How safe is flying?

[liam548]

Im cracking on with my PPL and enjoying it very much.

It seems just about every other day there are threads or AAIB reports or news items about accidents involving small planes, which does concern me somewhat.

I just wonder what the correct statistics are compared to say my other hobby of riding high perfomrance road bikes...

Liam

[expedite08]

Flying is as safe as you make it. These accidents we all hear off are mostly pilot induced by poor decision making and cockpit management, not all but most!

Some people you see flying does totally worry you but you need to ensure that you prepare yourself before every flight and ensure you have checked all the details, met, NOTAMS weight and balance etc.

You need to be thinking ahead of the aircraft and always be looking around you for that forced landing site other aircraft etc ( plus enjoying the view!! :p, it will become second nature after a while!

Above all enjoy it do all your planning and your be fine!!

Best of luck! :ok:

[BackPacker]

Let me ask you a counterquestion. Is there an equivalent to an AAIB report for every motorcycle incident/accident/fatality?

The aviation industry is very safety conscious, because flying is potentially a very dangerous activity for us human beings. How safely you will fly depends to a large extent in how well you're going to abide by the rules, regulations, best practices, recommendations from the AAIB and everything else that we have now because other people lost their lives.

[RMarvin86]

Usually when people ask me if flying is safe I tell them that I feel safer seating at the controls of a small airplane than driving on the highway to my local airfield.

[BRL]

Compared to riding sports bikes I feel safer flying everytime.

(BRL Ducati Rider).....

[Fright Level]

Last year there were nearly a quarter of a million casualties in road accidents in the UK. Just over 1% of them were killed (2,946).

That is the equivalent of a jumbo load of people crashing every six weeks. Not worldwide, but just in the UK. Does that put it in perspective for you?

Source (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain20071)

[liam548]

Blimey!:ooh:

[englishal]

The stats speak for themselves.

Something like 1 fatality in 100,000 flight hours.

So.....if you fly 100 hours per year, then in 1000 years you'll be dead from flying!

Of course people win the lottery too....:O

[Katamarino]

Ah, but englishal; that fatality could always be in your first hour out of the 100,000 ;)

[LH2]

How safe is flying?

To be realistic, not very safe at all when compared to commercial aviation.

But hey, we all die at some point or another :}

[FREDAcheck]

To attempt a comparison with roads:

The 2,946 road deaths come in about 6,000 million hours driving. (I've guessed 30 million drivers averaging 200 hours a year at the wheel; that ignores passenger hours.)

If that's right, it means 1 fatality in 2 million driving hours, so 20 times safer than private flying.

[Fuji Abound]

Do you know what, I asked the same question a long time ago when I started flying.

Here is what I have discovered since.

You will often read flying is safer than driving or other similar comparisons. Well forget these. As with all statistics unless you understand how they are calculated, they are worthless. More over there has been plenty of debate on here which would lead you to conclude that if you do the stats on any reasonable basis flying light aircraft is probably more dangerous than driving.

I think a far more rational approach is to consider where the risks lie and what you can do to minimise them.

Here are some of the most common reasons for fatal accidents involving light aircraft:

1. Controlled flight into terrain,
2. Stall, spin, loss of control,
3. Instrument approach accidents,
4. Mechanical failure,
5. Structural failure,
6. Collision

Of course to varying degrees these reasons may be inter-related. An engine failure (4) may in itself not be catastrophic unless combined with 2.

However, if you read the accident reports the vast majority of accidents are avoidable. For example, if you are properly trained and current, there is no reason to lose control, or to fly into the side of a hill. These are both examples of perfectly serviceable and functioning aircraft killing their pilots and together account for the vast majority of fatal accidents. In fact if you eliminate all the accidents caused by pilot error there are very few left. Even some of those result in an avoidable loss of life. For example, if a pilot maintains control of the aircraft the evidence all points towards a successful and survivable ditching. However most do not survive because of hypothermia. Once again, depending on how risk averse you are, simple precautions like wearing a dry suite, and carrying a raft reduce this risk significantly.

So if you are confident that you will maintain sound currency, will be proficient, avoid taking risks and flying outside your envelope, partake in regular recurrent training etc., the vast majority of these risks can be eliminated.

You are left with a few more difficult to deal with. Here they are:

1. Engine failure immediately after take off,
2. Structural failure
3. Collision
4. Forced landing over poor terrain.

Well arguably even some of these are avoidable. With any luck and engine failure after take off IF you maintain control is survivable. You could decide to avoid ever flying over terrain that doesn’t present any forced landing sites. Given that I have experienced poor engineers, using engineers with a good reputation can also be a factor.

