06:30 EDT


 

מעקב/פרטי שדות תעופה


-או-


 

קריאות וכותרות ראשיותWill you take the PLEDGE?

Back to Squawk list

Will you take the PLEDGE?

נשלח לפני
 
The PLEDGE program, launched by the Texas Aviation Association Foundation, aims to reduce the general aviation accident rate. "Although the accident rate for scheduled commercial operations has fallen in the past decade, the rate for GA continues at what TXAA Foundation, Inc. considers unacceptable," according to the organization's monthly newsletter. PLEDGE is an acronym to remind pilots to perform a few simple steps to avoid accidents. (www.txaa.org) עוד...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


bentwing60
bentwing60 5
Yet another laborious acronym for RTFB, use the checklist, and don't do something stupid. The quickest way to reduce the accident rate would be to pull the certificates of the DE's with a 99% pass rate. As long as people with money can buy a Cirrus (the modern day v-tail Bonanza), C421 (several of those lately) even VLJ's, and then go find somebody to tell the insurance company they can fly them, The accident rate won't improve. If you are a flight instructor interviewing a new primary student,ask him to lunch and let him drive. If he or she can't drive a car, what are the odds they'll be any better in an airplane! As long as money is the sole propellant in the flight instruction game I, for one will continue to not read the accident reports for non turbine powered GA accidents. They never change, only the participants. Some folks would be better off bowling, and most of us have met one or two of them! I don't want my name in their logbook. Just sayin. Now let the dogs out.
nickpiszczek
nicholas piszczek 1
"some people would be better of bowling" Thats all you can say,,everybody knows somebody who should not be in a cockpit. Every good pilot has a shocking story...just more story's to go around I guess.
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
Since the threads get tangled regularly Nicholas, That's not all I can say. If they were bowling, they wouldn't be running out of fuel, flying into IFR conditions, losing control on a dark night, et.al. res ipsa loquitur. Look it up. jbermo says it all. You can't make up the accident rate. It speaks for itself. And if you click on my profile, you might understand that I am not anti GA. Just anti inept. just sayin!
nickpiszczek
nicholas piszczek 1
No argument..no debate... its the real envelope thats getting pushed. Everybody and there Uncle wants to be a pilot. In the military they would never make the cut or if they did, they would wash out.The unfortunate side effect is the FAA COMES IN TO ESTABLISH MORE REGS. It never the solves the problem only exccerbates the healthy side of operations.
captainjman
Jason Feldman 1
How true - you can't regulate yourself out of stupid.

So many people came to this country, fought and died for freedom, and now people keep trading in their freedom for more security. We don't need more rules - more bureaucrats etc etc. What we need is to do our best to weed out those who shouldn't fly- and understand that these accidents are going to happen from time to time - and there isn't a think we can do about it.

Just like the recent shootout in CT. Its horrible, but this thing cant be stopped. If a bad guy wants to kill a lot of people he will find a way to do it. If he can't find legal guns, he will get illegal ones, or bombs, or whatever else he can get his hands on.

And what sucks is that we can't stop it. Everyone will try to - but its already illegal to operate an aircraft contrary to 14 CFR 91.13, and its already illegal to kill kids in first grade in CT.

People just can't come to grips with the fact that NOTHING can be done to stop these things sometimes. And its a really horrible pill to swallow :(
nickpiszczek
nicholas piszczek 1
While I hate to sidestep the post..your comment is directly related to the PLEDGE post and the relationship to the cultural horizon line. The PLEDGE is just another example a nation deceiving itself with a sense of safety security.
nickpiszczek
nicholas piszczek 1
Such is life and the law of numbers. The amount of people getting involved with GA on the pilot side of things has increased exponentially. A very large percentage should just simply not get involved do to the inherent risk they will put themselves and others in even after all the qualifications are met. There are many people you probably would not get into a car with or allow them to drive yours ...but you do...and so it goes with aviation...there is nothing shocking here. The probability for incidents and accidents just get higher as we water it all down...Aviation is a lot of fun..until the one day,..when aviation becomes a chore and no fun at all..the numbers will go down.
nickpiszczek
nicholas piszczek 1
As a pilot I would have loved to talk about standards and training and checklists but its all pointless. You can only make your training count and if your training somebody, you can only instill in your student the seriousness of finality. When taking to the air if "the ground Comes up to smite thee" at some point..? who's responsible...? The system? training? Its like smokers...everyone knows the risk but many are just to casual about it all until too late.
jbermo
James Bermingham 1
I review NTSB's monthly accident reports quite often, and am amazed at the amount of those reports that stack up every month. In my opinion most GA accident fall into two categories. . those who push their airplane's limits with poor planning . . .and those who suffer mechanical failures that escalate into disastrous results. I believe general aviation maintenance is simply not as good as that of pt 121, especually with aged airplanes owned by those who can barely afford them.
andrewstagg
Andrew Stagg 1
Looking at the most recent Nall report (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/11nall.pdf), only 15% of accidents and 10% of fatal accidents are attributed to mechanical failures or errors in maintenance. In contrast, 31% of accidents occurred on landing.
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
It's dangerous down there close to the ground!
jbermo
James Bermingham 1
I suppose that I should be more specific as I was referring to personal flights by those who do not fly for a living. General Aviation of course is all encompassing. A sub category of “personal flights of those who do not fly for a living” probably account for much of the high numbers reflected by NTSB’s monthly aviation accident report. Stall / spin after engine failure. . . mechanical or pilot error?
nickpiszczek
nicholas piszczek 1
I just read the pledge; The word silly comes to mind, Is this the language we now need to speak in? If the authors of the Pledge's language is any indication of the future., buckle up, Its going to be a bumpy ride" Last time I checked 10 year olds were not allowed a ticket yet.
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
NTSB only gets involved in fatals , usually, so if that is what you are looking at as far as accidents and incidents you are falling far short of the mark. BCA and Pro Pilot, Flying Mag. AOPA, monthly publish accidents that read like the who's who of GA. They range from very technical to oh Duh. So the good news is most don't die, the bad news is they wiped out another GA airplane.
andrewstagg
Andrew Stagg 1
The data was referring to above was from page 32 of the report which is Non-Commecial Fixed-Wing. Interesting enough, "Mechanical problems were the single leading cause of Part 135 accidents in 2010, accounting for one- quarter of the total (seven of 28); none, however, were fatal. " (quoting from the Nall report)
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
I guess that says something for the pilots who recovered from a bent wrench.