|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 2, 2018 10:10:47 GMT -5
Over the New Years' holiday, there were two tragedies of a similar nature that you may have seen on the news. First, a seaplane crashed near Sydney. Everyone on board died, the pilot and two families (who were soon to become one): Then, a small plane went down in Costa Rica. Again, everyone on board died, the two pilots, two complete families, and one tour guide: What really struck me here, would made these tragedies stand out for me was the fact that they all but ended complete families who were off doing great family things to together. And also we're talking about some families with means, as well. In the case of the Sydney group, the father was a quite wealthy man. One of his sons was in the business with him, the other was at the University of St. Andrews (yes, that's where my daughter is). In the case of the Costa Rica group, there were two doctors from Florida along with their two kids, one of whom was at Columbia (the other is still in high school), and there was a commodities broker from a very nice part of NY, along with a socially active spouse and their three boys, two of whom were in college, one at Johns Hopkins and the other at Penn. I mean holy shit, these are families who apparently had it all, and it's gone just like that. Sorry if I bringing anyone down with this, but I think there are a number of "lessons" one might take from all of this. For me, it's how the top of the world has more than enough perils. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 2, 2018 18:52:00 GMT -5
For me, it's that I'm never gonna ride in a small plane. Every time I read about some horrible, deadly crash like this it almost always involves some tiny, single prop plane like a Cessna (or Bell or similar). Both of these crashes involved that type of plane, as did "the Day the Music Died" crash.
That pretty much seals it for me. Never getting in one of those things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 3, 2018 7:30:01 GMT -5
For me, it's that I'm never gonna ride in a small plane. Every time I read about some horrible, deadly crash like this it almost always involves some tiny, single prop plane like a Cessna (or Bell or similar). Both of these crashes involved that type of plane, as did "the Day the Music Died" crash. That pretty much seals it for me. Never getting in one of those things. I haven't checked the stats lately, but I flew thousands of hours in "those things" a couple decades ago, and year after year they were safer per mile traveled than driving... or jaywalking. And apparently that's still the case today. The cause of those deaths that do occur is overwhelmingly pilot error, and in turn, that's almost always a case of hubris. "There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots" is a truism. The bold ones I knew in my youth are all gone now. Of course, not every car accident makes front-page news. So perception and reality don't always match up. I'm surprised at how many people fall for the hype. |
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 3, 2018 12:01:53 GMT -5
I completely agree with Opty, and that's the first thing that came to mind when I read about this tragedy. I feel badly for those involved, but I would never have let my family get on a small plane in Costa Rica flown by God knows who.
Don - from your article:
"19 times more dangerous" is more than enough more dangerous for me.
I guess the families thought that going with a well-known tour company indicated some level of safety. And it might of course be a freak thing that caused the crash. But still...19 times more dangerous...
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 3, 2018 12:38:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 3, 2018 13:03:54 GMT -5
I completely agree with Opty, and that's the first thing that came to mind when I read about this tragedy. I feel badly for those involved, but I would never have let my family get on a small plane in Costa Rica flown by God knows who. Don - from your article: "19 times more dangerous" is more than enough more dangerous for me. I guess the families thought that going with a well-known tour company indicated some level of safety. And it might of course be a freak thing that caused the crash. But still...19 times more dangerous... That's by hours. You don't measure a trip by hours, you measure it by miles traveled. Deaths per distance travels is what matters, and as the article noted, AOPA has actually broken that data out. I'll quickly concede that if you must be somewhere on a schedule, using a light plane is sheer insanity. You don't mess with mother nature if you're flying. No light plane is up to that task. That said, charter companies are problematic for a whole lot of reasons, IMO. I would only fly with owner-pilots, personally, because their skin is in the game when it comes to proper maintenance and to running a schedule against weather. There are plenty of horror stories out there. And anecdotally, the "old, bold" rule applies here more than in any other form of transportation. A reckless driver can survive for years with one fender-bender after another. The air is not so forgiving. When I was in college a favorite pass-time was analyzing NTSB accident reports. (It was an aviation-heavy school) Pilot error is almost always the primary cause of the accident, and pushing the weather is the most common error. I'd love to see a graph of flight time experience of the pilot plotted against the death rate. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 3, 2018 18:46:39 GMT -5
