GA Safety
- Thread starter Downcycle
- Start date
skidoo
Line Up and Wait
I don't see where you get the idea where GA fatality rates have increased over the last 10 years....??? I don't know the precise rates off the top of my head, but I know it has decreased significantly in the last 40.... At worst, I think it has continued to decrease or has leveled off in the last 10... Do you know the actual rates you are referring to? Which years, etc...?
Interesting, I searched the forums but couldn't actually find anything like this. Here is the source: http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Safety-and-Technique/Accident-Analysis/Joseph-T-Nall-Report
For example, the rate of GA accidents has gone from 5.78/100,000 flight-hours in 2000 to 6.60/100,000 flight hours in 2009, and the fatalities have increased from 1.08 to 1.3 over the same time. I think the article I read was using older data, from 2004 maybe, but the idea is the same. Also, these data are for fixed-wing only.
Even if the numbers were decreasing, could we talk to new pilots too much about safety and behaviors to avoid when solidifying their habits and routines?
For example, the rate of GA accidents has gone from 5.78/100,000 flight-hours in 2000 to 6.60/100,000 flight hours in 2009, and the fatalities have increased from 1.08 to 1.3 over the same time. I think the article I read was using older data, from 2004 maybe, but the idea is the same. Also, these data are for fixed-wing only.
Even if the numbers were decreasing, could we talk to new pilots too much about safety and behaviors to avoid when solidifying their habits and routines?
Skip Miller
Final Approach
You have identified one of the variables... namely, nobody knows how many hours or miles teh GA fleet flies. So how can they publish these statistics with a straight face?
Another factor to seriously consider is that most of the accidents or incidents are avoidable. The implication is that the pilot is the most important factor in how safe GA is. I don't have the statistic here but it is commonly referred to that the most common cause of accident/incidents in GA is running out of fuel. Really? WTF? Surely you can avoid that in 90% of the cases if the pilot has any safety culture at all. -Skip
Another factor to seriously consider is that most of the accidents or incidents are avoidable. The implication is that the pilot is the most important factor in how safe GA is. I don't have the statistic here but it is commonly referred to that the most common cause of accident/incidents in GA is running out of fuel. Really? WTF? Surely you can avoid that in 90% of the cases if the pilot has any safety culture at all. -Skip
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
I use the motorcycle analogy like your example. You can get on a motor cycle and be dead by the time you cross the next intersection if you are stupid, or you can ride responsible and go 10s of thousands of miles with no incidents. I too rode bike in SOCAL for 10,000 miles.... never had a problem.
Airplanes are the same, you can be dead by the end of the runway doing stupid things, or you can learn aviation and become a skilled ( practicing) pilot. The choice is yours.
Airplanes are the same, you can be dead by the end of the runway doing stupid things, or you can learn aviation and become a skilled ( practicing) pilot. The choice is yours.
Last edited:
Downcycle, I bumped that thread up so you can find it if you are interested.
BTW the report you are talking about also includes corporate turbine aircraft flown by professional pilots. If you removed that segment of general aviation from the Nall report you would get a truer look at the accident rate. The corporate aviation skews the results making general aviation (small piston) appear safer than it is. Just a thought.
BTW the report you are talking about also includes corporate turbine aircraft flown by professional pilots. If you removed that segment of general aviation from the Nall report you would get a truer look at the accident rate. The corporate aviation skews the results making general aviation (small piston) appear safer than it is. Just a thought.
So I found the other thread with the exact same name, and realized that I was limiting my search too much, so sorry for rehashing this. However, to respond to your comment about GA flight hours, the T. Nall report says that it does know how many hours the GA fleet flies, and it puts that number at about 18 million hours in 2009. Is that not right, do they not really know that? And to your other comment, about most common causes of accidents, the report also says that most common cause of fatalities is actually weather related (VFR to IMC) at 11.2%, followed by takeoff and climb at 10.7% and "other" at 10.4%. Fuel management is second to last at 3.4% with landings last at 2.6%.
