Did anyone witness the crash of the Beech V-35 Thur or Fri? The pilot (now deceased) was a friend and coworker. This year 2007, will be my first trip back to the playa since then. That part may be difficult for me. I just wonder if anyone can tell me anynmore than "he got low and slow".
Thanks,
Ranger Skydive
2003 Plane crash at BRC airport
-
theCryptofishist
- Posts: 40312
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:28 am
- Burning Since: 2017
- Location: In Exile
Isn't there some sort of bm flight tribe?
You might also try contacting 911 @ to see if anyone in ESD remembers teh particulars--although they wouldn't have seen it necessarily. Or contact Tiger Tiger--she may remember who was around.
Sorry about your loss. That was a brutal year.
You might also try contacting 911 @ to see if anyone in ESD remembers teh particulars--although they wouldn't have seen it necessarily. Or contact Tiger Tiger--she may remember who was around.
Sorry about your loss. That was a brutal year.
The Lady with a Lamprey
"The powerful are exploiting people, art and ideas, and this leads to us plebes debating how to best ration ice.
Man, no wonder they always win....." Lonesomebri
"The powerful are exploiting people, art and ideas, and this leads to us plebes debating how to best ration ice.
Man, no wonder they always win....." Lonesomebri
-
Lassen Forge
- Posts: 5320
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Where it's always... Wednesday. Don't lose your head over it.
Desnity Altitude is a brutal thing. And V-tails seem to have a wierd bit of luck out there anyway.
2 Bo's went down in 03 - one was on Friday, the other on Saturday. The first was bad, the second worse.
Best way to find out info is to google the tail number of the plane and read the FAA report. That will tell you more than trying to quarterback 4 years out.
bb
2 Bo's went down in 03 - one was on Friday, the other on Saturday. The first was bad, the second worse.
Best way to find out info is to google the tail number of the plane and read the FAA report. That will tell you more than trying to quarterback 4 years out.
bb
-
Killbuck
- Posts: 2969
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:32 pm
- Burning Since: 2003
- Camp Name: Sideshow
- Location: Nevada
- Contact:
I believe it was Friday afternoon in 03, when I witnessed a crash... which one I do not know if there were two. I was wandering just outside the walk in camp, talking to some fellow about something.... when I saw the plane coming down... it was red and white. I was fairly close, and could see the approach from the side.
As I recall, when I saw the plane descending, I said to the fellow- "that guy's not gonna make it." I remember the plane's angle being too steep, and it seemed way to fast. The plane did begin to suddenly pull up, but not before the dust cloud rose, showing it had hit the ground... then skidded for some distance.
Killbuck
As I recall, when I saw the plane descending, I said to the fellow- "that guy's not gonna make it." I remember the plane's angle being too steep, and it seemed way to fast. The plane did begin to suddenly pull up, but not before the dust cloud rose, showing it had hit the ground... then skidded for some distance.
Killbuck
Visit SIDESHOW at our kewl website http://sideshow2017.weebly.com
You got that right. They're also know to be somewhat tempermental. Lots of power for a relatively light plane of its size. During the 60's and 70's they referred to the Bonanza as 'split-tailed doctor killers.'And V-tails seem to have a wierd bit of luck out there anyway.
BTW, the person who described the accident scenario to me on the playa does this for a living.
He works at this place: http://www.exponent.com/
Isotopia wrote:You got that right. They're also know to be somewhat tempermental. Lots of power for a relatively light plane of its size. During the 60's and 70's they referred to the Bonanza as 'split-tailed doctor killers.'And V-tails seem to have a wierd bit of luck out there anyway.
BTW, the person who described the accident scenario to me on the playa does this for a living.
He works at this place: http://www.exponent.com/
When I was a kid in civil air patrol I took some flying lessons. One of my buddies had a v tail his father let him fly. I noticed a big difference in handling compared to the cessna. When I lived in Pennsylvania alot of small aircraft used to crash here and there. We even had a B2 go down in willow grove once. Accidents happen sad to say, but flying is as safe as driving if not safer.
This account has been closed as demanded by Wedeliver.
Sounds good, but not safer than driving.
And since it is an additional risk and not a substitute for most people, not even a valid question.
It's just one of those urban myths like hot water freezes faster than cold that is so ridiculous it must be true.
One NTSB investigator devoted an entire chapter to dissecting it statistically.
His final conclusion was that a valid comparison was starts and stops on an interstate bus measured against takeoffs and landings of a multi-million dollar airliner, still made the bus 4 billion times safer than the plane.
It was just an ad slogan in the sixties based on ...nothing.
The airlines have tried to prop it up ever since.
I read the most recent attempt but it's methodology was flawed, even if the numbers were right.
When my car breaks down, I don't drop 30000 feet.
He didn't say flying was too dangerous to do.
But safer than road travel?
Get a grip.
The skies continue to get riskier as the ratio of ATCs drops and planes age and air traffic becomes denser.
The number of skilled controllers never recovered after the mass firing and never will.
