Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Sad but quite interesting (French accident statistics)

I think maybe (FFPLUM) members can choose to declare their hours when renewing membership.

Yes, I recently declared my ULM hours on renewal of FFPLUM membership. I think it was in the third party insurance section. And FFPLUM definitely do not require membership of an aeroclub.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

This approach looks interesting.



This video refers to another one by flightchops, but i found this one easier to get into the topic.

I will try to apply it to French accidents, when I have time.

LFOU, France

Jujupilote wrote:

This approach looks interesting.

I read the written description on their web site and It does look interesting, but it would be a lot more accessible if the guy didn’t invent his own acronyms. What does e.g. DMMS, U-IMC ATO and LOTOT stand for!? (Ok, I can guess the last one.)

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I think they are airline’s acronyms.

The more I think of it (we had a few fatal GA crashes in France recently), the more I think inflight recorders should be recommended (or subsidized). They are so many unexplained crashes.

LFOU, France

Gave up after 5 minutes of chatting chatting, bla bla bla. Could someone explain what this video is about?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Didn’t give it as long as Le Sv. The differences between the VFR flying and the aircraft I use, and airline flying, are too great to make it relevant.
I saw on Avweb a new device is being developed to sit on sunvisor and warn GA pilots if they are near edge of safe envelope. Frequent practice in general handling, and stalls at a safe height, would be more effective.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Maoraigh wrote:

The differences between the VFR flying and the aircraft I use, and airline flying, are too great to make it relevant.

I sympathise if you gave up early. The video was actually rather awful. But I would say the idea is highly relevant. They have a document explaining it. (The interesting stuff starts in the middle of the page numbered 4). This document also eventually explains some of acronyms in passing, e.g. U-IMC ATO means “Unintentional IMC after takeoff.” Still no explanation of DMMS.

Basically, their point is that GA flight reviews generally focus on general handling and precision, like low speed flying, stalls, steep turns etc. These are manoeuvers that you virtually never do in practise so doing them badly is not something which will kill you. Things that will kill you if you do it badly are generally not practised.

Their claim is that in airline recurrent training the situation is the opposite. It focuses on situations that can happen in regular flying and that could kill you if done badly. One example is autopilot failure in flight, another rejected takeoff in singles.

So the idea is simply that GA recurrent training should work the same way. I feel that there is much merit to that idea, but their way of presenting their case leaves a lot to be desired.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Having had a quick look at the doc (didn’t bother with the vid) I think what the guy is saying is that everyone should have a CPL / IR as most of the things he’s advocating are covered in the training and checkrides for these two. Nothing inherently wrong with that idea, but the next logical step then is for everyone to have an ATPL. Really?

172driver wrote:

I think what the guy is saying is that everyone should have a CPL / IR

I don’t think that’s what he is saying at all. His simply saying that GA pilots should practise situations that they are likely to encounter rather than practising situations they are not likely to encounter. I don’t know why that should mean everyone should have a CPL/IR.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

For some, that is flying in valleys, crossing ridges, landing and taking-off on grass strips.
Keeping in practice with that will cover a lot of things.
Add watching the weather, and being familiar with it.
In the first 3 months after regaining my PPL, total time less than 100 hours, I twice got into cloud and did a180° turn successfully. For 20 years I had insufficient instruments and avoided cloud by a greater margin than rock.
(The WW2 ex-fighter pilot who did the few hours instrument flying for the PPL had failed to tell me to start a stopwatch and lose control at the predicted time.)

Last Edited by Maoraigh at 22 Feb 20:23
Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top