It it all worth it?

You really have to think about managing your risks when flying....
I got a good chuckle recently watching a YouTube video. I was watching one put out by Matt Guthmiller. Here is a young man who has flown around the world solo, and flown hundreds of hours since then all over the United States and other countries. He flies his single-engine Bo frequently in IMC conditions, and also at night. Yet, in this video, he was flying over the Everglades in Florida. He said that the thought of an engine failure over the Everglades is far more scary to him than an engine out at night or in IMC. The thought of the snakes and alligators below him was more terrifying to him. Risk can be defined differently for each of us.
 
Walk away if you want to. There is no shame in your decision.
You chose to fly, you did. If you choose to stop flying, so be it.
If anyone judges you against your personal choices, they will be the ones who are wrong for their actions, not you and your actions.

With that said...

hell yes it's worth it ;)
 
He said that the thought of an engine failure over the Everglades is far more scary to him than an engine out at night or in IMC.

Yeah, when you're flying down to Key West, there comes a point where the choice you have to make in the event of an engine failure is "would I rather be eaten by sharks or alligators?" :eek:
 
Yeah, when you're flying down to Key West, there comes a point where the choice you have to make in the event of an engine failure is "would I rather be eaten by sharks or alligators?" :eek:
LOL. Some choice!
 
I got a good chuckle recently watching a YouTube video. I was watching one put out by Matt Guthmiller. Here is a young man who has flown around the world solo, and flown hundreds of hours since then all over the United States and other countries. He flies his single-engine Bo frequently in IMC conditions, and also at night. Yet, in this video, he was flying over the Everglades in Florida. He said that the thought of an engine failure over the Everglades is far more scary to him than an engine out at night or in IMC. The thought of the snakes and alligators below him was more terrifying to him. Risk can be defined differently for each of us.
I'm with him!!!
 
Jee wiz that is a lot of engine failures. Even with that many hours.
Cessna 172 Rental was a stuck valve. I pulled the throttle back because it was rough and it stopped. If I was higher, I probably could have restarted.

My Luscombe had the wrong fuel valve installed, which broke. I thought it was on, but it was only partially on.

A young friend flying a 172 has had two semi-emergency landings. Luckily I was on board for both and kept him calm and I talked him through the landings. I could have taken over, but he did great. In one, the top half of the spark plug came off with a loud bang. Engine became really rough and we were slowly losing altitude. The one the other day sounds like the throttle cable slipped... they'll pull the cowling today.

The Chief was a weirdest one. My friend owned the plane and flew it for a couple of years. I started flying it and put a lot of hours on it. He decided to change out the glass on the old Model A fuel gauge. When doing this, he changed out the gasket as well. I was flying a few days later when the engine started running rough. I pulled the carb heat on and it smoothed out. I put the carb heat back in and it got rough again. Eventually, even with the carb heat on, it was rough. I headed toward a towered airport in case I needed help. The engine quit when I was talking to them. I made it to the airport. Turned out the previous owner had put the incorrect fuel cap on the plane and it wasn't venting properly. It was getting air through the old fuel gauge. When he put a new gasket on it, he blocked the vent! Even the simplest fixes can cause issues!
 
You really have to think about managing your risks when flying. For me, the love of aviation keeps me going, but I've seen some walk away. I've known several pilots who were killed in crashes, and I also lost 7 family members in a crash. I've had an emergency landing when an engine failed on a rental plane. I've had a crash when my engine failed in my Luscombe. I had the engine stop in an Aeronca Chief and I was able to glide back to the airport safely. I've had at least 3 other times where I had to return to the airport. One was this weekend. I was flying with a guy who is getting ready for his checkride when he pulled power to land and figured out the RPM wouldn't go below 2,000. We returned to home base. Slowed down as much as possible, then shut off the engine as we crossed the end of the runway.

I have 9700+ hours. I figure I drive 2000 hours a year or more. If I'd had this many close calls in a car, I might quit driving, or buy the biggest car I could find! I love flying though, and I accept the risks of flying planes that are often 70 year old or more.

Your experience is certainly an outlier when it comes to engine problems in piston land. Luscombes, Chiefs, Cubs? Those are all extra small carbed engines, perhaps it's stacking the deck against your favor. No way for me to know, but here's my experience...

