How dangerous is GA.

[tric]

Anyone have any stats on how dangerous GA is? The reason I am curious is that recently I applied for an increase in my life insurance. One of the questions was "do you participate in any flying activities other than a fare paying passenger". Apparently ticking the yes box invokes a huge penalty for the rates quoted.

I would have thought it was more dangerous to be on the public roads than flying in GA.

Ric:suspect:

[cubnut]

Dunno about the stats sorry, but recently I asked my insurance company to confirm that if I die in an aircraft accident while I am working as a pilot they'll still pay out. And they did but only as I had the policy before I took up training to become a pilot.

cub

[Keg]

What is interesting is that if you're a 'fare paying passenger' then you don't have an increase in premium. It doesn't matter that you may be doing more hours in an aeroplane per annum than those who fly those very same 'fare paying passengers' between point A and point B. However, if you are the one doing the flying of those fare paying passengers then your premium goes through the roof. That doesn't make sense. I did try to explain that point to the insurance company. They didn't buy it! :rolleyes: :yuk: :suspect:

[Sunfish]

Its more dangerous than riding a motorbike

[Capt Fathom]

Flying is safe ... crashing is the dangerous part!

[bushy]

Sunfish
This is from the propaganda figures issued by ATSB, The facts are that that this may be true if you include private, business and agricultural flying along with charter flying. Private and business flying has a high accident rate, about the same as ag flying used to be, Charter flying has a much lower accident rate.
But this is all secret npw, as the actual figures for each category are not available.

[U2]

Mr Keg

Possibly the reason for your insurance issue is this.

"Commercial passenger transport"

Passengers and third parties (ground victims) are covered by mandatory internation law (read 'air carriers liability act). However, employees such as pilots and flight attendants are not. They would be covered under workers compensation.

The other important point is that the operator is strictly liably to the victims of air crashes. That is the victims do not have to sue for negligence, only prove that the they incured damages to person or property. They then receive automatic compensation, however that compensation is "limited" to about $500,000. There are exemptions from this such as acts of 'wilfull misconduct.' I will not go into that.

I pretty sure that the act covers all types of commercial operation, but obviously does not cover private operations.

The insurance companies therefore would not be concerned about policy holders traveling by commercial air transport as they would be covered under the act for some losses. Private pilots on the other hand are statisitically a greater risk to insurance companies.

As for commercial pilots..well maybe the insurance companies believe that we are at greater risk...i don't know.. maybe do a kamakaze or something to claim life insurance.

Any law guru please correct me if I am mistaken. I'd be interested to know what formulae the companies use to determine pilot 'risk.'

U2

[turbinejunkie]

U2

I'd be interested to know what formulae the companies use to determine pilot 'risk.'
Wouldn't we all. Dare I say the answer is complete bloody ignorance?:yuk: :{

Rationales a bit like shark or croc attack headlines: "Plane goes down due pilot error" vis a vis "Great white attacks surfer" or "Croc eats German tourist".

Scary isn't it? Sure does sell newspapers though! :}

TJ :8

[tinpis]

You are more likely to get kicked to death by a donkey than killed in shark attack.
Hope that helps.

[NoseGear]

As told to me by the insurance company when I said flying is safer than driving...................wait for it...........................

"Yes, but you have to drive to work, so that danger is on top of your flying sir."

Fark me, I never thought of that:E

Nosey:{

[prospector]

Tinpis,
Would only help if it was stated the donkey was wearing high heels, I think.

Prospector

[Cloud Cutter]

The reason fare paying pax don't have an increased premium is that airline flying is nearly 10 times safer than recreational flying. Last (US) figures I saw put private flying above road use in the danger stakes.

[Obiwan]

The reason fare paying pax don't have an increased premium is that airline flying is nearly 10 times safer than recreational flying. Last (US) figures I saw put private flying above road use in the danger stakes.
Lots of anecdotal evidence but anyone got some stats? Given the number of d1ckheads on the road and the close calls I've had that were someone else's fault I had always been lead to believe the drive to the airport was the most dangerous part.

[tinpis]

Given the number of d1ckheads on the road and the close calls I've had that were someone else's fault I had always been lead to believe the drive to the airport was the most dangerous part.

Would agree driving to any NT strip in the back of Lionels ute would be a whole lot scarier that the 210 trip home.

[Atlas Shrugged]

tric

Although a little out of date, there may be something of interest here:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/asi_2002.cfm

A

[Keg]

Cloud clutter, you missed my point. I am the one flying those fare paying passengers around. My point was if that if it is so safe for the pax that they don't pay an increased premium, why should I when I'm the one flying them.