So maybe to partially answer my own question, the best way to avoid the weather component is to get a good GPS with realtime weather. Ok, so that's 11.2% I can avoid in weather, and 3.4% I can avoid with proper fuel management, but what about the 10.7% with takeoff and climb, and the 10.4% of "other"? Maybe these are questions I should save for my instructor.
So maybe to partially answer my own question, the best way to avoid the weather component is to get a good GPS with realtime weather. Ok, so that's 11.2% I can avoid in weather, and 3.4% I can avoid with proper fuel management, but what about the 10.7% with takeoff and climb, and the 10.4% of "other"? Maybe these are questions I should save for my instructor.
I'm only a student so my opinion may not carry a lot of merit. But isn't some where around 65% of all accidents pilot error? So if that is actually the case then in reality flying safely is up to you. My sky dive instructor told me your as safe as you choose to be. I for one was never in a hurry checking my gear and I'm not in a hurry preflighting my plane either.
Downcycle and James. I hesitate to get involved in this same discussion that has been recently hashed to death. I think the previous thread is worth looking at.
I will just point out a couple observations. In the interest of full disclosure I have not instructed in close to 15 years and the majority of my time has been in 135 and corporate aviation. Compared to many on this board I am a relatively low time pilot with just under 7000 hours. The following are opinions.
As to the safety, private pilots in small piston planes is a dangerous activity. You can read the statistics just like I can. As I mentioned earlier, if you removed corporate aviation from the study it gets much worse. You can make up your own mind as to how dangerous.
There are many issues and the following are a few IMO. First the bar is set very low for the private pilot. Really how much do you think you can learn spending perhaps 30 hours with an instructor? To fix this would make the PPL so expensive few could afford to get it.
Because the bar is so low, there is a saying; you don't know what you don't know. An example from your last post. "I guess I need to get a good GPS with real time weather. I am not aware of any GPS that displays real time weather". Many can display NEXRAD down loaded from XM. They show precipitation and some will show lightning strikes. Most important it shows where precipitation was. It is not real time. It will not show low ceilings, fog, clouds or poor visibility due to smog and a host of things that can get you into trouble.
Like I said this has been beat to death on this forum. There are two very general schools of thought on this forum. One is that through various processes you can remove yourself from the demographic in question. The other is that it is dangerous, perhaps you can mitigate some of the danger if you live long enough to figure out some of what you don't know.
I think the best advice might be learn all you can, fly often keeping proficient as you can. After your PPL you might be able to find a seasoned pilot as a mentor, perhaps a retired freight dog.
I will just point out a couple observations. In the interest of full disclosure I have not instructed in close to 15 years and the majority of my time has been in 135 and corporate aviation. Compared to many on this board I am a relatively low time pilot with just under 7000 hours. The following are opinions.
As to the safety, private pilots in small piston planes is a dangerous activity. You can read the statistics just like I can. As I mentioned earlier, if you removed corporate aviation from the study it gets much worse. You can make up your own mind as to how dangerous.
There are many issues and the following are a few IMO. First the bar is set very low for the private pilot. Really how much do you think you can learn spending perhaps 30 hours with an instructor? To fix this would make the PPL so expensive few could afford to get it.
Because the bar is so low, there is a saying; you don't know what you don't know. An example from your last post. "I guess I need to get a good GPS with real time weather. I am not aware of any GPS that displays real time weather". Many can display NEXRAD down loaded from XM. They show precipitation and some will show lightning strikes. Most important it shows where precipitation was. It is not real time. It will not show low ceilings, fog, clouds or poor visibility due to smog and a host of things that can get you into trouble.
Like I said this has been beat to death on this forum. There are two very general schools of thought on this forum. One is that through various processes you can remove yourself from the demographic in question. The other is that it is dangerous, perhaps you can mitigate some of the danger if you live long enough to figure out some of what you don't know.