...I've had two instances where the vehicle I was driving lost complete power at highway speed. One was a catastrophic camshaft failure (POS VW Beetle turbo my POS exwife used to own), the other a hall sensor failure in a Jeep Cherokee killing the ignition. Both ended in coasting to the shoulder. In an airplane these two incidents would have been dead stick crashes, if we are to normalize for the fact they occurred during "cruise" and the fact I no longer concern myself with the proposition of "making it back to runways" in a single anymore. I'm much more spring loaded to save the occupants at the expense of the airframe, and happily collect the insurance check. I just don't care about salvaging these things with heroics. My work ticket is protected by the USAF, so on my civilian rating side of things, the FAA can suck it if they don't like the manner or configuration in which I decide to put an airplane down during a power failure.

At any rate, I have had zero such incidents in my flying life. My point is that by your logic, I should stop driving and fly the airplane to work every day. I'm still driving of course, and flying. So since "my perception is my reality", I am not anywhere near as concerned with these engine failures. They happen, but they don't happen that often in my life. Which is another way of saying, I have to eat the opportunity cost of these things betraying me (low to the ground especially) in the most unexpected of ways. If that's not a risk I'm willing to take then I gotta quit. I'm obviously not there yet.

And bear in mind, I just got my engine mythology blown all to hell this weekend when I heard of a comanche 250 whose NA, independent mag, parallel valve Lycoming engine chunked up in cruise after days of being flown without a hiccup, and what appeared to be mindful mx by a conscientious private pilot with a family makeup identical to mine. Apparently the camshaft grenaded out of the blue, according to the interview. Last I heard the dude is selling the airframe (no damage to it, successful landing on a road) and getting into a Cirrus. The wife seemed shook up enough she's not doing it again without 'assurances'. Can't say I blame the guy. I'm lucky my wife places enough trust in me to not feel paralyzed by these things, plus she legitimately enjoys the travel perks. I recognize not everybody has families as supportive. We have a contributor on here that got hurt badly when his continental betrayed him on takeoff, so there's just no way to insulate from this, other than going turbine. Since that's out for most of us, we either make peace, get a BRS, or get out of this thing.

 
Your experience is certainly an outlier when it comes to engine problems in piston land. Luscombes, Chiefs, Cubs? Those are all extra small carbed engines, perhaps it's stacking the deck against your favor. No way for me to know, but here's my experience...

I don't know if my experiences are that unusual or not. Almost every casual private pilot I talk to has less than 2,000 hours, a lot of them have less than 1,000 hours. What would their experiences be if they quadrupled their flying time? Nobody really knows what would happen if all of these old planes started flying 100s of hours a year instead of 100 every three or four. I understand I have more risk when leaving the ground, but I accept that risk and fly like the engine is going to quit. I've proven it can and will!
 
Yeah, when you're flying down to Key West, there comes a point where the choice you have to make in the event of an engine failure is "would I rather be eaten by sharks or alligators?" :eek:


Bah. The gators in the Everglades aren't the problem, it's the blood-sucking clouds of man-eating mosquitoes that are the real danger.
 
How many users do we have on PoA? How many of those have had a fatal aviation accident that we know of?
 
Cessna 172 Rental was a stuck valve. I pulled the throttle back because it was rough and it stopped. If I was higher, I probably could have restarted.

My Luscombe had the wrong fuel valve installed, which broke. I thought it was on, but it was only partially on.

A young friend flying a 172 has had two semi-emergency landings. Luckily I was on board for both and kept him calm and I talked him through the landings. I could have taken over, but he did great. In one, the top half of the spark plug came off with a loud bang. Engine became really rough and we were slowly losing altitude. The one the other day sounds like the throttle cable slipped... they'll pull the cowling today.

The Chief was a weirdest one. My friend owned the plane and flew it for a couple of years. I started flying it and put a lot of hours on it. He decided to change out the glass on the old Model A fuel gauge. When doing this, he changed out the gasket as well. I was flying a few days later when the engine started running rough. I pulled the carb heat on and it smoothed out. I put the carb heat back in and it got rough again. Eventually, even with the carb heat on, it was rough. I headed toward a towered airport in case I needed help. The engine quit when I was talking to them. I made it to the airport. Turned out the previous owner had put the incorrect fuel cap on the plane and it wasn't venting properly. It was getting air through the old fuel gauge. When he put a new gasket on it, he blocked the vent! Even the simplest fixes can cause issues!

I'm not trying to be critical here...sure, sometimes sh** just happens, but some of those situations seem very preventable to me (not saying it had anything to do with you).
 
