|
|
Skip,
All I can say is that I ran the statristics about 10 or 15 years ago, and the results, in fatalities per a/c hour flown, and per a/c miles flown, was not much different for GenAv and the then-reported airline statistics. The airline company PR-line then was trying to report that the airlines were so much safer because of all the passenger miles they flew. This is just false logic. A lie.
A loaded 747 with 500 pasengers is not 500 times safer than one with crew.
I ran the numbers for a/c hours flown -- airliners versus GenAv -- and they came out close. In terms of miles flown, of course the airliners had fewer accidents per mile becase they fly so much faster.
It was laborious to do the statistics research and I cross checked the results because I was surprised, as you are, and for the same reasons. It seemed crazy. But the simple fact is... that pilots do not want to die. The balancing factor that brings airliner close to GenAv, in spite of all their safety advantages (some of which are designed away for reasons of profit) is that when one of you guys makes a mistake, a lot of people die, instead of just four or so.
Check the data yourself. Maybe it's no longer as true, but is sure as hell was 15 or so years ago. Now the ratio of GenAv to airliner hours I'd guess is less, because of increased 'safety' regulations without documented justification, and cost, have suppressed GenAv flying and sales when, for example in 1966, more than 15,000 GenAv aircraft were sold, and small airpoprts everywhere were busy with people enjoying flying. There were 800,000 pilots and maybe 200,000 airplanes. Alaska then had ten (10) timess many aircraft per capita than the lower 48.
IMHO it is obvious that the FAA is continually caving in to the industry and plitics, instead of promoting aviation for We, the People..
I may point out that once again your response to my complaint about AIRPLANE DESIGN being a major contributing factor to safety was not spoken to ... I suppose because folks would rather talk only to what they think they know. The military/professional rightly thinks he's at the top of the training pyramid, and speaks from there. But he's also as human as the rest of us. Accidents don't happen usually when we're at our best, b ut when we forget, or make a wrong choice, or when the system lends itself to easy misinterpretation. Flying the electronic gliders of today is a lot more complex than driving a DC-3. Would you argue with that?
Two years ago I interviewed a guy who at age 20 or so was given a DC-3 and told to fly it to China, adn he did. How far would he get in a 777 today?
How about you admitting that the original and new Lancair designs can be improved, safety-wise, aerodynamically? Do you argue with that?
When high-time pro-pilots kill themselves accidentally, are you saying it is, or is not, partly the airplane's fault? I'm arguing that the pilots are N OT at fault, and you guys are complaining that I'm saying the opposite? I don't understand that. Can you 'splain that to me?
I'm arguing that pilots are good enough -- if we give them good airplanes -- and fly as safely as the airliners, based on my careful study of the statistics on the two ... and you guys are giving me hell because you want to believe the airliners are much, much safer than GenAv... without checking the statistics.
Can we focus on the aerodynamic problem s of the Lancairs at high AOAs, which many Lancair pilots are afraid to to stall? And the problem of post-crash fire-caused fatalities? That was my original thread, and not one response has been on subject.
Terrence O'Neill
----- Original Message ----- From: "Skip Slater" <skipslater@earthlink.net>
To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:42 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: response to Terrence O'Neill's posting...
Terrence,
Thanks for your response, but your ampified opinion is still off base to me.
Where did you come up with the idea that airliners are no safer than GA? That's crazy! If you compare the number of hours flown by airliners per accident versus GA, there is no comparison. Simply by virtue of the fact that all airline Captains (and most F/O's) are ATP rated along with the considerable experience that are required to get that rating, you can't possibly suggest that the planes operated by them in accordance with company SOP, tighter FAR's, nearly always in a positive ATC control environment and with two pilots onboard, not to mention with more sophisitated systems (TCAS, radar, multiple turbine engines, etc) and the fact that airline pilots fly all the time, which keeps their proficiency at a far higher level than the occasional weekend VFR private pilot doesn't result in a far greater level of safety than GA .
One of the things that we benefit from as a professional pilot both in the military and civilian worlds is the reviews of accidents we get as a regular part of our recurrent training. During these sessions egos are checked at the door because all of us know that "There, but for the grace of God, go I". Professional pilots know that there are always lessons to be learned from the mistakes of others and heeding them inevitably makes us better pilots. I believe the whole premise of Jeff's message is that it is the failure of GA pilots to avail themselves of the harsh lessons learned by others which perpetuate the seemingly endless stream of accidents. While not true of all GA pilots, we all know some who have the attitude of "It'll never happen to me" and ignore the advice of experienced council or the painful lessons of others who have paid the price for overestimating their own experience or capabilities. Sadly, many of this type of individual have died flying Lancair!
s.
Skip Slater
--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/
|
|