NTSB: Fatalities Up 13% In 2014

Jay Honeck said:
Aside from that issue, I'm still trying to figure out why people see the GA fatality rate as a "problem" that needs "solving". Why does anyone actually care if people want to kill themselves in aviation?
Click to expand...
People in white-collar jobs usually have to undergo annual performance reviews. At the end of each review, the goals for that person for the next year are defined so they know what to shoot for.

There are people in the FAA whose job is to improve safety. A reduction in the accident rate proves they are doing their job, and makes their performance reviews easy. Conversely, a rise in accident rate makes it appear that they aren't doing their jobs...despite most of the factors being well outside their bounds of control.

The explanation I gave above about the effect of the re-registration on the homebuilt accident rate isn't a theoretical one. There's an annual FAA-EAA safety summit, and at this year's (back in February) there was a lot of concern about an apparent rise in the homebuilt accident rate. The EAA had me there to discuss the re-registration effect.

The other thing that affects the interpretation of accident statistics is one-year-itis. Everyone compares to the PREVIOUS year. 2013 happened to have a much lower number of total accidents, and when 2014 saw the rates go back to normal, people were concerned.

Here's one of the charts I showed at the meeting, showing how 2013 was basically an abberation, and, in fact, the number of fatal homebuilt accidents has basically stayed about the same for the past 16 years.
fatal_accidents.jpg

Pretty amazing, when you consider that about 15,000 new homebuilts have been added in this period...and the number of accidents each year is still about the same.

The difference in the "FAA Results" and my results is that I don't count Boeing 737s, ultralights, and SLSAs/ELSAs as Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. Call is a personality quirk. :)

Ron Wanttaja
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Ask him how much he spends to be current.....:yikes::goofy::rofl:
Click to expand...

How does that matter? I'm a professional pilot, and my employer bears the cost to maintain my proficiency. However, I can't take that lightly, as if I don't demonstrate my ability to ATP standards (each and every checkride) then I'm in jeopardy of losing my job.

In the GA world I took my proficiency and currency to the same standards, and yes I took the time and spent the money to do so.
 
James331 said:
Ahh yes, let's ask government to for more regulation to "save us" :lol:
Click to expand...

Better standards starts with the CFI. How many CFI's do you know that will sign a BFR without actually doing anything? How many pilots just make a half assed attempt at maintaining currency, VFR or IFR?

If CFI's would just follow the present regulations and challenge their students to achieve higher, and if GA pilots would take the time to self improve, much of this wouldn't even be an issue.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Better standards starts with the CFI. How many CFI's do you know that will sign a BFR without actually doing anything? How many pilots just make a half assed attempt at maintaining currency, VFR or IFR?

If CFI's would just follow the present regulations and challenge their students to achieve higher, and if GA pilots would take the time to self improve, much of this wouldn't even be an issue.
Click to expand...
If only all those pesky GA pilots would just go away! lol

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
 
RotorAndWing said:
How does that matter? I'm a professional pilot, and my employer bears the cost to maintain my proficiency. However, I can't take that lightly, as if I don't demonstrate my ability to ATP standards (each and every checkride) then I'm in jeopardy of losing my job.

In the GA world I took my proficiency and currency to the same standards, and yes I took the time and spent the money to do so.
Click to expand...
If you only did some fact finding before opening your pie hole.....and making assumptions regarding the rest of the GA community.:nono:

....and I seriously doubt your title is "Professional Pilot"....:no:..."Inspectore"...maybe. :yes:
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
If you only did some fact finding before opening your pie hole.....and making assumptions regarding the rest of the GA community.:nono:
Click to expand...

So we've tried to have a discussion on aviation safety and ways to improve it. I made some simple suggestions based upon several years of experience and observations, you, well you have twisted and contorted and tried every way possible to make this personal. It's apparent you have no real interest in this thread other than to pick a fight, for whatever reason.

As far as "assumptions regarding the rest of the GA community", please keep poking your head in the sand and pretending it isn't really as bad as the FACTS have proven.


Checkout_my_Six said:
....and I seriously doubt your title is "Professional Pilot"....:no:
Click to expand...

Whatever. I'm positive that's a title you'll never achieve in your lifetime.
 
tie accidents and fatalities to poor BFR or IPCs....then pin down the CFIs. If it were true....that's what would get done.

