How to talk to non-pilots

I get more friends ask if that was me circling their house the other day than worry if I was in some plane that crashed.

But when people do express concern about small plane safety I usually get a far away look and say, "Man, I haven't crashed in a LOOOONG while.":eek: If pressed on the matter I usually like to point out that I missed the Mooney who was taking on fuel at the time, so what's the big deal?:rofl:

Ya gotta have a sense of humor!:idea:

People who want to fly are the type who FIRST say, "That looks cool," and THEN ask, "How safe is it?" If they ask about safety first, they are probably not small plane people. Ditto for motorcycles (I don't ride), rock climbing (used to do this) and skiing (no way, my knees hurt enough already).

I like to think I'm pretty safe, even as a lower time pilot. I take pride in my no-go calls whether they be due to weather, personal preparation or aircraft issues. I figure that most accidents start before the hangar door even gets unlocked so the better you are pre-flight then the better you should be inflight. Just my theory.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
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.
Click to expand...
No way, the old 90s I flew when I first started here were a big improvement over the 320 in performance and capability. They were even a little faster although they certainly weren't speed demons.
 
Everskyward said:
No way, the old 90s I flew when I first started here were a big improvement over the 320 in performance and capability. They were even a little faster although they certainly weren't speed demons.
Click to expand...

Way. :)

I owned a King Air 90A that had the -20's on it. You are lucky to get it above 16k on a hot day with any sort of a load. Average cruise speed was 200kts and fuel burn of 70gph.

The layer C90C's were a significant improvement, especially when they got away from the -21's.

Many years ago I flew a straight 90 with the old -6's. Even more of a slug than the 90A/B's.
 
I'm extremely new to flying, but am also extremely enthusiastic about it. Sadly, I've found that I can't talk to most people about it, because they're all cerrtain I'm going to die. I work nights and drive home just about the time all the bars are closing. Believe me, it's a lot scarier than flying!!! I've learned to not really care what people think, whether because of their own fears or their ignorance. Most people are so afraid to die that they never really live.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Way. :)

I owned a King Air 90A that had the -20's on it. You are lucky to get it above 16k on a hot day with any sort of a load. Average cruise speed was 200kts and fuel burn of 70gph.

The layer C90C's were a significant improvement, especially when they got away from the -21's.

Many years ago I flew a straight 90 with the old -6's. Even more of a slug than the 90A/B's.
Click to expand...
Clarification is that the old 90s I flew were E90s with the -28 engines. They might have been slugs compared to the 200 but way better than the C-320 I flew immediately before it. I never flew one of those ancient 90s. :)
 
Everskyward said:
No way, the old 90s I flew when I first started here were a big improvement over the 320 in performance and capability. They were even a little faster although they certainly weren't speed demons.
Click to expand...

Rotor&Wing said:
Way. :)

I owned a King Air 90A that had the -20's on it. You are lucky to get it above 16k on a hot day with any sort of a load. Average cruise speed was 200kts and fuel burn of 70gph.

The layer C90C's were a significant improvement, especially when they got away from the -21's.

Many years ago I flew a straight 90 with the old -6's. Even more of a slug than the 90A/B's.
Click to expand...

R&W has the comparison I was looking for. :)

My friend's T310R has the 335 HP RAM engine conversion on it. No problems hitting the flight levels, and he's doing about 230 KTAS up there, with a consistent fuel burn (albeit about 45 gph combined).

Your old base 320 vs. the nicer KAs that you flew, I'd agree fully. But I'm basically comparing a top-of-the-line upgraded piston twin to a bottom-of-the-line KA, which was the point.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Your old base 320 vs. the nicer KAs that you flew, I'd agree fully. But I'm basically comparing a top-of-the-line upgraded piston twin to a bottom-of-the-line KA, which was the point.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you would call those 90s "nicer". They had very old avionics with no GPS. Pretty sure they were late 1970s or early 1980s airplanes.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm not sure you would call those 90s "nicer". They had very old avionics with no GPS. Pretty sure they were late 1970s or early 1980s airplanes.
Click to expand...

Well, at the very least the engines were nicer than the ones I was thinking of. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Well, at the very least the engines were nicer than the ones I was thinking of. :)
Click to expand...
True. :)

I guess in general I am more interested in how an airplane performs than what its avionics are like, that is, if they are at least functional for what it needs to do. If cost was not an issue and someone asked me if I would rather fly the E90 with old avionics or the C-320 with a modern glass panel (which it didn't have) I would pick the E90.
 
