before both my wife and I own and ride motorcycles. We always wear helmets, we dress properly (no sandles and shorts) we have a lot of experience, we are very aware of traffic around us, we doln't race or cut traffic and on and on. Motorcycles are very dangerous. Riding exposes us to a lot of danger, I don't try to kid my self. We even quit riding untill the kids were grown. Somebody ask me if I know riding is dangerous I reply yes I do. If they ask me why I do it I tell them because I want to, nuff said.
As for me, as a professional pilot that does fly a turbine for somebody else, I prefer to stay out of the piston planes. That is just me.

 

[gprellwitz]

Hopefully someone (Nate?) can pipe in with the official statistics, but, IIRC, CAP runs an almost all piston fleet with safety statistics similar to the airlines. That indicates to me that it isn't the equipment, or even the altitudes at which we fly, that raise the risk, but the operating characteristics.

 

[Juliett]

Speak slowly and use small words? I've given up trying to convince people that flying is reasonably safe, reasonably doable by just about everyone assuming you've the means and isn't just some environmentally destructive pastime for the rich and famous. If you've got the gene...you've got the gene. If you don't flying is probably just background noise to you.

I've got the gene. Love!

 

[denverpilot]

Hopefully someone (Nate?) can pipe in with the official statistics, but, IIRC, CAP runs an almost all piston fleet with safety statistics similar to the airlines. That indicates to me that it isn't the equipment, or even the altitudes at which we fly, that raise the risk, but the operating characteristics.

Sorry I don't have them off-hand but I can see what the Safety Officer can dig up.

From memory, CAP's accident rate isn't lower, just the fatal accident rate.

Some of that might be the emphasis on continued emergency training and an annual equivalent of a BFR.

(Wings credits now cross-over automatically between online systems. A CAP Form 5 checkride resets the BFR clock if you provide your CAPID in your Wings profile. They're working on credit the other direction for Safety seminars and Safety currency too. We now have a mandatory Safety Briefing every month or you're grounded from all CAP activities.)

This one wasn't fatal this year, for example, but the aircraft was totaled:

http://www.kristv.com/mobile/news/cap-pilot-lands-small-plane-on-conroe-street/

You can Google around for more on that one. Night. Engine failure. Young lady 22 years old did a good job. Walked away. Could have been tragic.

 

[Henning]

Thinking yourself safe enough to beat the odds sure sounds like a dangerous attitude to me.

No worries, I realized I was a dead man waiting a long time ago.

 

[gprellwitz]

Sorry I don't have them off-hand but I can see what the Safety Officer can dig up.

From memory, CAP's accident rate isn't lower, just the fatal accident rate.

Some of that might be the emphasis on continued emergency training and an annual equivalent of a BFR.

(Wings credits now cross-over automatically between online systems. A CAP Form 5 checkride resets the BFR clock if you provide your CAPID in your Wings profile. They're working on credit the other direction for Safety seminars and Safety currency too. We now have a mandatory Safety Briefing every month or you're grounded from all CAP activities.)

This one wasn't fatal this year, for example, but the aircraft was totaled:

http://www.kristv.com/mobile/news/cap-pilot-lands-small-plane-on-conroe-street/

You can Google around for more on that one. Night. Engine failure. Young lady 22 years old did a good job. Walked away. Could have been tragic.

Yeah, I know of that accident. She was a relatively new (<200 hr) pilot too, IIRC.

I thought that the actual accident rate was lower, attributable in part to the requirement to have a formalized mission signed off by others before flying, as well as the recurrent training you mention, but I could certainly be wrong about that.

Edit:
This 2004 article (on the aging pilot population) does not support my contention that the rates are on par with airlines, but does say that they are half the GA rates:

Many of the Civil Air Patrol's roughly 6,000 volunteer pilots are retirees, some who first took to the air as military aviators, and they must take additional tests beyond what FAA requires. The group had half the accident rate of general aviation in the past fiscal year, its officials said -- 3.5 accidents per 100,000 miles flown.

FWIW, it looks as if the CAP accident rates ran between 2.45 and 3.57 between FY08 and FY10, according to http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...w4DaAExcdYcjXGevw&sig2=Sm-_UMhi5vc3nL-l4ZfGPg
Note that these statistics are based on a KNOWN number of hours flown, as compared to the general GA fleet, which is just a guess.

 

[denverpilot]

Looks like you found some data.

You mentioned the formal mission ... there's also a requirement for a formal discussion of operational risks with the Flight Release Officer prior to departure. You have to verbally go through the IMSAFE checklist and a formal risk grading system prior to release.

It's not a perfect system, but it'll wake you up if someone says, "Sounds like you're taking additional risks today. Can you mitigate them somehow?"

