![]() |
Quote:
|
Dan Lloyd...
...is one RV-10 fatality.
Sometimes you just have to say no. My wife wanted to fly to the coast last week, to visit an old high school friend, 130 miles from here, in S.C. I said no, the weather's lousy and she didn't quite understand because it was CAVU here at home. I was pressured because.."She's only gonna be here another two days before she goes back to Maine"...or wherever. Don't get suckered into a situation you shouldn't be in. Nevertheless, I stood my ground and we left the next day because I deemed the entire trip, there and back, doable, VFR. It was barely VFR the last 30 miles and a turnaround to better weather was always my call and she accepts that. Sometimes, just say no. Best, |
Quote:
I thought about this earlier this morning. Actually Bob's accident occurred in April of 2009, but it didn't register as a fatality in the NTSB databases. It's listed as a non-fatal because he died some days later in Memorial hospital. In my mind, that makes it a fatality. That's the reason it's not showing up under the fatal accidents. Phil |
Quote:
I'd almost consider 'serious' as a fatality too. All of the people I know who have had accidents with a serious injury will never experience a quality of life I'd like to experience. Their flying careers are over, blindness, severe burns.... I'm not sure that's worth living for. |
One accident in that database involved an RV that crashed for undetermined reasons. Witnesses had differing reports, none that agreed. In the end, the NTSB simply doesn't know what went wrong.
Both the pilot and the passenger had "autopsy evidence of coronary artery disease and a previous heart attack, though it is possible that either or both were not aware of their heart disease." It may have been medical incapacitation of the pilot that caused the crash, but nobody will ever know. Both pilots were very careful and were not the buzz-job types. One bucked most of my rivets in Smokey. I choose to believe that medical incapacitation was the underlying cause of the accident. There are times we just don't know what happened ... |
One of the reasons we don't learn more from individual RV accidents is because we don't know HOW to talk about individual RV accidents.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Now days you can't come right out and say on the internet, "That guy was absolutely stupid because of 1.XXX 2.XXX and 3.XXX." Those conversations occur face 2 face in a hangar. If you do, then folks say you shouldn't be so judgmental. They say that family members are reading posts and we can't let their family know they were missing a few marbles at the time of the accident. In Bob's case, he made a stupid decision. I knew Bob, well. He'd tell you in a heartbeat that he screwed up. Originally his brother came on VAF and said we had it wrong and the Bob would never do anything stupid. After learning more about the accident he came back and humbly admitted that Bob screwed up. That doesn't happen very often and I have much more respect for them for admitting it and then using his accident to make sure other pilots understand the impact of their decisions. It's rare for a family to accept blame. It's easier to talk about the group of accidents as a whole and not call any individual stupid. I think that's where you were headed. |
Quote:
And it IS definitely misleading when they don't call it fatal if the person lives beyond a certain time, then passes away later from the injuries. Paul |
I didn't read the posts so this point may have already been made.
There is less warbirds every year but more RV every year so looking only at death is misleading. Death/flying airplane or even better death/flying hours would be a better metric. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:27 AM. |