Thanks U2, I think you may be closer to the mark. It still disgusts me though! :yuk:

[the wizard of auz]

How dangerous is GA?.
Pretty damn dangerous with the likes of SUNFISH swanning around in it.:hmm:

[Bevan666]

How dangerous is GA?

Check out the ATSB Website (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cross_modal.cfm) for a detailed report on the subject.

To summarise;

Fatality rate per 100,000,000 km in 1999

Air
- High Capacity RPT 0.0
- Low Capacity RPT 1.6
- General Aviation (fixed wing) 8.5

Road
- Drivers 0.5
- Drivers and passengers 0.7
- Motorcycles 17.5
- All motorised vehicles 1.0
- Bus passengers 0.7


So flying is 8 times more dangerous than driving, but 1/2 as dangerous as motorbiking.

Bevan..

[Sunfish]

Yup, I'm trying to survive the "Well you'll never do that again will you?" events, including: lining up to land on the wrong runway, setting the wrong frequencies to talk to ATC, not watching electric flaps like a hawk, and not seeing traffic until the last minute.

Of course no one else has ever done any of these things right?

I seem to recall somewhere that the statistics show most dangerous phase of a pilots flying is at about 100 hours. Apparently students like me are too cautious to do totally stupid stuff and the training is reasonably fresh. About 100 hours apparently overconfidence sets in.

[Santaclaus]

Over the last forty years I have personaly known one person involved in a fatal car accident,
and seven pilots getting killed in aircraft. ( two in Ultralights )

[RSO]

I have watched this type of discussion for 34 years

Before flying I worked in insurance

It hurts me to admit it but raw facts are just that!

I am pretty well out of fingers to count those that are no longer with us. Actually when I think of it I am way out of fingers.

A a contrast my wife is a school teacher and still has all her fingers intact. So have her friends. So have all my friends who work in other occupations.

My insurance bosses were correct. Very sad.

[Obiwan]

Thanks Atlas,

A few nice pieces in there...

The general aviation annual accident rate (accidents per 100,000 hours flown) declined by 48% between 1993 and 2002

The overall accident rate for Australian aviation shows a significant downward trend – this is mainly driven by improvements in the general aviation accident rate

Time to hit the insurance man for a premium reduction me thinks...

[Atlas Shrugged]

Time to hit the insurance man for a premium reduction me thinks...It would be easier trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube! ;)

A

[janesays]

I'm with santaclaus, I've only been in the business for 11 years, three friends killed in planes(seperate accidents), four people that I had met at some stage through work killed in planes. In that time I can only think of two other people that I had known fairly well killed in accidents, both of those were motorbikes.
It doesn't seem to add up really, it must be something to do with knowing a large proportion of the "pilot group" or something....or I just know really safe drivers.....or GA flying is more dangerous than driving, thats the most obvious one.

[U2]

According to the ATSB's ten years study:

53 % of fatal accidents and 59 % of fatalities were in the private sector

only 7 % of fatal accidents and 22% fatalities were in charter.


( FOUR FATAL FACTORS, FLight safety Australia, March-April 2004)

Additionally, 68 % of accidents included either flight planning or aircraft handling as a factor. By far these are the most significant of the causal factors in G.A accidents.

Read on and the report goes on about fuel starvation/exhaustion, vfr in imc and mishandling go-arounds as high on the body count.

Based on the reports finding one can conclude the accidents primarily due to the actions of unprofessional and inexperienced pilots. If all private pilots properly planned their flight and operate within the regulations and their own limits then the statistics may be different.

I will admit that often private pilots do not know their limits until it is too late, after all we all learn from our mistakes.
Additonally, the fuel gauges in aircraft compared to cars are grossly inaccurate and unreliable.

Maybe alot of private pilots treat aircraft like cars. They push on into bad weather and ignore the fuel situation. I must admit that I have never planned a car trip. All I do is check that the next fuel stop is less than 400 k's. The other point is that weight and balance is not an issue with cars, nor maximum weights. Therefore this attitude may carry over to private flying.

Ofcourse, I am purely speculating.

It all comes down to experience and recency. I remember reading an article that published studies on the accidents involving american aviation and found that

-low experience on aircraft type
and
-lack of recency

were the best indicators of whether a pilot is likely to have an accident. It also found that too much recency increased accident probability (due to complacency and accumulated fatigue).

Total time only goes so far when flying aircraft.

Therefore it isimportant for all pilots to understand that their limitations change with their type experience and recency on type.

Therefore, it is important for private pilots to be checked out on aircraft type prior to their hiring it (as many flying schools do).

