True or false

H

hyphen81

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
134
Display Name
Display name:
hyphen81
True or false: GA has gotten safer as the older generation of pilots have retired?

This is not a dig on older pilots, but I just mean that it seems like the older generation of pilots were much more seat-of-the-pants kind of pilots and aircraft were a lot less reliable so they had to be sort of daredevil types. I'm talking about the generation of Air Force pilots who went on to make up the GA community in it's hayday. Now with all the technology we have at our fingertips and communities like this one that foster the right kind of attitude about flying, it seems that it would be much safer.

I bring this up bc my dad who is an ex Air Force pilot and served in Vietnam was telling me today how when he was over in Vietnam marking targets for napalm strikes in a Cessna, he would sometimes take off with a can of beer on the dashboard...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm having a tough time seeing how fewer professionally trained (air force, army, etc) pilots are a good thing.

Also, risk is relative. A can of beer on a dashboard of a plane in theater is just... I dunno, such an tiny tiny increase in risk over, say, being shot down, that it's just not noticeable.

If anything, I'd say things are worse today, not better. I propose that flight time, and recency of flight time is highly correlated to positive outcomes when flying. The more you fly, the better you get. Flying is so damned expensive it's hard to stay competent. Look at the problems staying IFR current.

Guys who fly a lot, and every day, and have proper training can get away with stuff that would seem dangerous to us. Bob Hoover can pour a glass of tea while doing a barrel roll. Dangerous? Or just incredibly skilled?

You know what's dangerous? My local airport on a pretty Saturday after the weather's been crappy for a month.
 
hyphen81 said:
True or false: GA has gotten safer as the older generation of pilots have retired?

This is not a dig on older pilots, but I just mean that it seems like the older generation of pilots were much more seat-of-the-pants kind of pilots and aircraft were a lot less reliable so they had to be sort of daredevil types. I'm talking about the generation of Air Force pilots who went on to make up the GA community in it's hayday. Now with all the technology we have at our fingertips and communities like this one that foster the right kind of attitude about flying, it seems that it would be much safer.

I bring this up bc my dad who is an ex Air Force pilot and served in Vietnam was telling me today how when he was over in Vietnam marking targets for napalm strikes in a Cessna, he would sometimes take off with a can of beer on the dashboard...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Ah, the O-2. How did he like it?
 
I want to say it was a 206, but I'm not totally sure on that. I think he enjoyed everything but the small arms fire. He said his favorite was the F-86, but he also flew the F-4, F-102, and T-33.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The OP was worded oddly so I'll rephrase - I assume he meant that the generations who were trained to fly the airplane are replaced by the generation who treat flying as a video game ? Until the airplanes get a "game over - try again?" button I wouldn't guess we'll see a big uptick in safety.
 
I'd say False. They knew how to FLY. A lot of the WW2 guys knew what their aircraft could and could not do. Very good stick and rudder skills.
 
hyphen81 said:
I want to say it was a 206, but I'm not totally sure on that. I think he enjoyed everything but the small arms fire.
Click to expand...
I'd guess it was either an O-1 "Birddog" or an O-2 "Mixmaster" ;)
I was a crewcheif on an Army UH-1H "Huey" helecopter in Viet Nam 1967-68. FWIW we certainly didn't fly with a beer on the dash nor did we fly drunk, altho' we did fly with a hangover sometimes :redface:, "Peter Pilot" (that's copilot to the civies) was designated driver for the first flight of the morning occasionally.
 
I am apt to think that given bad guys all wanting to take pot shots at you, mtn terrain, torrential weather, persistent fog, double or triple canopy jungle, sweltering heat, god awful humidity, jungle rot, irregular sleep schedules, constant alert, 1 each Can, Beer - Dash is necessary emergency aid item. Don't forget, said beer was likely at OAT (+/- 108F).

To more directly address OP comment, the advent of technology in the cockpit trends towards more pilots being reduced to button pushers. In and of itself tech is a good thing. But the problem becomes aircrew more focused on punching in data or wondering why it's doing that instead of eyes outside and actually flying in command rather than being relegated to ride along status.
 
What is the safety issue with having a can of beer in the plane? Piloting skills are generation independent. But one thing is certain kids that grow up playing outside and being allowed to free range will make better pilots then safety kids. There is no way in adulthood to make up for not running free with a plastic child's brain.
 
Richard said:
I am apt to think that given bad guys all wanting to take pot shots at you, mtn terrain, torrential weather, persistent fog, double or triple canopy jungle, sweltering heat, god awful humidity, jungle rot, irregular sleep schedules, constant alert, .........
Click to expand...
All good reasons to save the beer for after you'e done flying for the day.
 
I am not saying one or the other is safer, does anyone have any statistics comparing safety now to safety 30 years ago? My gut feeling is the pilots have gotten less safe, but the planes have gotten safer so everything kinda balances out.

My goal while learning is to be safety first, and everything else second. At least for the school I am learning (and it may be they do not want to put out the $$$ for new glass planes), but everything is done on steam gauges, the way it has been done for generations, and they say they believe in learning steam first.
 
Last edited:
drotto said:
, does anyone have any statistics comparing safety now to safety 30 years ago?
Click to expand...

There's actually over 70 years of safety data on GA here:

http://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Stat...ation-Safety-Record-Current-and-Historic.aspx

and it shows a big improvement every decade in the fatalities per 100k hours. I'm not sure, though, that it is only for single-pilot noncommercial GA, which is probably what you want. Business jets and turbines with professional crews might be mixed into those numbers.
 
