APenNameAndThatA

Had an argument with my BFR instructor while doing a spin check. The aircraft would enter a spin but as soon as the rudder or stick pressure was relaxed it started flying again. He wanted a full spin recovery demonstration but as soon as the back pressure or rudder was centered the speed climed very quickly into the yellow arc I was on to this and would roll straight and get the nose up ASAP. He did not like the use of aileron which is true if it was still in a spin but not is a spiral dive with the speed getting away. Some people want to see the procedure rather than flying the plane hence the over speeds.

RA aircraft cannot fly at night so Nav lights are a waste of money. Strobes are usually not visible from very far away & are more visible when an aircraft is on the ground. I bought a pair of LED strobes ($260.00) for my wingtips when building my aircraft. The flashing controller is in the wingtip & they draw very little current & here is no radio interference like the old halogen etc ones. A pair of Wing mounted LED landing lights with a wig-wag function are the best from a visibility aspect from head on. They stand out like dogs balls.

But they do fly when it is pretty dark.

I would communicate in writing with the airline

Snarf gave the best advice. Another option is the app LiveATC. Humans learn language by imitation. At Archerfield, I was not ready to repeat back the instructions “On bravo, cross 04 right, cross 04 left, hold at bravo 5 for 10 left.” There are only two taxi instructions that are usually given, so there is a finite amount to learn.

I have the purple ATC book about using the radio. Not nearly as much help as the ap.

After some help with radio read back and using the key words in class D. Tips for practice in expecting and repeat back. Thanks Andy

Snarf gave the best advice. Another option is the app LiveATC. Humans learn language by imitation. At Archerfield, I was not ready to repeat back the instructions “On bravo, cross 04 right, cross 04 left, hold at bravo 5 for 10 left.” There are only two taxi instructions that are usually given, so there is a finite amount to learn.

The high-wing brumby does not have great payload even with a Rotax, IIRC. There is no way that I would get a Lyco when I could get a Rotax. Disclaimer: low hrs pilot. Why would you prefer a Lyco?

Celebrities need to know that their presence can distract pilots and also cause get-there-itis. (Which, technically, would be inflammation of the get-there.)

I think you misunderstand the issue here.

The transmissions appear to be correct format and would be just fine if you could actually understand the very heavy accent and mispronounced words.

I'm pretty sure that I twigged that the accents were the main issue.

I doubt it but am not an expert.

Seen a few of the yellow pests on various sales sites in recent times.

I'm waiting to get shouted down, but here goes. What the Casa brochure Be Seen Be Heard Be Safe says as an example call is this.

"Parkes traffic, C172, ZTQ one-zero miles

north inbound on descent through 4,200,

estimating circuit at three six, Parkes."

The first three bits are simple: Where you are calling, "traffic", what you are and who you are.

The next bits are complicated.

1. Distance away.

2. Bearing (from their perspective).

3. What you are doing overall: "inbound" or "overflying".

4. What you are doing for altitude, if anything: climbing, descending.

5. Current altitude.

6. "Estimating"

7. What you are going to do, again: "circuit" or "overhead"

8. "At"

9. Time.

Then, the place is simple.

If you were really supposed to say who you were talking to, who you were, where you were, what you were doing, time and place again, you would say.

Parks traffic, C172, ZTQ, 10 miles north 4500 feet, descending, inbound for circuit (or not "circuit" because if you are inbound, a full stop is assumed) estimating at 36, Parks. Which I think would be better. But improving on the rules is the last thing that I would want do do.

What is going on? Is there some reason it is like this? I don't want to improve on the rules. Saying what people expect you to say, when they expect you to say it, is much more important than improving on the standard procedures in one's one idiosyncratic way.

Work 5 days a week. 17% decrease in work. 100% increase in time off.

Or even

"Parkes traffic, Cessna 172, ABC, 10 miles east, 4000, Inbound, Parkes 15"?

