Risk Tolerance

172andyou said:
And twins are less safe anyway. They are just differently unsafe.
Click to expand...
Certainly demand more respect but I'd still rather stay proficient in a twin and fly that over mountains and water than a single

What surprises me is a lot of twin owners don't attend flight safety or do real shutdowns when they go for flight reviews.. so it's no surprise that when one quits they're ill prepared to handle it!

On the flip side, I know three people personally who've had full failures in flight, not on climb out, no, two were loss of oil pressure and one was a catastrophic failure of a jug. They all landed at an airport and walked away. To that point, the thing with twins is there's a bit of bias as you only hear about the fatal engine failures not the ones that potentially saved a life
 
Every time I did something that scared the **** out of me and I could have avoided it I chalk it up as not doing that again and makes my risk aversion even higher.
 
Tantalum said:
Certainly demand more respect but I'd still rather stay proficient in a twin and fly that over mountains and water than a single

What surprises me is a lot of twin owners don't attend flight safety or do real shutdowns when they go for flight reviews.. so it's no surprise that when one quits they're ill prepared to handle it!

On the flip side, I know three people personally who've had full failures in flight, not on climb out, no, two were loss of oil pressure and one was a catastrophic failure of a jug. They all landed at an airport and walked away. To that point, the thing with twins is there's a bit of bias as you only hear about the fatal engine failures not the ones that potentially saved a life
Click to expand...

I am way more comfortable in a twin at night and/or imc over hostile terrain. Depending on the twin you can likely fly for a hundred miles on one engine from altitude. Might be tough low hot and heavy, but in a single you are going down regardless. Fortunately the twin I flies requires recurrent training, headed to two days in the sim on Thursday! Loads of fun and learning every time doing things you would never do in a real plane.
 
Find an old sectional and compare it to a current one. Hitting a tower scares me more than an engine out. Maybe shouldn’t, but does.
 
If insurance rates are any point of reference, fixed gear single engine wheel planes are about as low risk as you can get. I personally worry more about wrecking an aircraft engaging in higher risk activities than I do about having an engine quit on me.
 
mondtster said:
If insurance rates are any point of reference, fixed gear single engine wheel planes are about as low risk as you can get. I personally worry more about wrecking an aircraft engaging in higher risk activities than I do about having an engine quit on me.
Click to expand...
Risk, from a cost perspective? (If it's rates that you're looking at, that indicates the monetary risk to the insurance company)
 
I agree with an earlier post, often there are early signs of engine trouble. Then if we do have trouble, much of the time we may have partial power to help with the glide.

Backing up a bit, keep clean fuel flowing to the engine, heed the WX, keep daylight around the edge of the envelopes, all of them.
 
I've always just assumed that an engine failure was inevitable and planned to survive it somehow, probably by destroying the plane in the process. Hell, it could be another exciting adventure. I don't really do anything differently now solely based on risk, but I do look back thankfully that it didn't happen sooner.

It's true that I don't often fly in IMC but that's more because I have more time to wait out weather and I don't spend as much time remaining proficient.
 
Baked Potato said:
Risk, from a cost perspective? (If it's rates that you're looking at, that indicates the monetary risk to the insurance company)
Click to expand...

The cost of the insurance is at least somewhat related to how likely there will be a claim. Single engine land insurance policy rates are commonly around 1% of hull value annually. If you put that same single engine airplane on floats the policy rate will likely increase to 3-5% of the hull value. Multiengine land is probably somewhere in between the two of those. Our helicopter policy is around 8%.

Almost all the flying I do anymore would be categorized by most as at least moderate risk and the insurance company generally seems to agree, based on the policy premiums that are paid.
 
mondtster said:
If you put that same single engine airplane on floats the policy rate will likely increase to 3-5% of the hull value.
Click to expand...
An underwriter told me years ago that if you put that same single engine airplane on amphibious floats you can expect hull coverage to be 10% of its value. A fairly new C206 in that situation would mean about $50k or more in yearly premiums.
 