Or...maybe more rules? :goofy:yeah, yeah, if you insist. :mad2:
RotorAndWing said:
So we've tried to have a discussion on aviation safety and ways to improve it. I made some simple suggestions based upon several years of experience and observations, you, well you have twisted and contorted and tried every way possible to make this personal. It's apparent you have no real interest in this thread other than to pick a fight, for whatever reason.

As far as "assumptions regarding the rest of the GA community", please keep poking your head in the sand and pretending it isn't really as bad as the FACTS have proven.

Whatever. I'm positive that's a title you'll never achieve in your lifetime.
Click to expand...

Thank you....Rotor-n-Wing. :rofl:
 
RotorAndWing said:
Better standards starts with the CFI. How many CFI's do you know that will sign a BFR without actually doing anything? How many pilots just make a half assed attempt at maintaining currency, VFR or IFR?

If CFI's would just follow the present regulations and challenge their students to achieve higher, and if GA pilots would take the time to self improve, much of this wouldn't even be an issue.
Click to expand...


I can only speak for myself and the few CFIs I had with my little school, we wouldn't sign someone off who was unsafe.

If you're not up to snuff, I'm happy to take more of your money (and we were cash or barter only).

Current system works just fine, shy of IQ testing and exterminating the stupid, you're always going to have people doing dumb stuff.

Who was it that has that quote about not all the baby turtles making it to the ocean?
 
Whew. I just read through this post.

I had seen the statistic about the accident rate blipping up, but like some others here, it didn't strike me that the FAA needed to do more than the agency is already doing.

Let's all agree the increased accident rate is due to global warming and the freakish weather it is causing :). GA is just making too big a carbon footprint!
 
RotorAndWing said:
Better standards starts with the CFI. How many CFI's do you know that will sign a BFR without actually doing anything? How many pilots just make a half assed attempt at maintaining currency, VFR or IFR?

If CFI's would just follow the present regulations and challenge their students to achieve higher, and if GA pilots would take the time to self improve, much of this wouldn't even be an issue.
Click to expand...

That broad brush you use... Home Depot or Lowe's?
 
somorris said:
Let's all agree the increased accident rate is due to global warming and the freakish weather it is causing :). GA is just making too big a carbon footprint!
Click to expand...

Oh please, no! We all know it is the result of a spike in Dark Energy! :D
 
RotorAndWing said:
Better standards starts with the CFI. How many CFI's do you know that will sign a BFR without actually doing anything? How many pilots just make a half assed attempt at maintaining currency, VFR or IFR?

If CFI's would just follow the present regulations and challenge their students to achieve higher, and if GA pilots would take the time to self improve, much of this wouldn't even be an issue.
Click to expand...
You know, I kind of dislike this. I know of good CFI's who have had minor incidents who get hammered by a rogue FAA guy and they quit or do something else, and I know of CFI's who seem like they can get away with just about anything. A lot of the situation I see is as much an FAA culture problem as it is a CFI problem. Yeah, I've known CFIs who would sign anything. One guy came to me and wanted a T-6 BFR. I was drooling until he wanted me to sign it off with no ground time and I'd "get" to fly the plane for 30 min. (half of the flight) for compensation. I told him to pound sand, so he probably used the other CFI again. That said, I think the number of CFI's I knew that would sign it without standards is pretty low. Most of us know the risks involved, and some of those "handshake" BFR's I've heard of aren't the ones I'd worry about anyway because there's usually a high degree of trust involved - like with a CFI who flies with a given pilot all the time and knows how current he stays with regs and sees his flying.

The real danger I see is pilots who lose, or cannot maintain proficiency. You can work them up to standards where they can once again pass a PPL or whatever level cert. they have flight review (maybe 2-5 flights, I'm talking about), only to see them only fly once or twice in six months and get sloppy again. That's what worries me more, and I've seen it happen several times. The only way that changes is recency of experience modifiers, or recurrent training mandates, which I would prefer to avoid if one is actually proficient since raising the costs of flying is a general negative from my experience.

For instance, if a pilot flies less than 50 hours a year, I'd say some number of dual and a yearly FR would be helpful in their staying safe - assuming of course a good CFI, but that would also hurt their ability to fly as much. On the other hand, a pilot flying twice a week, is probably not as much of a safety concern from the proficiency standpoint, so making sure his ADM skills, flight planning habits, and selected advanced maneuvers and landings are up to speed is more likely to be sufficient, and that can be done in the hour of flight and hour of ground prescribed by the FR regs.

