Why such a focus on safety in aviation?

Actually the title should read..why is there such a focus on safety in aviation as opposed to transportation. I've seriously pondered this? I would LOVE it if drivers were forced to have a biannual driving review. Heck just a class every so often on basic driving.
I observed today on a 30 mile trip at least two dozen fairly serious violations. I am rough guessing... but your standard drivers weaving and out of traffic, putting on make up, not paying attention in their lanes why talking on cell phones, so on and so forth.
So if driving is so dangerous (number one in accidents in transportation), why does it go unchecked. Why is aviation so lopsided in the focus on safety?

Simply because almost all people drive. Pilots are a minority of rich, fat cats, so we can be singled out.
Just like; Why aren't drunk drivers dealt with more severely? Because most people drink.

bgrandorff,

You have stepped on the dog's tail.. No flames intended, but I feel pretty passionately about this.

The reason why there is such a focus on Aviation safety is because almost every year Commercial pilot ranks 1, 2, or 3 in the Bureau of Labors statistics most deadly jobs in America. (look it up http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cfoi_08092007.pdf ) In 2006 Commercial pilot was the second deadliest job in America. If you believe that is OK, then your question is a valid one. I do not beleive that statistic is acceptable.

The problem is, we tell ourselves and our friends that flying is safe, but that is a "Big Lie." This is a dangerous game. I have lost way too many friends in this business. If you have been in the aviation game very long, chances are that you have too.

What can each of us do?

If you talk about aviation safety with a bunch pilots the conversation will quickly move to what other people need to do to make aviation safer.

News flash boys and girls, the only pilot we have any control over is the one we see in the mirror in the morning. It all starts right there with the pilot in the Mirror.

The good news is, if we fly better, smarter, and safer, others will see that and they will do better too. But it all starts with the pilot in the mirror, not by talking about what the "other guy" needs to do in the coffee shop.

Ask yourself this question, "what can I do to make my flying safer?" If your answer is "nothing, I am as safe as I can be." you problably should quit.

All of us can do better, and we should. But pretending that we don't have a safety problem in aviation is sticking your head in the sand.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
F1 EVO

B25Flyer said:

bgrandorff,

Ask yourself this question, "what can I do to make my flying safer?" If your answer is "nothing, I am as safe as I can be." you problably should quit.

Tailwinds,
Doug

Click to expand...

Very well put.

I believe you do appreciate the need for safety in aviation

Your point I believe was they should do something about driving safety.

I like your question as stated. The super safety mentality is not always a good thing. BRFs are a PITA caused by the administrators knee jerk reaction to the Ceritos crash. I do not believe they contribute to anything except instructor's payday.

Bob Axsom

Bob Axsom said:

Your point I believe was they should do something about driving safety.

I like your question as stated. The super safety mentality is not always a good thing. BRFs are a PITA caused by the administrators knee jerk reaction to the Ceritos crash. I do not believe they contribute to anything except instructor's payday.

Bob Axsom

Click to expand...

I can't disagree with Bob, nor can I disagree agree with improving the safety of drivers just as we do pilots. I also agree with with Doug though, that it is very dangerous to start comparing the safety record of flying (personal for fun) with that of driving. If you compare the accident rate per 1000 hrs driven to the rate for 1000 hrs flown, it is quite obvious that traveling on the ground is much safer than over it.

As for BFR's...I personally think they are a good thing. In fact I sometimes wonder how some pilots I have seen fly actually pass one every 2 years.

Lol..

Yes... sorry folks my above post should have really been about driving...
That truly was my point, so I can see how it was taken out of context...
As a pilot, I truly appreciate the safety and how we focus on it... I was trying to really ask though, why doesn't that make it's way into other industries / forms of transportation, such as driving (especially). 115 drivers each day getting killed, seems like the safety focus is very lopsided.

Bob Axsom said:

Your point I believe was they should do something about driving safety.

I like your question as stated. The super safety mentality is not always a good thing. BRFs are a PITA caused by the administrators knee jerk reaction to the Ceritos crash. I do not believe they contribute to anything except instructor's payday.

Bob Axsom

Click to expand...

why doesn't that make it's way into other industries / forms of transportation

Click to expand...

Because by and large other forms of transport are heavily state regulated whereas aviation is regulated by the FAA.

It is easier for the FAA to require recurrent training than for a local politician to advocate regulating his local constituency.