So in a perfect world you are left with very few situations which you can do little about – and come down to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Certainly structural failure falls into this category; arguably so does collision (although IMHO flying with some form of CAS helps mitigate the risk).

In the perfect world the risk is therefore very small and perhaps a great deal smaller than motoring where so many of the accidents are the results of the actions of some other idiot over which you have very little control.

It’s for these reason I caution you to ignore the statistics – flying is as safe as you wish to make it. Push the envelope, fly beyond your ability, become complacent or rusty and it is the most unforgiving of pastimes.

[DavidHoul52]

common reasons for fatal accidents involving light aircraft

Some reasons behind these reasons:

Continuing VFR into IFR conditions.
Alcohol/drug abuse.
Maneuvering at low altitude.
Get home-itis.
poor fuel management.
ice
complacency

Students are amongst the safest pilots. Most dangerous are those who have just got their PPL.

[PompeyPaul]

CAVOK, well maintained aircraft, fuel to tabs, brimble to an airfield half an hour away that you can visually see after take off, well that's incredibly safe.

Awful visibility\mist\haze\fog, low level thunder clouds, not flown for a few months and not instrument rated = almost certain death

As a pilot you analyse the situation, look at where between those poles you are and then make your decision to fly based on that. As others have said, aircraft have been flying so long now that design issues have been fixed so very rarely does the aircraft fail, it's almost always the pilot. The reason you die is because you where closer to the "thunder storm" pole than the 1st.

To put it into some context. I fly, in fact I love flying and fly over water and abroad. On the other hand, I wouldn't ride a motorcycle (apart from my 50cc) on the road.

[DavidHoul52]

Jeremy Pratt in "Beyond the PPL" suggests having a personal minima and if the weather is outside these limits then it's an automatic "no".

[Final 3 Greens]

CAVOK, well maintained aircraft, fuel to tabs, brimble to an airfield half an hour away that you can visually see after take off, well that's incredibly safe.

Really?

That sounds awfully complacement to me.

[bladewashout]

When I did some training in the US (helicopter), it was emphasised that 2/3 of fatal helicopter accidents involve one or more of:

- poor weather
- night
- flying below 500ft agl (outside take-off/landing)

Since avoidance of these are all within the pilot's control, the thrust of the safety briefing was that by simply avoiding these three aeas, you can keep yourself out of 2/3 of fatal accidents.

BW

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Usual answer:

In raw figures, you can choose statistics that say that flying little aeroplanes is about as dangerous as riding motorbikes (ie lots more dangerous than driving cars).

However as others have said most motorcyclists are killed by other people, whereas most pilots kill themselves.

So you can cheat. You can read the accident reports, and choose not to kill yourself in many of the favourite ways.

Thus making your odds better than those of a motorcyclist.

I fly. I gave away my motorbike years ago because driving it around amongst all those people who were out to kill me just got too frightening.

[SNS3Guppy]

Safety in aviation is like the manual safety on a firearm. It's not found in the airplane, or on the gun. It's in you; it's your mind, your thought process, your judgement, and your discipline.

No law prohibits acting conservatively, and the ability to say no is an excellent safeguard against misbehavior and misfortune in the business.

[Airbus Girl]

Liam, I think if you are already thinking of safety, that is great.
There are many good posts here with good advice.

Things I was told early on that have stood me in good stead:-
It is always better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground.

There is no such thing as a stupid question - if you want to know something, ask. Never assume or guess. Take time to find out.

The most useless things in aviation are the air in your fuel tanks and the runway behind you when you line up.

My own thoughts:-
Always take time to prepare and always be prepared to make the decision to go home. If in doubt ALWAYS err on the side of safety. Always consider your options carefully.

If you are a consicentious, thinking pilot you will have alleviated most of the risks.

And those accident reports - it is well worth reading them as it will give you the knowledge to avoid making the same mistake yourself. In fact, I would recommend reading them and then considering what you might have done differently, if you had been in the same situation. Airlines regularly publish pilots incident reports to the rest of the crews, even minor stuff, for this reason. You can also go read books, read around the subject, ask on here (although these days there are lots of "armchair" pilots on pprune, so try to make sure they actually have a licence if you are going to take their advice!!!!).

If you ever find yourself rushing, not in the right frame of mind, or worried about something, don't go flying.

And remember - flying IS meant to be fun!

[flybymike]

G EMMA you started getting me all turned on with your ST1100, but 660lbs of pure throbbing tourer was just too reminiscent of me on my own bike....:rolleyes:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Safety is enhanced by carefully planning every part of any flight before you get into the airplane.....it is a state of mind.

Having flown fifty five years accident free in almost every device known to man I credit a lot of the reason for this to having learned when to say no early in my career.

The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.

[Kolibear]

Flying is very safe. Crashing, on the other hand, tends to spoil your day.

