wombat

Based on the data in the pictures @201er posted, if we just use 2022, the nonfatal rate per 100k hours is 4.84 for non-commercial and 1.52 for non-commercial. Commercial is 31.4% of the rate of non-commercial. For fatal it's .79 and .22, or 27.8% In order to have a 30X ratio between the two for single engine piston, I think we'd have to have an inverse ratio (Commercial is more dangerous) for multi-engine and non-piston aircraft. So I'm kind of questioning the 30X

Yes, they do some dumb things. But at a much lower rate than us amateurs. Well, at about 1/3 of the rate. I'm just estimating 1/3 based on a few of the numbers that I just mentally estimated ratios with from the graphs that @201er posted.

That's not showing what I'm trying to discuss. The accident rate combines the different aircraft classes of non-commercial fixed wing and my theory is that the change in relative hours flown by the different classes is causing the overall decrease, with the relative accident rate within each class remaining roughly the same.

https://www.automatesystems.co.uk/road-blockers/ I'm 90% joking but for the 10% that isn't.... Let's think about the cost of installing these in 100 of the intersections that are estimated(1) to be most likely to have a dangerous runway incursion. I'll guess each install will be about $5 million to $10 million, not counting the planning, permitting, and loss of revenue due to the runway entrance being inop during the install. An additional $50m for systems and software updates per airport where these are going to be installed. Let's estimate 10 airports in the US would get a system. An additional $100k per year for each one for maintenance. Motors, hinges, sensors, wiring, etc. Since they will potentially damage aircraft through inadvertent deployment, let's add $50k each per year for insurance. How much actual loss has occurred due to runway incursions at these 'worst' 100 intersections in the last 25 years in the US? As far as I can tell(2) $0 There were 4 accidents in the US in the 90's, and 1 in the 80's. I'm sure there have been many close calls, but nothing notable. While we often hate to think of it this way, is this proposed expense ($1.25 billion initial outlay plus $15 million annually) a good deal compared that to an expected payout per passenger(3) of less than $5 million? Not if you look at the current system and its realized risk profile. Yes, we've had some close calls, but things like a go-around are part of the current system and they have been working. 1: We can spend maybe 10 million dollars to do a study to determine this. 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_incursion 3: https://www.iii.org/article/airplane-liability#:~:text=Among airlines based in modern,%24700 million to nearly %241.3

I was thinking about just the flights that are part 91 since the discussion is about part 91 safety. But maybe some of the aircraft are also flown as part 135 and the flights they do under part 91 benefit from part 135 requirements in training and maintenance.

I was trying to list the underlying reasons that having flying the plane as a job would make you a safer pilot. More recent experience, more/better training, age, and time spent planning the flights.

I wonder if the GA rate decline is largely due to the changing ratio of 'bugsmashers' like ours to jet traffic like Taylor Swift's. If there was an 'hours flown' by model I think we could figure it out. To make it clear, I think the accident rate is higher for single engine piston planes than for multi-engine turbines even within part 91. Just thinking out loud, here are some of the factors I think make the ratio Bugsmasher pilots tend to fly bugsmashers for recreation or personal pleasure and their recent time spent practicing is lower. Turbine/Jet pilots more often have specific periodic paid training requirements (Type certificates, recurrent training for insurance, etc) Bugsmasher pilots and aircraft tend to be significantly older. Turbine/Jet pilots will more often have two pilots in the cockpit with dedicated tasks. Bugsmasher pilots don't perform as thorough of flight planning nor is their maintenance as effective.