Hot water freezes faster than cold.
Say it often enough....
And since it is an additional risk and not a substitute for most people, not even a valid question.
It's just one of those urban myths like hot water freezes faster than cold that is so ridiculous it must be true.
One NTSB investigator devoted an entire chapter to dissecting it statistically.
His final conclusion was that a valid comparison was starts and stops on an interstate bus measured against takeoffs and landings of a multi-million dollar airliner, still made the bus 4 billion times safer than the plane.
It was just an ad slogan in the sixties based on ...nothing.
The airlines have tried to prop it up ever since.
I read the most recent attempt but it's methodology was flawed, even if the numbers were right.
When my car breaks down, I don't drop 30000 feet.
He didn't say flying was too dangerous to do.
But safer than road travel?
Get a grip.
The skies continue to get riskier as the ratio of ATCs drops and planes age and air traffic becomes denser.
The number of skilled controllers never recovered after the mass firing and never will.
Hot water freezes faster than cold.
Say it often enough....
-
MikeVDS
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:10 pm
- Burning Since: 2006
- Camp Name: Tiki Fuckos
- Location: Tiki Fuckos, Upland CA
- Contact:
Umm. BS meter. 4 billion to one death ratio? Someone is making shit up. I don't know about small aircraft and buses etc, but if you're taking commercial flights instead of driving your personal vehicle through major cities, I'm pretty darn sure the plane is going to be safer. 1000's of people die every year in America driving and many many more are seriously injured. People rarely die on commercial flights in the U.S. and just as seldom are seriously injured.still made the bus 4 billion times safer than the plane
Air operations-takeoffs and landings are miniscule in number compared to auto trips so you can't be misled by that.
The ntsb guy said it is only valid to compare a car to a very inexpensive light plane.
A worn rental still costs far more than the average car.
The accident rate of small planes is not superb.
How many fatal bus crashes do you hear of each year?
If buses cost as much as airliners, they would have a much higher safety record.
Few even have lap belts and they cost a fraction of a 747 and they still do well.
It is the nature of the beast.
Aircraft must be fragile to perform at all.
And by nature they are involved with height.
Most risk in cars is involved with intersections.
A fair comparison is freeway trips in cars to jumps in single engine planes.
Or the same thing in a bus which maxes out at a $million plus compared to a much more expensive airliner.
And if you make a trip to a more rugged place?
It's just common sense, but check the death rate by operations.
Very few people can use air travel exclusively.
The last time I flew a plane, we had to drive a dangerous two lane route round trip to the airport.
The special trip is part of the flight risk.
In that case, all additional risk, not a substitute risk.
And remember that statistics don't apply to individuals.
I chose a plane with a fresh engine and certification and instrumentation far beyond the norm.
Every time you make a choice such as not going in the rain or ice or driving drunk, you've changed the risk.
With an airline, you are stuck with their lack of maintenance, poor tower control, etc.
After my very near miss in LA this summer, I will choose to avoid that airport until or if it is fixed.
So no longer part of the standard risk.
A few basic things and you can cut your risk in a car down considerably.
Unless you own a plane, you lack those choices.
Study a few books on air crashes like I did and you realize how dangerous an air crash is when it does happen.
The photos look like a field strewn with bits of foil.
A breakup at altitude can create a debris field that covers states.
Yes, I'll fly.
But last time I went overseas I paid quite a bit extra for an airline that had better maintenance schedules, and lower risk.
I'm not going to kid myself about it.
I've been told it's safer to drive without a seat belt so you get thrown clear of the car.
And I've seen it happen.
I'm not betting it'll happen to me though.
It is only an advertising slogan from the days when tobacco was safe and so was nuclear power.
After all, who would lie to us, the people of radioland?
The ntsb guy said it is only valid to compare a car to a very inexpensive light plane.
A worn rental still costs far more than the average car.
The accident rate of small planes is not superb.
How many fatal bus crashes do you hear of each year?
If buses cost as much as airliners, they would have a much higher safety record.
Few even have lap belts and they cost a fraction of a 747 and they still do well.
It is the nature of the beast.
Aircraft must be fragile to perform at all.
And by nature they are involved with height.
Most risk in cars is involved with intersections.
A fair comparison is freeway trips in cars to jumps in single engine planes.
Or the same thing in a bus which maxes out at a $million plus compared to a much more expensive airliner.
And if you make a trip to a more rugged place?
It's just common sense, but check the death rate by operations.
Very few people can use air travel exclusively.
The last time I flew a plane, we had to drive a dangerous two lane route round trip to the airport.
The special trip is part of the flight risk.
In that case, all additional risk, not a substitute risk.
And remember that statistics don't apply to individuals.
I chose a plane with a fresh engine and certification and instrumentation far beyond the norm.
Every time you make a choice such as not going in the rain or ice or driving drunk, you've changed the risk.
With an airline, you are stuck with their lack of maintenance, poor tower control, etc.
After my very near miss in LA this summer, I will choose to avoid that airport until or if it is fixed.
