[Miscellaneous]

Emotion will drive that. But that is acceptable, even correct. To infer that because a decision has an element of emotions in it, then it is in some way less accurate is wrong in my view (ftaod I'm not implying that you said that, but it does get said).

Indeed, I am not suggesting that at all. Nor am I suggesting one shouldn't go with gut feel, hunch or whatever they choose. Indeed, by and large one should.

What I am suggesting is that as far as I can ascertain, more often than not, there is a huge gulf between actual risk (as far as can be determined) and an individual's perceived risk.

That's all. I could have put it more clearly from the outset.

I simply find attitude to risk very interesting. Particularly the tendency of an individual to condemn others who are prepared to accept risk which is beyond their threshold.

[Ibra]

I fly solo whenever possible, certainly not with family members.

You will miss a lot of joy with such caution (but I understand the choice , one friend flies B737 but he also flies solo without family)

Still with pax the risk can be made as tiny as possible, that one should stop imagining, it’s the beauty of flying an aircraft yourself, you can decide on the date, terrain, weather and airport…no one forces you to fly over Pyrenees at night in frozen clouds with your family in single engine or 4pob from 400m wet grass with 150hp

On “perceived” risks of engine out, it’s one of many worries (if it’s in the top of the list then you are not looking in details on what could kill you) but for engine risk one can still fly twins or parachutes, expensive but one gets what they pay for however, these tools will not fix the risks of hitting ground in low visibility, loss of control from going around, distractions while low in circuit, accidents with takeoff & landing on short and tight runways…so there is still 1/1000000 chance to hit the jackpot no matter what you do/have, unless you stay at home or pick another hobby !

[Rob P]

A fatal accident when flying solo and your children have lost a parent. A fatal accident when flying with your partner leaves your children as orphans. This is definitely a greater risk

And a fatal accident when flying with your partner and children leaves nobody important bereaved.

So the moral is, always load the entire family every trip.

Sorted.

Rob P

[TopCat]

OK, firstly that wasnt intended as a personal poke.. ....

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??

Speaking solely for myself, obviously, I don't fly out of gliding distance from land. And not at night at all in a single (and I don't have a multi rating).

So I cross the Solent happily between Portsmouth and Ryde at or above about 2500', sometimes a bit lower. I cross the Channel happily from Dover to CGN above about 6000', but I'd do a PNR calculation first so that I know where my turnback point would be based on the wind on the day.

60 miles over open water from Southampton to Guernsey I don't do.

I've measured my glide ratio with prop stopped and windmilling, so on a long glide I would know in advance whether I'd need to stop the prop or not, to land feet dry.

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.

Exactly. And people balance those things in different ways, as I've commented earlier.

When people heard I'd intentionally switched my engine off, held the aeroplane stalled for over 10s to get the prop stopped (it was very uncooperative), and then did several best glide timed descents to find out what my actual glide ratio is, quite a few of them thought I was taking quite a risk.

But I did it over an airfield (starting quite high), so if I hadn't been able to get the donk going again I'd have just dead-sticked it in.

So to me, not a risk at all. And I enjoyed the exercise enormously.

[JAFO]

How would we forumites assess Dave McLeod's Orion Face solo climb (solo being unprotected)?

I won't type my full reaction but it ended "...for a game of toy soldiers."

[Ibra]

So the moral is, always load the entire family every trip.

Depends on the size of the family and if it's C210, PA32, C182 or PA28-235? otherwise it's better to go with 1/2 of the family and come back to pick up the rest

[Mz Hedy]

I was recommended a read of this book when I started to get colliwobbles after a series of engine failures: "How to Live Dangerously: Why we should all stop worrying, and start living".

It was written pre-Covid, however...

[TopCat]

Are you suggesting one should spend as much time as possible airborne when down under, for reasons of self preservation?

Unless the spider is in the aeroplane with you. I guess most people have seen the video!

OMG, I hadn't.

And now I wish I hadn't.

So, serious question... how often do Aussies have to remove Redback and Funnel Web spiders from the corners of their aircraft footwells?

[Miscellaneous]

How would we forumites assess Dave McLeod's Orion Face solo climb (solo being unprotected)?

I won't type my full reaction but it ended "...for a game of toy soldiers."

And yet he is not blasé about risk, he considers himself; 'conservative about risk taking'. It's much about perception.

[lobstaboy]

But we all think we are conservative about risk taking, don't we? He understands the risks in his sport, or thinks he does. As do we, or think we do.

I find it instructive to talk about the risks associated with flying small aeroplanes with non-flyers. The type of person who says. "You won't get me up in one of them things." Invariably their fears are based on gross misunderstanding of how things work, and watching too many movies.

[Miscellaneous]

But we all think we are conservative about risk taking, don't we? He understands the risks in his sport, or thinks he does. As do we, or think we do.

To a degree, I agree. However, the level of conservatism and understanding is not equal across all. As he states, for him, it is not all about a certain definitive measurable risk. It's about the reward of success justifying the risk (does it get more subjective? ) and it's about the risk associated with not taking risk. That, IMO, is the risk which is overlooked the most in life and the one with the greatest number of 'casualties'.

I find it instructive to talk about the risks associated with flying small aeroplanes with non-flyers. The type of person who says. "You won't get me up in one of them things." Invariably their fears are based on gross misunderstanding of how things work, and watching too many movies.

I agree. Although sometimes the difference in perceived risk between those who fly is more difficult to understand. As this thread demonstrates.

[JAFO]

@Miscellaneous - we all perceive, process, justify and accept risk differently.

It's a complex mix of genetics and life experience. I even remember reading some research which suggested that birth order within families strongly influenced risk appetite/aversion.

[lobstaboy]

@Miscellaneous we agree!
Clearly we all accept some risk associated with flying or we wouldn't do it. Where our own balance of risk Vs reward settles is down to us as individuals.

The degree of reward itself mustn't be ignored of course. I mean the perceived reward from taking the risk. I'm scared of flying out of gliding distance of land. But I might overcome that if the reward was sufficiently high - but for me it isn't because I'm less interested in that sort of flying than what I do do.
Conversely I bet there are posters on here who wouldn't fly in an open cockpit microlight powered by an unreliable two-stroke motor - for them the reward doesn't outweigh the risks. For me it does.
Chacun a son gout or something.

[Miscellaneous]

...we agree!

Was it ever in doubt?

Although, I suggest your example comparison of comparing the rewards of crossing water, to the rewards of flying a 2 stroke is a tad out of kilter.

[Miscellaneous]

@Miscellaneous - we all perceive, process, justify and accept risk differently.

That's my point, it is the, often, irrationality of the perceived risk versus actual which intrigues.

Different circumstances often result in a different perception of the same risk.