OP - what you need is a guardian angel. A good one is hard to find, but if you do you can be guaranteed of dying in bed at age 92 from piles. Then again, maybe single-engine, at night over rough terrain ain’t so bad…
 
dbahn said:
An underwriter told me years ago that if you put that same single engine airplane on amphibious floats you can expect hull coverage to be 10% of its value. A fairly new C206 in that situation would mean about $50k or more in yearly premiums.
Click to expand...

That's probably not unreasonable. We have a PA18 on amphibious floats and it's a bit less than 10% of hull but not a lot.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
More and more of my night flights ... are me with an internal monologue of "An engine failure would really, really suck right now"... so much so that this stuff just isn't very fun in a single, and it's removing some of the joy of flying.

Any recommendations on having healthy fear without it ruining it? Should I just STFU and press onward?
Click to expand...
You could just schedule your night frights with this: 2023 Moon Phases - Calendar-12.com. That should help.
 
This is normal. Treatment of risk does shift with age and situation. It will continue to shift, and you may find yourself not accepting certain risks for a while and then returning to comfort with that same risk for various reasons.
 
I occasionally go through periods with my airplane where I just have a worry that something will go wrong such an engine failure. I've got no real reason to think that but it occasionally just pops in my head. Don't have a real answer to that other than check the gauges and fly on.

In regards to the larger issue of risk tolerance, that's often on my mind. I've noticed as people age they seem to get more and more risk adverse- with the oldest people seemingly afraid of everything. Weirdly enough, as I pass through middle age I find myself doing it backwards. I just took up motorcycle riding- something that would have been unthinkable to me at 20. And really I think it does make more sense to take on more risk as we age- we're hopefully more experienced and wiser and we've(hopefully) lived a little so there's less to lose if something does happen.

Now, I'm still holding out hope that some sci-fi level invention of rejuvenation or android bodies or something lets me live on indefinitely. But, on the off chance that doesn't happen I don't want to regret not trying everything I want to try before I'm too old. And I'd absolutely rather go out in some abrupt fashion than live my last years frail, confused, or needing assistance to dress myself/eat/poop/etc.
 
I can't say my risk tolerance has changed.

As the great philosopher Jimmy Buffett preaches "I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead."
 
mondtster said:
If you put that same single engine airplane on floats the policy rate will likely increase to 3-5% of the hull value.
Click to expand...


Part of the reason may be that if you botch a landing on a runway, the plane gets banged up a bit but is probably repairable. If you botch a water landing, the plane is likely at the bottom of a lake and totaled.
 
Half Fast said:
Part of the reason may be that if you botch a landing on a runway, the plane gets banged up a bit but is probably repairable. If you botch a water landing, the plane is likely at the bottom of a lake and totaled.
Click to expand...

With amphibious floats forgetting the gear happens far more often than it should and the insurance companies know that. So they’re taking more risk of having to pay out, hence the premium increase.

It’s effectively the same reason land planes with retractable gear have a premium attached to their insurance rates.
 
Zeldman said:
FIFY :lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Well ...they were trying not to wake up grandpa ... but he didn't have his hearing aids in anyways ... :D

Couple of weeks ago I was out playing a little run and catch football with the grandkids in the light rain. Next day I realized why an old man shouldn't be falling down and sliding in the mud ... :eek:
 
Tantalum said:
On the flip side, I know three people personally who've had full failures in flight, not on climb out, no, two were loss of oil pressure and one was a catastrophic failure of a jug. They all landed at an airport and walked away.
Click to expand...


Jerry did a fair job of having an engine out in a twin, but he is a super pilot by anybody's his own admittance ... :dunno:
 
As a young lad, crashing my minibikes was just part of the week.

In my teens, crashing my dirt bikes was too, but it hurt more.

In my 20's, crashing my street bikes was not something I was really scared of, but knew it was bad.

(30's are a blur)

In my 40's crashing my street bike was something I was scared of but still rode it hard enough to have fun.

In my 50's, other drivers almost crashing into me was just part of the week, and scared me enough to sell my street bike.
But I liked the gas mileage, so I bought a Prius.

