Re: [Aus-soaring] ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS 2005

[Geoff Kidd]

Good question David       I have read or heard it somewhere recently (perhaps it was during Kevin's Safety Seminar in Wagga) that low hour post solo pilots aren't the key problem because they are still tentative, safety conscious and the lessons/training are still relatively fresh in their minds.       That same recollection was that it was mentioned that about 250 -300 hours is where pilots get (over) confident and often push the safety envelope (or have got away with things previously) and they start to show up in the stats.       Does anyone else recall the above being discussed.   Regards Geoff         ----- Original Message ----- From: David Lawley To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:14 PM Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS 2005 Hi all,   This topic and the previous one re training, lead me to the following question.    What is the accident/incident rate for low hour post solo pilots?   What is the acc/inc rate on breakdown form? ie number of hours flown v number of accident/incidentss.   Anyone know this info?   David Lawley Computer Manager Elizabeth Primary School  Elizabeth East Prinary School         From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kittel, Stephen W (ETSA) Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:25 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS 2005 As an answer for that question. Basically yes. Mechanical type failures are _almost_ non existant . I have heard figures bandied around of aircraft failure accidents about 2% of total, but effectively this is bugger all. The reality is, most (virtually all) accidents are caused by the pilots actions. Note that for powered aircraft (GA types anyway, to be comparable to gliders) the pattern is very similar, if slightly muddied by engine failures.   The more interesting question is, before seeing this result, what did you (and other pilots) think (feel) the rate would be? and why?   Not a dig, a real question from someone interested in your (and others) perceptions.   Regards SWK From: Geoff Kidd     (2)    Am I correct in the reading of these reports of occurrences between 13 Nov 2004 & 19 Nov 2005 that, perhaps with the exception of the "Canopy opening in flight" incident(s) that none of our Accidents or Incidents was due to a structural of other failure of an aircraft?     ********************************************************************** This email and any file attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please tell us immediately by return email and delete the document. The information in this email expresses the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of ETSA Utilities. ********************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring