Accident rates during instruction

Yes, I read "The Killing Zone" which also shows primary training to be relatively safe compared to other times in a pilot's experience.
 
If those helicopters had AOA devices, their accident rate wouldn't have exceeded the airplane accident rate.
 
Should have had an AOA......

If those helicopters had AOA devices, their accident rate wouldn't have exceeded the airplane accident rate.

OK, I've got to give it to Hawaiian guy... his sales tactics are kind of genius. He doesn't even have to do his pitch anymore... he's got everyone doing it for him now!
 
There was a flight school on field that kept our shop busy for years driving rivets and reassembling their planes. Nuff said.
 
Flight training abuses the airplanes, but in general its a much more canned and supervised environment; less prone to fatal accidents by proxy ime. By no means does that mean its immune to fatalities or that one should utilize those nuances to get complacent.
 
Flight training abuses the airplanes, but in general its a much more canned and supervised environment; less prone to fatal accidents by proxy ime. By no means does that mean its immune to fatalities or that one should utilize those nuances to get complacent.
Quite the opposite. I would guess that students are less complacent. They are less likely to shortcut a pre-flight and less likely to fly into a cloud or take off in unfavorable conditions. The statistics appear to bear that out.
 
Quite the opposite. I would guess that students are less complacent. They are less likely to shortcut a pre-flight and less likely to fly into a cloud or take off in unfavorable conditions. The statistics appear to bear that out.
The risk for complacency I was referring to was on the instructor s part.
 
The risk for complacency I was referring to was on the instructor s part.
I suppose, like anything else, there are good instructors and bad ones. I have had both, but most of them have been good and seem to really care about doing things the right way. I would also argue, that it is on the student to make sure he has an instructor that is diligent. It could be argued that you don't know what you don't know, but often you can get a feel for the instructor and if it doesn't feel right, you should seek advice elsewhere.
 
Give these to your students to prevent "accidents"
13090_3.jpg
 

"the rates of fatal accidents during flight instruction are less than half those on non-instructional flights. "

That report does not break out statistics according to make of aircraft, but I recall seeing figures that showed the reverse situation for Cirrus accidents. Actually, it was for "maneuvering" instead of training: accidents while maneuvering were worse with an instructor on board than without. At least that's what I recall from a presentation by a CSIP. Nobody knew why it was so.
 
I suppose, like anything else, there are good instructors and bad ones. I have had both, but most of them have been good and seem to really care about doing things the right way. I would also argue, that it is on the student to make sure he has an instructor that is diligent. It could be argued that you don't know what you don't know, but often you can get a feel for the instructor and if it doesn't feel right, you should seek advice elsewhere.
I would argue that, since the instructor has skin in the game, he has a fairly strong incentive to keep an eagle eye on everything the student is doing, doing his own pre-flight before the student arrives, etc. The only time I can see an instructor getting complacent is when flying with an experienced pilot who is well past the student pilot stage and might even have some advanced ratings. And I've read several stories from CFIs who reported getting lax in their vigilance with high-time pilots and saying "never again" afterward.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying: there are certainly less-conscientious instructors, and the student needs to be a vigilant customer as well. But I suspect the CFI who risks his and his student's lives through negligence is fairly rare in this context.
 
Heresy here - after a few hundred hours, I think recency of experience is more important than total time. A 300 hour PPL who has flown 30 hours in the last month is probably handling the plane better than a 3,000 hour guy who has been off for six months. I mean real flying hours, of course, actual airplane handling, versus straight-and-level, autopilot, FMS, system monitoring flying - pure stick and rudder skills. The higher time guy likely will plan better, etc., of course.

Total time is kinda relative - 10K in airlines, versus 1.5K in fighters, versus 500 hours crop dusting - they don't map the dame. . .
 
Back
Top