Personally, I wish that there was less emphasis on the time requirement, and more emphasis on the skills required for the FR. So many pilots come in demanding you keep it to the minimum. That's where the pressure comes in. The CFI has to be strong enough of a personality to tell the student up front that they should forget the minimum time requirement and focus on demonstrating their skills to the PTS.
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
You know, I kind of dislike this. I know of good CFI's who have had minor incidents who get hammered by a rogue FAA guy and they quit or do something else, and I know of CFI's who seem like they can get away with just about anything. A lot of the situation I see is as much an FAA culture problem as it is a CFI problem. Yeah, I've known CFIs who would sign anything. One guy came to me and wanted a T-6 BFR. I was drooling until he wanted me to sign it off with no ground time and I'd "get" to fly the plane for 30 min. (half of the flight) for compensation. I told him to pound sand, so he probably used the other CFI again. That said, I think the number of CFI's I knew that would sign it without standards is pretty low. Most of us know the risks involved, and some of those "handshake" BFR's I've heard of aren't the ones I'd worry about anyway because there's usually a high degree of trust involved - like with a CFI who flies with a given pilot all the time and knows how current he stays with regs and sees his flying.

The real danger I see is pilots who lose, or cannot maintain proficiency. You can work them up to standards where they can once again pass a PPL or whatever level cert. they have flight review (maybe 2-5 flights, I'm talking about), only to see them only fly once or twice in six months and get sloppy again. That's what worries me more, and I've seen it happen several times. The only way that changes is recency of experience modifiers, or recurrent training mandates, which I would prefer to avoid if one is actually proficient since raising the costs of flying is a general negative from my experience.

For instance, if a pilot flies less than 50 hours a year, I'd say some number of dual and a yearly FR would be helpful in their staying safe - assuming of course a good CFI, but that would also hurt their ability to fly as much. On the other hand, a pilot flying twice a week, is probably not as much of a safety concern from the proficiency standpoint, so making sure his ADM skills, flight planning habits, and selected advanced maneuvers and landings are up to speed is more likely to be sufficient, and that can be done in the hour of flight and hour of ground prescribed by the FR regs.

Personally, I wish that there was less emphasis on the time requirement, and more emphasis on the skills required for the FR. So many pilots come in demanding you keep it to the minimum. That's where the pressure comes in. The CFI has to be strong enough of a personality to tell the student up front that they should forget the minimum time requirement and focus on demonstrating their skills to the PTS.
Click to expand...

Here's a guy who gets it. Thanks for the thoughtful post!
 
This is one reason I always tell folks to seek out working ATP CFIs, dude isn't going to risk his hard earned livelihood for a BFR or something, they know what's what and will teach you right.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The Practical Test Standards are a minimum. In order to gain certification one must meet the minimum requirement demonstrated to an examiner.

Fairly clear concept, agree? Now ask the question, how many GA pilots feel they can take a checkride tomorrow for their ratings and pass it? I think the answer you'll find is shocking.

Better recurrent standards is not "onerous". A typical GA pilot will go out and spend $1000 on a new headset, but bellyache at having to spend that same amount to maintain currency and make himself a better, and safer pilot.
Click to expand...


I agree that the PTS is the minimum standards to pass the checkride however I would hope that they were designed as an above and beyond what the FAA would consider what to be safe to actually pilot an aircraft unsupervised. I believe that standard is achieved with the solo endorsement from ones CFI. Why would one be allowed to pilot an aircraft solo if they had not met a minimum standard?

Now I freely admit that I do not know what percentage of pilots could not pass their checkride today though I suspect from your posts that you believe the number to be significant. I will admit that there are some who might not pass. I am sure that many would likely lose a few too many feet of altitude while doing steep turns or allow the wind to impact their turns around a point too much or something of that nature beyond what is allowed per the PTS. Does that make them unsafe or “bad” pilots? I do think that most all who are flying regularly could pass the various takeoffs and landings portion as well as stalls, slow-flight, emergency procedures, etc. I will admit though as not being a CFI or a DPE, I could very well be wrong and could be giving my GA brethren too much credit. Heck, maybe I even think too highly of myself, but I hope not.

I think that people in general do get sloppy and complacent in their daily lives and this does include pilots with their flying. People, which pilots are a type of, also make bad judgments sometimes and can take unnecessary and foolish risks. However, I think that most of these have the ability to switch from their normal carefree ways into “I am being critiqued so I better do it right” mode when they are going through a flight review or any other type of review process. Then it is back to their everyday carefree (sloppy) ways. I don’t really know how that can be fixed. Maybe you do.