Sure gets old

I sure get tired of hearing about it, too. Pick up any airplane magazine and half the articles will be about safety. Motorcycles are dangerous, too, but you don't see that stuff in "V-Twin".

On the other hand, in a life time of riding motorcycles, I've personally witnessed a grand total of two non-fatal motorcycle crashes. But in my 12 years of flying, I've witnessed four crashes, two of them fatal, and I saw another fatal crash during my 4-year hitch in the Air Force.

But it's a different kind of risk. I don't think I know any biker who's been riding more than ten years who hasn't actually been in a motorcycle crash himself. In fact, one of the two I've witnessed was my own. On the other hand, I know very few pilots who have ever been in a plane crash. And while neither of bike wrecks I saw were preventable by the biker, all of the plane wrecks I've seen except for the one in the Air Force, were caused by pilot stupidity.

So maybe that's why there's so much focus on pilot safety. But I agree, it sure gets old. It gets old watching stupid pilot tricks.

B25Flyer said:

bgrandorff,

You have stepped on the dog's tail.. No flames intended, but I feel pretty passionately about this.

The reason why there is such a focus on Aviation safety is because almost every year Commercial pilot ranks 1, 2, or 3 in the Bureau of Labors statistics most deadly jobs in America. (look it up http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cfoi_08092007.pdf ) In 2006 Commercial pilot was the second deadliest job in America. If you believe that is OK, then your question is a valid one. I do not beleive that statistic is acceptable......

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
F1 EVO

Click to expand...

Nor is it true. At least I do not believe it.

The people who know the truth are insurance companys. Flying an airplane privately is in a higher risk category, but when I worked for a Part 121 carrier (commercial pilot) life insurance rates had no penalty for being in that occupation vrs not being there. I'm quite sure that situation is as true today as it was then. More guys get killed at home than at work flying, some even shot by disgruntled wives.

There is greater emphasis on safety in airplanes than in autos mostly because the margin of getting away with doing something stupid is much smaller in an airplane - and the instant media attention such events invite.

Bob Axsom said:

BRFs are a PITA caused by the administrators knee jerk reaction to the Ceritos crash. I do not believe they contribute to anything except instructor's payday.

Bob Axsom

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I can't agree with this statement. BFRs were around a long time before the Cerritos accident. Years ago (late 1970s) I was a flight instructor flying from Orange County in SoCal. I did a BFR with a guy who was a good stick but did not know one thing about airspace or the FARs. Had no concept of VFR weather minimums, special VFR, (back then) TCAs or TRSAs or airport traffic areas. Didn't understand ATC requirements. The guy was dangerous. That's what BFRs are for. By the way, he did not get a sign off from me. Needed much more work than he was willing to put into the thing. Says a lot.

David-aviator said:

Nor is it true. At least I do not believe it.

The people who know the truth are insurance companys. Flying an airplane privately is in a higher risk category, but when I worked for a Part 121 carrier (commercial pilot) life insurance rates had no penalty for being in that occupation vrs not being there. I'm quite sure that situation is as true today as it was then. More guys get killed at home than at work flying, some even shot by disgruntled wives.

There is greater emphasis on safety in airplanes than in autos mostly because the margin of getting away with doing something stupid is much smaller in an airplane - and the instant media attention such events invite.

Click to expand...

You are correct that being an airline pilot is not dangerous. It is not, the problem is the statistic is true, and has been for some time, and when you consider that most commercial pilots are airline pilots that means being a non-airline pilots is incredibly dangerous, which it is.

Ag-pilots, airshow pilots, night freight pilots, and 135 charter pilots in the bush, make flying so dangerous as to outweigh the incredible safety record of the scheduled airlines. Seriously go check the data at the BLS website. Commercial pilot is in the top ten no matter how far back you look and usually #1, #2 or #3 deadliest career in America....

If you want to lie to your friends, or your wife, about the danger of flying that is fine, but don't lie to yourself.

Tailwinds,
DougR

also, staying at home and/or driving a car do not count as a career or occupation.


flying is dangerous and i still havent figured out why i have spent so much money and time flying and building airplanes. i have all ideas i will have a plane for sale in the near future.

maybe i am just getting bogged down with gotta finish itis.

BRFs are a PITA . I do not believe they contribute to anything except instructor's payday.