I'd like to address those who won't get and instrument rating because they won't stay proficient. I've had the rating since 1979 except for 6 years overseas---that's 33 years of flying. I've averaged about 60 hours/yr over that time, which is probably about average for a recreational pilot. I've logged just over 100 hrs. of actual instrument and 260 of simulated. Staying current is an enjoyable excuse to go flying, and flying with a safety pilot, and being one, have resulted in some wonderful friendships. Don't view staying current as a chore.
 
Jee wiz that is a lot of engine failures. Even with that many hours.

There used to be an old joke on the pilot boards saying most of us fly some real POS aircraft:eek::confused:

Jack has a ton of flight hours so it makes sense. I'm closing in on 800 now, and if I multiplied what I've had x 12 to catch up with Jack, I'm sure there'd be some more flights that had "issues".
 
I'd like to address those who won't get and instrument rating because they won't stay proficient. I've had the rating since 1979 except for 6 years overseas---that's 33 years of flying. I've averaged about 60 hours/yr over that time, which is probably about average for a recreational pilot. I've logged just over 100 hrs. of actual instrument and 260 of simulated. Staying current is an enjoyable excuse to go flying, and flying with a safety pilot, and being one, have resulted in some wonderful friendships. Don't view staying current as a chore.
Seems very reasonable and a good idea.
 
I'm not trying to be critical here...sure, sometimes sh** just happens, but some of those situations seem very preventable to me (not saying it had anything to do with you).
I agree! It starts with plane owners and mechanics making the correct decisions.

When the owner of the Chief replaced the fuel cap, he put the wrong one on it. When my friend bought the plane, it had been flying with this fuel cap for many years. He had no reason to be suspicious of it. Scary stuff.

On my Luscombe, the mechanic ordered the wrong fuel valve and installed it. There was no reason for me to check this. If it hadn't been for the fact that the previous owner of the plane kept all receipts, we might have never figured out what really went wrong. The NTSB classified it as carb ice.
 
I agree! It starts with plane owners and mechanics making the correct decisions.

When the owner of the Chief replaced the fuel cap, he put the wrong one on it. When my friend bought the plane, it had been flying with this fuel cap for many years. He had no reason to be suspicious of it. Scary stuff.

On my Luscombe, the mechanic ordered the wrong fuel valve and installed it. There was no reason for me to check this. If it hadn't been for the fact that the previous owner of the plane kept all receipts, we might have never figured out what really went wrong. The NTSB classified it as carb ice.

Yea...too many stories of aircraft accidents occurring right after they come out of the shop. We're all human though
 
Yea...too many stories of aircraft accidents occurring right after they come out of the shop. We're all human though
Yes, that's why you want the mechanic that worked on the plane to come on its first test flight with you!
 
How many users do we have on PoA? How many of those have had a fatal aviation accident that we know of?

According to the main page, we have 25,549 members.

To my knowledge, we've had four fatals:

1) Vic Steelhammer - IFR approach
2) John Lancaster - Approach to an oil rig
3) Dwight B. Van Zanen - Go-around
4) Daniel Bernath - Insufficient VFR brain reserves - although this one shouldn't count, because we all told him he was going to crash and he persisted in being dumb.

Now, 4/25549 is about one in 6400. Presumably, there have been at least a few people who were lurkers and weren't well-known to the rest of us that have crashed, but nobody knew it because nobody knew their names, so I'm sure the rate is higher, but you could easily call it 1 in 1000 and be pretty accurate.
 
While I wouldn’t dispute the IFR training would increase skills, there is absolutely no chance I will get it. Here is why, I won’t fly if the weather is bad or forecast to get bad. Therefore, I wouldn’t have enough “real IFR” experience to stay proficient. I can’t think of anything more dangerous that thinking that because I once had IFR training, I could fly in “actual” IFR conditions. It isn’t hard at all to avoid flying in IFR conditions in South Florida.
For what it's worth, I live along the Gulf coast, and one of the main ways I use my IR is simply to get up above the clouds into cooler, smoother air in the summer without worrying about whether there will be a hole to get back down at my destination.

If I didn't have my IR, my plane would sit on the ground many days when there was no icing or thunderstorms within 1000 miles, but ceilings were <2000' AGL and I didn't want to fly trapped below them in the hot, bumpy air.

Using an IR doesn't have to mean you're flying in less-than-great conditions. It might just mean you're punching through some annoying clouds.
 
Bah. The gators in the Everglades aren't the problem, it's the blood-sucking clouds of man-eating mosquitoes that are the real danger.

