I fly with my family and I fly basically the same as when I fly alone. The only difference when flying with passengers is that I’m more strict in avoiding any turbulence if possible – I keep larger distances from ridges and avoid even minor clouds – I simply try to make flight as pleasant as it can be.
Snoopy wrote:
Yet these accidents repeat themselves. Maybe skip some of the useless stuff and concentrate more on human factors? Learn to know what you don’t know…
The knowledge about how to make aviation safe is out there, and has been there for decades:
To make light GA (private SEP) as safe as we would like, we only need to adopt all the above. That is of course impossible. It simply cannot be done. This means we can never expect the safety to be anywhere close to that of CAT. The fact is that light GA is as unsafe as ever. How unsafe? Not particularly unsafe, but about the same as other comparable recreational activities (MC, boating, hiking in the hills and so on). Considerably safer than extreme sports like skydiving, but also considerably more unsafe compared with an average family trip in a car/airliner visiting some sunny site.
From a statistical point of view we have to accept that the same accidents happen over and over again. We will continue to be surprised or downright shocked that the most experienced and level headed of us kill themselves when flying in a SEP in seemingly stupid accidents. But it is just the statistics at work. The reason is that we don’t do the things needed to increase safety like CAT does.
I mean, light GA (SEP) is risky. Either you accept the risk or you stop flying. It’s as simple as that. There is no way to fool the statistics. Even if you do everything right, the risk is still there, and this is something you have to understand. We all like to believe we are alive because we do the right things, or are skilled. If we do, we should remember all the ones that were better than us, and still died. Having survived lots of hours has more to do with luck than anything else.
We can of course mitigate the risk to some extent, but that mitigation is peanuts compared with what is really needed to lower the risk to CAT levels. Doing something is much better than doing nothing though, everything is relative The relative variation is probably rather substantial. In the end it boils down to airmanship and pilot skills, the more we got, the better we are off. If we also keep in mind that most of the risk is still there, and this is something we have to accept, then it’s much easier to focus on those two things.
Most GA pilots are either delusional or don’t want to be safe…
If one takes responsibility for carrying family, at a minimum, they should:
1) IFR Current & Equipped
2) Use large official airports with ILS/RNAV
3) Engage in multiple training events annual (i.e. 10-20hrs p.a.)
If you fly and train like a pro, you have some chance of getting pro safety results. Fly like an amateur = get amateur results. Isn’t this really obvious?
Flying down through Valais at 6,000ft is not how the Swiss A320 achieves a perfect safety record.
zuutroy wrote:
I won’t take them off the island until I can do so IFR at FL100+ (2.5 hours training to go!). I bought a raft, jackets, will have O2, have a very thorough mechanic, and am very conservative with wx.
This is the professional attitude to which I refer. Zuutroy is aiming to be professional and responsible – it unlikely he will have a VFR into IMC, hit a tree in a grass strip, fly down a valley VFR etc. The commitment and discipline to upskill prior to exposing his family to risk is commendable.
@LeSving wrote:
The knowledge about how to make aviation safe is out there, and has been there for decades:
Two engines.
Turbine engines, much higher reliability, much more power, ability to climb and fly high.
which is generally true, but at my own airfield I do feel safer, take off much quicker, and climb faster in my humble SEP than in such a twin engined airplane:
2) Use large official airports with ILS/RNAV
OK, we might as well burn every Auster, Husky, Maule and Super Cub then. 
Edit: I forgot the D140 Mousquetaires. They should burn much better than the Brit and Yankee trash.
Doesn’t your Maule do ILS/RNAV and all that good stuff if asked to nicely? 
Jacko, yes, those types should be kept aside (and I love them!) for a high risk hobby. Aren’t the mathematics of GA safety not really obvious?
Fly like an airline if you want to protect your family. If you choose another path, at least be aware of the risk you are placing them in – and no,
it’s not an acceptable risk, because they don’t know the difference between the two styles of flying.
LeSving wrote:
I mean, light GA (SEP) is risky. Either you accept the risk or you stop flying. It’s as simple as that.I would really like to see some statistics on that, in comparison to other sports and/or ways of travel. I won’t say a SEP is risky in general. It can be risky, but it can be also quite safe. I see it like skiing off-piste, which is one of my biggest passions along with flying. Freeriding can be very dangerous if you don’t use the 3×3 risk reduction method, but you can do it also as safe as a one-hour drive in the car. The magic German word is “Restrisiko”, which means residual risk.
Most GA pilots are either delusional or don’t want to be safe…Well, that would be the majority of all people here on EuroGA I guess, including myself. Things are getting exciting now…
“Aren’t the mathematics of GA safety not really obvious”
GA risks are big comparing to flying airlines or driving car, probably 10000 more than the former and 100 than the latter but why not use all of the 3 and have some personal fun? I will let you judge when each one is more appropriate…
If you are that really risk averse, you can still slice GA statistic for missions/aircrafts that acheives similar or lower stats as airliners and just fly those (e.g. lunch at L2K and burger runs are still far risky IMO)