So no longer part of the standard risk.
A few basic things and you can cut your risk in a car down considerably.
Unless you own a plane, you lack those choices.
Study a few books on air crashes like I did and you realize how dangerous an air crash is when it does happen.
The photos look like a field strewn with bits of foil.
A breakup at altitude can create a debris field that covers states.
Yes, I'll fly.
But last time I went overseas I paid quite a bit extra for an airline that had better maintenance schedules, and lower risk.
I'm not going to kid myself about it.
I've been told it's safer to drive without a seat belt so you get thrown clear of the car.
And I've seen it happen.
I'm not betting it'll happen to me though.
It is only an advertising slogan from the days when tobacco was safe and so was nuclear power.
After all, who would lie to us, the people of radioland?
-
MikeVDS
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:10 pm
- Burning Since: 2006
- Camp Name: Tiki Fuckos
- Location: Tiki Fuckos, Upland CA
- Contact:
Which makes him an idiot? Most people I know do not consider flying or taking the bus, they consider driving or taking the bus. The bus is not typically the best substitute for flying, it'd be driving your own car.The ntsb guy said it is only valid to compare a car to a very inexpensive light plane.
No. No. That's a stupid comparison. Never in my life have I thought about buying a small plane to use instead of my car for a trip/trips. It's about realistic decisions, not some single family ground to single family air vehicles. It's about making a decision on what is safer between the options on the table, which is generally taking a car or flying somewhere commercially. If you're pondering taking a bus because it's safer, you're probably right, but for most people that's not a consideration.A fair comparison is freeway trips in cars to jumps in single engine planes.
This is true. If you're looking at a specific case the dangers can change drastically. Driving from San Diego to Las Vegas is probably much more dangerous than if you're driving on some rural highway in the midwest.The last time I flew a plane, we had to drive a dangerous two lane route round trip to the airport.
The special trip is part of the flight risk.
How often do those things fail? Sure, when they have critical failures most people die, but they are uncommon. How does that relate to people who die from things that aren't their fault either? I know lots of people who have been killed in auto accidents and many more who have incurred permanent disabilities, many(all?) of which were not because of faulty equipment, maintenance of their vehicle, etc. I've never even met anyone who said they knew someone who was injured in a plane accident. I know flight hours are many orders of magnitude fewer than street or I could be a statistical anomaly but when was the last time a U.S. plane crashed?With an airline, you are stuck with their lack of maintenance, poor tower control, etc.
-
Archantael
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:29 pm
Think where America, hell even the world would be if people didn't take risks, fly the edges of the envelopes and occasionally fuck up and crash and burn? Many technological advances have come from learning from our mistakes....
Stats or not, safety risks, whatever, if it's my time to go then it's my time. Stick some silver wings under my ass, a good Continental up front or two GE turbofans on each side and let's get going.
Stats or not, safety risks, whatever, if it's my time to go then it's my time. Stick some silver wings under my ass, a good Continental up front or two GE turbofans on each side and let's get going.
I used a paraplane for an entire year to get to and from work. The shop in Quakertown PA I was working in that year had a fair amount of flat land behind it for landing. The place I was renting had a nice flat 2 acre area in front for takeoff. It was the only time in my life I enjoyed travel to and from work. A few days out of each month I had to drive due to inclement weather. I tried to goto the supermarket once since they had a big parkinglot but got "warned" by law enforcement. Legally I don't think they could have done anything, they were more confused call than anything else. They were pretty nice about it, some old lady got freaked out and called them and they let me on my way with small bag of groceries I went to get. I no longer have the paraplane but would love to have the paraglider. Basically you just strap a prop to your back and go!MikeVDS wrote:Never in my life have I thought about buying a small plane to use instead of my car for a trip/trips.
From what I remember about the statistic on safer travel.. miles traveled were used. You are less likely to have a fatality if you travel a hundred thousand miles by air than by car. Mostly due to intersections and proximity of other autos. I never saw anything in print so it could be an urban legend. I just know that I won't hesitate to fly long distances to save time. I do prefer smaller aircraft since you feel the wind shakin ya up more.
This account has been closed as demanded by Wedeliver.
different picture emerges. Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 55 for airlines
compared with 4.5 for cars, and 2.7 for trains.
(Based on journeys made.)
from Andrew Weir's book.
When you can fly to the grocery, the kind of trip that kills most people, you can start comparing air to cars.
A $500 car may be more dangerous than an airliner but it means nothing.
It is a different type of transport.
By the way, airlines are using other companies for short trips (the high risk ones) to preserve their statistics, or more correctly to falsify them.
You can look up individual records in great detail but remember to look at the numbers carefully.
Air Canada has a higher death rate, but they may fly to many small airports and in harsh weather.
Looked at that way, their death rate is superb.
I pulled up 140,000 reported airline incidents.
If you can't fly for the most hazardous part of auto travel, is it safer?
It doesn't even count.
Buses are the closest statistical model to an airliner on the ground.
