The diagrams do not show accident frequencies, they show accident rates — i.e. how likely a pilot with a specific TT is to have an accident. So the figures are not affected by the fact that the number of pilots with a particular TT decreases as the TT increases.
Medewok,
Generally however I don’t think one needs an FI on board after training for trips where there is nothing completely new to the pilot, and except for the border crossing there is nothing here as far as I noticed.
True. I did not say you have to take an FI along for the training trip but if you feel more comfortable there is nothing which would keep you from doing it. I am in the great situation that all my FI’s I have are also friends and very experienced pilots. Nowadays we are talking on a one on one base. Also, you need a bi-annual EASA training flight. Why not combine it. True, for you there is nothing new other than overwater flying. But I also find that it is more fun to fly with a 2nd pilot on board. Doesnˆt have to be a FI. Or why not combine the differential training with the rehersal run?
As for the rest, I can only agree with Peter and others to do it only in really good weather and without pressure. Then it will be fun.
MedEwok wrote:
Not taking risks because there is no plan B is silly, because outside aviation we do this all the time without thinking about it.
IMO this is exactly where your logic reasoning is wrong. Flying a private SEP is about as risky as driving a motorcycle, per hour. Driving a car is a walk in the park in comparison. What this really means, is that it’s all up to the pilot (or MC driver) to fly in such a way that minimizes risk. The easiest way to do that is to have a plan B, and the prerequisite for that is to be aware of the risks and to deal with the risks. It’s called airmanship. To decide not to deal with the risk, shows a complete lack of airmanship IMO.
My view on this, is I don’t care one way or the other how people chooses to deal (or not to deal) with risks in life, no matter how stupid choices they make. It’s up to them. But I also feel that children are not the property of their parents. They are in no position to understand or deal with risks in life. It’s the parents job to protect them. When they are old enough to deal with risk themselves (which comes gradually), then that job is done. Until that time, the parents should set higher standards for their kids. In the old days, it was OK for parents to chain smoke in a car with the windows closed and two children in the back. It was OK because we didn’t know better, and didn’t really care. But this is exactly the same thing. Just because you accept the risk of chain smoking in car, doesn’t mean it is OK for you to put your children in the same risk situation.
As I have said before, I just don’t get it. Flying over open water with children strapped in the back ? At least get a Cirrus or a sea plane/amphibian. Better still, a DA42. Fly alone, no one cares what you do, the risk is all yours (That is not exactly correct, the authorities has set some rules and regulations, but you don’t have to think very far to see that they are not made for you. Those rules are made to prevent rescue crews taking undue risk, costing too much, doing SAR missions in vain looking for dead people).
Sorry to be blunt, but you asked 
At least get a Cirrus or a sea plane/amphibian. Better still, a DA42
This cannot be serious.
A Cirrus has no better chance of an engine failure than any other SEP. An amphibian (light GA SEP size, not a Catalina) cannot land on open sea unless it is dead calm, which the open sea almost never is. They can do only lakes or rivers, or similar. A DA42, yes, but they also have a history of engine issues, and being a twin requires additional skills and currency in the low speed regime. Things start to get significantly better only at the turboprop level, so 1M+.
LeSving wrote:
IMO this is exactly where your logic reasoning is wrong. Flying a private SEP is about as risky as driving a motorcycle, per hour. Driving a car is a walk in the park in comparison. What this really means, is that it’s all up to the pilot (or MC driver) to fly in such a way that minimizes risk. The easiest way to do that is to have a plan B, and the prerequisite for that is to be aware of the risks and to deal with the risks. It’s called airmanship. To decide not to deal with the risk, shows a complete lack of airmanship IMO.
Yes, yes. But some risks really are small enough compared to other risks that it isn’t worthwhile having a plan B — even when flying.
You never did reply to my question about your plan B for losing a wheel or getting a heart attack while driving in 100 km/h. Maybe you feel that surface activities don’t need a plan B? Very well. What is your plan B for having a heart attack in the air? Never fly with pax unless your aircraft has a BRS? (A valid medical certificate is no guarantee that you won’t have a heart attack.)
Flying over water in a Cirrus(or other aircraft with BRS) is a lot safer than a regular SEP. With the chute you will always land with your wheels first, prepare the raft well before touchdown and since it is a low wing you will be able to get out is easier. A lot safer than a small floatplane in high seas probably.
LeSving, you missed my point. Your paragraph about children is right but it still misses the point completely because you’re going about this from an angle of morals, not risk management.
Risk as we need to talk about here is the absolute risk of a bad outcome (say death, which is the “hardest” outcome parameter) times exposure (the time you are under the increased risk of said bad outcome).
The relevant comparison between different risks for this trip would be thus:
While the absolute risk of an engine failure in a SEP is most definately greater than having a fatal car crash or sinking with the ferry, the exposure time to these possibilities is also much longer for this trip. If we need the exact absolute risk, we could calculate these and compare, but we do not because there are too many variables involved.
Oh and just for the record, if it weren’t obvious from the previous posts in this thread, I will obviously minimize the exposure to risk either way, and take the longer route along the Danish coast to avoid prolonged flight over water.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Yes, yes. But some risks really are small enough compared to other risks that it isn’t worthwhile having a plan B — even when flying.You never did reply to my question about your plan B for losing a wheel or getting a heart attack while driving in 100 km/h. Maybe you feel that surface activities don’t need a plan B? Very well. What is your plan B for having a heart attack in the air? Never fly with pax unless your aircraft has a BRS? (A valid medical certificate is no guarantee that you won’t have a heart attack.)
Flying over water in a Cirrus(or other aircraft with BRS) is a lot safer than a regular SEP
A BRS chute is not necessarily as safe on water as some may think, if there is a fair bit of wind, as this video shows
Getting out on the wrong side of the plane might be pretty difficult.
MedEwok wrote:
LeSving, you missed my point. Your paragraph about children is right but it still misses the point completely because you’re going about this from an angle of morals, not risk management.
Moral IS the point. Risk management when it’s only yourself, alone, with a pilot buddy, or whoever is capable of doing the same risk management, and physically and mentally capable of getting out of dangerous situations is one thing. Doing risk management on behalf of someone else, someone who is completely incapable of doing it, and also physically and mentally incapable of getting out of dangerous situations, is a completely different thing, and cannot possibly be void of moral. You have a moral obligation to protect your children from danger. That’s what parents do.
Flying in a SEP is a risky activity. Leaving yourself without a plan B is one thing. Leaving your children with no plan B is a very different thing. You could do much better than that, easily. A Cirrus would do just fine in the Baltic (maybe a bit more problematic in full storm in the North Atlantic )
I read what you write, but IMO it’s you that misses the points that counts. It’s not the risk I’m concerned with. There is no meaningful way of calculating the risks you are talking about to an accuracy for comparison anyway. There are too many circumstantial things, too many possible outcomes, and way too little statistics. The only thing you can be reasonable sure of is that good airmanship dictates that you should leave yourself enough margins for you and your passengers to survive in case the engine stops. Your two children are left with close to zero margins when strapped inside in the back of a cramped cockpit, upside down in cold water. That is really all you need to know, and should act upon. Improving that possible outcome, removing it entirely isn’t exactly rocket science.