I think the best advice might be learn all you can, fly often keeping proficient as you can. After your PPL you might be able to find a seasoned pilot as a mentor, perhaps a retired freight dog.
VWGhiaBob
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 884
- Display Name
Display name:
VWGhiaBob
As someone who pretty much studied it all:
1. It's a lot more dangerous than driving, overall.
2. There are MANY things you can do to cut the risk dramatically, but they involve sacrifices. Most importantly, don't rely on GA planes as "must get there" machines. Many accidents are GA pilots flying when they shouldn't because they "have to be at work on Monday."
3. Study Study Study. For some of the best free instruction go to: http://www.thefinerpoints.net/ .
4. Get a plane with traffic if you live in a congested area like I do.
5. Don't fly at night until you can fly with instruments.
6. Weather bad? Forget it.
7. Make yourself check weather details, even for short flights.
8. Follow your checklists every time and if something isn't right, DON'T fly. Supplement the checklist with your memory so that everything gets checked twice.
My guess is if you do the above, flying is still quite a bit riskier than driving. But not 12 times risker. But again, this is a guess.
1. It's a lot more dangerous than driving, overall.
2. There are MANY things you can do to cut the risk dramatically, but they involve sacrifices. Most importantly, don't rely on GA planes as "must get there" machines. Many accidents are GA pilots flying when they shouldn't because they "have to be at work on Monday."
3. Study Study Study. For some of the best free instruction go to: http://www.thefinerpoints.net/ .
4. Get a plane with traffic if you live in a congested area like I do.
5. Don't fly at night until you can fly with instruments.
6. Weather bad? Forget it.
7. Make yourself check weather details, even for short flights.
8. Follow your checklists every time and if something isn't right, DON'T fly. Supplement the checklist with your memory so that everything gets checked twice.
My guess is if you do the above, flying is still quite a bit riskier than driving. But not 12 times risker. But again, this is a guess.
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
If you have to parse the odds it is too dangerous for you.
DavidWhite
Final Approach
I don't like the bike analogy that much - a soccer mom won't t-bone you running through a red light at an intersection while texting in an airplane. I think riding a motorcycle is 80% skill and 20% luck, while flying an airplane is probably closer to 95% skill.
Although, like you said, you can mitigate lots of risks on bikes by obeying the golden rule - don't be a dumbass. Same thing applies for an airplane. 9/10 engine failures are because air suddenly filled up the tanks.
Although, like you said, you can mitigate lots of risks on bikes by obeying the golden rule - don't be a dumbass. Same thing applies for an airplane. 9/10 engine failures are because air suddenly filled up the tanks.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,928
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
The motorcycle analogy works well because of rough order of magnitude of safety. The difference is that you are the most likely cause of a crash in a plane, and the least likely on a motorcycle. So really, most of GA safety is up to you.
However, human factors list a lot of equipment considerations that aid your ability to not crash. That has been the majority of the investment we've made into the 310 over the past few years - tools that help the human factors aspects as well as reliability.
You would be wise to read up on human factors and read lots of NTSB reports so that those who have perished will not have died in vain. Right now I'm reading an interesting book that looks at human factors in crashes. If you get through the author's obvious belief in his personal status as a hero, it has some interesting human factors issues that gives you ideas for things to watch out for, and perhaps considerations in equipment. One crash I read last night included a poorly designed altimeter that was hard to read, and reading gauges has come up in multiple crashes. So, LED panel lights (brighter and I find their light spectrum beneficial for reading instruments/gauges) ought to help that.
One other crash was fuel exhaustion, believed to be motivated by pilots spending less money on fuel so they could pocket the cash. By this token, American Express should prevent fuel exhaustion.
However, human factors list a lot of equipment considerations that aid your ability to not crash. That has been the majority of the investment we've made into the 310 over the past few years - tools that help the human factors aspects as well as reliability.