"15" might be the runway. So, no.

Are RAAus aircraft allowed?

There was a time when I was learning to fly gliders when we just happened to drive past a few dying motorcyclists. Thank goodness there were already ambulances etc there, and we had to look up later what had happened. This helped me convince the wife how safe gliding was in comparison to motorbikes.

I like pmc's point about how relevant some accidents are to us personally. When I eliminate the ones which I wouldn't do, like flying into cloud-covered mountains, I think that what is left is very safe. A few fatalities have been the result of the pilot going into panic when the sound of silence replaced the engine noise, for another example. This is not relevant to us older wiser guys with heaps of gliding in our books, or indeed anybody well trained and in practice.

The last fatality anywhere near Gawler was a metal aircraft which took off and flew into low overcast, from which it emerged in bits. I remember the day and deciding it wasn't a flying day at all.

These are the equivalent events to the hoon drivers pmc mentioned. I personally discount them.

So the question to the pessimists out there... How am I taking a risk if I continue to fly in good weather over wheat country?

Yes, modifying the base rates is a good idea. I know that I won’t drive drunk. With the flying accidents, I tell myself that if other people made those mistakes, then so can I.

I often wonder how police can operate motorcycles given the appalling accident statistics of bikes. Workcover (NSW) would be on their case like flies on manure so they must be doing something very different to the average rider. Is it very good training, detailed assessment of risks, competency based testing of skills and mental attitude, strong oversight by management, sounds a bit like flying. One major advantage we pilots have is total control over our situation including but not limited to what we will do in an engine malfunction situation. Mid air collision is the only thing we cannot totally control, fortunately very rare.

My understanding is that the police would like to stop using motorcycles but that they can do things that cars can’t. That’s not very specific info, I know.

I think farming has gone to the top of the list as the most dangerous work environment.

 

We have had two deaths in our area in the last month on quad bikes.

 

One 80 and the other mid 60's.

 

The best thing that I have acquired from becoming a pilot is the ability to evaluate risk, human behaviour, and get there syndrome.

 

To save time in the past I would take short cuts, ignore risk, and think it won't happen to me !

 

It's like the ….Bold pilots and old pilots...…...you make your choice.

I suspect motorbikes are safer than quad bikes.

The point about insurance companies is very valid. Money talks and bullshit walks, as the movie said. Apparently, in the early 1900’s insurance companies already knew that asbestos was bad. Actually, the Romans knew to give their slaves pig skin masks if they worked with asbestos, to help the slaves live longer. As far as I can remember, insurance companies take a dimmer view of aircraft than motorcycles.

Trouble is not many have much faith in CASA, my dealings with CASA I avoid them at all costs.

That's a cynical way of looking at things but 40 years both being an operator and flying for a living, my experience is their toxic.

I know that's the wrong attitude.

In this situation a bit if toxicity might help.

@APenNameAndThatA, I do disagree and the reason is you are picking an arbitrary comparison for a start...

 

Based on @M61A1, post citing c. 90% of motorcycle accidents happen on days in good weather, and a good deal of those on the weekends, then this would imply two (or more, but for the sake of argument, let's leave it at two) things: a) Motorcycles are generally only ridden in good weather and mainly on the weekends; or b) of all the motorcycle trips that are ridden, 90% of accidents occur in good weather and of those, most occur on the weekend. There is a subtle difference between them, because, it may be that 90% of all motorcycle kms or hours ridden are during the week and variable weather and for work (courier, emergency services, etc) or to commute. If it is more towards the latter, then that would imply a few other things, namely either most of the good weather/weekend riders are recreational only - only bring their shiny chromed machines out on good days and although they may be travelling somewhere, the main purpose for the ride is to enjoy the ride.. the sort of equivalent of the $100 hamburger.. or that all those motorcylists that are extremely careful and safe during the week and in bad weather become lazy when they are recreationally riding.