Click to expand...

aerovin said:

With all due respect, I can't agree with this statement. BFRs were around a long time before the Cerritos accident. Years ago (late 1970s) I was a flight instructor flying from Orange County in SoCal. I did a BFR with a guy who was a good stick but did not know one thing about airspace or the FARs. Had no concept of VFR weather minimums, special VFR, (back then) TCAs or TRSAs or airport traffic areas. Didn't understand ATC requirements. The guy was dangerous. That's what BFRs are for. By the way, he did not get a sign off from me. Needed much more work than he was willing to put into the thing. Says a lot.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Bob on this one.

I fly regularly and practice a lot. I read regularly andd pay attention to what other pilots do correctly and incorrectly yet I am forced every two years to get a CFIs signature to be allowed the privelege of continued flight because of a pilots like the one you mention above.

I will submit that all the BFRs in the world will not make him and those like him safer and all he has to do to keep flying is find a CFI that will sign him off, and he will find one, all it takes is money. I will also say I have taken BFRs from CFIs no better than the pilot you describe.

BFRs are an expensive PITA and in my opinion are questionable when it comes to improving GAs safety record.

re: CDL

I have a CDL, I drive a tour bus as a "part time/fun" job. That license is federally regulated. I think the drivers license should be a federal thing, just like a pilots license. I'd gladly pay an examiner to do a BFR, sub F for D but maybe every 4 years instead of 2. Driving is a priviledge, not a freedom.
I feel the opposers to the every 4 year "drive for the examiner" probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place or are apprehensive about passing it. There'd be a lot less people driving & insurance premiums would/should be less.
I'm 50 years old and have felt strongly about this for a long time.
I fly, drive, & ride motorcycles, ACCIDENTS ARE AVOIDABLE. Most are caused by stupidity or inattentativeness
This is only my opinion, not right or wrong, but certainly certainly subject to flame.

Marshall Alexander
RV10 N781DM
fuse/panel

Don't mind BFR, do mind medical

BFR's don't cause me any stress at all. The requirements are well understood and there is no pass/fail. Even if you flew so badly that your CFI refused to sign you off, you can just practice and do it again.

It directly relates to flight safety, and if you fly regularly, it is a trivial portion of overall flying cost. If you don't fly regularly, then you especially need a BFR.

The medical is another story. I consider that an unjustified government intrusion into my personal business which has little if any bearing on flight safety. If got one coming up soon, and since I'm over 50 I believe I've got to get the prostrate exam.

How exactly is my prostrate related to safely flying an airplane?

I'm a healthy guy, but my upcoming medical is causing me a lot of stress. The pass/fail criteria are not perfectly clear to me and if I do fail, I'll be sentenced to FAA Hades for 2 years-to-life.

Steve Brown said:

How exactly is my prostrate related to safely flying an airplane?

Click to expand...

.

Maybe the digital prostate examination is somehow needed to assess your "seat of the pants" flying ability.

Fin
9A

How exactly is my prostrate related to safely flying an airplane?

Click to expand...

It's not. It is just so you can't sue the doc if you get prostate cancer a year later that he should have found during the exam.

Interesting thread...

A couple years back there was a similar thread and there were some who repeated the old idea that flying was safer than driving. That only applies to the airlines and I suspect that is on a passenger mile basis. It is refreshing to see the level of realism this time.

In 23 years of flying about half a dozen acquaintances (some good friends, some I barely knew) have died flying, while only 2 have died in car crashes and those were in the same car. A lot more people drive than fly, so the stats are clear about the relative safety.

re: BFR

I agree 100% with Steve. If an instructor wouldn't "sign me off" on a BFR, I wouldn't pay him. He's there to do a review, not a test. He should be telling & showing you & answering questions. If he can't tell, show, or answer your questions, then he's not doing his job.
As far as the 3rd class is concerned, I think it's discriminating against the
50+ age pilots.
The worst part is I have to get 2 medicals every two years. One for my CDL and my 3rd class. FAA won't accept DOT, & DOT won't accept FAA. Kind of screwed up, huh.

Marshall Alexander

RV10Man said:

I agree 100% with Steve. If an instructor wouldn't "sign me off" on a BFR, I wouldn't pay him. He's there to do a review, not a test. He should be telling & showing you & answering questions. If he can't tell, show, or answer your questions, then he's not doing his job.
As far as the 3rd class is concerned, I think it's discriminating against the
50+ age pilots.
The worst part is I have to get 2 medicals every two years. One for my CDL and my 3rd class. FAA won't accept DOT, & DOT won't accept FAA. Kind of screwed up, huh.

