From: facemire@Software.ORG (Jeffrey Facemire)
Subject: Re: Pilot Age and Aviation Accidents
Reply-To: facemire@Software.ORG
Organization: Software Productivity Consortium, Herndon, Virginia
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:21:39 GMT

In article 29632@bernina.ethz.ch, zari@math.ethz.ch (Alain Zarinelli) writes:
> 
>    Some time ago I think I read a question on the relationship between age 
> and accidents in aviation. .....
>
> (other stuff deleted)
>
>    Among other intersting articles there's one by Karen H. Baker called 
> "Neuropsychological Testing of Pilots" in which a statistics is presented.
> I cite from the article:
> 
>     "Accident Rate (per 100,000 hours of flight time) for pilots holding"
>     "Class III medical certificates and reporting flight time of 401 or"
>     "more hours per year (Golasziewski)."
>    
>     "    Age Group                   Accident Rate
> 
>          17-19                          7.2
>          20-29                          9.0
>          30-39                          7.6
>          40-49                          6.7
>          50-59                          3.3
>          60-69                          3.1
>          70+                            9.2          "
> 

I've got a couple of points of thought that I'd like to offer on this posting.
I'm sure that all of my points will be debated :-).

o  It should come as no surprise that the accident rate decreased with age
   because most of these subjects, presumably, were continuing to gain experience
   with age.  MORAL:  The more experience you have, the less likely you are to
   have an accident.

o  Why did 17-19 year olds fare better than 20-39 year olds?  Probably because
   there were just fewer pilots to pull from that were 17-19 years old with greater
   than 400 flight hours.  Yea, I know that the results were given in x.x accident
   rate PER 100,000 flight hours, and it shouldn't matter how many folks you include
   in the survey.  BUT, I still feel that the greater your statistical base; the
   more accurate your results.  It's just my conjecture (and observed fact) that there
   just aren't that many folks out there that are 17-19 years old who are already
   private pilots with more than 400 hours.  Some, yes;  lot's, no.  This point may
   also explain why the 70's accident rate went up.....there were just fewer subjects
   left to form the statistical base for the survey.  It is interesting to note, 
   however, that the accident rate went down after the 20's and 30's age groups.
   Is this because most of those prone to accidents moved out of the realm of the
   survey (i.e., moved on to Class I and II medicals) :-) ?  (This last question
   was A JOKE.....A JOKE.....don't flame me please!!!!)  MORAL:  Don't make jokes
   about Commercial Pilots!!!

o  And, finally, I'd just like to post a question that this has evoked:  Do you think
   that age alone makes a difference in one's capacity for learning to fly (and I'm
   probably asking this regarding "primary training" and not just "post 400 hours")?
   I'm asking this from the point of one's maturity.  For example, I'm one of
   those (probably not so) few that began learning to fly in my teens (I made it 
   beyond solo and into X-countries), had a LONG hiatus (over 10 years), and then
   completed my private license in my 30's.  When I was training the first time, I
   "thoguht" that I knew what I was doing, and I "thought" that I was safe, and I
   "thought"...  But when I finally returned to flight training when I was in my 30's,
   I *then* realized how little that I knew and how little I was aware of
   when I was in my teens.  In retrospect, I now feel that I was unsafe as a 17 year
   old and was possibly an accident waiting to happen (and this was primarily due
   to the feeling that I just never had the "big picture" when I was 17).  However,
   when I was in my 30's, it all seemed to click better (both in the air and in
   ground school).  Maybe this is because I was more assertive, because I wanted
   to learn more, because I'd already been through college and had learned how to
   learn better, or maybe it was just due to a different instructor.  Nonetheless, I
   felt better prepared for flying in my 30's than in my teens.

   Anyone else have similar feelings??

   Related to this point, I find it amazing that the military will not take pilots
   for flight training beyond the age of 26 (well, actually, I guess that you can
   go for the reserves up until you're near 30 or so).  When questioned on this,
   I was given a response something like: "Well, it's expensive to train students,
   and the military wants to get the most mileage out of their pilots for the
   investment.  So, they don't take older pilot applicants.  Besides, the older
   you are, the more difficult you are to *mold*".  I found this aggravating, 
   because I seriously considered wanting to try out for military flight 
   training, but I was older than 26 when I reached this revelation.  They simply 
   said "Sorry".  Personally, I feel that I'd be a better asset to them today, than 
   I would have at age 17.

'Nuf said for now...

Jeff Facemire
"I'd sure rather fly for a living!!!"