On a more serious note, last saturday I took someone flying who had never been in an SEP before. Once we were airborne and he'd realised how calm he was, he asked the inevitable question; 'what would you do if the engine stopped & how long before we hit the ground?'

He was a touch surprised when I rattled off the engine failure in flight actions as I don't think he realised that it was something we train for. And he was even more surprised when I said that from 2000' feet we'd probably have more than 2 minutes to get ready to an emergency landing.

But what made him really think was when I turned the question round- if the engine stopped in your car - how long would it that for you to realise the engine had stopped, and how would you cope with no power steering none power-assisted brakes?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

'what would you do if the engine stopped & how long before we hit the ground?'
I ask "what makes it fly then?"

If they answer "the engine" I ask what makes gliders fly.

Eventually they work out that it's "the wings".

I then throttle down to idle and show them we're still flying.

[gpn01]

Flying is extremely safe.....crashing is the dangerous bit.

Remember a few important points:
Everybody is fully qualified to have an accident. The more qualifications and experience you have the greater the variety of ways you have available to make a mistake.
If you crash, do it as slowly and gently as possible whilst staying in control.
For landing accidents, it's better to hit the far hedge slowly then the near hedge quickly

The 'risk' in sport aviation is probably about 20 times greater than that of other forms of transport. To be honest, the actual relative number is irrelevant...whether it's 20 or 200. The trick is to be aware that you're operating in a potentially higher risk environment and have the mindset to deal with it. Keep within your own, and your equipments, limits. The old adage about a superior pilot being the one who uses his superior judgement to avoid needing to use his superior skills springs to mind.

Oh, and have fun!

[rauxaman]

Hi Liam-

This has been a very interesting thread.
I am in my early fifties and seriously started flying little planes and riding motorbikes when I was 17.

I have a slight limp... this is as a result of my interest in motorbikes... by the way I am an approved Driving Standards Agency instructor on these infernal things.

So far, except for one or two "I really don't want to do that again" moments I have enjoyed a clean sheet with regards to little planes (and I have flown a lot of them).

My advice must be to listen to the experienced guys around you (excepting the bar room know-alls) and don't push the outside of the envelope too much and too regularly unless of course you like dancing with fate.

R

[flybymike]

Are "little planes" the same as light aircraft?

[Airbus Girl]

The little planes I fly are - as a distinction from the big planes which tend to have jet engines attached and lots of noisy passengers in the back.....

[PompeyPaul]

CAVOK, well maintained aircraft, fuel to tabs, brimble to an airfield half an hour away that you can visually see after take off, well that's incredibly safe. Really?

That sounds awfully complacement to me.
Do you work for the sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk) at all ? If not, with that ability to misquote you should definately be working there.

The statement was, flying in CAVOK is incredibly safe compared to flying in thunderstorms. Only a fool would disagree with that, but this being pprune.......

There is no such thing as a stupid question - if you want to know something, ask. Never assume or guess. Take time to find out.

I wish that were true on pprune!

[Lister Noble]

"If you ever find yourself rushing, not in the right frame of mind, or worried about something, don't go flying. "
Airbus girl

For me,that is probably some of the best advice given on here.

Another thing,I don't like people messing around me when I'm doing the walk around checks,I find doing the checks quietly gets me in the right frame of mind for flying,but we're all different!

Lister:)

[PompeyPaul]

Not really what you said Paul, the statement was going for a bimble in nice weather is incredibly safe... the accident figures don't agree with you, in fact it is just the sort of flight where people 'feel' safe, don't plan fully and end up as a statistic. But then I'm a fool so it doesn't matter much. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif
Take that paragraph out on it's own, yes, but it's important that it's paired with the other paragraph that followed it. I.e.

"McDonalds is responsible for obesity in this country and also for deforestation around the world to make room for cattle farms"

"Turn to any newspaper and the above is an idea you'll often see printed"

Take that 1st paragraph and you get a very skewed view of what the piece in it's entirety is saying. I still stand by what I posted. Flying in CAVOK, for a short period of time, is incredibly safe when compared to flying in thunderstorms.

The interesting question though is, is flying safer than other hobbies and interests ? I am curious to know if it's more dangerous than motorcycle riding. My gut feeling is it's less dangerous, but not being a health and safety bod, or somebody that works for insurance and looks at the risks involved I don't know.

[Final 3 Greens]

Take that paragraph out on it's own, yes, but it's important that it's paired with the other paragraph that followed it. I.e.

No.

You set "bimbling" on a VFR day as an absolute end of the scale, as being "incredibly safe."

I don't agree with you, flying light aircraft is not "incredibly safe."

Insult me as much as you wish, I just quoted your sentence and the following sentence has no relevance in this context.

