Too Damn Many Crashes This Weekend

Some dude called a "consumer help" local talk show this morning... he started with, "So I have a legal question... back in February I hit a pedestrian and killed him..." like it was nothing at all.
 
en it stops being fun its time to quit.

For me, motorcycles stopped being fun when I moved into the city, Lincoln is over 280k people. I grew up riding from the farm to high school in town of about 1200. I quit, I'm a quitter. Gonna drive a cage from now on. Road through Omaha, Dever, Colorado Springs, Rapid City, Sioux Falls but I'm done with it.

I grew up flying out of a town with 800 people. Nearest towered airport was 75 miles away. When I moved to Lincoln flying became even more fun. Lincoln Class C is great to fly in to/out of. Its a lot of fun to fly away for a few days.

I do get fed up with flying too,in the heat or cold or long hours on big trip and yes I give it up for periods due to stress, but I can't imagine quitting.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Got a reference?
Click to expand...
How about the book itself...(I made the mistake of buying it, so I have a copy).
Author Paul Craig looks at fatal general aviation accidents, grouping the accidents by the number of hours the GA pilot had when he crashed/died. Craig lumps them into groups, for every 50 flight hours the pilot had accumulated, ie, crashes by pilots with 0-50 hours, crashes by pilots with 51-100 hours, crashes by pilots by 101-150 hours, etc., between the years of 1983-2000. Craig then proclaims that he sees a spike in accidents by pilots with flight hours between 100 and 400 hours. Problem is, Craig just compares the accident numbers, and not how many pilots make up each of his 50 hour categories.
It is logical to assume that there are more 100 hour pilots than say, 1000 hour pilots. Some GA pilots, after 100, 200, 300 hours, stop flying for what ever reason...personal reasons, finances, death, loss of medical, taking on other hobbies, etc. So, when Craig looks at the numbers and states, "There were 450 fatalities by 100-150 hour pilots, but only 100 fatalities by 951-1000 hour pilots..." without looking at how many 100 hour pilots vs 1000 hour pilots make up the GA pilot pool, he then draws the flawed conclusion that 100 hour pilots are 4.5x more likely to crash as 1000 hour pilots. What if there were 50,000 100-hour pilots between 1983-2000, but only 5000 1000-hour pilots?
I'd not find it hard to believe that low time pilots are more likely to crash, I just would not agree with Craig's numbers....
 
tawood said:
Craig just compares the accident numbers, and not how many pilots make up each of his 50 hour categories..
Click to expand...

That is what frustrated me about that book, and why I stopped reading it.
 
tawood said:
How about the book itself...(I made the mistake of buying it, so I have a copy).
Author Paul Craig looks at fatal general aviation accidents, grouping the accidents by the number of hours the GA pilot had when he crashed/died. Craig lumps them into groups, for every 50 flight hours the pilot had accumulated, ie, crashes by pilots with 0-50 hours, crashes by pilots with 51-100 hours, crashes by pilots by 101-150 hours, etc., between the years of 1983-2000. Craig then proclaims that he sees a spike in accidents by pilots with flight hours between 100 and 400 hours. Problem is, Craig just compares the accident numbers, and not how many pilots make up each of his 50 hour categories.
It is logical to assume that there are more 100 hour pilots than say, 1000 hour pilots. Some GA pilots, after 100, 200, 300 hours, stop flying for what ever reason...personal reasons, finances, death, loss of medical, taking on other hobbies, etc. So, when Craig looks at the numbers and states, "There were 450 fatalities by 100-150 hour pilots, but only 100 fatalities by 951-1000 hour pilots..." without looking at how many 100 hour pilots vs 1000 hour pilots make up the GA pilot pool, he then draws the flawed conclusion that 100 hour pilots are 4.5x more likely to crash as 1000 hour pilots. What if there were 50,000 100-hour pilots between 1983-2000, but only 5000 1000-hour pilots?
I'd not find it hard to believe that low time pilots are more likely to crash, I just would not agree with Craig's numbers....
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to write this response. Much appreciated! :thumbsup:
 
Cluemeister said:
That is what frustrated me about that book, and why I stopped reading it.
Click to expand...

Read it and thought the stats were off, but the categories of accidents were good self checks as in :"Don't do that."

As a mathematical treatise, not so good. As a self education and reminder that many GA accidents are preventable by the pilot, pretty good. IMHO.
 
If it weren’t dangerous, everyone would do it and it wouldn’t be cool.
 
Amazing how the ONLY thing that people discredit Paul Craig's book (The Killing Zone) is on his statistics evaluations. Same crap on amazon (2 out of almost 100 positives cited stats abuse). This book is not about statistics, but about learning how to stay alive. Good grief people! The link posted previously to aopa's statistics are a mess as well. This is a GREAT book! Especially for newer low time pilots! People crapping on this thing just for stats is madness. Read the whole thing. Perhaps some day you won't end up on Kathryn's. I literally forced my son to read it (or else you're paying for your next flying lesson yourself). This book should be like candy to any low/new/moderate time pilots. 30 bucks is cheap insurance.
 
Challenged said:
Maybe I'm just jealous that some of you can partake in GA without any concerns about safety, it's certainly something that I think about a good bit.
Click to expand...

People definitely have different levels of risk tolerance and even needs for risk and excitement.

I know the risks but on most flights don’t worry about it once flying. Of course, there are some circumstances that bring it to the foreground .
 
Keith, I stand by everything I said. Catastrophic engine loss in certificates aircraft is still rare, and engines usually don’t go without warning. Midair’s are rare as hen’s teeth.

All that said, statistics are only part of perception. If your experiences have convinced you our avocation is too dangerous, nothing I can say will change it. I can only wish you good luck and Godspeed.
 
Generally I have about 4 or 5 minutes of concern per flight. The couple of minutes taking off and the couple of minutes landing. It’s not worry, but a heightened sense of “be on your toes boy”. The rest of the time I have options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top