 

What matters is if you are lumping everything together, you are not making any meaningful comparison of risk, because recreational flying (be it in RAA or GA machines) will not nominally have the same characteristics by which to comapre risk. For example, the professional rider is riding much more frequently, in different conditions and in a different state of mind; he (or she) is more concerned with miles covered and getting to and from their destination in the quickest and (hopefully) safest time as their livelihood (and possibly someone else's life) depends on it. His bike is a means to the end. The recreational rider, like the recreational flyer, is more interested in enjoying their pastime - the journey is more often than not the reason for picking that mode of transport; taking in the sights, enjoying the weather, enjoying their destination, but possibly not bhe the main reason for their destination. Also, they are generally lilely to be periodical users of their aircraft - maybe once a week, fortnight or even month... (yes some are more frequent), and what about in the winter months (although granted, winter in most of Australia is a more forgiving environment for aviaton than winter in the UK). The professional motorcylist is likely to find themselves in urban and suburban situations; stop-start, slow traffic, etc (as well as other risks such as peds, dogs, stoopid drivers and the like). The recreational rider is likely to be on urban/suburban roads for the period it takes to get to the freeway/highway to get to the mountains or ocean roads, etc.. but they are more likely to be in rural or open road situations. The bike for the recreational rider, like the aircraft for the recreational flyer is, if not the end in itself, a big part of it. How you would compare the risk of flying to urban riding of a professional is a leap of statiscial analysis I have yet to see made valid.

 

So, in order to compare the risk, you have to compare most like-for-like. We would remove the professional daily rider (or rides) from the equation because in terms of environmental, purpose, state of mind and other factors, they are not in anyway a valid comparison of correlative factors that make up the risk (except that they are both a mode of transport - may was well compare them to shipping accidents in the atlantic ocean). By the way, by cleansing the data, I am making recreational flying seem even more safe compared to our motorcyling brethren.

 

Picking factor to express risk has to be valid, too.. The distance travelled, I think is not valid and here are the reasons:

- As recreational biking, driving or flying is concerned, distance travelled is probably not the key purpose of the trip - the time on the favoured mode of transport is. If you decide you want to do a day trip, you work out how long you want to be flying/riding, pick a suitable destination and go for it. In when biking, we may look at a distance, but it will be based on how long it will take to get there at a speed, which is pretty constant. In flying, we may pick a destination, but due to a stonking headwind component, may bin it for something else in the time we have available; or we may extend the entire duration of the trip (say to an overnighter) so we spend a comfortable x hours in the aircraft. My point is for recreational biking/driving/riding/cycling/whatever, it is more about time (for flying, your licence requirements are measured in hours with only the x-country component requiring min. distance).

 

- Comparing distance based on an average calculation of speed is erroneous. We are comparing ground speed to airpseed and in the air, we are almost always subject to a wind component that speeds us up or slows us down.. and I don't think one can reliably assume a net zero for many reasons. inclduing prevailing winds, time of day, rarely are routes flowin reciprocally, etc. At a couple thousand feet, you can easily experience a 20+kt headwind and by the time you get to your destination, the wind has dropped and you are experiencing a small tailwind on the way back. This does not affect ground vehicles in the same way. As another example, we have heard on these fora how people have been able to almost hover their aircraft in stiff headwinds; you may in theory take off into a 50kt headwind (somehow) and hold it there for your friends to see your death defying skill and get absorbed by it all that you forget that you had only an hours fuel, exhaust that fuel, stall, and lights out. You have not flown 1km, but have been aloft an hour.. To me, per hour seems a more realistic risk comparison.

 

Going to your project analogy - say we were comparing the risk of bespoke software development and implementation v. buy off the shelf and implement. Th risk we are comparing between them is failed software development. Sounds reasonable, but I would not use the average of all software implementations - SCADA and ERP are different beasts with different risk profiles that makes the comparison meaningless. If I was doing an ERP implementation, I would strip out from historical data non-ERP projects.