[jonkil]

I agree :rolleyes: Flying is very dangerous :ouch: and should be banned :ugh:
We can all take up knitting :E

[Final 3 Greens]

Flying = not incredibly safe is not = to flying is very dangerous and should be banned.

Anybody who believes this is a half wit and should not command an aircraft, due to lack of judgement :ugh:

[PompeyPaul]

Insult me as much as you wish,
Sorry you read it that way, I wasn't trying to insult you. Comparison to "The Sun" was an attempt at humour. Which I admit doesn't work very well over ASCII.

Saying only a fool would say flying in thunderstorms is as dangerous as CAVOK, obviously doesn't apply to you since I'm guessing you wouldn't say that.

Sorry if you thought I was having a pop, it wasn't my intention. I've read plenty of your posts and find them informative and useful.

[spittingimage]

A while back .. 15 -20 years ? .. 'Pilot' magazine investigated this topic and the conclusion IIRC was that private flying is statistically about as dangerous as motorcycle racing. Dunno whether this reassures or not. Probably not.

Another way of looking at it was that it about doubles the chance of dying from all causes if you are aged 50+. Again IIRC. Put another way, at 50+ your chance of popping your clogs from all causes is beginning to climb. So if you are 50+ (like me) the additional risk of flying is merely a relatively smaller and smaller additional risk to add to all the others as time passes !

However, if you are below the age of 25 and, by definition, probably still regard yourself as immortal, you are assuming a much bigger (relative) risk than me !

Caveat aviator.

SI

[Final 3 Greens]

Sorry you read it that way, I wasn't trying to insult you. Comparison to "The Sun" was an attempt at humour. Which I admit doesn't work very well over ASCII.

Paul, having spent a bit of time working as a consultant to publishers a while ago, Sun journo = reptile to me :}

Thanks for clarifying, no offence taken.

PS: I once did fly into a CB in a PA28. My mitigation is that I was P u/t, but I would absolutely not recommend it as an experience, it was one of the most frightening things I have ever endured, even though it only lasted for a few minutes.

[rauxaman]

What I think I was trying to point out earlier was that I have been around light aviation (little planes) for 30 odd years and I'm still here. I've also been around high performance motorbikes for the same time period and I'm still here... although they have bit me.

So... my personal experience tells me motrobikes are slightly more risky than little planes, but neither need to be toooooo risky unless you really want them too be.

PS... I also fly toy planes as well as little planes! :)

[liam548]

Thanks for the replies, some interesting reading, especially after all the recent accidents.

I enjoy flying a great deal but at 25 still want to live!

I originally posted as it seems the ratio of accidents to flights seems high, but it probably isnt. I attend fatal RTCs at work and they never get a mention on the news whereas a plane crashing is forced to make at least regional news.

I suppose I do not know how many small GA flights are taking place over a weekend so not a lot to compare it with even though it is obvious there are millions of cars on the road at any one time...

Liam

[daria-ox]

Flying is still the safest way of travel worldwide. :E

[Crash one]

I find it difficult to determine the definition of "dangerous" in the context of "flying".
If you ride a motorcycle /pushbike /drive a car / walk etc, you are in very close proximity to others doing the same in conflicting directions. (please remember the "very close" part.
If you fly a light a/c you are not, "in spite of the "crowded skies" lobby".
Therefore you are more in control of your own destiny when flying than you are when on the ground.
If YOU choose to fly in a thunderstorm, fly a single engine a/c (piston) over water for long distances, over mountains in high winds etc, then YOU are placing yourself in a situation that YOU may not be able to control all the way to it's conclusion.
On the othe hand you may have little choice but to drive to work in a snowstorm within inches of numerous, perhaps less competent, persons.
Therefore it's far more dangerous to be on the ground standing at a bus stop than at 5000ft strapped into anything.
Statistics are just numbers that naysayers use.

Most people in the developed world die in bed.
Most people in the developed world die when they are old.
Most people in the developed world die having drawn a pension.
Solution: Don't join a pension scheme, spend all your money on an a/c while you are young, instead of sleeping, fly it at night, low so you can see the ground, slowly to give yourself time to avoid things. This will ensure you do not get old, therefore you should not die.

Flippancy mode OFF.

[RatherBeFlying]

Mostly I fly gliders, but just like powered a/c, the most critical time is the first few hundred feet where the towplane engine can fail or the rope can break when landing in the trees as slow as you can is about all you can do.

Twin turboprops blasting through a busy thermal can get your attention, but at least I have a chute -- can't say I'm blameless on the other side as I once found myself flying a C-172 through a well populated area of lift:uhoh:

The best way to keep yourself safe is to fly the same as you would for your flight test. Get the wx and NOTAMs, calculate your fuel and w/b, do a proper preflight including verifying adequacy of proposed runways vs. load and density altitude, use a checklist... and you will have eliminated many of the popular accident causes.