You would be wise to read up on human factors and read lots of NTSB reports so that those who have perished will not have died in vain. Right now I'm reading an interesting book that looks at human factors in crashes. If you get through the author's obvious belief in his personal status as a hero, it has some interesting human factors issues that gives you ideas for things to watch out for, and perhaps considerations in equipment. One crash I read last night included a poorly designed altimeter that was hard to read, and reading gauges has come up in multiple crashes. So, LED panel lights (brighter and I find their light spectrum beneficial for reading instruments/gauges) ought to help that.
One other crash was fuel exhaustion, believed to be motivated by pilots spending less money on fuel so they could pocket the cash. By this token, American Express should prevent fuel exhaustion.
kontiki
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,124
- Display Name
Display name:
Kontiki
Maybe A little corny, but
to paraphrase that old freedom fighter poster, "your mind is your primary weapon."
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
How can that possible happen? Rules say you are suppose to have 1/2 min at all times?
The hard part of this hobby is how grey every decision is. With sufficient conservative decision making almost any flight can be cancelled and you can feel like you are being too aggressive at the same time. It's maddening to be safety focused.
Keep a viable backup plan at all times. Have some hard limits. Be ready to learn from the mistakes you get away with.... don't let them lower your bar and make you think you can get away with anything other than luck.
Keep a viable backup plan at all times. Have some hard limits. Be ready to learn from the mistakes you get away with.... don't let them lower your bar and make you think you can get away with anything other than luck.
Ronnie, maybe I'm misunderstanding the product characteristics, or falling prey to the advertising, but from what I've read a product like the Garmin 696 displays "satellite images, METARs, TAFs, TFRs, turbulence forecasts, winds aloft, freezing levels" which seems a great deal more useful than just precipitation. Also, I doubt I will be doing any flying anytime soon at >150 knots and the refresh rate of the weather is said to be less than 5 minutes, meaning I would cover a maximum of ~12 NM in the time it took for the weather to update. Again, I am new so maybe that is more significant than it seems, but I would think that I could look at the maps and project where the weather will be when I get to a certain place, I mean I currently look at the weather before I get in the car to decide if I should bring my umbrella in the morning, and that's a 30 minutes extrapolation.
Also, to ClimbnSink:
How exactly is that helpful? Our brains obviously work differently. I am not an overly cautious person, but if I am going choose to put the most valuable things in existence in a situation, I am going to consider the ramifications of that decision and analyze the data before I make that decision. To not do that would be negligent on my part. For me, part of that is asking the local grey-beards their opinions and everyone in between me and them (in terms of experience) and then formulating my own thoughts. Since I'm not part of a community yet, I thought I would ask here, but as I said in a previous post, maybe I should have waited and just asked at the club. Hopefully they won't feel like this whole safety discussion has been "beaten to death" and will just give me their thoughts, otherwise I there will be another unsafe pilot in the sky. Maybe the better question for this forum is:
Can you give a personal anecdote of a safety lesson you learned first hand? (please share your wisdom, not your cynicism, there's plenty of that elsewhere)
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
1. Perhaps a bit of selection bias in the people you are asking.
2. Worse, much worse, you are already trying to mentally weasel your way out of the statistics.
2. Worse, much worse, you are already trying to mentally weasel your way out of the statistics.
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
dell30rb
Final Approach
This matters because you could have a nasty building storm with a high base that is not dumping rain yet and not showing up on nexrad. Storms can go from no precip to a torrential downpour in 1-2 minutes. Then add 5 minutes for the nexrad delay.
You need to stay in areas of good visibility and visually avoid storms unless you have a weather radar and/or stormscope on the airplane. Its not that hard. Just don't go flying into / around something that looks questionable but you think is okay because its not showing up on nexrad.
Last edited:
jnmeade
Cleared for Takeoff
quote: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2012/120620.html
WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) yesterday issued a Safety Alert to warn pilots using in-cockpit FIS-B and Satellite Weather display systems that the NEXRAD "age indicator" can be misleading. The actual NEXRAD data can be as much as 20 minutes older than the age indication on the display in the cockpit. If misinterpreted, this difference in time can present potentially serious safety hazards to aircraft operating in the vicinity of fast-moving and quickly developing weather systems.