For me, it's that I'm never gonna ride in a small plane. Every time I read about some horrible, deadly crash like this it almost always involves some tiny, single prop plane like a Cessna (or Bell or similar). Both of these crashes involved that type of plane, as did "the Day the Music Died" crash. That pretty much seals it for me. Never getting in one of those things. I haven't checked the stats lately, but I flew thousands of hours in "those things" a couple decades ago, and year after year they were safer per mile traveled than driving... or jaywalking. And apparently that's still the case today. The cause of those deaths that do occur is overwhelmingly pilot error, and in turn, that's almost always a case of hubris. "There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots" is a truism. The bold ones I knew in my youth are all gone now. Of course, not every car accident makes front-page news. So perception and reality don't always match up. I'm surprised at how many people fall for the hype. Yeah, I know my fear of it is irrational, but at least I have a feeling of control when driving my car, even if I get in a crash and it's not my fault (and, I almost got killed by a drunk driver 5 years ago, so I say that from experience). When I'm flying, though, I have no control. If I die, it's the fault of some dude I never see who stays locked away in a cockpit. If it's my time to go out, I'm going out my way, damnit, not somebody else's.  |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 3, 2018 18:55:07 GMT -5
That's by hours. You don't measure a trip by hours, you measure it by miles traveled. Deaths per distance travels is what matters, and as the article noted, AOPA has actually broken that data out. Disagree. You can measure a trip by it's length or by it's distance. And if we are talking about risk, I think time spent with respect to a given risk is what matters the most. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 3, 2018 20:59:37 GMT -5
I haven't checked the stats lately, but I flew thousands of hours in "those things" a couple decades ago, and year after year they were safer per mile traveled than driving... or jaywalking. And apparently that's still the case today. The cause of those deaths that do occur is overwhelmingly pilot error, and in turn, that's almost always a case of hubris. "There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots" is a truism. The bold ones I knew in my youth are all gone now. Of course, not every car accident makes front-page news. So perception and reality don't always match up. I'm surprised at how many people fall for the hype. Yeah, I know my fear of it is irrational, but at least I have a feeling of control when driving my car, even if I get in a crash and it's not my fault (and, I almost got killed by a drunk driver 5 years ago, so I say that from experience). When I'm flying, though, I have no control. If I die, it's the fault of some dude I never see who stays locked away in a cockpit. If it's my time to go out, I'm going out my way, damnit, not somebody else's. Agreed. I have the same problem riding commercial... or riding in a car with somebody else driving, for that matter. It drives me up a wall. I've finally gotten to where I can relax when my wife's driving the RV, because it's bigger than most of the problems we have to worry about.  That's by hours. You don't measure a trip by hours, you measure it by miles traveled. Deaths per distance travels is what matters, and as the article noted, AOPA has actually broken that data out. Disagree. You can measure a trip by it's length or by it's distance. And if we are talking about risk, I think time spent with respect to a given risk is what matters the most. Context matters. An hour in a car is generally safer than an hour in a small plane. If weather's bad, there's simply no comparison. Small planes and weather don't mix. Thus my beef with charters, and with people trying to use small planes as scheduled transportation in general. Here's the caveat. The AOPA is the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. These are generally people who are at least semi-pro and approach flying with a high degree of professionalism. I'm sure their "6 times safer" is based on a competent pilot in an airworthy aircraft, properly planning and executing the flight. Competent pilots know when to say no, whether due to weather or to aircraft condition. In a poorly maintained aircraft, with a pilot on a "milk run" he's done a thousand times before, pushing that damned weather system because the flight must go through, I have no more faith in that "6 times safer" number than you. That's why I generally stay away from charters, and would recommend only owner-pilots. I have no control over any of those variables. It's up to the pilot, who's risking his own neck as well as yours. If you're just out for a hour's joyride, you're safer doing donuts in a parking lot than loops in the sky. For a one-hour tour of the Grand Canyon, the donkey's safer than the airplane. But if you want to see the same section of the Grand Canyon, I'll risk the airplane over the donkey. Besides, that'd take days; it's hardly a fair comparison. I detest helicopters. But given the choice between a helicopter or a bus between a cruise port and some wilderness destination, bring on the chopper. I've ridden a few of those buses, and I'd rather walk. Four hours in the air from Louisville KY to Melbourne FL, or 16-18 hours in a car. Distance is what matters. If time controls, then drive it in four hours, I guarantee you'll be less safe than in an airplane for the same amount of time. Of course, you realize this will all be meaningless in a few years, when autonomous drones take over the sky. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 4, 2018 10:28:00 GMT -5