Yeah, you are right that a lot of us will spend the bucks for new headsets, a new flight bag, iPads, external GPS, etc. but not spend any time with an instructor until it is flight review time and to a degree it is a shame but it seems to be acceptable as the minimum standard. Is the standard good enough? For the most part it seems to be otherwise I fear we’d have many more accidents and fatalities.

I personally have never done a “BFR” type flight review. Between adding on my multi-engine and seaplane ratings, getting my tailwheel and high power endorsements and participating in the FAA Wings program, I have never hit the two year mark between qualifying events. Also my flying club requires a semi-annual checkride / proficiency ride in a club aircraft with a club CFI to be able to fly the aircraft. While I feel that requirement is a bit “onerous”, I try to make good use of it by combining it with some Wings ground courses to knock out a Wings level and flight review at least once each year.

My bottom line is that I agree with you that we as an industry could do better and some pilots especially could do better with proficiency training but I probably disagree with you in the extent we need to go to fix it. Just let me add this, if it wasn’t for those like you who might tend to over correct, we might not correct enough. To those who think no correction is necessary… good luck.
 
weilke said:
- the 'general aviation census'. A campaign of postcards sent to random airmen which are promptly discarded by 90%. The 10% that are returned contain unverifiable information.

- 100LL sales

- reports of 'movements' from towered airports

- self reported hours from medical forms
Click to expand...
I assume that they only send them to "active" (with medical) pilots.

BTW, just did a nice grass strip tour Saturday, 7 airports in S.E. Michigan and home for lunch. But, then, I am not an "active" pilot.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Here's a guy who gets it. Thanks for the thoughtful post!
Click to expand...

Personal integrity is what you're asking for. There is no good reason for an instructor to whip a flight review. If you are out shopping for a pencil whipping, you do yourself a diservice and you're more likely the next accident statistic.
There is no shame in getting a cfi and a couple of hours. If you can handle the plane, why not just prove it? A flight review should be enough to demonstrate you're better than the pts.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, the review must be at least an hour of ground and hour of flying, why would a CFI give up 2 hrs of instruction ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And while we are at it, it is worthy of mention that fatal accidents in GA is a whole lot less than fatal in autos, especially dui and distracted driving. You are far more likely to get hit by some dope texting about picking up milk on the way home than another plane.
Over 4,000 fatals where the direct cause was distraction.
Drive now. Text later!
 
silver-eagle said:
And while we are at it, it is worthy of mention that fatal accidents in GA is a whole lot less than fatal in autos, especially dui and distracted driving. You are far more likely to get hit by some dope texting about picking up milk on the way home than another plane.
Over 4,000 fatals where the direct cause was distraction.
Drive now. Text later!
Click to expand...

I just saw an accident this wknd that I'm sure was distracted. A woman veered right on a 45MPH curve and went over the curb then into a light pole. She swerved back left just before hitting the pole but too late. It was 8:30 in the morning in clear conditions. I don't know what to do to get this to stop, but it makes GA accidents pale in comparison.
 
Dav8or said:
Two pilots with the exact same airplane. Both were trained and examined by the exact same people. Both fly in the exact same area.

One pilot flies twice a week and the other once a month. Which one would you say is most likely to have an incident?

-or-

Both pilots fly 50 hours a year. One pilot does 50 one hour flights and the other does 25 two hour flights. Which do you think is more likely to have an incident?

-or-

One pilot flies twice a week and averages 100 hours a year, but only does the minimum BFR. The other flies every other month and averages about 25 hours a year, but he gets a flight review every year. Which do you think is more likely to have an incident?

My bet in these scenarios that the guy that flies frequently is the safer bet. I don't know if there are any stats to back that up though. I am against any more regulation on GA pilots to address this perceived problem, but if the Feds feel they just gotta regulate, then it should be based on current experience rather than calender dates.
Click to expand...

It would be amazing if we could determine if exposure to more ofbthe same risk creates a mindset of better risk management in the pilot.
 
This. The buck stops with the CFI on the BFR.

I'm in the middle of IFR training and needed my first BFR. Even though I've been flying with the guy twice a week for the IFR he made me jump through almost all the private checkride hoops. Short field/Soft field landings/takeoffs, stalls, steep turns, emergency landing, etc.....