NEXRAD mosaic imagery depicts weather conditions from multiple ground radar sites. The NEXRAD "age-indicator" on the cockpit display indicates the time that the mosaic image was created, not the time of the actual weather conditions. The NEXRAD image is always older than the actual weather conditions.
The NTSB has cited two fatal weather-related aircraft accidents in which NEXRAD images were displayed to the pilot that were presented as one-minute old on the age-indicator, but contained information that was up to five to eight minutes behind the real-time conditions.
In addition to raising pilot awareness on this issue, the Safety Alert also reminds pilots of the importance of obtaining a thorough preflight weather briefing.
The Safety Alert is available at http://go.usa.gov/v0Z.
WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) yesterday issued a Safety Alert to warn pilots using in-cockpit FIS-B and Satellite Weather display systems that the NEXRAD "age indicator" can be misleading. The actual NEXRAD data can be as much as 20 minutes older than the age indication on the display in the cockpit. If misinterpreted, this difference in time can present potentially serious safety hazards to aircraft operating in the vicinity of fast-moving and quickly developing weather systems.
NEXRAD mosaic imagery depicts weather conditions from multiple ground radar sites. The NEXRAD "age-indicator" on the cockpit display indicates the time that the mosaic image was created, not the time of the actual weather conditions. The NEXRAD image is always older than the actual weather conditions.
The NTSB has cited two fatal weather-related aircraft accidents in which NEXRAD images were displayed to the pilot that were presented as one-minute old on the age-indicator, but contained information that was up to five to eight minutes behind the real-time conditions.
In addition to raising pilot awareness on this issue, the Safety Alert also reminds pilots of the importance of obtaining a thorough preflight weather briefing.
The Safety Alert is available at http://go.usa.gov/v0Z.
dell30rb
Final Approach
Some advice:
1) Realize the PPL is a license to learn. Understand you are inexperienced and 'take baby steps'. Give yourself a 'grad school' course once you finish your license. Read a bunch of books and whenever possible, fly with more experienced pilots/instructors.
2) Stay current and always critique yourself. Part of the license to learn thing. You will make mistakes - learn from them. Adhere to best practices such as checklist usage and thorough pre-flight planning.
3) Fly the plane. Many accidents result from pilots who are not current, complacent, or overwhelmed with non-essential tasks (messing up radio calls, nervous about flying into a busy airport etc...) and they simply forget to keep the airplane flying. As you will learn, airplanes can be flown with seemingly minimal effort. But you must pay attention.
4) Maintain Situational Awareness and be resourceful. Do a pre-flight weather check and fuel/trip planning. Then continually update and re-evaulate your plan while flying. Periodically check weather at airports ahead of you, know where you are on the chart. Know how much fuel you have remaining and how much longer until you reach your destination. Know where nearby airports are, and always have options on the table.
5) Be patient. Exercise good ADM (aeronautical decision making) As your experience increases, so will the number of flyable days. But always realize there will be days you shouldn't go flying. And sometimes there will be days where you are flying along with a good forecast but things are starting to go sour. Here in the SE there are airports all over the place. As I mentioned earlier, be resourceful. Land and re-evaluate your flight plan. Occasionally you'll get yourself into a pickle and need to land and wait it out. Happens all the time
1) Realize the PPL is a license to learn. Understand you are inexperienced and 'take baby steps'. Give yourself a 'grad school' course once you finish your license. Read a bunch of books and whenever possible, fly with more experienced pilots/instructors.
2) Stay current and always critique yourself. Part of the license to learn thing. You will make mistakes - learn from them. Adhere to best practices such as checklist usage and thorough pre-flight planning.