Sometimes it only takes one!

24634647552_51306e4e3a.jpg
 
One of the better ways of determining risk in a hobby is to look at the fatality rate per participant per year. For example, let's say you wanted to take up amateur sports car racing. (I did) If you calculated the fatality rate per mile it might look pretty scary, but since you don't drive all that many miles per race year, it's not so dangerous as the per mile rate would indicate.

In 2017, the last year the FAA has statistics for, there were 209 fatal accidents that killed 347 people. I'm trying to estimate the fatality rate per pilot per year. Now, in a few of those, the pilot survived, but also in a few of those, more than one pilot was killed, so I'm going to stick with the 209 number for number of pilots killed.

Next up, we have to determine how many pilots there are. From the U. S. Civil Airmen Statistics, here's the pilot count by category:

  • Recreational (only):153
  • Sport (only): 6,097
  • Private: 162,455
  • Commercial: 98,161
  • Glider (only ): 18,139
  • Rotorcraft (only): 15,355
  • Airline Transport: 159,825
  • Student: 149,121
I'm going to include all of the first six groups as part of GA. The last two are a little more problematic. What percent of ATPs fly general aviation? I don't know, but I'm going to SWAG 30,000 of them into our count. Also, while it is true that there are almost 150,000 people with student tickets, it's also true that for the last few years that there were approximately 17,000 new private certs earned. It's pretty clear to me that most of that 150,000 students are not active. I'm going to SWAG that there are 3 times as many active students as there are private certs per year, or 51,000. Add that all up and you get 381,360 GA pilots.

Some of those pilots are not active, but I have no figures on that so I'm going to stick with that number. 381,360/209 makes for 1 fatality per 1825 pilots. That's better than for motorcycles, but not greatly so.
 
Last edited:
The death rate in GA is the same as in every other activity: one death per person, sooner or later.
 
Last edited:
It's the "sooner" bit that's the issue.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Agreed. I've never had the mindset that I'm going to die someday, so it doesn't really matter when. Later, much later, is my strong preference!
 
Agreed. I've never had the mindset that I'm going to die someday, so it doesn't really matter when. Later, much later, is my strong preference!


A few years ago, I was in some workshop or class and they asked the deep, insightful, thought-provoking question, "What epitaph would you want written on your tombstone?"

My answer was "Born 1961 - Died 2500"
 
A few years ago, I was in some workshop or class and they asked the deep, insightful, thought-provoking question, "What epitaph would you want written on your tombstone?"

My answer was "Born 1961 - Died 2500"
Seems reasonable!
 
How many users do we have on PoA? How many of those have had a fatal aviation accident that we know of?

According to the main page, we have 25,549 members.

To my knowledge, we've had four fatals:

1) Vic Steelhammer - IFR approach
2) John Lancaster - Approach to an oil rig
3) Dwight B. Van Zanen - Go-around
4) Daniel Bernath - Insufficient VFR brain reserves - although this one shouldn't count, because we all told him he was going to crash and he persisted in being dumb.

Now, 4/25549 is about one in 6400. Presumably, there have been at least a few people who were lurkers and weren't well-known to the rest of us that have crashed, but nobody knew it because nobody knew their names, so I'm sure the rate is higher, but you could easily call it 1 in 1000 and be pretty accurate.

I think Kent has it pretty well summarized. By the way, Kent, thanks for pointing those out - those helped me move a couple threads and also complete the subject lines, since for "Gone West" we're trying to include the user name and the real name of the PoAers who've died (whether in a crash or not).

One thing about PoA is we tend to drive people away who show a wanton disregard for safety and common sense, and also people who fail to take responsibility for their actions. Hence why when you look at this, you've got the "Insufficient VFR brain reserves" (great probable cause, BTW) and the others fall more under the "**** happens". When you read through NTSB reports, I think you end up finding that a large percentage of them fall under the "insufficient brain reserves" category, I'd say the next most probable is "insufficient skills" and then from there you end up with the various mechanical failures/acts of God category that there was really no way to reasonably avoid. I'd place Gary's crash (which fortunately was not fatal) under the "random mechanical failure" that is the risk we all take when we push the throttle(s) forward and commit to the sky. I suspect our numbers are better than the nationwide average, and we've also stipulated that we probably have a similar safety benefit to belonging to a type club, mainly because of the safety mindset we mostly have as a group.