If you want to compare cars, perhaps an ultralight would be appropriate to compare.
They have a pretty good record really.
Put a set of Schroth 6 point harnesses and a roll cage in your car or truck and the best set of tires for your car on and you might reduce your risk of death by 70%.
A little emergency training in your car-even better.
The federal requirement for seat belts is 13 miles per hour protection.
Only 13 mph.
When was the last bus crash with a total loss of life?
They do happen but it usually requires a fall off a cliff.
compared with 4.5 for cars, and 2.7 for trains.
(Based on journeys made.)
from Andrew Weir's book.
When you can fly to the grocery, the kind of trip that kills most people, you can start comparing air to cars.
A $500 car may be more dangerous than an airliner but it means nothing.
It is a different type of transport.
By the way, airlines are using other companies for short trips (the high risk ones) to preserve their statistics, or more correctly to falsify them.
You can look up individual records in great detail but remember to look at the numbers carefully.
Air Canada has a higher death rate, but they may fly to many small airports and in harsh weather.
Looked at that way, their death rate is superb.
I pulled up 140,000 reported airline incidents.
If you can't fly for the most hazardous part of auto travel, is it safer?
It doesn't even count.
Buses are the closest statistical model to an airliner on the ground.
If you want to compare cars, perhaps an ultralight would be appropriate to compare.
They have a pretty good record really.
Put a set of Schroth 6 point harnesses and a roll cage in your car or truck and the best set of tires for your car on and you might reduce your risk of death by 70%.
A little emergency training in your car-even better.
The federal requirement for seat belts is 13 miles per hour protection.
Only 13 mph.
When was the last bus crash with a total loss of life?
They do happen but it usually requires a fall off a cliff.
A guy flew from Australia to London re-creating a famous record, in a small ultralight.Toolmaker wrote:I used a paraplane for an entire year to get to and from work. The shop in Quakertown PA I was working in that year had a fair amount of flat land behind it for landing. The place I was renting had a nice flat 2 acre area in front for takeoff. It was the only time in my life I enjoyed travel to and from work. A few days out of each month I had to drive due to inclement weather. I tried to goto the supermarket once since they had a big parkinglot but got "warned" by law enforcement. Legally I don't think they could have done anything, they were more confused call than anything else. They were pretty nice about it, some old lady got freaked out and called them and they let me on my way with small bag of groceries I went to get. I no longer have the paraplane but would love to have the paraglider. Basically you just strap a prop to your back and go!MikeVDS wrote:Never in my life have I thought about buying a small plane to use instead of my car for a trip/trips.
From what I remember about the statistic on safer travel.. miles traveled were used. You are less likely to have a fatality if you travel a hundred thousand miles by air than by car. Mostly due to intersections and proximity of other autos. I never saw anything in print so it could be an urban legend. I just know that I won't hesitate to fly long distances to save time. I do prefer smaller aircraft since you feel the wind shakin ya up more.
He crashed repeatedly but because of the slow stall speed and caution on his part, he was never seriously hurt.
He was nearly shot down by the Libyan air force and that was his biggest risk.
I never said not to fly.
I'm just recognizing reality.
You can't make a plane as safe as a vehicle.
And you can't take a plane into the places that cars are really at risk.
You can use buses and trains instead.
Not where I am, but it's possible.
But planes have to avoid the places we could use them the most.
Unless you can fly to work like that -very cool.
-
MikeVDS
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:10 pm
- Burning Since: 2006
- Camp Name: Tiki Fuckos
- Location: Tiki Fuckos, Upland CA
- Contact:
I don't get the comparison. No people do not usually consider taking a plane to work. The average person only flies when they are going on a long distance trip. in those circumstances what are their choices? For everyone I know it's either getting that plane ticket or loading up the minivan with their friends and driving.Buses are the closest statistical model to an airliner on the ground.
If you want to compare cars, perhaps an ultralight would be appropriate to compare.
This is somewhat telling. What would an average "journey" be in a car? 20 miles? A flight? 200 miles? I think both of those estimates are probably very conservative leaning in favor of auto safety, yet if you use those numbers planes start to look quite safe per mile you're considering traveling. What I want to know, is if I'm going 250 miles to Las Vegas am I safer in a car or plane, or is there a significant difference? I don't want to know how safe a damn bus is, or how safe some dinky ultralight or a bigwheel missing one tire. I want to know the real decisions I'll be making, not some weird stats someone makes because they have an "ohh, ahh" factor to sell books.Deaths per 100 million passenger journeys are, on average, 55 for airlines compared with 4.5 for cars, and 2.7 for trains.
Heck, today I made 4 journies all of witch were under 10 miles. And at work every morning I make 6 journies with probably an average of 0.5 miles at 10 MPH with little to no change of death. I know others who drive 100 miles to work, but how many errands do they or their spouses do that are far shorter?
-
mdmf007
- Moderator
- Posts: 5340
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:32 pm
- Burning Since: 1996
- Camp Name: ESD
- Location: my computer
Only been in one Helicopter crash, I fly regularly on commercial, civil, and inhelicopters. Last year was 68 flights commercialy.