Your are being too all-or-nothing about whether or not data has any value, and dumping the data just because it is imperfect. Take the comparison of death rates between car drivers and motorcyclists: most of the the fatalities might be from weekend riders and most of the kilometers might be from professional riders during the week (I don't know). That does not mean that the comparison is meaningless, it just means that you need to take that into account when you are deciding if buying a motorbike to ride on the weekend is a good idea.

It is wrong to say that you cannot compare risks when someone rides for a certain amount of time, and fly for a certain distance. It does not matter what the motivation is. The further/longer you fly/ride/drive, the greater the risk. Simple as that.

As for the idea that comparing distance based on speed being erroneous, it's not. LSA's fly in a pretty specific speed band. The issues of headwind are going to be smaller than the individual differences in LSA speeds. As all winds are headwinds, as it were, you could take headwinds into account by saying that there is, on average, a 5 kt headwind. It does not make a difference.

If someone is wanting to work out how safe flying is, they can compare it to driving *or* riding a motorbike. If someone wants more accurate data, they can drill down and modify the *base rate* of risk by taking into account their hours, temperament, aircraft, weather and etc.

-------------------

Let me say the same thing differently by asking you some questions.

1. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is safer driving a car?

2. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is more dangerous than riding a motorbike?

3. Before the above statistics were presented to you, did you have any idea if LSA was safer or more dangerous that driving? If so, what did you base your assessment on? Was the thing more or less reliable than the calculation above?

4. Do you have a better way of comparing the risk? If not, do you not have a clue how dangerous LSA is compared to travelling by car? As in, no clue?

5. It is generally accepted that travelling by commercial airline is safer than travelling by car. Do you accept those statistics? Why? Commercial airlines travel vastly greater distances vastly faster than car, by people who travel for different reasons and motivations, and less often, so how can you compare the risks?

Here's my figures.. The fatality rate of active RAAus pilots is about 1 in 1000. We seem to have about 6 fatalities every year and about 6000 active members.

Now the death rate of 60 year-olds is about ten in a thousand from all causes.

As of now I am in my 70's where the death rate from all causes is about 20 per thousand per year. So getting old is far more dangerous, in mortality terms, than flying.

Any tips on how to stop getting older?

That is fascinating. The calculations that I had done in the past, when I was considering flying, were as follows. 1 fatal per 100 000 hours. That means that if someone flew 50 hours per year, there was a 1/2000 chance of dying per year. The base mortality rate for people who are about 40 or 50 is about 1/1000. Importantly, that includes people who were already *known* to be at risk, such as people with severe medical illness. I reasoned that if I flew, I would roughly increase the chance of me dying by 50%. As for flying with kids in the plane: their base rate risk of death was 1/2000, and they did not have a chronic illness. That means that, if you fly with your kids a lot, if they are going to die, it will probably be in your aircraft. Flying: it's not dangerous, but it's not safe.

I don't know what to add.

there is so much to say, it really is comparing apples to oranges.

I remember there was a joke that statistically you have a better chance of not getting cancer if you owned a budgie. I think that sums up this thinking too.

No, it's comparing probability of dying to probability of dying.

Just picking up this thread and haven't looked at the maths in great detail, but if we are talking comparing risk of flying to risk of driving (or more accurately road use), then it is an almost impossible comparison. For example, we could use the absolute fatalities per time unit (hours) or distance travelled, but at best, both are crude comparisons best left to the senationalistic press. For example, what is the big factor (outside of the pilot/driver/rider/pedestrian) missing from this the above that would have a major bearing on the numbers if it were consistent between the two? Weather. If we took away all of the accidents that happened in driveable, but poor weather (and assuming most LSA flying is done in good weather, of course), we may find the statistical averages of fatalities per hour or per distance travelled quite different for the road users.. .but would that not be a more valid comparison? Also, traffic density... and other obstructions/distractions...