NoHeat said:
There's actually over 70 years of safety data on GA here:

http://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Stat...ation-Safety-Record-Current-and-Historic.aspx

and it shows a big improvement every decade in the fatalities per 100k hours. I'm not sure, though, that it is only for single-pilot noncommercial GA, which is probably what you want. Business jets and turbines with professional crews might be mixed into those numbers.
Click to expand...
I think the stats include as "general aviation" all except airlines and military. I suspect the decline in accident rates has much to do with the decline in sport flying?
 
The GA pilot population has been in decline a long time. The fewer GA pilots, the lower the accident stats.
 
I think years ago most weekend flyers stayed close to their familiar home airports. GPS has changed that. Wouldn't short local flights be safer than long ones?
 
tinerj said:
I think years ago most weekend flyers stayed close to their familiar home airports. GPS has changed that. Wouldn't short local flights be safer than long ones?
Click to expand...

Ummm no. Pilots were not afraid to fly without a as yet not invented nav device.
 
Clip4 said:
The GA pilot population has been in decline a long time. The fewer GA pilots, the lower the accident stats.
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed this part? (Emphasis mine)

NoHeat said:
There's actually over 70 years of safety data on GA here (snip) and it shows a big improvement every decade in the fatalities per 100k hours.
Click to expand...
 
hyphen81 said:
True or false: GA has gotten safer as the older generation of pilots have retired?

This is not a dig on older pilots, but I just mean that it seems like the older generation of pilots were much more seat-of-the-pants kind of pilots and aircraft were a lot less reliable so they had to be sort of daredevil types. I'm talking about the generation of Air Force pilots who went on to make up the GA community in it's hayday. Now with all the technology we have at our fingertips and communities like this one that foster the right kind of attitude about flying, it seems that it would be much safer.

I bring this up bc my dad who is an ex Air Force pilot and served in Vietnam was telling me today how when he was over in Vietnam marking targets for napalm strikes in a Cessna, he would sometimes take off with a can of beer on the dashboard...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So FALSE it is over the top.

You might ask Asiana airlines your question. They just crashed a B777 with every gee-whiz automation known to man, because they could not fly a visual approach. This is not limited to foreign crews either.

A US Crew flew an equally automated 747 into the wrong airport in Wichita, into a short runway which could have been a much worse ending, had the runway been wet/snow or NORDO Supercub on the runway, etc.

This is not limited to civilian crews either. A military C-17 crew landed a C-17 (also equipped with automation and GPS etc) into the wrong (and much shorter) field in Florida.

If you are 1) A pilot and 2) Human, you (that means ALL of us) can fall into the "automation trap" and forget the basics.

Flying 101 is killing people.

Yes, the older generation was more seat of the pants.
 
Yes computers make mistakes, or at least the people operating them do, but the real question isn't whether there are mistakes and errors with automation but if there are more or less compared to non-automated systems (I.e. the hand on the stick)
 
In my opinion, GA has gotten safer because of advancing technology, not because of retiring pilots. The declining GA accident/fatality rate seems to be consistent with this idea. Personally, I think safety has more to do with flight management than physical piloting skills. Technology can make safe flight easier. When I compare IFR flight in 1989 when I got my IR and now, there is a world of difference in terms of navigation accuracy and in-flight weather. Now is MUCH better than 15 years ago. I wouldn't go back in time.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Ummm no. Pilots were not afraid to fly without a as yet not invented nav device.
Click to expand...

Of course they flew, but read some of the older flying books. The casual fliers (week-end flyers) tended to only go short distances between airports, and they did a lot of RR and highway following. Many never ventured far from their home airport. That made them "safer" pilots.

In those books where they tell of their cross-country adventure, notice how they mention that many week-end pilots did stay close to home and warned them about venturing too far.

Really, what I'm saying is that it's difficult to compare flying today when flying then. The GPS and visual weather apps have made cross country flying today essentially different from the 1950s.
 
Last edited:
tinerj said:
Of course they flew, but read some of the older flying books. The casual fliers (week-end flyers) tended to only go short distances between airports, and they did a lot of RR and highway following. Many never ventured far from their home airport. That made them "safer" pilots.

In those books where they tell of their cross-country adventure, notice how they mention that many week-end pilots did stay close to home and warned them about venturing too far.

Really, what I'm saying is that it's difficult to compare flying today when flying then. The GPS and visual weather apps have made cross country flying today essentially different from the 1950s.
Click to expand...
following railroads has always been a good way to fly long distances. That's a plus for old-time travel, not a negative.

I tend to see the opposite of your position. I see a lot of /A equipped planes making long trips and a lot of G-99,000 buck rogers panels being used to find the pancake breakfast in the next town
 
Well, it depends on the level of drinking in the cockpit you consider dangerous. If you consider it a bad thing, then I'd say true; I'm not sure that's the reality of the situation though.
 
JHW said:
following railroads has always been a good way to fly long distances. That's a plus for old-time travel, not a negative.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was my point -- those who did fly long distances played it safe (or safer) by following railroads, or highways.

So it's difficult to compare flying then with now. Especially when today's pilots use the GPS and bushwhack direct rather than follow roads, and run into those unexpected mountains such as the Ouachitas in Arkansas.

I wonder. Were fewer accidents reported in the 1950s? Land in a field, crumple the landing gear, get it hauled away and no one knows it ever happened. Today, there would be video on the local news and on somebody's Facebook (or SnapChat) page before the plane stops skidding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top