Generally pilots have a higher risk tolerance than the average person. A lot of us also ride motorcycles, drive sports cars, and engage in other activities that are higher risk than driving the minivan to work. Now, we should never think that a crash can't happen to us in any of these activities. We all know it can, but as a motorcycle friend posted on her Facebook a few weeks ago: "I don't ride motorcycles to add years to my life, I ride to add life to my years." Same applies for us with flying.
 
One thing about PoA is we tend to drive people away who show a wanton disregard for safety and common sense, and also people who fail to take responsibility for their actions.


The same was true on a couple of sportbike forums I used to frequent. Squids who rode without helmets and the rest of the gear (ATGATT) or who did stunt riding on public roads were ostracized. They quickly departed if they weren't willing to conform.
 
The same was true on a couple of sportbike forums I used to frequent. Squids who rode without helmets and the rest of the gear (ATGATT) or who did stunt riding on public roads were ostracized. They quickly departed if they weren't willing to conform.

I used to be an ATGATT person and now am more of a boots/jacket/gloves/helmet sort, and will accept jeans in lieu of full on riding pants. So I guess I'm an almost-all-the-gear-all-the-time person now.

Personally I don't much care if other people want to ride with or without gear, but if they're doing stunts/crazy riding on public roads, that'll annoy me. Nick also used to go off about how wearing a helmet was dangerous, and we all told him he was an idiot - because he was. But if you prefer the experience of riding without a helmet and realize it's less safe but it's a risk you're willing to take, have fun. Just don't be surprised if you crash and your brains get splattered all over the road.
 
I used to be an ATGATT person and now am more of a boots/jacket/gloves/helmet sort, and will accept jeans in lieu of full on riding pants. So I guess I'm an almost-all-the-gear-all-the-time person now.

I was wearing helmet, jacket, gloves, boots, and jeans when I had a crash a decade ago. My only real injuries were to my calves and knees, and a few months later I had to have orthoscopic surgery on my left knee. These days, if I decide to wear jeans, I always wear knee/shin protectors underneath.


Personally I don't much care if other people want to ride with or without gear, but if they're doing stunts/crazy riding on public roads, that'll annoy me. Nick also used to go off about how wearing a helmet was dangerous, and we all told him he was an idiot - because he was. But if you prefer the experience of riding without a helmet and realize it's less safe but it's a risk you're willing to take, have fun. Just don't be surprised if you crash and your brains get splattered all over the road.

Agreed, but I don't want to be friends with them. I don't want to visit a friend in the hospital getting skin grafts, or in a coma and hooked up to life support. And I certainly don't want to attend a friend's funeral. People can wear what they like when riding; it's a (semi) free country. But I don't want them in my life.

Anyone who doesn't think their brain is worth protecting with a helmet is 100% correct.
 
I was wearing helmet, jacket, gloves, boots, and jeans when I had a crash a decade ago. My only real injuries were to my calves and knees, and a few months later I had to have orthoscopic surgery on my left knee. These days, if I decide to wear jeans, I always wear knee/shin protectors underneath.

When I lived in PA, one of my coworkers was an avid motorcyclist who'd been riding essentially his whole life. Guy is a fantastic rider, probably the best I've known. Rode motorcycles essentially every day, owned a dozen or so of them.

He'd also crashed a number of times, and his take was that normal jeans had always proven to work well enough for standard riding that he'd accept those as a default.

Of course, it depends on how you crash, which was the fault I always saw in his logic.

Agreed, but I don't want to be friends with them. I don't want to visit a friend in the hospital getting skin grafts, or in a coma and hooked up to life support. And I certainly don't want to attend a friend's funeral. People can wear what they like when riding; it's a (semi) free country. But I don't want them in my life.

Anyone who doesn't think their brain is worth protecting with a helmet is 100% correct.

Fair points. I've found that people who don't choose to wear helmets are generally people I don't want to be friends with anyway for other reasons. The rest of the gear, I've never found any correlation one way or the other.
 
Fair points. I've found that people who don't choose to wear helmets are generally people I don't want to be friends with anyway for other reasons. The rest of the gear, I've never found any correlation one way or the other.
Even tough guys wear helmets here in Texas. They even put them on in the parking lot when I came over with my camera!

17310230_10210660353617519_1823105655850267777_o.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Even tough guys wear helmets here in Texas. They even put them on in the parking lot when I came over with my camera!

17310230_10210660353617519_1823105655850267777_o.jpg

I've always been a full face helmet guy myself.
 
Harley Road Glide or die
 
Back
Top