[ChampChump]

Having had an engine failure at 1100', I now know that sh!t happens even when you appear to have done all the preparation possible and everything is the equivalent of CAVOK. The interest of non-flying friends afterwards has been interesting and a chance to prove that what's been said above.
However, I'm very, very glad it didn't happen over water...

I have felt far more compromised, in terms of 'danger' in many other situations and few, if any, have been in the air.

When flying, I am in charge of the pre-flight, the planning, the flying, navigation and landing. As I see it, I am the biggest liability. The importance of others is reduced to matters of maintenance and the proximity of other aircraft.
On the ground, the mere existence of other people, whether in cars or not, adds more variables to the outcome of stepping outside ones front door than can be calculated.

Most of us here seem to be reasonably confident that we can accept a degree of calculated risk because the rewards are enormous. For confirmation, I refer all to the G-EMMA's 'postive' thread.

[White Bear]

In the U.S. approximately 360 people die each year in general aviation accidents, or about 1 a day. This is in comparison to 43,000 killed each year in cars, or 117 a day.
I have no idea how many are injured in either category.

The trick to avoiding your being one of those ‘one a day’ fatalities is to know, understand, and stick by your personal limitations. If the wind is higher than you’d prefer, either at your departure airport, or at your arrival airport, then don’t go. If the ceilings are too low, or are threatening to go too low, don’t go. If there is violent weather on your route of flight, don’t go, etc, etc, etc.

Remember you have control, and you make the decisions. As had been said many times before, most pilots kill themselves by flying into conditions they are not prepared for, or not trained for, or by doing stupid things at low altitude. Famous last words from many a pilot have been, “Hey watch this!”

Watch your instruments, believe your instruments, pay attention to what’s going on outside the cockpit, and if you’re renting an aircraft, spend a little time in the maintenance area before deciding if you really want to rent their aircraft.

I learned to fly at 50 and now having just turned 60, I have over 650 hours. Of all things I’ve learned to do in my adult life, flying has given me the greatest pleasure. If that means I must eventually pay the highest price, well it was never my plan to lay in bed waiting for it anyway.

LIVE your life, don’t sit around worrying about what might happen, get out there and do it!

Just be sensible, that’s all.

Regards,
White Bear.

[SNS3Guppy]

In the U.S. approximately 360 people die each year in general aviation accidents, or about 1 a day. This is in comparison to 43,000 killed each year in cars, or 117 a day.


The thing about statistics is that only mean what you want them to mean. Take the above statistic, for example. It seems that driving a car is a lot more dangerous. Except that there are a lot more people driving cars in a given day, than people flying general aviation airplanes. And spending a lot more hours in those cars, too. So it's really a nonsensical comparison.

What we do need to see when we look at the statistics is what keeps coming back again and again and a cause or contributing factor. Controlled flight into terrain. Fuel exhaustion or mismanagement. Continued VFR flight into instrument meteorological conditions, and so forth. The fatalities, the mishaps, the crashes, the close calls that continue to happen...these largely keep happening for the same reasons.

The most dangerous component in the airplane continues to be the pilot.

This is not a constant. You may not be able to control an engine bearing failure. You may not be able to control an instrument failure, or a fuel leak, or a stuck landing gear, or a fire. But you can control you. You're by far the single most dangerous thing in the airplane, and ironically, the only component that can make it safe. In fact, you're the only component in the airplane that can alter a dangerous situation to ensure a safe outcome, and like all components in the airplane, you're required equipment.

We preflight powerplants, we preflight fuel, airframes, charts, weather, etc. Do we preflight ourselves as much as we should? Are we tired? Are we going through a divorce? Are we going beyond our comfort and training, just because we legally can? Are we carrying minimum fuel just because it's legal? Are we going because we feel pressure to get there? Could this flight wait until the morning? Is there a better way? Wouldn't it be a good idea to invite a second person along on this flight, today? We're legal to takeoff because we have the necessary landings in our logbook..but are we really proficient? Is an occasional flight review and a landing enough? How long has it really been since training was received on...partial panel? Electrical failures? Forced landings? Night landings without the lights?

Particularly as a private pilot, there's seldom someone looking over your shoulder whipping you into shape, checking up on your recency of experience, ensuring that you're performing to standard, or requiring you to undertake regular, recurrent training. It's all on you.

Recently I called the cell phone company about a problem. They reminded me that I hadn't updated the phone in a year. Can't be, I thought...has it been that long? Training is the same way...you might not realize how long it's been until the engine really quits, until you find yourself partial panel at night in a featureless area, or until something occurs that takes you squarely out of the day to day routine operations and into a place where that unused training is required.