I logged 120,000 miles on various rigs for work. (we get paid for all mileage so it is accounted for very accurately) Was rearended once.
In my life I have one aircraft accident
and 3 collisions in cars. - id rather fly. Also it comes down to exposure.
Its easy to tweak stats, IMHO 50 hours to drive to Key West from Seattle is a lot of exposure. 5 hours on a flight is a little exposure. Whens the last time a drunk pilot smashed into another plane? Are cars as maintained as well? whizzing down the interstate with 4 feet of seperation from other cars, and immovable objects isa risk in itself.
Obviously when it goes wrong in a plane it goes wrong big time.
Just my 2 cents though.
later
I logged 120,000 miles on various rigs for work. (we get paid for all mileage so it is accounted for very accurately) Was rearended once.
In my life I have one aircraft accident
and 3 collisions in cars. - id rather fly. Also it comes down to exposure.
Its easy to tweak stats, IMHO 50 hours to drive to Key West from Seattle is a lot of exposure. 5 hours on a flight is a little exposure. Whens the last time a drunk pilot smashed into another plane? Are cars as maintained as well? whizzing down the interstate with 4 feet of seperation from other cars, and immovable objects isa risk in itself.
Obviously when it goes wrong in a plane it goes wrong big time.
Just my 2 cents though.
later
One of the Meanie Greenies (Figjam 2013)
Freeway travel is very safe per mile compared to in town driving.
I think the risk is very low.
Some freeways are more dangerous due to traffic, etc.
Even if I find these statistics, they don't apply to individuals and more so when you can drive.
Every decision you make throws you off the model.
Driving in lighter traffic is safer.
A vehicle with suspension in good shape helps.
You can even put high grade antisway bars on trucks.
I will be adding 1" bars front and rear on my wagon and gas struts.
The ability to handle emergency avoidance will be enhanced to a sports car level.
Is a lightly traveled 2 lane safer than a heavily traveled freeway?
Not if an idiot pulls out of a side street at the wrong time.
These things can only be measured in huge numbers.
Looking over some of the specific death rates for planes, you have to consider, they are talking millions of miles, but if a plane is hit on the runway and it has nothing to do with design or failure of the plane, it is not a sign that that plane is less safe.
When we nearly hit a plane on the LAX runway and went to full throttle and climb, we could not see what was going on.
No one, including the pilot, said anything for minutes.
Everyone knew what was going on.
Statistically it is considered an incident with no fatalities.
It is significant because it should not have happened.
The wrong reaction would have resulted in 400, 500, 600 fatalities.
Way too close.
It turns out they are reworking LAX and this is happening all the time.
The systems keep shutting down.
Comparing aircraft costs you can spend $300 million on a 747 and it needs extensive support.
You can get a pretty good bus for $1.5 million.
If the same kind of money was spent on buses and trains as planes, you could come close to perfect.
You can upgrade your vehicle safety for relatively negligible costs.
I think highway travel is very close to air risks if you are in a decent stable vehicle with reasonable crash safety (passive safety).
I wouldn't think twice about the differences myself.
I think better headlights and a good set of fog lights for mountains is very wise.
Learn how to drive your car in an accident and you probably will avoid one.
Watch out for stupid drivers and don't be stupid, and the odds shift in favor of driving.
Just like flying where virtually all of your risk is at takeoff and landing, the time spent off the freeway calls for extra care.
Once you get on, you should not have to deal with oncoming cars and relatively few entrances.
I hope to make a loop of the country soon myself.
It will be by car or rv.
If I can get to Bhutan or Australia I'll be looking at flights.
I'd prefer a ship though.
I think the risk is very low.
Some freeways are more dangerous due to traffic, etc.
Even if I find these statistics, they don't apply to individuals and more so when you can drive.
Every decision you make throws you off the model.
Driving in lighter traffic is safer.
A vehicle with suspension in good shape helps.
You can even put high grade antisway bars on trucks.
I will be adding 1" bars front and rear on my wagon and gas struts.
The ability to handle emergency avoidance will be enhanced to a sports car level.
Is a lightly traveled 2 lane safer than a heavily traveled freeway?
Not if an idiot pulls out of a side street at the wrong time.
These things can only be measured in huge numbers.
Looking over some of the specific death rates for planes, you have to consider, they are talking millions of miles, but if a plane is hit on the runway and it has nothing to do with design or failure of the plane, it is not a sign that that plane is less safe.
When we nearly hit a plane on the LAX runway and went to full throttle and climb, we could not see what was going on.
No one, including the pilot, said anything for minutes.
Everyone knew what was going on.
Statistically it is considered an incident with no fatalities.
It is significant because it should not have happened.
The wrong reaction would have resulted in 400, 500, 600 fatalities.
Way too close.
It turns out they are reworking LAX and this is happening all the time.
The systems keep shutting down.
Comparing aircraft costs you can spend $300 million on a 747 and it needs extensive support.