It didn't bother me at all.... I came away thinking, yes, I can still fly the plane by looking out the window! :D

silver-eagle said:
Personal integrity is what you're asking for. There is no good reason for an instructor to whip a flight review. If you are out shopping for a pencil whipping, you do yourself a diservice and you're more likely the next accident statistic.
There is no shame in getting a cfi and a couple of hours. If you can handle the plane, why not just prove it? A flight review should be enough to demonstrate you're better than the pts.
Click to expand...
 
silver-eagle said:
Personal integrity is what you're asking for. There is no good reason for an instructor to whip a flight review. If you are out shopping for a pencil whipping, you do yourself a diservice and you're more likely the next accident statistic.
There is no shame in getting a cfi and a couple of hours. If you can handle the plane, why not just prove it? A flight review should be enough to demonstrate you're better than the pts.
Click to expand...

:lol: That's a big ask in our society. I really don't see the big problem, everybody ends up dead anyway. If someone chooses to die of their own stupidity, more power to them.
 
noobJohn said:
This. The buck stops with the CFI on the BFR.

I'm in the middle of IFR training and needed my first BFR. Even though I've been flying with the guy twice a week for the IFR he made me jump through almost all the private checkride hoops. Short field/Soft field landings/takeoffs, stalls, steep turns, emergency landing, etc.....

It didn't bother me at all.... I came away thinking, yes, I can still fly the plane by looking out the window! :D
Click to expand...

No, the buck stops with the person receiving BFR or IPC. We are responsible for our own training. If we want minimum, we get minimum, if we want to cheat the minimums, we cheat the minimums. It's up to us as individuals to uphold the standards at which we operate, no one else. It's not just the FR stuff either, look at all the "can I log this?" threads. The answers are actually quite clear, just trying to figure out a way to weasel in some requirement when it's not actually met. It's an issue endemic to our entire society, "What can I get away with?"
 
Henning said:
No, the buck stops with the person receiving BFR or IPC. We are responsible for our own training. If we want minimum, we get minimum, if we want to cheat the minimums, we cheat the minimums. It's up to us as individuals to uphold the standards at which we operate, no one else.
Click to expand...

This is the truth right here!! :yes: Beating up CFIs about alleged "pencil whipped" BFRs is ridiculous. First, find me the stats on pencil whipped BFRs. How many are there? If they are so obvious to spot, why aren't those CFIs being reported??

Second, go through the accidents last year and show me where people died because they couldn't execute a steep turn without losing 100', or they let the nose drop too soon on a soft field landing, or they couldn't remember how to do slow flight. People crash and die in airplanes because they make bad decisions 80+% of the time. Of the crashes that were the result of a stall, or a spin, how many of those were actually due to engine failure, or some other sort of emergency?

All this alarmist talk of tightening the screws on the Private Pilot and the CFIs that train and test them is counter productive. How about this- Instead of spending an hour on the ground going over the minutia of the sectional (you know, "What does this little symbol mean?") or going on about cloud clearances in which airspace, or light gun signals, how about spending the time going over fatal crashes with pictures and maps to show how stupid decisions sometimes end up in death?? I think this would be a far more valuable use of the time.

It might help a little, I don't know. I guess stupid is as stupid does and it has been proven over and over again that a guy that can ace the PTS to Commercial level can make a very stupid choice and kill himself and his passengers. So if you want to make your BFRs more meaningful, they should not be hammering on stick and rudder skills, but rather ADM skills.
 
After some consideration, and reflection I've also got an idea.

Let's take a result oriented approach. If the accident stats indicate that pilot loss of control is the big hitter, forget about the hour on the ground with charts, and symbols, and require 2 hours every 2 years with a CFI in the plane you are going to be flying most doing all kinds of control maneuvers. Slips, slow flight, sim engine out approach, sim engine out departure, hood work, dutch rolls, accel stalls, and recovery from disoriented flight. Log it, and be on your way.
 
Dav8or said:
This is the truth right here!! :yes: Beating up CFIs about alleged "pencil whipped" BFRs is ridiculous. First, find me the stats on pencil whipped BFRs. How many are there? If they are so obvious to spot, why aren't those CFIs being reported??

Second, go through the accidents last year and show me where people died because they couldn't execute a steep turn without losing 100', or they let the nose drop too soon on a soft field landing, or they couldn't remember how to do slow flight. People crash and die in airplanes because they make bad decisions 80+% of the time. Of the crashes that were the result of a stall, or a spin, how many of those were actually due to engine failure, or some other sort of emergency?