....still scared of other drivers crashing into me.
 
Get a plane with a BRS and you are set.
 
As I grew into middle age, I came to grips with the realization that I have abnormal risk-seeking behavior. I crave danger, which is not a great trait for a family man. Awareness of that helped me to control myself and channel my energy into activities where risk could be controlled. But I've still got it in me, and probably always will. As I come out of the back side of middle age and the kids are on their own, I feel the urge welling up.
 
Ed Haywood said:
As I grew into middle age, I came to grips with the realization that I have abnormal risk-seeking behavior. I crave danger, which is not a great trait for a family man. Awareness of that helped me to control myself and channel my energy into activities where risk could be controlled. But I've still got it in me, and probably always will. As I come out of the back side of middle age and the kids are on their own, I feel the urge welling up.
Click to expand...

Lack of Traumatic Stress Disorder is a real thing with people who do what you did for a living. We see it in the JTAC community, too.
 
Topper said:
I am way more comfortable in a twin at night and/or imc over hostile terrain.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Easy for somebody not flying a twin to make silly one liner jingles that are not reality based. Bash away - makes no difference to me.

I fly a single and a twin, both with engine monitors. The twin has obvious redundancies, FIKI, great cruise altitude on a single engine, no critical engine and amazingly low stall speed (on two engines). The non-complex single is significantly easier to fly. Trade offs.

At nighttime XC VFR flying the single, I am more likely to go non-direct and weave closer to airports. Doesn't mean I am within gliding distance but for the sake of a couple of minutes in total flight time really no reason not to [plan closer to airports enroute]. At nighttime in the single, I will also look at ground elevation and choose a non-direct route that avoids higher terrain which requires little more than advance planning. Again for the sake of a couple of minutes really no reason not to [choose lower terrain over higher terrain]. I do not take the single over water past my glide distance to shore.

That being said, whether in the single or the twin, I consider the most likely single point of failure to be myself. To add some redundancy, my girlfriend is going to start flight training in the single. Unknown how far she wants to take it but any flight training she has in the event of being in the air with myself during a medical emergency would be time well spent.

I have no known medical issue but only a fool would think medical issues only happen to those who have been previously diagnosed with something.

I also consider driving on the highways to be the most dangerous activity I partake in.
 
Last edited:
Daleandee said:
Jerry did a fair job of having an engine out in a twin, but he is a super pilot by anybody's his own admittance ... :dunno:
Click to expand...
lol. I never actually met Jerry, but know people who have and know he's famous for a nearly catastrophic unstabilized approach he put on his channel. I stay off most aviation YouTuber's channels anyway since many of them seem more about "look at how cool I am" vs actually interesting content

Eric Reese has a nice Aerostar channel though I follow. I can live my Aerostar dreams vicariously through him
 
I think this article, while motorsports based, is relevant to us with flying:

https://www.motortrend.com/features/hrdp-0512-starting-line-risk/

Risk and risk avoidance are both traits that are important and were key to survival of our species. A life without any form of risky activities is ultimately very dull and unfulfilling. Where that line is drawn between accepted risk with mitigation and people just doing completely stupid things is a hard one and varies, but it's important that there is a line of some sort with that there.

People talk about driving on the highway being the riskiest activity they do. And certainly, like all things in life, that has risk. I think one of the keys is the conscious decision to take a risk doing an activity, something that allows you to excel (or at least attempt to) in an activity as a human. Flying, riding motorcycles, hunting, high performance driving, competitive activities of any sort are all outlets for that.

I think a lot of the pervasive depression diagnosis we see these days is in response to people not participating in any sort of activities where they are exceling and thus risk failing (and then also have exceedingly boring/insignificant jobs). If you go back many thousands of years, a person who was not contributing to the tribe was a drain on it, and thus hurt the overall survival of the group.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
False. Bad math.
Click to expand...

well, depends on the type of failure being discussed.

A true random hardware failure of a device is twice as likely if you have 2 of them than if you only have 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top