A few years ago I went to DeLand, Florida. It's a well known drop zone. I had my parachute, had my license, but it had been a little while. I elected to pay for some recurrent jump training. I got quizzed, got put in the training harness, went through all the drills...and even though I wasn't required to do that, and it cost extra money, seeking the additional refresher training was worth every penny to me. We may not be required to seek the training legally...but then who says we have to perform at the legal minimum all the time.

In the kind of flying I'm doing right now, one of our requirements is called an equal time point alternate. We have to have reserve fuel for a variety of different circumstances, that being one of them. ETP alternate fuel is only fifteen minutes on arrival...it's considered emergency fuel. That's not much. Not much at all. Fifteen minutes of fuel remaing. For us, that would be about seven thousand pounds. We don't ever do anything like that, however...it would be insane Most of the time we land with closer to 40,000 lbs of fuel...roughly an hour and a half of fuel, instead. It's more than what's required even at our regular destination or an alternate, but we land with it anyway. Who's to say that unforecast winds, mechanical problems, or other situations won't arise that fall outside of our plans? If we plan for the bare minimum all the time, then we can't be too shocked if our plans occasionally fail or fall short. It's a judgement issue.

The pilot is the most dangerous component, and the ability to address that is entirely in your hands. The question, then, once more...is not how dangerous is flying, but how dangerous are you?

[usedtofly]

Liam548

Have a look in your local hospital A & E dept and you will always see more motorcyclists than pilots!

I think that flying carries a risk of death (small) and that riding motor cycles carries a risk of injury (high).

The chance of you being involved in an accident and suffering pain and injury is considerably higher on your motorcycle, yet you still ride one. Don't worry too much about aeroplanes.

Me? I fly for a living but I am just too damn scared to ride a motorcycle any more.

Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice!

:E

UTF

[IO540]

The motorcycle comparison is meaningless, because on a bike you are at the mercy of every half blind driver on the road. I've done some 6 figure # of miles on 2 wheels so I know. And I wouldn't ride a bike in the present traffic density.

Whereas in flying some 99% of the risk is down to the pilot.

The size of the residual "1%" or whatever is down to the build quality of the aircraft and its maintenance, and that is also to a large degree under the pilot's control. I know renters get little choice but they can always choose to walk away and rent something better. The best way to get this residual % down is to become an owner, get seriously clued up on maintenance, build a trustworthy team of people you can call on for different jobs, and then you can manage the whole process.

Engine management also comes into it heavily - not taught in the PPL except (usually) to fly full-rich.

[Lister Noble]

Emma,100,000 miles a year,do you live on the bike?
Lister

[Lister Noble]

My father lost a leg riding a motorcycle in 1927,it was a racing bike that he was tuning and running on the road when the throttle stuck open.
He was taken to hospital on a 5 bar gate strapped to the roof of a car!
He forbade me to have a motorbike,but I saved up my pocket money and bought an ancient one anyway, as soon as I was 17 I got an old car.
Lister:)

[SNS3Guppy]

Engine management also comes into it heavily - not taught in the PPL except (usually) to fly full-rich.


I can't imagine an instructor not properly teaching a student how to use the mixture. I find it hard to believe that it's not required, and not common practice, even in the UK.

[Final 3 Greens]

I can't imagine an instructor not properly teaching a student how to use the mixture. I find it hard to believe that it's not required, and not common practice, even in the UK.

Unbelievable, but true.

[SNS3Guppy]

You're saying that an individual is allowed to complete a full private pilot training curriculum and never be instructed in how to use one of the two basic cockpit powerplant controls? An instructor would have to be entirely incompetent to fail a student this broadly. How can a student possibly not know how to use the mixture?

[patfitz]

General Aviation Safety (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/safety)

is an article about aircraft safety and says that in a the chances of dying in a big jet airliner are .34 per million hours
5 times greater in a turbo prop so about 1.7 per million hours
and 16 deaths per million hours in a light aircraft
and for driving about .85 deaths per million hours in a car

Diamond Katana Review -- DA20-A1 Rotax-powered (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/diamond-katana)

says that if you fly a DA 20 your chances of getting killed are 2 in million hours so almost as safe as in a commercial turbo prop

that means you are 8 times less likely to die in one compared to other light aircraft, so there must surely be aircraft that you are 3 times as likely to die in

http://www.diamondaircraft.com/_images/chart_safety01a_large.gif

they seem to claim diamond is safest compared to cessnas, cirrus and columbia which I would also think would be amongst the the safest

[Final 3 Greens]

How can a student possibly not know how to use the mixture?