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Apparently I suck at riding motorcycles. I dropped several but it was my understanding that is "normal" for a new rider, especially with me weighing a lot less than a heavy bike and not understanding the whole balance thing. Oh and my feet not touching the ground really sucks in regards to balance. I never had an accident, and only rode on weekends / for fun (as a hobby, not as a means of transportation). I always wore full gear but in belonging to the POA type of forums for motorcyclists, all of the local accidents / fatalities were broadcast there. Many forum members had "RIP whoever" in their sig lines. They often treated the road like a track and that is why I stopped going on group rides. Motorcycles were dangerous, then, to me, because that was my exposure to them. If I'd bought a Harley or something, and gone on weekend rides at / below the speed limit for the joy of seeing the outdoors, it may have turned out differently. My "motorcycle friends" rode crotch rockets and were into the speed and did track days. So yeah that's why I say it is dangerous.

Oh and thanks for all the replies to my original question. As one person said, those "types" will never be interested in flying, so why am I trying to tell them how safe it is anyway?

 

[Ted]

Paul, did you actually read my last post? I think I said that engine failure is not what kills it is poor decision making and lack of skills. This is more prevalent in the small piston engine aircraft thus making the small piston plane more dangerous.

Poor decision making makes for a dangerous pilot, not a dangerous aircraft. Like saying guns kill people.

In the case of riding motorcycles (a pastime we both enjoy), I agree that it is quite dangerous. The difference in a motorcycle is that good judgement can only help me so much - at some point a truck can still run me over. In an airplane of any sort, certainly some days are just not your day. However, on the whole you can make much more headway towards your safety through decision making than you can on a motorcycle.

The turbines are normally better equipped, and flown by pilots with more experience and a higher skill level. This is not true in every specific case but is true in general terms. Where do we disagree?

I think it's more semantics. When I talk to my passengers, I point out to them that they shouldn't just jump into an airplane with anyone and go off flying. Knowing what I know now, there are some people that I would never have gotten into a plane with early on. I also consider flight in piston twins to be safe, provided that they are appropriately equipped for the conditions and properly maintained with a proficient pilot.

I do fully agree that turbines are typically flown by more experienced pilots, and do tend to be better equipped. How would you compare an experienced pilot flying a junky turbine that has original avionics from the 1970s (let's throw in a KLN90B just to have /G) and compare it to, say, the 310 I fly that has an Aspen, 530W, de-ice, and KWX56? Assume the same experienced pilot flying both planes.

 

[Everskyward]

I do fully agree that turbines are typically flown by more experienced pilots, and do tend to be better equipped. How would you compare an experienced pilot flying a junky turbine that has original avionics from the 1970s (let's throw in a KLN90B just to have /G) and compare it to, say, the 310 I fly that has an Aspen, 530W, de-ice, and KWX56? Assume the same experienced pilot flying both planes.

Wait, a KLN90B is junky? We thought that was state of the art. Wait until you use a Trimble 2101 I/O. Truthfully I'd rather be flying a King Air with a KLN90B than a 310 with any kind of avionics.

 

[Ted]

Wait, a KLN90B is junky? We thought that was state of the art. Wait until you use a Trimble 2101 I/O.

Oh, I know they can get much, much junkier. I was just making a point.

Truthfully I'd rather be flying a King Air with a KLN90B than a 310 with any kind of avionics.

This was the root of what I was asking. We talk about turbines being better equipped. Certainly you get pressurization with them, and typically they do have nice avionics stacks. However, when you take a look at say an old King Air 90, you don't have great aircraft performance overall. One of my friends has a T310R that's got better performance (takeoff, climb, and cruise) and avionics than a lot of old King Air 90. The 310 I fly isn't far behind.

 

[AuntPeggy]

That's true. The latest Nall report shows 72% of non-commercial fixed wing GA accidents being "pilot-related," and only 14% mechanical. (See Figure 7).

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/09nall.pdf

So many things are chalked up to pilot error because simple safety measures that are available in autos as a matter of course are out of the question for light aircraft because the FAA mandated "safety" requirements either make them cost 10 times as much or they are simply unavailable because manufacturers won't make them.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Apparently I suck at riding motorcycles. I dropped several but it was my understanding that is "normal" for a new rider, especially with me weighing a lot less than a heavy bike and not understanding the whole balance thing. Oh and my feet not touching the ground really sucks in regards to balance. I never had an accident, and only rode on weekends / for fun (as a hobby, not as a means of transportation). I always wore full gear but in belonging to the POA type of forums for motorcyclists, all of the local accidents / fatalities were broadcast there. Many forum members had "RIP whoever" in their sig lines. They often treated the road like a track and that is why I stopped going on group rides. Motorcycles were dangerous, then, to me, because that was my exposure to them. If I'd bought a Harley or something, and gone on weekend rides at / below the speed limit for the joy of seeing the outdoors, it may have turned out differently. My "motorcycle friends" rode crotch rockets and were into the speed and did track days. So yeah that's why I say it is dangerous.

Oh and thanks for all the replies to my original question. As one person said, those "types" will never be interested in flying, so why am I trying to tell them how safe it is anyway?

Yeah. It's best to not take it seriously. I just shrug and say something like, "Journalistic sensationalism. Don't worry, I don't do something dangerous like fighting bulls."