You can get a pretty good bus for $1.5 million.
If the same kind of money was spent on buses and trains as planes, you could come close to perfect.
You can upgrade your vehicle safety for relatively negligible costs.
I think highway travel is very close to air risks if you are in a decent stable vehicle with reasonable crash safety (passive safety).
I wouldn't think twice about the differences myself.
I think better headlights and a good set of fog lights for mountains is very wise.
Learn how to drive your car in an accident and you probably will avoid one.
Watch out for stupid drivers and don't be stupid, and the odds shift in favor of driving.
Just like flying where virtually all of your risk is at takeoff and landing, the time spent off the freeway calls for extra care.
Once you get on, you should not have to deal with oncoming cars and relatively few entrances.
I hope to make a loop of the country soon myself.
It will be by car or rv.
If I can get to Bhutan or Australia I'll be looking at flights.
I'd prefer a ship though.
MDM,
If you are in a serious time crunch, then you may push yourself or drive in conditions better waited out and then the advantage shifts very much to flight.
But if you have time constraints, safety variances may not matter.
Time is why I flew this summer.
I didn't care much for being barely not an accident though.
I thought my risks were going to be on the playa.
A lot of musicians have gone to buses driven by someone else.
That works for some who travel constantly.
I'm talking about private buses, of course.
That is dependent on scheduling though and it sounds like speed is your only choice.
Some airlines have much better safety records though and for cause.
Southwest has a low incident rate, for instance.
Delta used to have a maintenance rate twice that of other airlines.
If you are in a serious time crunch, then you may push yourself or drive in conditions better waited out and then the advantage shifts very much to flight.
But if you have time constraints, safety variances may not matter.
Time is why I flew this summer.
I didn't care much for being barely not an accident though.
I thought my risks were going to be on the playa.
A lot of musicians have gone to buses driven by someone else.
That works for some who travel constantly.
I'm talking about private buses, of course.
That is dependent on scheduling though and it sounds like speed is your only choice.
Some airlines have much better safety records though and for cause.
Southwest has a low incident rate, for instance.
Delta used to have a maintenance rate twice that of other airlines.
-
MikeVDS
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:10 pm
- Burning Since: 2006
- Camp Name: Tiki Fuckos
- Location: Tiki Fuckos, Upland CA
- Contact:
In California, most auto fatalities are on freeways or highways. One of our highways (the one most of us southern Californians take to Burningman), the 395, is known as one of the most deadly roads in the U.S.Freeway travel is very safe per mile compared to in town driving.
I think the risk is very low.
Some freeways are more dangerous due to traffic, etc.
Most areas city folk travel the risk is not low and getting on the freeway is the dangerous part. Of the many accidents I know of almost all serious ones were freeway driving. The exception is a friend who was killed going to work by a runaway dumptruck. Unfortunately the driver had told the employer multiple times that he needed new breaks and they ignored his requests. That's one of those moments where you hope someone loses their ass in a lawsuit.
Here are some numbers:
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/
-
MikeVDS
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:10 pm
- Burning Since: 2006
- Camp Name: Tiki Fuckos
- Location: Tiki Fuckos, Upland CA
- Contact:
There is also this:
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
Witch seems to contradict the book you quoted before and cites this:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
They use the stupid per trip thing again, which only gives a rough idea of useful information, but they claim it's 10x safer per trip by plane. Take that to miles and you're many orders safer than traveling by car. If you want to go on a bus though... that might be a better choice, one that I'm not too interesting in looking up.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
Witch seems to contradict the book you quoted before and cites this:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
They use the stupid per trip thing again, which only gives a rough idea of useful information, but they claim it's 10x safer per trip by plane. Take that to miles and you're many orders safer than traveling by car. If you want to go on a bus though... that might be a better choice, one that I'm not too interesting in looking up.
I still don't see any validity in comparing a $300 million airliner that gains what safety it has from size to a four to six passenger car that costs less than the fire suppression on a plane.
I would have to get more details to comment on that.
They supply none.
I don't think the death rate in the us will bear out their model though.
The engineering editor at road and track sent me the last report of this type (funded by guess who).
The data may have been accurate, but the questions asked and the conclusions drawn had little to do with it.
Still, air travel in mass transit has nothing to do with single vehicle safety.
Single engine planes have bad records, but you can operate them safely.
Small commuter planes are more relevant and are specifically excluded from that sheet, as well as I can tell.
The smaller planes have more accidents but fewer fatalities per crash as they carry less.
They are more and more part of the system though.
A better comparison to small cheap vehicles.
Even if those stats are correct, which I doubt, they don't apply to an individual who seeks active safety.
You are probably right about sections of california being upside down.
I can't wait to be part of that nightmare again.
I keep forgetting about that delightful part of moving west.
I can remember driving through the center of LA at 75 mph back when the city worked.
Been a while.
When my aunt first moved there, mass transit was so good, she never thought of having a car.
Imagine that.