3) Fly the plane. Many accidents result from pilots who are not current, complacent, or overwhelmed with non-essential tasks (messing up radio calls, nervous about flying into a busy airport etc...) and they simply forget to keep the airplane flying. As you will learn, airplanes can be flown with seemingly minimal effort. But you must pay attention.
4) Maintain Situational Awareness and be resourceful. Do a pre-flight weather check and fuel/trip planning. Then continually update and re-evaulate your plan while flying. Periodically check weather at airports ahead of you, know where you are on the chart. Know how much fuel you have remaining and how much longer until you reach your destination. Know where nearby airports are, and always have options on the table.
5) Be patient. Exercise good ADM (aeronautical decision making) As your experience increases, so will the number of flyable days. But always realize there will be days you shouldn't go flying. And sometimes there will be days where you are flying along with a good forecast but things are starting to go sour. Here in the SE there are airports all over the place. As I mentioned earlier, be resourceful. Land and re-evaluate your flight plan. Occasionally you'll get yourself into a pickle and need to land and wait it out. Happens all the time
kgruber
Final Approach
GA Safety..........oxymoron!
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
I'm not an ox or a moron so the dismal GA statistics don't apply to me.
Alexb2000
En-Route
Until you get your IR most of the above will not be as important because anything but visual conditions is a no go.
When you do have your IR and go somewhere, that information is very valuable. I match up what I'm seeing out the window with XM and use that make my decisions.
For example I see a cloud bank ahead with some precip in it. It doesn't look too bad from what I can see. I check XM and realize that imbedded in that cloud bank is some extreme precip. with lightning. Now I avoid it. I might do the same thing and notice that there is only a thin band of green (light precip) and no signs of convection. So I would fly through it. BUT then I have to check the OAT to see if I am close to freezing because I fly a non-deiced plane. Perhaps I will fly through it but at a lower altitude to be in warmer air. This is all part of every pilots decision matrix. The key is to work all this out well in advance. Cruising in VFR is the perfect time to be looking ahead, checking weather, and making strategic decisions. Don't be the guy that flies into precip listening to Chill on XM, then when it gets super rough and the rain is pounding like a drum, decides to find out about the weather ahead.
Work to build a good tree and use all of the information available, flight service, controllers, other aircraft, XM, and my favorite just looking out the window. Don't fall in love with anyone input as the gospel, but try to have and use every source of information to make good decisions.
Shepherd
Final Approach
Never take anyone's word for anything. Verify it yourself.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
I currently fly with a 696 as well as Stratus WX on an iPad, in addition to whatever else (stormscope, on-board radar, etc.) might be installed in the airplane.
Those who down-play the value of any weather depiction in the cockpit either have short memories or haven't been around long enough to understand the value. When stormscopes were first available in the 70's pilots of S/E planes that could not accommodate radar were amazed by and benefited greatly from the information provided. I used one for 19 years, mostly in the midwest and and parts of tornado alley, and was never surprised by precip or convective activity that wasn't supposed to be there. Prior to stormscopes, neither pilots nor ATC centers had radar capabilities that would help the little guys, and many pilots died from guessing wrong.
The benefits of having a radar picture, even if 15-20 minutes old, are too numerous to mention. The ability to maintain the big picture of evolving weather over a large area is an incredible advantage, as with a recent trip.
After a fuel stop in Kansas, the first portion of the leg to OSH was +/- IFR with some embedded, but further north we were able to maintain VMC and good margins and arrived with decent VFR conditions. On the first leg home, nothing worked for us and we diverted west to St. Joseph, had lunch and watched the weather move east (real-time at the FBO) and then flew home in severe clear.
Those who down-play the value of any weather depiction in the cockpit either have short memories or haven't been around long enough to understand the value. When stormscopes were first available in the 70's pilots of S/E planes that could not accommodate radar were amazed by and benefited greatly from the information provided. I used one for 19 years, mostly in the midwest and and parts of tornado alley, and was never surprised by precip or convective activity that wasn't supposed to be there. Prior to stormscopes, neither pilots nor ATC centers had radar capabilities that would help the little guys, and many pilots died from guessing wrong.