 

In financial engineering, we have to do back testing of our risk models. This means that we have to effectively scrub yesterday's and historiucal and current data sets from all the noise that will distort the key findings and then apply the models. The maths applied to the scrubbing is usually as complex as the models themselves. Referring back to scrubbng the datasets so that we can approximate the weather conditions and model accordingly, well, you do the math.. It is not simple.

 

Wherever we are with respect to operating vehicles, we can mitigiate most of the risks, but not eliminate them all.. But we should strive to minimise it to the lowest practical value.

There is simply no need to take into factors like weather or to scrub data for this kind of comparison. There is no need to remove any factors that might confound the data, because, as far as we know, the same factors will be present in the same amounts going forward. Stating the same thing differently, if we remove confounding variables then we would remove important factors that should not be removed.

One way to manage financial risks of projects running over budget is to see how much similar projects tend to run over budget. It does not matter why projects run over budget, but simply that they do. If they tend to run 30% over budget, then that is what you can say will happen with the current project. Again, this is the opposite of scrubbing data.

The following is actually a simple comparison, and not impossible at all: LSA’s fly at 90 kts, or 170 kph. On fatal per 100 000 hrs = one fatal per 17 000 000 km. 200 / 17 = 12. So, about 12 times more dangerous than driving, and about 40% as dangerous as a motorbike. If you want to make specific criticisms of the figures, then I am all ears.

In the early 80's I was contract working with my equipment around Ravensthorpe (W.A.) and regularly spotted this tray-top Landrover around town and nearby, that was bent in the middle!

The chassis was bent downwards several inches in the centre, and I surmised that the farmer had seriously overloaded the old Landrover at one time, resulting in the big bend in the chassis!

 

One day I got the chance to pull up alongside him at the Motel and queried the reason for the bend, and what he'd put on it, that caused such a severe bend?

He replied, "Oh, I haven't overloaded it - I was hit from behind!! You know those XXXXX Bros?" (local contracting brothers who were noted as speed merchants, and who owned a Valiant Drifter van)

 

"Well, I was just checking the sheep in the paddock from the road (the South Coast Hwy, the major coastal highway), just doing about 15kmh! - when one of those mad XXXXX brothers ran right up my backside with his Valiant van, doing about 120kmh!! It shocked the Bejeesus out of me!! I banged my head on the back wall of the cab, and everything on the tray ended up on the bonnet of his Valiant!! And of course, it bent the chassis on the Landrover!!

 

I could hardly contain myself from laughing at my minds eye vision of a young speed merchant in his Drifter van, coming around a bend in the highway at full speed - only to find a farmer in an old Landrover, checking the sheep from the highway at 15kmh!!

Many farmers have trouble "getting up to speed", both mentally, and on the highway, when they leave their paddocks!! This bloke certainly learnt a big lesson about the difference between "property speeds" and "highway speeds".

The way you tell the story, the farmer did not learn to drive faster than 15 kmph.

Something I'd like to share with my transition experience ... Beechcraft Skipper/C150/Piper Warrior to Drifter (RAAus). In the VH aircraft I was always taught that if you have an engine failure and you have sufficient airspeed, convert the airspeed to altitude until you reach best glide speed. Not so in a Drifter (or any low mass RA aircraft) ... upon engine failure point nose down to maintain safe airspeed. This was drummed into me during transition training HOWEVER when after many hours of the blah-blah-blah (point nose down) we were doing a touch and go at Lismore Airport when the instructor in the back seat of the Drifter cut the power to idle when I was 20 feet off the ground on climb-out... and what did I do, I pulled the stick back (from instinct of VH flying days)... the instructor freaked out screaming "do you want to kill us?" and forced the stick/nose down before we stalled. I have not made the same mistake since then.

I’m pretty sure that if you lose power on climb-out in a C172 you are supposed to lower the nose. Disclaimer: I have about 50 hrs.