Marshall Alexander

Click to expand...

Actually the instructor is there to:

? 61.56 Flight review.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training. The review must include:

(1) A review of the current general operating and flight rules of part 91 of this chapter; and

(2) A review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.
Emphasis is mine.

You must demonstrate to the CFI's satisfaction that you do indeed safely exercise the privileges of the pilot certificate you hold. The CFI is doing you and the rest of the flying world no favors by either "Parker whipping" your logbook or just riding around with you for an hour and saying "what a wonderful job" if in fact it wasn't. I have never not "signed off" on a pilot that has come to me for a BFR, but there have been a few times where I have said "Let's continue this next time." before I put my name down in their logbook saying "Yes, he is safe to share to pattern with me and my family."

There is another side to this whole BFR story. There was a farmer around here who was a life-long aviator. He had owned airplanes his entire life ranging from a Luscombe upto a Cheyenne I and finally a Twinkie.

Several years ago he asked me for a BFR and when we finished were talking... you know doing the ground training.... Anyway he said that he was not getting any younger and if I thought he was too old or slow to fly the twinkie he asked me if I would tell him when it was time to hang up his spurs.

I assured him that I would and we talked about currency and how he was probably not flying enough to be shooting approaches to mimimuns. He fidgeted and fussed about that, but he acknowledged that he was basically retired and was seldom against a schedule and promised he would not fly in low IFR conditions.

Before his next BFR he gear-upped the twinkie. He was assigned some remedial training with me. We sat down and talked about the importance of checklists and if he was going to fly into his advancing years he would have to be improve his checklist discipline. He rented an Arrow and went flying.

We taxied out and got to the end of the runway and he did a runup from memory and got all the killer items but I said, you have to do the printed checklist. He did and then did one of the most beautiful X-wind take-offs I had seen in a long time.

We entered the downwind and he put the gear down again I reminded him he had to use the checklist, he did and he again made a text-book X-wind landing.

We taxied back and this time he seemed a little befuttled. Again he forgot the checklist and I prodded him. When he got down to Altimeter. He turned and looked at me with a blank stare and asked, "how do you set an altimeter?"

I was heart broken. We taxied in shut down and I told him it was over. It was the end of a 50 year aviation career. It was not a pretty picture and I thought seriously about sending my instructor certificate back to the feds. Two years later, He is in the home now and doesn't know his family.

Maybe he was tipping his hand to me when he asked me if I would tell him when to hang it up? I missed it, shame on me. Fortunately he did not hurt anything but his twinkie.

All of our flying can stand some inspection and before anybody says, "Why should I fly with the 250 hr wonders at the local flight school? Then don't!" Find a professional pilot, airline pilot with a CFI, or someone you respect enough to give you a good workout and an honest assesment of your skills.

I am a DPE, CFI, FAR 135 checkpilot, CAF checkpilot, and do lots of training with high time pilots in all kinds of airplanes. The dirty little secret is most of us pilots are not nearly as good as we think we are. Everyone can use some dual, especially me.

I do 2 FAR 135 checkrides with the Feds plus at least 2 observed checkrides to maintain my DPE plus a 61.58 ride in the B-25 with a designee, and go to Sim-Com for simulator treatment, all of this annually. Recurrent training makes a difference. And if it isn't a rule, it doesnt get done.

Sorry for the long post.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

re: Thanks Doug & Nathan

Doug & Nathan
Thanks for shedding some light to me on the FAR's.
I wouldn't have any problems with an instructor charging me for more hours for a BFR for more "reviewing" if I needed it. I know, in all honesty, I need it, like everyone else. We are all a competitive sort. everything we do is a competition of some kind. For instance, every landing we do, we try to do better than the last one, every deal we make with a vehicle dealer, we try to do better the next time, and so on.
That's why I feel pilots are safer than the average Joe, they know that in 2 years they are going to be reviewed by someone. So they continuly strive to do everything better the next time so as to stay sharp. Most drivers, on the other hand, have the attitude (sub-conscienly) I've got my license now, I can do what I want. All the while, their skills and knowledge are fading.

Marshall Alexander
RV10 N781DM
panel/fuse top

Thanks, Doug....

.....for a very insightful post.