They learn

1 - set to rich to start engine

2 - set to idle cut off to stop engine

[SNS3Guppy]

Very unfortunate. Also unforgivable, and unprofessional.

I would hope that if anyone reading this is subject to such poor instruction, they will seek training elsewhere, and insist that they're taught properly. There is no excuse at all for failing to teaching a student to use the mixture.

[MerlinV8]

White Bear
You learned to fly at 50! I have so much respect for you! I'm not saying 50 is old because my brother is 50, I'm the youngest in my family at 33 and always telling my brother who all down and out about getting old that he is not, I will tell him about you! maybe he will get his license! I doubt it because he is an idiot but good on you :ok:

[MerlinV8]

Final 3 Greens

Just press enter, if you make a mistake, press back space!

[Lister Noble]

I got my licence two days after my 63rd birthday.
Tell your brother to get a life!:D;);)
Lister
PS I've been shopping,out in the garden with the chainsaw ,(with protective clothing),gathering winter fuel and dug a new flowerbed today.
Re the chainsaw,after the 1987 hurricane our local agricultural merchant sold over 1000 chain saws and one set of protective clothing.
Set of clothing circa £200---new leg £?????????
Life does not end at 30,40,50 etc,as long as you keep going,and have younger friends around you to keep you focused on the here and now.
Going to have a cuppa ,sit down and stroke the cat now.:)

[patfitz]

on the safety of flying

according to this General Aviation Safety (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/safety)
we have a 16 people wll die for every 1 million hours in a light aircraft
we have a .85 chance of dying for every 1 million hours in the car
so per flying hour in a ligh aircraft we are 20 times as likely to die as driving

in a jet airliner we have a .34 chance of dying per million hours
in a turbo prop commercial aircraft we have about 1.7 chance of dying so as safe as a car per hour

on the same website Diamond Katana Review -- DA20-A1 Rotax-powered (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/diamond-katana)

it claims that in a da 20 diamond katana there is 2 fatalities per million flight hours so on average 8 times safer than the average but one could argue that the aircraft probably covers 150 miles in an hour where as in the car in the uk one would be lucky to cover 70 miles in the hour (legally) so theoritaclly as safe and faster, for a long journey.

[Nibbler]

After playing with the figures;

Driving a car
Chance is .85 per 1000000 hours = 0.00000085 per hour
Average driver does 10,000 miles per year @ average speed of 50 = 200 hours in the car giving a risk of 0.00000085 * 200 hours = 0.00017

Flying a light aircraft
Chance is 16 per 1000000 hours = 0.000016 per hour
Average 12 hours flying per year for average PPL giving a risk of 0.000016 * 12 = 0.000192

Overall difference is f1.129 making flying slightly more risky.

Riding a motorcycle is '33 times' more risky than driving a car making it more dangerous than flying.

But then these figures are produced from total data. Correct attention to your attitude and behaviour whilst partaking of any such activity will significantly reduce your chance of becoming a statistic.

How does your personal risk factor compute?

[RatherBeFlying]

I can't imagine an instructor not properly teaching a student how to use the mixture. I find it hard to believe that it's not required, and not common practice, even in the UK.Well with airwork and circuits, the mixture pretty much stays at full rich. Not until cross-country does the mixture come into play. What we need are student cross-country legs long enough to require leaning to make it to the destination, then leaning will be taught:E

[MerlinV8]

Lister, Excellent!!

Only as young as young as the woman you feel, thats what I always say!

[Mike744]

I'm learning to fly & 65th birthdays next Saturday. Making up for missed opportunities and loving every minute of it.

[Lister Noble]

A lady in our village had her first flying lesson last week at Norwich.
Aged 90,and trained as an air hostess before the war.
Beat that!:D:D:D

[Crash one]

Got my licence last Aug at age of 67, bought the Emeraude in April this year, tailwheel signoff June this year. Been waiting for it since I was 12 & I hope I'm still flying at 90!

[Zulu Alpha]

we have a 16 people wll die for every 1 million hours in a light aircraft
we have a .85 chance of dying for every 1 million hours in the car
so per flying hour in a ligh aircraft we are 20 times as likely to die as driving

Trouble is that all the car statistics include the 17 year olds who pay £1500/yr for their Ford Fiesta insurance. Old farts are much safer.

You can make statistics work in whichever way suits you. Like the statistician who always took a bomb with him when he flew to enhance his safety. Apparently the chances of there being two bombs on an aircraft are much lower than the chance of there being just one.

We were pleased when a new member joined our group, he had previously suffered an engine failure so the chance of our aircraft suffering one decreased when he joined the group!

On the subject of age, we had an aerobatics competitor Harry Mason who competed well into his Eighties.