Everskyward said:
True. :)

I guess in general I am more interested in how an airplane performs than what its avionics are like, that is, if they are at least functional for what it needs to do. If cost was not an issue and someone asked me if I would rather fly the E90 with old avionics or the C-320 with a modern glass panel (which it didn't have) I would pick the E90.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree overall. I'll take a twin with junky avionics over a single with good any day. Ultimately, you need an airplane that will fit the mission. When I had to fly the Cheyenne a few weeks ago, there was simply nothing less that would have done the job, and if it had been /A we would've still taken it.

But what I was more getting at was that Ronnie was he was pointing out turbines were typically better equipped. I was trying to ascertain whether he has the same philosophy as you, or what exactly.
 
Not exactly sure of your question, Ted. In general the turbines are better equipped over all. Almost all turbines has boots, radar, in addition to better avionics. You can always find an exception. For example, an old A90 that has been rode hard and put up wet verses a rescent complete Colemill conversion on a PA31 like Mike Jones sells. They are always exceptions but again in general the turbines will be more capable than a comparable piston engine.
Having said this I do think the quality of the pilot is very significant in the safety aspect. I will take an old frieght dog in what is left of a C90 as long as it is mechaniclly fit over a fresh 1200 hour ATP in a lear 35.
I still maintain and statistics seem to back me up that small SE piston planes flown by low time pilots are dangerous. Piston twins flown by low time poorly trained pilots are dangerous. However when you move to the twin, GENERALLY pilot quals get better mostly due to insurance requirements. The next step up to turbines GENERALLY have professional pilots with regular professional recurrent training due to insurance. And Generally the aircraft are better equipped.
Some here want to discount this by saying they do this or that to diminish the risk even to the point of being as safe as a turbine. I of course think this is BS. Either we have a large group of low time pilots with a death wish or it is in fact more dangerous.
Again I go back to an activity that my wife and I love, riding our motorcycles. We do the "this and that" to make it as safe as we know how. We have been very fortunate so far. I dropped one bike 35 years ago with minor injuries and she dropped one 8 years ago with no injuries. It is STILL DANGEROUS. In fact it is very dangerous. Statistics show this. Does anyone here doubt the risk in riding a bike. I know, somebody else may cause the accident but the statistics still show it as dangerous. Why do we want to exempt the small SE airplane from its statistics?
Can either activity be made safer, I don't know. Perhaps. But, for now we are not making it safer. The statistics show a dismal record for either activity. For those of you who feel better by convincing yourself you can make it safer then fine. The few who believe they can make small SE aircraft as safe as a turbine, more power to you. Just don't try to convince John Q. Public, they will give you an odd look and think you are crazy. Accept it for what it is, enjoy the activity and be as safe as you can.

Ronnie
 
Ronnie, you've answered the question sufficiently for me, and we're on the same page.

I still believe that there are lots of things one can do to make flying safer vs. not, and statistics and safety programs seem to indicate this. We all know people who are accidents waiting to happen, and it's no surprise when they turn into NTSB reports. I've known them to be ones with 8000 hours often. They get complacent because they have gotten away with being stupid so many times, they think they always will.

That's not to say the lower hour pilots don't have problems, simply due to lack of experience. So we're on the same page.
 
ronnieh said:
Not exactly sure of your question, Ted. In general the turbines are better equipped over all. Almost all turbines has boots, radar, in addition to better avionics. You can always find an exception. For example, an old A90 that has been rode hard and put up wet verses a rescent complete Colemill conversion on a PA31 like Mike Jones sells. They are always exceptions but again in general the turbines will be more capable than a comparable piston engine.
Having said this I do think the quality of the pilot is very significant in the safety aspect. I will take an old frieght dog in what is left of a C90 as long as it is mechaniclly fit over a fresh 1200 hour ATP in a lear 35.
I still maintain and statistics seem to back me up that small SE piston planes flown by low time pilots are dangerous. Piston twins flown by low time poorly trained pilots are dangerous. However when you move to the twin, GENERALLY pilot quals get better mostly due to insurance requirements. The next step up to turbines GENERALLY have professional pilots with regular professional recurrent training due to insurance. And Generally the aircraft are better equipped.
Some here want to discount this by saying they do this or that to diminish the risk even to the point of being as safe as a turbine. I of course think this is BS. Either we have a large group of low time pilots with a death wish or it is in fact more dangerous.
Again I go back to an activity that my wife and I love, riding our motorcycles. We do the "this and that" to make it as safe as we know how. We have been very fortunate so far. I dropped one bike 35 years ago with minor injuries and she dropped one 8 years ago with no injuries. It is STILL DANGEROUS. In fact it is very dangerous. Statistics show this. Does anyone here doubt the risk in riding a bike. I know, somebody else may cause the accident but the statistics still show it as dangerous. Why do we want to exempt the small SE airplane from its statistics?
Can either activity be made safer, I don't know. Perhaps. But, for now we are not making it safer. The statistics show a dismal record for either activity. For those of you who feel better by convincing yourself you can make it safer then fine. The few who believe they can make small SE aircraft as safe as a turbine, more power to you. Just don't try to convince John Q. Public, they will give you an odd look and think you are crazy. Accept it for what it is, enjoy the activity and be as safe as you can.