Oh, I know all about the complaints. I've responded to many of the complaints the same way I'm responding to yours. Bottom line: There is no plausible and reasonable explanation for taking the risk of flying single engine piston GA at all. It sounds like you are saying that anyone that takes more risks than you has 'no plausible and reasonable explanation for the risk' they are taking. But you have also not provided any plausible and reasonable explanation for why you are taking the risks you do choose to take in flying a single engine piston airplane at all or anything to explain why single-engine piston airplanes the way you fly is reasonable and the way others fly is not. You are sounding more and more like the "anyone driving slower than me is an idiot, anyone driving faster than me is a maniac" type of person here. Personally I fly because I want to. It's a choice that I make based on the costs and benefits to me given the environment I live in. It's not a good decision in terms of a plausible and reasonable choice other than my pleasure in doing the things I want to in my life.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your statement and reading it through the lens of the attitude I've gotten from others here. If so, my apologies. But what it sounded like you were doing was complaining about the effect on your insurance rates of those that want to "experience" these kinds of places that you don't. Your statement reminds me of the guy who says that everyone who drives slower than him is an idiot and everyone who drives faster is a maniac. There is no reason to fly a Mooney at all for most folks. Or to get a $100 hamburger to begin with. Most people in the world would consider flying any aircraft high risk. Flying as PIC or SIC when you are over the age of 65 is such high of a risk the FAA has banned it for air carriers. Why don't we complain about how all us old people are ruining the rates for those young folks? It sounds like you want to exclude any activity that you don't personally partake in because the activities you choose not to do have 'no valid reason'. In other words, you want to be the riskiest person in your insurance pool. From a pure financial perspective I'm right there with you. I want to be paying the least and to be the most likely to collect. But from a reasonable risk management perspective we should all expect to have some that are riskier than us. All of our expenses related to light GA aircraft are 100% optional. If the insurance costs are taking someone over the edge of financial capability then this hobby is out of their budget to begin with. For commercial aircraft that are US based air carriers, the people who think it's risky are 100% wrong but that doesn't affect this argument. Also, the vast majority of medivac flights are a huge waste of money and the patients had no health benefit to being flown Vs. transported on the ground so those are actually 'no valid reason' too.

Maybe you do but I don't. We have pilots with large ranges of experiences, skills, missions, and risk tolerances. All of these are pooled together to mitigate each individuals' risks and we also pay overhead for the insurance companies to manage this for us. The risk profile for each individual is not predictable enough to accurately price each pilot's risk and price accordingly within the risk pool although they do price individual policies differently. You apparently disagree with the risk profile and therefore the cost that your insurer has assigned to you. That's really between you and them. Don't like it? Don't buy it. There are not enough of us to bucket the risk pools into smaller and more similar risk pools which would have 'safer' pilots together with lower premiums and 'riskier' pilots together with higher premiums. I sometimes feel frustration that I am bucketed with people who are much less healthy than I am for health insurance. I have paid significantly more premiums than I am likely ever going to receive in benefits. The same goes for much of my tax money; my money into programs that I won't personally benefit from. As has my parents, grandparents, and I suspect further into the past. I will for my entire life be a net exporter of money to programs that aggregate money for 'special' cases or 'social' uses. Maybe there is money to be made in a more precisely targeted insurance policy for those of us who are safer but I doubt it. Particularly when you consider the cost of government requirements and oversight.

Good presentation.

I am planning on being there! I love this conference, it always has such interesting stuff and good information. Unfortunately I won't be flying to it this year, but that's OK.

I'm strongly considering doing basically this same thing myself. Go to a school, get the cert.

Thanks for the feedback!! Yeah, the audio has a major problem at the moment. For the map, what would you think of instead of a video of the map, if I used my Flightaware track on CloudAhoy or something? That's probably a lot easier to get in perfect focus. One 'flight' channel I like is https://www.youtube.com/@MissionaryBushPilot/videos I tend to like his format. Equal focus on flying the plane with its procedures and then the outside scenery and location awareness.

I've decided to try taking some videos of my flying again. Please don't mind the horrible editing, it's because I'm a horrible editor. In retrospect I think I would have been way better off not taking a time lapse of the outside, but taking a full video, then I could have synced up the inside and outside parts. Looking for tips here... What would be a better way to keep the video from being super-duper long (It's already way too long) yet still kind of show the whole flight? Maybe post a 'full flight in real time' video, and then a short video with just the highlights and have links to where the highlights are in the full video? Ugh. Don't know.