We also have an active competitor in his seventies who has won many competitions and twice won the most sought after aerobatics trophy -- the Esso Tiger trophy.
You wouldn't know he was 72 if you met him unless you had been told.

Age is a state of mind rather than something you mind stating.

ZA

[IO540]

Gemma, my comments on motorcycling were based on the 1970s and the early 1980s, when there were far fewer cars (about 3x fewer) on the UK roads, and very few half blind OAPs were getting tax free lump sums from private pensions with which to buy cars :)

Surveys at the time showed 2/3 of accidents (involving a car and a bike) were caused directly by the car driver, usually by pulling out of a side road or similar. I am sure it would be worse now, but maybe not due to stricter medical reuirements. The biker cannot do much about those risks.

Also there were many times more bikers back then - many young people could not afford a car so had a motorbike. Today's bike accident figures are hugely skewed (for the better) by a much reduced biker population.

The risk profile in flying is completely different. You could fly around blindfolded for the rest of your life, 24hrs/day, and would prob99 die of natural causes before hitting something airborne. Fly above 2000ft and the UK mid-air risk is no longer supported by any data at all. Look after the plane, engine especially, and the numbers get even better.

When I had to do the Lyco SB569 crank swap, I sent it to a highly regarded specialist engine shop in the USA. Too many horror stories of UK rebuilds causing various failures. And the U.S. job cost $12k plus shipping, which is a lot less than any of the UK outfits. One now-defunct outfit quoted £10k for the same work and my 'due diligence' found about 50% of ex customers wouldn't touch them again.

[G SXTY]

Completely unscientific, but I've been flying for 8 years, around 500hrs total. I've had one incident where I genuinely thought we were going to crash.

On my bike I can think of at least three occasions in the last year alone where car or lorry drivers have nearly killed me. And that's on a pedal bike . . .

It's much, much safer up there.

[pulse1]

G SXTY,

I would roughly share your flying experience (or near crashing experience) but in about 20 years around flying I have witnessed three significant aircraft accidents, one fatal. (I have witnessed several more in air displays so I don't count those)

In 50 years motoring I have only witnessed one accident actually happen.

Perhaps you are a much safer pilot than you are a cyclist?:)

[patfitz]

getting back to the numbers you are much more likely to die in a car if you are drunk or speeding or on your mobile or tired

so if you are safe and alert the chance of dying in the cars is prob more like .4 per million

they say that flying in Ga is about as risky as driving while on the moblie

also the type of aircraft

The Bulletin’s analysis of Lancair accident records from the NTSB found that there have been 122 crashes in the United States since 1989 among the company’s nearly 1,100 homebuilt models. While 92 people were killed in those crashes, there were neither deaths nor injuries in more than 40 percent of them.


so a 1 in 9 chance of a crash if you flew it for 19 yrs
and in the crash a 60% chance of a fatility

or if you flew it for 1 year a 1 in 171 chance of a crash

i know the figures are not exact as the chance was in 1992 there was only 100 flying and in 2008 there was over a 1000 so that would mean you are even more likely to crash

Many Lancair crashes are due to lack of pilot training | Local & State News | The Bulletin (http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080217/NEWS0107/802170542/1001&nav_category)

the most frightening statistic of all though is the owner of lancair says the planes have at least 200,000 hours

but work it out 92 deaths thats like 200 000 x 5 =1 000 000

92x5=460

surely that cannot be right

Lancair say that most causes are pilot inexperience or not built properly by the builder

[Airbus Girl]

Liam
I fear you may be baffled by all the long posts and figures posted here.The crux of the matter is - if you act like a professional and ensure your aircraft is maintained properly then your chance of death by flying is going to be closer to the airliner figure of 0.34 per million hours.
If you choose to fly like a cowboy expect to die alot sooner.

[Crash one]

IO540 wrote:
Gemma, my comments on motorcycling were based on the 1970s and the early 1980s, when there were far fewer cars (about 3x fewer) on the UK roads, and very few half blind OAPs were getting tax free lump sums from private pensions with which to buy cars http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

As I draw a pension, I am an OAP, I wear reading glasses, I used my tax free lump sum to buy an aeroplane. So watch out, us half blind OAPs are catching up.:):)

[vee-tail-1]

Hmm Complacency :ouch:
Been fixing & flying aeroplanes most of my life. Thought I was through with doing silly things.
But last year I took another pilot to look at a seal family holed up in a cliff cave on the Pembrokeshire coast. We dropped down to 500ft over the sea, level with the cliffs, turned around a headland and were suddely confronted with a massive downdraft and a swarm of alarmed seagulls. The aeroplane left a wake in the sea before I managed to put on full VW! power to climb away. Even the old & experienced can do stupid things, and sightseeing at low level is the stupidest. :O