If we always try and fly to the next skill level, as I tell my transitioning guys, we become our own best critic. If you're a PPL, fly to Commercial requirements...within 5 degrees of a heading and within 50' of your desired altitude...etc. I try and fly to APR levels daily....it's one way to become more self-critical since only you know whether or not you're maintaining altitude or precise headings.

Pre-flight planning also falls into these categories....too many avoidable accidents make the NTSB reports anyway.

Regards,

Regular training helps...

The FAA has just launched a new series of workshops for CFI's. It is a series of 8 sessions, and attendance at all 8 will renew an unexpired CFI certificate. We just had the first one in the SE MI area last week.
One of the subjects covered is the FAA Wings program and SPANS. I'm not a fan of the way the Wings program is implemented, but the concept is valid: regular training improves safety. The good news is that the 'ground school' part of the training can be done over the internet. I've been taking some of these courses, from both the FAA and AOPA, and overall I'm favorably impressed. They are better an easier than attending a safety seminar.

The biggest problem I've seen in 30 years of instructing, is that the pilots who really need the training are the ones you never hear from, or about, until something bad happens. Folks who participate in forums like this are staying knowledgeable, even if they are doing more rivet pounding than flying (like I did for 2.5 years ) And once you are flying, the 'RV social network' is very proficiency and safety conscious - kudos to all It also means that regulations (i.e. BFRs) and efforts like the Wings program seem kind of overbearing and intrusive at times to this kind of audience, despite their 'good intentions'.
So the challenge is to get to the pilots who don't fly enough to stay really proficient. Frankly, I'm amazed the insurance companies haven't done more. One of the instructors at our session said he has one pilot he flies with whose insurance company gave him a discount for participating in the Wings program. I've never heard of that before, and he didn't know specifics. When he changed insurance companies, he quit the Wings program. Too bad.
Sorry for the long rambling post. I'm preaching to the choir.

RV NTSB Statistics

This discussion has prompted me to check the NTSB accident database for RV accident statistics. I'm still trying to decide which RV I might build. Anyway, this is what I found. I took the default date range for the query (six years from 1/1/2003 to today's date).

RV-x, Hob, Acc, Fat, Rate, Fat-Rate
RV-7, 709, 021, 006, 1/34, 1/118
RV-8, 842, 031, 009, 1/27, 1/94
RV-9, 417, 013, 000, 1/32, 0/417
RV10, 164, 004, 003, 1/41, 1/55

Please excuse the leading zeros. That's so the columns will stay lined up. The "Hob" numbers comes from Van's website Hobbs meter (for today's date). "Acc" is total accidents listed in NTSB. "Fat" is accidents with at least one fatailty (sometimes there are more). "Rate" is the accident rate (how many planes flying for each accident). "Fat-Rate" is how many planes flying per fatal accident.

I realize that the results are a bit skewed because the Hobbs number is planes reporting first flights through today's date, but the accidents have happened over a six-year span. But the numbers looked similar in terms of rates when I just looked at this year's accidents compared to this today's Hobb's numbers.

Perhaps also I may have formed my queries incorrectly. I searched for the model "RV 7" and got back results for "RV7", "RV-7", "RV7A", and "RV-7A". So I think I got all the reported accidents.

It seems like the accident rate is fairly constant across RV models, but fatal accidents are less likely in the RV9. I wonder about this.

I also wonder how these accident rates compare with certified aircraft.

Any insight?

Steve Brown said:

If got one coming up soon, and since I'm over 50 I believe I've got to get the prostrate exam.

How exactly is my prostrate related to safely flying an airplane?

I'm a healthy guy, but my upcoming medical is causing me a lot of stress. The pass/fail criteria are not perfectly clear to me and if I do fail, I'll be sentenced to FAA Hades for 2 years-to-life.

Click to expand...

Steve,

If it's any help to you, here's my story.
When I turned 56, my old Doc retired. I went to another guy and he did the finger wave on me. Made me madder than h#$%, but you can't walk out after you fill out the forms. So the next time around, I found a new guy and told him the story. He has since passed me twice without the finger wave.....
hope this helps.

Geoff Kimbrough

RV-8 flying
Stearman Flying

NTSB reports

TThurston said:

This discussion has prompted me to check the NTSB accident database for RV accident statistics. I'm still trying to decide which RV I might build. Anyway, this is what I found. I took the default date range for the query (six years from 1/1/2003 to today's date).