Remember when comec was talking about some huge number of children kidnapped every year?
The number of people who disappear and are murdered is higher than reported.
But this sounded bizarre.
I did the numbers and it was way off.
Then the story broke and for months they tried to defend the figures based on ....nothing it turned out.
The big lie.
I'm sure they meant well but so dumb.
The numbers were impressive.
But most states will notice losing 180 children a month.
Statistics the easy way-make them up.
And it fooled people for a long time.
Such a big number must be true.
I will try again to find the book that was the most useful.
It is always checked out.
I would have to get more details to comment on that.
They supply none.
I don't think the death rate in the us will bear out their model though.
The engineering editor at road and track sent me the last report of this type (funded by guess who).
The data may have been accurate, but the questions asked and the conclusions drawn had little to do with it.
Still, air travel in mass transit has nothing to do with single vehicle safety.
Single engine planes have bad records, but you can operate them safely.
Small commuter planes are more relevant and are specifically excluded from that sheet, as well as I can tell.
The smaller planes have more accidents but fewer fatalities per crash as they carry less.
They are more and more part of the system though.
A better comparison to small cheap vehicles.
Even if those stats are correct, which I doubt, they don't apply to an individual who seeks active safety.
You are probably right about sections of california being upside down.
I can't wait to be part of that nightmare again.
I keep forgetting about that delightful part of moving west.
I can remember driving through the center of LA at 75 mph back when the city worked.
Been a while.
When my aunt first moved there, mass transit was so good, she never thought of having a car.
Imagine that.
Remember when comec was talking about some huge number of children kidnapped every year?
The number of people who disappear and are murdered is higher than reported.
But this sounded bizarre.
I did the numbers and it was way off.
Then the story broke and for months they tried to defend the figures based on ....nothing it turned out.
The big lie.
I'm sure they meant well but so dumb.
The numbers were impressive.
But most states will notice losing 180 children a month.
Statistics the easy way-make them up.
And it fooled people for a long time.
Such a big number must be true.
I will try again to find the book that was the most useful.
It is always checked out.
-
MikeVDS
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:10 pm
- Burning Since: 2006
- Camp Name: Tiki Fuckos
- Location: Tiki Fuckos, Upland CA
- Contact:
Huh. How are you not getting this? Don't think daily driving, because you're correct, it has nothing to do there. Think completely opposite. Think vacations and long distance trips. You have a few options, A) Plane, B) Car, and for some C) Bus D) Train. Time and cost usually leave the choices A) and B). those are often very similar. And if you're worried about safety all indications seem to show A) is safer. I'm not sure why you have a view of aircraft as so dangerous, but when was the last time a commercial passenger flight crashed killing someone in the U.S? I'm pretty sure it was years ago, because prices usually drop and I travel.Still, air travel in mass transit has nothing to do with single vehicle safety
You seem to think planes being safe is somehow ridiculously crazy like hot water freezing faster? That makes no sense, when you look at how many people are killed in passenger jets vs. autos, planes being safer is the logical first assumption. I'm comparing real world alternatives, not some idealistic if I had infinite funds to buy my own super vehicles and wanted every infinitesimally small chance of dying reduced, should it be land or air? Do i think airlines will try to show stats that favor the airlines safety? Hell yeah, but I do not think they could hide them as well as you think they have. I've been looking for sources that claim they are dangerous and I haven't seen any.
The point of comparing a $300,000,000 jet to a car only makes sense if those are your choices. Drive to Vegas and spend $100 in gas or $100 on a plane ticket. Initial investment means nothing when I'm making that decision. If planes are super deadly, I'm going to opt for driving, but nothing seems to indicate that.
I never said it was an unreasonable risk, just higher risk.
And as I said, you can control your own risk to a great degree in a private vehicle.
Comparing risks in two dissimilar modes of transport is hard to do accurately.
If your risks are lower in fact, if it is purely due to size of the craft, then what happens if you end up on a commuter plane being used more and more?
Is air travel safer or just big old whatever?
To apply a statistic to yourself, in this case you have to walk out and take the first car that comes along, with no judgement.
Drunk or sleepy driver, bad tires shot steering, what ever, that's a statistic.
Once you are involved that statistical model becomes a separate idea only.
There are choices you can make such as which airline, maybe, when to fly, etc. but that's about it.
If there is a freezing rain and black ice, how long will you wait to drive further?
I think you could be much safer driving, if you care about it.
DC to nyc?
Probably a wash and some very dangerous airports too.
And dangerous traffic.
Last time I came that way, I caught the clear spots and kept going through dc instead of stopping.
It made a difference of hours and I had empty roads, so few hazards.
I couldn't have flown much faster, by the time I got in and out of airports.
And last time I flew, I was on a small plane from nyc north.
Of course, you could make driving more dangerous too.
No matter how you think it shakes out, the saying originated as a slogan only.
And that's funny.
My opinion is that if you try to stay away from the worst airlines and the shakier airports, your odds are reasonable.
As for the declining safety of the air system itself, how do you measure that?
