TopCat wrote:Spamcan Defender wrote:TopCat wrote:27nm from Lands End. For me it's doable at 9000'; Dover to CGN at 6000' for the same reason. Southampton to Guernsey DCT, absolutely not.
Personally, I just dont get that......
I've flown IOW-Guernsey, IOW-Deauville etc all direct and without much in the way of stress....My own mitigations are lifejackets and a raft which I think are sensible given the route. I'd definitely contemplate a trip to Iceland (via Faroes) and have already planned a trip to Scotland inc Shetland.
You'd (and I include ALL licence holders) be as well not having a PPL if the worry factor is so high...
Well there's a generalisation if I ever heard one.
Not that I give a damn whether you think I should have a PPL or not, I'd just refer you to my comment here, where I point out that not everyone's attitude to risk is the same.
OK, firstly that
wasnt intended as a personal poke..
.... I'm just surprised that the level of risk aversion indicated by some on this thread would appear to be such that flying would seem incongruous with that viewpoint.....
Taking flying over water as an example....at what point does an expanse of water become 'too much'?? Is it purely subjective or do folks use a quantitative method such as distance?? Is a 1km wide lake, for example, too much or not??
The other question is, would you fly from, say, Norwich to Rotterdam in a typical light twin? Do you percieve that as 'safer'? I only ask as I think the answer would be interesting. I qoute an extract from
http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com below........
Does having two engines increase the likelihood of an engine failure? Were not sure but we would guess it does, since the more engines you have, the more likely something will break. More to the point, if one does fail, would you have been better off with just one motor in the first place? In some cases yes, in other cases no.
Between 1972 and 1976, the NTSB investigated the outcome of twin-engine crashes and concluded that in the event of an engine failure that resulted in a crash, the likelihood of it being fatal was four times greater than a crash in a single.
So, the percieved 'extra safety' of a twin is not what it first appears....
The bottom line is, I GET that some folks are hugely risk-averse but
surely that has to limit the utility and enjoyment of flying in varying degrees. I dont particularly want to die in a plane crash but I'll certainly use my aircraft to the fullest extent (Turbo Arrow III) but take sensible mitigations along the way.
SD