Ronnie
Click to expand...

Look at the cost of flight safety or equivalent. If non-professional pilots regardless of experience spent half that much on focused training every year they would be a lot safer too. Instead we have them drop $100 for some B.S. IPC in a sim that does nothing followed by a BFR that does little. No type specific training, no accident analysis, etc. Look how much better the safety record is for pilots who attend annualized rigorous type specific non-professional training (BPPP, COPA, etc.).
 
I agree Alex but just to be accurate I do not believe BPPP or COPA provide training in aircraft that requires a type rating. They give make and model specific training. The larger training centers do have type specific training for aircraft that require it. All or your turbo jets require type specific sims per FAR's for the FAR required training. The smaller planes like the King Airs, Cheyennes and so forth may have make and model specific depending on insurance requirements. They are some sims out there for piston twins that are make and model specific but, many are generic. However, your point is well taken.
 
ronnieh said:
I agree Alex but just to be accurate I do not believe BPPP or COPA provide training in aircraft that requires a type rating. They give make and model specific training. The larger training centers do have type specific training for aircraft that require it. All or your turbo jets require type specific sims per FAR's for the FAR required training. The smaller planes like the King Airs, Cheyennes and so forth may have make and model specific depending on insurance requirements. They are some sims out there for piston twins that are make and model specific but, many are generic. However, your point is well taken.
Click to expand...

I meant type as make and model specific training, bad choice of words on my part. Sounds like we're in agreement anyway. I wonder if insurance didn't require it, how many part 91 operators of turbines would spend the money?
 
Heck of a question. I know we would because the owner is very safety concious. His wife and kids are on the plane a lot along with other family members. If insurance did not require it I suspect the price of the training would come way down on the turbo props. The turbo jets are required by the FAR's and the sim training is cheaper and better than useing the plane. JMO, but I suspect many would not avail them selves to the training, expecially the smaller turbo props that may be owner flown.
 
Part 91 encompasses a whole lot of things from owner-flown airplanes to fleets owned by large corporations so it would be hard to come up with a general answer for that.
 
Everskyward said:
Part 91 encompasses a whole lot of things from owner-flown airplanes to fleets owned by large corporations so it would be hard to come up with a general answer for that.
Click to expand...

I would argue that most of the differences in your examples of the spectrum come back to insurance, direct to the operation of the aircraft or otherwise. My point is that if operators had the freedom to choose how much and what kind of training they did (just like a private pilot), if any (beyond the FAR minimum requirements), what would they do? Further, would they become as "unsafe" as the typical private pilot?
 
Alexb2000 said:
I meant type as make and model specific training, bad choice of words on my part. Sounds like we're in agreement anyway. I wonder if insurance didn't require it, how many part 91 operators of turbines would spend the money?
Click to expand...

The ones who don't need it would go. The ones who do need it wouldn't.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
I already don't like that answer. I rode motorcyles and quit due to everyone dying or having life-long injuries. Motorcycles are dangerous.
Click to expand...

I deal with this type of thing constantly as an aviation safety advisor.

The best way to handle this issue is to keep it simple. Stay away from statistics. That bores people to death, leaves the question unanswered for them as they have no proof you are right or wrong and most likely won't be researching it one way or the other.
The best approach is simply to say that flying is as safe or unsafe as an individual makes it. Be professional, be confident without being arrogant, and stress your PERSONAL APPROACH to safety.
Dudley Henriques
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top