The standard technique is tombstone engineering.
Not very satisfactory really to a flyer.
The ATCs here are making a lot of noise and the faa is now cutting further the number of personnel while they are already going without days off.
How dangerous is that?
Just not a lot of do-overs.
That's what my near miss was.
And as I said, you can control your own risk to a great degree in a private vehicle.
Comparing risks in two dissimilar modes of transport is hard to do accurately.
If your risks are lower in fact, if it is purely due to size of the craft, then what happens if you end up on a commuter plane being used more and more?
Is air travel safer or just big old whatever?
To apply a statistic to yourself, in this case you have to walk out and take the first car that comes along, with no judgement.
Drunk or sleepy driver, bad tires shot steering, what ever, that's a statistic.
Once you are involved that statistical model becomes a separate idea only.
There are choices you can make such as which airline, maybe, when to fly, etc. but that's about it.
If there is a freezing rain and black ice, how long will you wait to drive further?
I think you could be much safer driving, if you care about it.
DC to nyc?
Probably a wash and some very dangerous airports too.
And dangerous traffic.
Last time I came that way, I caught the clear spots and kept going through dc instead of stopping.
It made a difference of hours and I had empty roads, so few hazards.
I couldn't have flown much faster, by the time I got in and out of airports.
And last time I flew, I was on a small plane from nyc north.
Of course, you could make driving more dangerous too.
No matter how you think it shakes out, the saying originated as a slogan only.
And that's funny.
My opinion is that if you try to stay away from the worst airlines and the shakier airports, your odds are reasonable.
As for the declining safety of the air system itself, how do you measure that?
The standard technique is tombstone engineering.
Not very satisfactory really to a flyer.
The ATCs here are making a lot of noise and the faa is now cutting further the number of personnel while they are already going without days off.
How dangerous is that?
Just not a lot of do-overs.
That's what my near miss was.
I saw the accident in 2003. In the spirit of avoiding the discussion on statistics and not posting stuff that might be hurtful to friends and family I'll refrain from posting more here. But drop me a PM if you want to know what I know, or swing by Shady Asylum (look for the big black pyramid with forbidden goodness inside) and ask for me and I'll tell you what I saw.
Ron
Ron
The Black Rock airport seems pretty amazing considering what they have to work with.
I certainly don't want to bring up any bad memories.
I went through twenty books or so on the subject when I was applying to the faa.
I have a friend who may fly up.
He's good in wind shear, but I have made him aware of conditions.
He is more concerned about his plane getting sand blasted, dust really.
I certainly don't want to bring up any bad memories.
I went through twenty books or so on the subject when I was applying to the faa.
I have a friend who may fly up.
He's good in wind shear, but I have made him aware of conditions.
He is more concerned about his plane getting sand blasted, dust really.
"Everything is more wonderful when you do it with a car, don't you think?"
-girl by the fire, watching a tree moved by car bumper in the bonfire
It would be a shame if I had to resort to self-deception to preserve my faith in objective reality.
-girl by the fire, watching a tree moved by car bumper in the bonfire
It would be a shame if I had to resort to self-deception to preserve my faith in objective reality.
[quote="gyre"]The Black Rock airport seems pretty amazing considering what they have to work with.
I certainly don't want to bring up any bad memories.
I went through twenty books or so on the subject when I was applying to the faa.
I have a friend who may fly up.
He's good in wind shear, but I have made him aware of conditions.
He is more concerned about his plane getting sand blasted, dust really.[/quote]
I work for the FAA now. If you need some help, let me know. I think the issue isn't wind shear as much as it is density altitude and lack of reference. I have skydived onto the playa a number of times, and the flat, white, playa doesn't give you the references that you're used to.
I certainly don't want to bring up any bad memories.
I went through twenty books or so on the subject when I was applying to the faa.
I have a friend who may fly up.
He's good in wind shear, but I have made him aware of conditions.
He is more concerned about his plane getting sand blasted, dust really.[/quote]
I work for the FAA now. If you need some help, let me know. I think the issue isn't wind shear as much as it is density altitude and lack of reference. I have skydived onto the playa a number of times, and the flat, white, playa doesn't give you the references that you're used to.
-
Apollonaris Zeus
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am
I heard that in the great anticipation of having a great time on the playa, he took too much of his party stash and began to have oral sex with one of his flight passengers. at the time of his orgasim, he had a spasm that pushed his body into the throttle slowing the engine then another spasm pushed his rear into the yoke causing the plane to lurch up and stall.
He died a happy man and enjoyed the burn from a view that only spirits can.
He is now in a solar system far on the other side of the universe where he has started a burning man festival and wishes every one back on earth all the love and fun he can and hopes for a great burn this year and hopes you pay him a visit after your life here!
He died a happy man and enjoyed the burn from a view that only spirits can.
He is now in a solar system far on the other side of the universe where he has started a burning man festival and wishes every one back on earth all the love and fun he can and hopes for a great burn this year and hopes you pay him a visit after your life here!