Maybe it is time for new regulations to require private pilots to have so many hours on type to be covered under the 90 day recency requirements. Pilots with less than X hours on type would then be covered under a different recency rule of less than 90 days. In fact, the rule could extend to professional pilots.

This would aid in the administration of regulations that directly target known/evidenced treats to safety, rather than on anecdotal beliefs


U2

[Chief Wiggam]

Fatality rate per 100,000,000 km in 1999
Air
- High Capacity RPT 0.0
- Low Capacity RPT 1.6
- General Aviation (fixed wing) 8.5

Road
- Drivers 0.5
- Drivers and passengers 0.7
- Motorcycles 17.5
- All motorised vehicles 1.0
- Bus passengers 0.7
Let's manipulate the figures a bit.

I think time spent in each contraption would be a more reasonable way to determine risk.

I will use the above figures and some rough estimates to change the stats.

Average speed of a car (include stopping at lights etc) say 60km/h - ie 1km/min.

Average speed (GS) of a GA plane (from C152 - C310) say (140kts) 250km/h - ie 4.17km/min.

Now 100,000,000km is the equivalent of 100,000,000 min by driving and 23,980,815 min by flying.

By using the same ratios above the fatality rate for driving is the same at 0.7, but GA flying changed to 2.038.

Based on these figures, GA flying is 3 times more dangerous than driving, but 1/10th as dangerous as motor biking.

I could manipulate the figures a bit more to try and justify NAS like old Dick:E - but if it was fully implemented we might have seen High Capacity RPT fatalities as well. Might stick to my push bike:(

[Atlas Shrugged]

The link here is to an ATSB Research Paper following a survey of pilots in November 2003. Whilst the data is not complete it is interesting to note that across all categories:

- 11.8% of events involved violation of SOPs
- 3.2% of errors resulted from wilfully risk activites
- 9.1% of those responding were involved in a "concern" relating to a mid-air collision which involved no warning

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/flying_errors.pdf

A

[Chimbu chuckles]

Don't know that I trust statistics much...do know that I trust statisticians probably less.

Is it reasonable to lump ALL of GA together to come up with an overall statistic that's meaningfull? Should VFR or IFR single engine PVT ops be burdened with the Ag Ops accident rate?

We can all come up with scary numbers...I've lost close to 40 friends killed in flying accidents in 20 years. The vast majority (36) were in PNG over a 13 yr period so we can probably assume GA flying in PNG was bloody dangerous..it was lots of fun too.

The remainder were killed in two light aircraft crashes in Oz. Two were not pilots but innocent passengers killed when the pilot of the C210 they were in tried to turn back from an EFATO at YSBK and crashed into a factory...there were 6 killed in the 210 but I only knew two. The other two were CAA Examiners of Airmen (and ex instructors of mine) who were involved in a mid air between their CAA V35B and a glider. Now several of my friends, including one of the two killed in the V35 above, have suffered engine failures off 29R at YSBK but came up smiling with no damage to aircraft, persons or property...they all landed on the golf course instead of trying an EXTREMELY high risk manouvre. As for midairs..well we can all bet what the ATSB said..."break down of seperation caused by a failure to see and avoid etc etc"...and those of us who have been flying a long time know the limitations of see and avoid and have probably had a couple of near misses ourselves...luck does seem to play a small part in life.

We often read stuff about risk assessment and minimisation and that's what it really is all about.

I know I can get from Brisbane (home sort of) to Mittagong (parents home) several ways...and indeed have used most of the options. I can buy a ticket on VB/QF, I can drive, I can go via train or I can hop in my Bonanza. According to the statistics in previous posts the safest way is VB/QF/train and the most dangerous way is my Bonanza with car travel in between. I don't feel that it's as simple as that. If I chose the VB/QF option I also expose myself and members of my family to, collectively, about 4 hrs of driving and other drivers. If I drive (and I have done so) it's about 13 hrs of driving...lots of people die driving between major cities every year..I'd rather not. If I go in my Bonanza I drive 5 mins to YRED, am wheels up 30 minutes later, 3 hrs later I touch down at YMIG and it's 10 minutes to my Dad's house. The only risk I expose myself to is an engine failure. I have had several of those over the last 23 years and know how I react and have always got down without injury. If we take fuel exhaustion out of the 'engine failure' statistics they are EXTREMELY rare events. Fuel exhaustion is not 'engine' failure it's 'brain' failure. For my money the riskiest part of the trip is if I have to travel the BK LOE and training area.

If we look at cost/risk/benefit factor comparing all the above options to go from YRED-YMIG my Bonanza is quicker point to point. It's cheaper than QF/VB provided at least two people are travelling. The overal level of 'risk' is in my direct control. I honestly believe that I'm overall safer in my Bonanza than the other options and it's vastly more fun/pleasant than dealing with all the downsides of the other options...no brain dead security measures for starters, minimum exposure to other drivers.