The benefits of having a radar picture, even if 15-20 minutes old, are too numerous to mention. The ability to maintain the big picture of evolving weather over a large area is an incredible advantage, as with a recent trip.
After a fuel stop in Kansas, the first portion of the leg to OSH was +/- IFR with some embedded, but further north we were able to maintain VMC and good margins and arrived with decent VFR conditions. On the first leg home, nothing worked for us and we diverted west to St. Joseph, had lunch and watched the weather move east (real-time at the FBO) and then flew home in severe clear.
Downcycl1230566 said:
jnmeade
Cleared for Takeoff
Wayne, I agree 100% that the ability to see trends develop helps one stay ahead of the weather a little and avoid surprises. One can see outside the cockpit in a VFR craft, one can see the weather on the display, and one can see how the weather is moving and evolving. The former hopefully keeps on alive and the latter really aids in staying ahead of the plane. One can plan to divert, continue or whatever, subject to confirmation from other sources.
I recall a trip a couple of years ago where ATC was warning me that I was flying into a red spot, I could see the red spot on the 430, and out the cockpit window I was severe clear and 5 miles away. Because I could see how the storm was moving and could verify it out the window, I didn't even have to alter course.
No doubt in what Wayne says. IMO in cockpit nexrad is the best thing to come along since on board radar. However, one must know how to use it and know the limitations. That was my point to the OP about not knowing what he does not know. I did not mean that in a disparagingly way. My example was that at this point he did not understands the limits of nexrad. As somebody pointed out you can not depend on anything being less than 15 minutes old. IMO as valuable as in cockpit nexrad is, it does not take the place of on board radar and the knowledge of how to use it. All of this has little application now for the OP but, it might in the future if he pursues his IR.
bluerooster
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,075
- Display Name
Display name:
shorty
Somehow, I think that all the technology has in some ways made GA a tad less safe.
Makes you wonder how folks like my Dad are still alive today, when he started flying in the '30s. He's only recently self grounded, and sold his 182. Folks like him have logged several thousand hours, and many miles of x-country (>600nm per trip)
and never had an instrument rating, allways flown VFR. He did start instrument training when he was 80, and stopped when he got to the point that he could successfully get out of trouble and land. Not that he'd ever need it, (hasn't in the past 60 years) But his instructor was one of his mentees.
Makes you wonder how folks like my Dad are still alive today, when he started flying in the '30s. He's only recently self grounded, and sold his 182. Folks like him have logged several thousand hours, and many miles of x-country (>600nm per trip)
and never had an instrument rating, allways flown VFR. He did start instrument training when he was 80, and stopped when he got to the point that he could successfully get out of trouble and land. Not that he'd ever need it, (hasn't in the past 60 years) But his instructor was one of his mentees.
bluerooster
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,075
- Display Name
Display name:
shorty
It won't show you what's happening now, but if you keep an eye on it, you can see the trend.
Nothing beats planning to be at your destination, and on the ground by noon, especially in the summertime.
frfly172
Touchdown! Greaser!
Have weather on the garmin 496 and fore flight on the I pad.you still have to fly to your abilities.either VFR or IFR. Had to divert on my way back from OSH .as the front had stalled.while I was looking for an airport with a precision approach ther was a VFR pilot scud running looking fora VFR airport.South Bend was a nice stop for a couple of hours.
Guys, thank you. This is what I'm looking for! These little tips and anecdotes are the sort of things that stick in my memory and help me when I have to learn the same lesson for myself someday. I have spend my entire adult life in pursuit of knowledge, and the cliche is true that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know. In this case, I am trying to avoid being hard headed, thinking I know anything and I am also going to try and learn as much as I can from other's mistakes and successes so I can minimize my own mistakes. Thanks again for these posts. I am excited now that this thread is hopefully back on track. Who else has a story?