Context matters. An hour in a car is generally safer than an hour in a small plane. If weather's bad, there's simply no comparison. Small planes and weather don't mix. Thus my beef with charters, and with people trying to use small planes as scheduled transportation in general. Here's the caveat. The AOPA is the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. These are generally people who are at least semi-pro and approach flying with a high degree of professionalism. I'm sure their "6 times safer" is based on a competent pilot in an airworthy aircraft, properly planning and executing the flight. Competent pilots know when to say no, whether due to weather or to aircraft condition. In a poorly maintained aircraft, with a pilot on a "milk run" he's done a thousand times before, pushing that damned weather system because the flight must go through, I have no more faith in that "6 times safer" number than you. That's why I generally stay away from charters, and would recommend only owner-pilots. I have no control over any of those variables. It's up to the pilot, who's risking his own neck as well as yours. If you're just out for a hour's joyride, you're safer doing donuts in a parking lot than loops in the sky. For a one-hour tour of the Grand Canyon, the donkey's safer than the airplane. But if you want to see the same section of the Grand Canyon, I'll risk the airplane over the donkey. Besides, that'd take days; it's hardly a fair comparison. I detest helicopters. But given the choice between a helicopter or a bus between a cruise port and some wilderness destination, bring on the chopper. I've ridden a few of those buses, and I'd rather walk. Four hours in the air from Louisville KY to Melbourne FL, or 16-18 hours in a car. Distance is what matters. If time controls, then drive it in four hours, I guarantee you'll be less safe than in an airplane for the same amount of time. Of course, you realize this will all be meaningless in a few years, when autonomous drones take over the sky. You wanna say small planes are safer--by the numbers--per mile traveled than cars, great. But you want to suppose that's the only lens that matters, then no. Because over time, small plane travel poses more risk than car travel, everything else being equal. The safety you're touting is a consequence of rate of travel. You do realize that, right? Again, imo what matters when it comes to risk is time spent with respect to a given risk. You're fixated on comparing risk with respect to a particular trip. You're free to do that, of course. But it's not the only way to approach risk. Far from it. My viewpoint is every bit as rational as yours (and fyi, Opty's fear is not irrational, imo), every bit as justifiable: An hour spent flying in a small, single engine plane carries an associated level of risk that some might decide is unacceptable, because that associated level of risk is far greater than their comfort zone, end of story.
You're imagining that risk can only be a factor with respect to making a choice with regard to reaching a goal (or a destination, in this case), but again that's not the only way to see things. And really, your point of view necessitates considering all of the other circumstances, from weather, to equipment specifics, to driver/pilot skill level, to a host of other things. What I'm saying--quite simply--is that eschewing flying in small planes is justifiable, simply from the standpoint of risk. One could easily--and justifiably--feel the same way about a host of other things, from riding motorcycles, to general anesthesia, to owning guns, to skydiving. There is inherent risk in doing all of these things--much of which can be mitigated, however--as opposed to not doing them. And just to hammer this all home, consider this data, on bicycling versus walking (driving, as well): www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdfNote that the data for cycling and walking kinda parallels the plane/car data, wherein cycling is safer per kilometer traveled, while walking is much, much safer, per hour traveled... |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 4, 2018 21:15:05 GMT -5
I detest helicopters. But given the choice between a helicopter or a bus between a cruise port and some wilderness destination, bring on the chopper. My brother, ex-Navy and current commercial pilot, calls helicopters "death traps" and won't ever fly in one. I respect his understanding of the mechanics. He'll happily fly or board a small plane, but never a helicopter, ever. I suppose it could be a phobia, but he's otherwise pretty much fearless. FWIW. Maybe take the bus? |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 5, 2018 7:27:34 GMT -5
I detest helicopters. But given the choice between a helicopter or a bus between a cruise port and some wilderness destination, bring on the chopper. My brother, ex-Navy and current commercial pilot, calls helicopters "death traps" and won't ever fly in one. I respect his understanding of the mechanics. He'll happily fly or board a small plane, but never a helicopter, ever. I suppose it could be a phobia, but he's otherwise pretty much fearless. FWIW. Maybe take the bus? I feel the same way about helicopters. The only thing I fear more transportation-wise is barely-literate, fearless bus drivers who tackle narrow gravel mountain roads with no guardrails at ridiculous speeds because their bosses have declared they must get the passengers from point A to point B and back again in time to not miss the departing cruise ship. There are a number of said buses now residing deep in jungle ravines. While the view from the window of such buses is breathtaking, it's also not for those who have weak hearts. I have ridden in both those buses and helicopters, and I'm sure I was much safer in the helicopter. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 5, 2018 18:51:03 GMT -5
Stevie Ray Vaughn died in a helicopter crash. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 5, 2018 18:53:23 GMT -5
I feel the same way about helicopters. The only thing I fear more transportation-wise is barely-literate, fearless bus drivers who tackle narrow gravel mountain roads with no guardrails at ridiculous speeds because their bosses have declared they must get the passengers from point A to point B and back again in time to not miss the departing cruise ship. There are a number of said buses now residing deep in jungle ravines. While the view from the window of such buses is breathtaking, it's also not for those who have weak hearts. I have ridden in both those buses and helicopters, and I'm sure I was much safer in the helicopter. Fair enough; buses are dangerous too. Horses it is!  |
|