All this alarmist talk of tightening the screws on the Private Pilot and the CFIs that train and test them is counter productive. How about this- Instead of spending an hour on the ground going over the minutia of the sectional (you know, "What does this little symbol mean?") or going on about cloud clearances in which airspace, or light gun signals, how about spending the time going over fatal crashes with pictures and maps to show how stupid decisions sometimes end up in death?? I think this would be a far more valuable use of the time.

It might help a little, I don't know. I guess stupid is as stupid does and it has been proven over and over again that a guy that can ace the PTS to Commercial level can make a very stupid choice and kill himself and his passengers. So if you want to make your BFRs more meaningful, they should not be hammering on stick and rudder skills, but rather ADM skills.
Click to expand...

I'd vote for that!
 
wanttaja said:
Don't know if they send them to pilots as well, but the main effort goes to owners of registered aircraft. Light Sports qualify. :)

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
OK. Thanks.

Now, I own an E-AB that also falls under the LSA rules, but I assume I would check E-AB and not E-LSA. Does that put (yet another) small dent in their hours/pilot statistics since my airplane rolls up at least a few hours, but is not flown by someone who is not an "active" pilot (by the FAA rules)?

OK - looked at the survey results (didn't find the form)- the numbers are wonky. For 2013, they show 2056 Special Light Sport and 4157 experimental light sport - that has to include both E-LSA and at least some E-AB. But of course, other standard certificate LSAs are not differentiated from other fixed wing piston as far as I can tell.
 
Last edited:
This thread convinces me that the Pilots Bill of Rights II will never pass.

When so many pilots are willing to instantly impose new, more onerous regulations to resolve a statistically questionable "problem", what chance do we have of eliminating the 3rd class medical? We really are our own worst enemy.

Freedom ain't free. If we want freedom from government, we must be prepared to accept the fact that pilots may kill themselves from time to time. The only way to prevent that certainty is by regulating GA even more. Given that GA is already gasping for breath, IMHO that would be the coup de grace.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
OK. Thanks.

Now, I own an E-AB that also falls under the LSA rules, but I assume I would check E-AB and not E-LSA. Does that put (yet another) small dent in their hours/pilot statistics since my airplane rolls up at least a few hours, but is not flown by someone who is not an "active" pilot (by the FAA rules)?
Click to expand...

Yes, you'd check the actual certification of the aircraft, rather than whether it's Sport Pilot Eligible.

If the plane flies few hours in a year, it will influence the average. I don't know how many surveys they send out, or what percentage are returned. I've owned my Fly Baby for nearly 25 years and have never received a survey.

Don't have my data handy, but IIRC, there are ~250,000 total aircraft on the registry and 30,000 homebuilts. If I get a survey next year, that hints that they send them out to 1/25 owners. If they send out 1,000 surveys, about 125 homebuilt-owners get one. Don't know what the return rate is, but I'd guess it's pretty low.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I assume that they only send them to "active" (with medical) pilots.

BTW, just did a nice grass strip tour Saturday, 7 airports in S.E. Michigan and home for lunch. But, then, I am not an "active" pilot.
Click to expand...

Your entire flying that day was a rounding error in the 100LL sales similar to the fuel burned by a Duke or 421 that receives a vector for spacing. Or maybe you use that evil MoGas pumped into the wing from a fuel-boy on your pickup truck and your flight didn't exist at all.
 
weilke said:
Your entire flying that day was a rounding error in the 100LL sales similar to the fuel burned by a Duke or 421 that receives a vector for spacing. Or maybe you use that evil MoGas pumped into the wing from a fuel-boy on your pickup truck and your flight didn't exist at all.
Click to expand...
Straight from 5 gallon cans filled at the local corner gas station.

Probably 10 - 12 gallons total on Saturday.

But, when the FAA calculates accidents per xxx hours, I'm sure the number is accurate.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Straight from 5 gallon cans filled at the local corner gas station.

Probably 10 - 12 gallons total on Saturday.

But, when the FAA calculates accidents per xxx hours, I'm sure the number is accurate.
Click to expand...

So you dont have a medical, fly from one one uncontrollable field to another and use homeopathic amounts of unrecorded fuel.

You are basically dead for the FAA.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Freedom ain't free. If we want freedom from government, we must be prepared to accept the fact that pilots may kill themselves from time to time.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just the thing. Some pilots would like the government to run a tighter ship, rather than to allow individuals more freedom. There is not a consensus. I think most professional pilots see the private pilot as an annoyance and a danger. Some might argue we are already too free. It's just in the past there were so many more of us private pilots that we would drown the professional pilots complaints out. Now our numbers are declining and I suspect theirs are rising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top