If I go for a low level scenic up the coast that's a different level of risk to manage..bird strike + engine failure. I can control the risks of the later by only being really low along beaches...if a bird gets me it gets me...probably it won't be a fatal result. Personally I have had closer calls with birds at 1000' than lower but that is subjective.

Is GA dangerous? As dangerous as YOU want to make it!!

[Tinstaafl]

Well said, CC. :ok:

[Ultralights]

The general aviation annual accident rate (accidents per 100,000 hours flown) declined by 48% between 1993 and 2002

The overall accident rate for Australian aviation shows a significant downward trend – this is mainly driven by improvements in the general aviation accident rate

i reckon the decline in the accident rate is directly proportional in the decline in GA aircraft movements and hours flown!

[Ibex]

I would be interested to know how dangerous ultralight flying is.

I reckon it would be more dangerous than any other form of recreational pursuit.

Guess that's what you get with nil regulation.

[Ultralights]

i think there was a report out in the RAA magazine not so long ago, that the RAA (formerly Australian Ultralight federation) had less fatalites per hours flown then GA for a given period of time. i will try to find the story.

[OzExpat]

Spot on as always Chuck, but the fact is that there's a lot of folks involved in GA who have significantly less experience than you. A lot of folks will understand your final comment about GA being as dangerous as we want to make it because most risks are calculated on the basis of experience. I think that the basic problem is that we don't know what we don't know.

That's true of everyone. The difference is that not everyone has the same level of experience and, of course, experience can't be learned from anyone else. While there are certainly a lot of very experienced pilots in GA, it is also the demographic for the less experienced pilot and I suspect that this is why insurance companies have a problem with "aviators".

I hear the point that was made (by Keg?) that, as the pilot of a scheduled airline flight, he is as safe as his passengers, but that's not the point. Those who fly in scheduled ops are covered by their company's insurance (well, in theory anyway), so the insurance companies have no meaningful statistics on him, or those like him.

I think there might be some confusion in insurance companies on the subject of "aviating" per se. I further suspect that, when they are confronted by such confusion, the reaction is always to increase premiums... just in case. I'm not happy about that but there's nothing that I, or anyone else, can effectively do about it.

Whether or not that is the case, professionals are lumped in with amateurs in GA. If the professional happens to work for a company that doesn't have adequate insurance coverage for its pilots (I think we've all known companies like that), we've all had an insurance problem at some stage.

I've lost more friends in GA than in motor vehicle accidents, but I think that's because GA tends to be a smaller world than the world of people driving cars. I look on it as a variation of the "big sky" principle because there's a lot more people driving cars than flying aeroplanes so, statistically, my friends who drive cars are safer than those who fly aeroplanes in GA.

The other point that probably should be mentioned is that folks who are injured in car prangs probably have a better chance of getting their jobs back than a pilot who is injured in any sort of prang. What other skills will the average (low time) GA pilot have to fall back on after a prang that destroys a flying career?

Chuck, you're the sort of bloke than anyone could trust their wife and kids with in an aeroplane. There's a lot of folks like you in that regard but, unfortunately, you're in the minority ol' mate.

[185skywagon]

i was declined life insurance by a company that had insured me for years(they actually back out of an existing policy). they suddenly realised that i flew commercially and said they would not insure me anymore. i am now with lloyds at $2400 pa, including low level, seeding and baiting but not AG. i am also a farmer/grazier and am covered for motor bike riding which is also becoming more difficult to get coverage for.

[Ultralights]

i have never even bothered to enquire about life insurance! I Fly Ultralight aircraft, GA aircraft, My own Homebuilt aircraft, ride a motorcycle, i have no chance of being covered! but if anyone knows of a company who would! do tell.

[185skywagon]

i am only insured for my wife and son and unborn child. lloyds will do it. try kenney aiken brokers.

[Obiwan]

i reckon the decline in the accident rate is directly proportional in the decline in GA aircraft movements and hours flown!
The rate shown is accidents per 100,000 hours flown, so the decline in hours flown shouldn't affect it. It might even be expected to go up due to less currency for less hours flown.

[Tinstaafl]

All other factors being equal, about the only way that reduced flight hours across the fleet could affect the accident rate is if there is (or have been) significant accidents caused by the larger number of aircraft flying eg collisions, airports closed due saturation leading to poorly planned alternates & diversions etc.


Barring that then the rate doesn't change. The raw number of accidents might but if you double (or halve) the total number of accidents while the number of flight hours is also doubled (or halved) then the accident rate hasn't changed.