Whar are the odds on crashing in a Light Aircraft opposed to a Commercial Plane?

[FlyingVisit]

I'm trying to remember the odds of being ivolved in a commercial airliner as opposed to being involved in a light aircraft crash?

Anybody know the odds on both?

[Final 3 Greens]

Last time it was debated on here, the consensus (IIRC) was that flying in a light aircraft was broadly comparable with riding a motorbike and airline travel was pretty much the safest form of travel known to man ;)

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

The UK CAA produces an annual (IIRC) Aviation Safety Review - CAP780 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP780.pdf) being the 2008 version.

Chapter 2, 2.6.1 indicates that the rate of reportable accidents on "large transport aircraft" at about 2.5 per million FH.

Chapter 4, Section 3.7.1 gives the rate for "small public transport aircraft" in the UK and it's about 50 per million FH.

Finally, Chapter 5, section 3.8.1 gives a reportable accident rate for "small conventional aeroplanes engaged in non-public transport operations" and it's about 180 per million FH.

So, if you flew the same number of hours on each class of aircraft, the risk is some 20 times higher on "small transport aircraft" than on large, and another 3-4 times higher on a "private aircraft". Overall, the risk per FH is about 75 times higher on a "private" plane than on an airliner.

With the caveats both in CAP780 and about statistics in general to be considered of course.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Last time it was debated on here, the consensus (IIRC) was that flying in a light aircraft was broadly comparable with riding a motorbike and airline travel was pretty much the safest form of travel known to man ;)

According to wiki (yes, I know ...) the UK DoT stats are "121 deaths or serious injuries per 100 million vehicle kilometers" for motorbikes.

CAP780 (Chapter 5, section 3.8.2) gives the fatal accident rate for light aircraft as 11.7 per million FH.

To compare the two requires converting the distance data for bikes relative to the time data for light aircraft. If we consider most motorcycle time to be spent in cities, I'd guess we could use 50 km/h as an average speed; that would make the bike rate 121 deaths/serious injuries per 2 million hours, or 60 per million hours - somewhat worse than the light aircraft rate. (Though of course one is a death/serious injury rate, the other death only, so the real comparable rates are closer)

[Contacttower]

Although I broadly agree that light aircraft are generally more dangerous than jet transports it must be remembered that the stats for light aircraft do get dragged down by the huge variations in environment that get flown in as well as some examples of accidents that are caused by outstanding examples of bad flying. A well maintained, well flown light aircraft will still not be as safe as an airliner but will probably be safer than the figures suggest.

[stepwilk]

As a longtime GA pilot, even I have to say that's pretty amusing: that a competently flown lightplane, maintained to the highest standards and flown on sunny days over level ground by a skilled and experienced aviator is very safe, therefore the accident rate that includes all the morons who go VFR into IMC, fly turbine singles when they're barely competent in a 152, etc. etc. is bogus.

The motor-vehicle accident rate (42,000 deaths a year in the U. S.) is also warped, I guess, by the presence of traffic, corners, wet roads and cellphones.

I like that.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

I think you could make a case that the differnce in accident rates due to the aircraft isn't as great as the overall accident rate.

If the large transport overall rate is about 2.5 per million FH, the usual assumption behind design certification is that 10% of those accidents are arising from "design causes", thus 0.25 per million FH. (Actually, the design world thinks in terms of fatal/catastrophic accidents, not reportable accidents, but the ratio should hold good).

Part 23 type a/c are designed to a lower standard in terms of redundancy, but I doubt they are an order of magnitude worse interms of "design cause" accidents - so that's 2.5 per million FH. Compared to the overall 180 per million.

Which would mean that 10% of all large a/c accidents are "the aircraft's fault" and about 1.5% of all small a/c accidents are "the aircraft's fault". There are still proportionally more "aircraft fault" accidents on small aircraft, but there are even more proportionally due to other causes.

So yes, light aircraft are safer than the numbers suggest if the operational factors are considered. But, so too are large a/c, and I suspect there's still a significant difference between the two classes of aircraft, even in a perfect operational scenario.

[blackace]

Don't listen to them, your all going to die whatever you fly in, its not natural.

ARGGGGHHHHHH !!!!!

[stevef]

I don't pay attention to statistics. Take an hypothetical example:
You have a one in a thousand chance of being killed in a jet airliner according to figures. You're on your first flight. The passenger in the next seat to you is the only one on board to have flown a thousand times. Everyone's going to die though... :hmm:

[simonchowder]

Big difference is commercial transports are flown by highly trained professional pilots light aircraft are often flown by enthusiastic amatuers,a very big difference

[Jumbo744]

why even think about it ? enjoy the view :ok:

[FlyingVisit]

Simonchowder,

You're incorrect. Commercial pilots fly for a living - it's their profession. Pilots who have PPLs are not amatuer pilots - they are qualified light aircraft pilots.

Furthermore, many commercial pilots start off by getting their PPL, take up instructing to build their hours up and then train as commercial.

As you should know if you're a QUALIFIED pilot everyone has to learn how to fly a particular aircraft. A person QUALIFIED to fly a twin engine 6-seater, say, or a single engine Cessna obviously isn't qualified to fly a 747 - in just the same way a 747 pilot would not be qualified to fly a Cessna.

And before you come back at me and say that it takes more hours and teaching to learn how to fly a 747 in comparison to a Cessna - indeed it does. I'm not disputing that.

I personally know a captain who used to fly Concorde who would go to Biggin Hill every so often just so that he was still qualified to take out a Cessna or Piper for when he wanted do some jollying and fly off to Jersey or France for a couple of days. Indeed, many commercial pilots take out a light aircraft every so often just so that they can do some REAL flying!

Your comment reminds me of men who have upgraded from their 1.5 2-door hatchbacks to a 2.5 Ford Focus and feel all BIG that their engines are bigger and faster than their last. It's quite funy really.:8

[deltayankee]

I take issue with the use of the word "odds" in this case. Statistics might show that there are X fatalities per Y million zillion flight hours but the odds that person P might be one of them is another matter. If you never fly in a light aircraft you are not going to go that way, and if your airline flying is limited to the occasional holiday the chances are almost the same. Remember that plenty of people fly for a living, several times a day, every working day for decades and nearly all of them still live to become grumpy old gits on pprune eventually.

Someone recently posted that an obsession with fatalities, pilot incapacitation, alleged oil leaks from engines and so on is just a symptom of flyophobia or whatever they call it. Look again at the famous statistics and you'll see that most people actually succumb to avoidable heart disease caused by eating burgers and fries, in idiotic road accidents or from beer related injuries.

If you are afraid of light aircraft take up stamp collecting, and if you are afraid of airliners take the bus. (Though I am wondering: are there more fatalities on Routemasters or Bendies?)