RV-x, Hob, Acc, Fat, Rate, Fat-Rate
RV-7, 709, 021, 006, 1/34, 1/118
RV-8, 842, 031, 009, 1/27, 1/94
RV-9, 417, 013, 000, 1/32, 0/417
RV10, 164, 004, 003, 1/41, 1/55

Click to expand...

A few months ago I went through the NTSB reports and found about 120 fatal accidents involving RVs (all types and all years). At the time the total count on Van's website was around 5700. Based on these numbers it appears that about 2% of all completed RVs have been involved in a fatal accident.

As best I could tell this record has little to do with the experimental nature of the aircraft (ie, relatively few fatalities resulted from equipment failures). It may have more to do with how they are operated (aerobatics, low-level maneuvering, formation flight, etc.). It would be very interesting to see an in-depth analysis of these data by someone better qualified.

This information certainly hasn't deterred me from flying my RV, but it does tend to make me more alert to potential risks and means of mitigating them.

Bob Axsom said:

BRFs are a PITA caused by the administrators knee jerk reaction to the Ceritos crash. I do not believe they contribute to anything except instructor's payday.

Click to expand...

Years ago I was working on finally finishing up my PP ticket. I was standing in the lobby of the Mannasas Virginia airport and witnessed the following:

Young instructor - looked like we wasn't more than a year out of high school and still was showing that he must have been in a growth spurt as all his clothes looked one size too small - you know the shirt sleeves too short - high water pants, etc.- firmly but with increasing exasperation holding his ground with an older gentleman who was argueing for the instructor to sign off on what must have been a just completed BFR.

The older Gentleman looked to be in his mid to late 60s and based on the year this happened I'd bet the guy learned to fly during the Big One. Hovering in the background were two youngsters that, again supposition on my part but the dynamics gave the clues, appeared to be his grandchildren.

It became obvious from the converstation taht the "old man" wanted to give the kids a ride in an airplane and had been at the FBO for awhile trying to get his long past due BFR signed off so he could take them up. It had been a nice VFR day because if it wasnt a nice VFR day I would not have been anywhere near the airport at that stage in my progression. Manassas was (still is) under the outer shelf of the DC Class B which, while larger and more complex now than then, was still airspace you needed to know your way around as inbound to Dulles 747s filled to the gills from Europe, Asia, etc rountinely passed nearby at a few thousand feet. Of course a quick turn southwest and you were beyind Class B limits and even Mode C requirements in a matter of minutes and you never had to talk to Approach in those days as 9/11 and the ADIZ (now there is a knee-jerk reaction for you) were somthing nobody even dreamed could ever happen in the good ol USA.

From bits and pieces of the conversation it was clear that the Gentleman had not demonstrated knowledge of the airsapce and had been rusty in his airmanship as well. The kid instructor held his ground and wouldn't sign him. Offered to fly again with him and to spend more time on the ground portion, etc. The gentleman got madder and more frustrated because all he wanted to do was introduce the kids to a nice sightseeing flight on a nice VFR day.

I felt for the guy and sorta felt inside the kid was taking the letter of the law thing too seriously at the time. But in reality I admired his fortitude. It tooks guts to stand up to someone that obviously had more stick time than the kid could ever dream about knowing the old man must surely feel some humiliation being denied to fly infront of his ever more fidgity grandkids.

I've done my share of stupid things in airplanes and reading these posts has got me thinking that I need to take my flying much more seriously.

The kid was right and the old man should have taken care of business before bringing the kids to the airport. I fairly confident that his lack of knowledge of proper radio calls and communications requirements to operate in a Class B would have had no bearing on his ability to operate the airplane safely. But his attitude that "that stuff doesn't apply to me" is the same one I've silently told myself from time to time about some stupid FAR or other admonision that has compromised my safety in ways I don't even understand.

Flying is less tolerant of mistakes than ground transportation as you can't just pull over and call AAA when the check engine light comes on. Nobody in the NTSB reports ever thought it could happen to them as as one who has survived one airplane crash I'm starting FINALLY to get it that its all about the discipline or lack of that starts the chain of events.

Doug is right we shouldn't tolerate the statistic and I'm taking a hard look in the mirror. I hope that kid is flying the next airliner I get on - more than anything else he showed the "right stuff" that day. I just hope he can finally afford some clothes that fit.

Richard