Thanks for the info, everyone! I really appreciate the info and pointers!!

Since I fly out of a 2700' runway, I also hold the brakes while I increase throttle. I increase to 29" and do my engine scan. Then I release the brakes and advance the throttle the rest of the way.

You are all making this WAY WAY WAY too complicated. Slowly advance the throttle over 2-5 seconds and when you get to full throttle, glance down at the engine instruments and see if there is anything different from normal. And have done some transition training so you know that 'normal' is actually about correct. If yes, keep going. If not, abort.

Going to repaint my plane this year. I'm currently planning on using artcraft paint, but thought I'd solicit other ideas in the meantime. I've considered going down to Puerto Rico since they can use a lot of chemicals we can't use in the US but have decided it's too far. Generally I am going to shy away from "I know this guy that does paint out of his personal hangar" recommendations. I'm aware of what strip & paint jobs cost and am willing to pay for quality. Planning on keeping basically the same paint scheme and colors as original, but swapping out the "Mooney 321 Special Edition" logo for "Mooney 305 Rocket Special Edition" and probably adding brown stripes on the top of each wing from the fuel fillers back to mitigate any potential G100UL staining that I might encounter.

Very few people fly enough to make it 'worth' owning two planes. With one partner per plane this cuts your costs in half, but with just one other partner per plane the actual availability of each plane for your flights will probably not change at all.

Mostly from a long XC on the 13th (KFFL to 2S0) but the last picture of an undercast was on the 15th taking off from 2S0 to KTTD for annual. If you look closely at the fuel planning on the 750 in the cockpit picture you'll notice I only have a 20 minute reserve at my destination. Also, I'm at 8,000'. So you should expect me to be IFR. Well, the short version is that I ended up changing my destination to stop and get fuel earlier. As it turns out though, I didn't need to, because as I went further West the headwinds got lighter so I would have had plenty at KBYG, as was calculated by ForeFlight to begin with. But sitting there for an hour looking at the fuel remaining being that low got the better of me and amended my flight plan. Then I was too proud to go and change it back. hahah. The two 'dark' pictures are at night, it was the full moon then and with the snow and full moon, it was plenty bright to see everything!

I am upgrading my GAD43 to the GAD43e. Anyone have one for sale? New: $4,900 Ebay: $2,900 Mooneyspace: ???

I had a shop find several airworthiness issues with repair estimates that I disagreed with. In some cases it was their assessment that the condition was an issue at all (1) and in others it was their estimated cost to fix it. (2) I paid them for their time so far including the inspection and took my plane back. I then got a ferry permit and had a mobile A&P certify that it was safe for the flight to my preferred A&P. I then flew it there and he completed work as necessary to resolve each discrepancy. 1: An example is that the plane had been flipped in a windstorm in the early 60's and the left wing skin had been damaged. The wing was repaired and the logbook entry and 337 said something along the lines of "Left wing repaired in accordance with Cessna maintenance manual and acceptable practices according to part 43". The annual inspection note said something like "Left wing repair documentation is insufficient." and they recommended pulling the skin off the wing so they could see exactly what was done and document that. They estimated $10k for this. My A&P's note in the logbook was "Found logbook entry documenting left wing repair in logbook and 337 dated (whatever the date was)" #2: They found that the jackscrews for the elevator trim were bent and offered to buy me a new pair from Cessna at a total cost of $47k. The plane was only worth about $35k to begin with. I found new replacements from McFarlane for $1,500 for the pair.

@Jetpilot86 I'm slumming it with my G500. How did the process work? Did you have to actually do any wiring changes or was it basically plug and play?

Hey @Aerodon or @Jungle Pilot did either of you ever get this done?