Fatal accidents

[Kai Tak]

Can someone convince me flying is still safe?
Look at the daily fatal accidents in the US:
Preliminary Accident and Incident Reports (http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/preliminary_data/)

[Shunter]

It's not to us, it's up to you.

I am well trained and fly a well maintained aircraft. I consider it as safe as any other hobby, or mode of transportation.

[fernytickles]

Do you drive a car?

[IanPZ]

Gotta agree with Shunter. I drive a motorbike, and if I only took up pastimes that I had been convinced were safe, I'd never get on the damn thing.

but yes, a combination of training, care, not trying to show off, and a balanced approach to quality of life all go into it.

If you want to know the truth, flying isn't safe, in as far as once you are more than about 10 foot off the ground, if you drop out the sky, you could be in real trouble. Of course, leaning out a window isn't safe, nor is crossing the road or eating in a restaurant. Just got to balance any risk in life with reward.

I know a chap that skis 3 or 4 times a year at least. The idea of bombing down a hill at breakneck speeds with a small plank on each foot doesn't sound safe to me, but that's because it doesn't appeal. I go sailing, and he thought it was the daftest thing ever, because if a storm hits, you can't just get off in the middle of the ocean. Fair comparison, I think! (oh yes, and we both love flying, and have motorbikes!)

[RTN11]

The stats only give the number of incidents/fatalities. You really need to know the total number of flights each day to turn this into a percentage so you can calculate the risk of this happening to you. My estimation would be less than a fraction of 1%

[AfricanEagle]

More chance of winning the lottery than having an accident with an aeroplane. That is if you survive driving to the airport.

[dublinpilot]

Who ever told you that private flying is safe? It's not. That's why we spend so much time thinking about what might go wrong, training for it, discussing accidents and considering how we might react, and trying to learn and better prepare ourselves.

If you think flying is safe, then get that out of your head, and start to consider how you'll mitigate the risks.

Some good starts would be:
Train for poor weather, but avoid the poor weather.
Always carry enough fuel for all contingencies, plus a bit extra.
Pay attention to your preflight.
Don't ignore something that seems/looks/sounds different than normal.
Fly as high as possible.
Always have a way out.

That should go a long way to reducing the risks to you.

[AfricanEagle]

Good post, dublinpilot :ok:

[Pilot DAR]

Kai Tak,

As appropriately stated earlier, it's not up to us. You are entitled to think whatever you like about the safety of flying. As with anything, the depth of knowledge about something, will affect the opinions a person holds about it. You are welcomed to deepen your understanding about flying, to further assure yourself, but in doing that, allow for the fact that those who are more familiar, will have a different idea of what "safe" is, and are very relaxed about it.

Is it safe to coast to a stop in an airplane, while approaching other parked, and while having very limited steering, and no brakes whatsoever? Some would say no, but it's done hundreds of times a day in floatplanes and ski planes.

Is it safe to land VFR at night, on a runway which has only reflectors, and is surrounded by trees, but with nearly no lights anywhere in sight? It's regularly done with no problems.

I could go on.....

You can interpret statistics any way you want. If you allow them to convince you that flying is not as safe as you would like it to be, then don't fly. It doesn't matter to us! The only person I'm trying to convince flying is safe, is the guy who sets the rates for my insurance! (and he seems pretty happy - it costs less to insure my plane than my car, and the plane is insured for more!)

[Noah Zark.]

Dublinpilot
Train for poor weather, but avoid the poor weather.
Always carry enough fuel for all contingencies, plus a bit extra.
Pay attention to your preflight.
Don't ignore something that seems/looks/sounds different than normal.
Fly as high as possible.
Always have a way out.


That's a terrific mantra! It ought to be a compulsory pre-flight check! :D:D

[AdamFrisch]

To be truthful to the OP, how many times have we ourselves been reiterating the old "it's safer than driving a car"? That is only true for airline travel. GA aviation has about a 20-40 times worse record than traffic incidents and it's our responsibility to to not try to misinform or brush this off. It's on par with riding a motorcycle, or worse. Paul Bertorelli wrote a very good article about it couple of months ago on AvWeb:

Fatal Accidents (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsider_SAFERecommendationsTwo_204629-1.html)

Is GA unsafe? No, I don't think so, but it's certainly riskier than driving a car. I'm all for making it safer, as long as it doesn't mean new burdens on pilots and students. And like he mentions, it's a balance we have to strike. It's hard enough already as it is and we don't want to make it impossible for new pilots to join this wonderful thing. In another article, I read that 46% of the fatalities are stall related. So here the work obviously continues. In a panic with a mountain or trees filling the screen, I can see that instincts and reflexes can make this one a hard thing to eliminate completely, i.e. I don't think it can be trained away fully .Perhaps a longer period of solo time before you're allowed to take passengers? Or a higher minimum age to get rid of the hot rod mentality? Or more instrument time incorporated into the basic training? I don't know, but the debate continues.

[IanPZ]

I know I have a bit of a UK-centric view of the world, but I find these figures hard to accept. I was looking at the stats recently of the number of fatalities on microlights in the UK. When you compare that to the number of microlight owners, its tiny. Certainly not anything like as dangerous as riding a bike. But then, I will happily admit I am going on anacdotal information, so someone out there know anything more?

[Fuji Abound]

Strangely take comfort from the accident statistics.

Controlled flight into terrain remains one of the biggest killers, as does loss of control in IMC.

Poor weather planning is up there, and so is poor maintenance.

Lack of currency is a factor.

So if you remain current, ensure the aircraft is well maintained, avoid IMC unless instrument rated and dont take liberties with the weather you have probably eliminated 80% or more of all accidents.

There are a few accidents which are almost unavoidable, but I bet you can count these on one hand over a very long period of time.

[AfricanEagle]

Adam, can't agree completly.

Fair enough airline travelling.

But private AG depends on the pilot. Dublinpilot sums it up. When flying yourself you are in charge and you can reduce the risks.

When driving a car, however careful you are, you are always at risk from others. And we spend more time driving than flying, unfortunately.

[AdamFrisch]

I agree. It can be almost eliminated by not doing the three big things: CFIT in bad weather, stalls and poor fuel management.

Yet, I also see a lot friends, good friends I trust and respect, drive cars awfully. Just basic skills lacking. They don't have the feel for it and they never will, no matter how much they drive. How can you ever get rid of that? If they're good enough, they'll pass a skills test.

[IanPZ]

I was just having a look on the CAA website, and it reckons GA fatality rates are around 10 fatalities per million hours of flying across the country. That doesn't sounds anywhere near as bad as car accidents!

[fireflybob]

"Safety is No Accident"

My father was a veteran light aircraft instructor. His advice to me was "If you're going to hit anything, make sure you're under control and the wings are level"

In other words, do not stall/spin as they are often the fatalities near the ground.

He was always keen on using the full length for take off and he was totally opposed to turning back when faced with an engine failure after take off - recall him falling out with a CFS instructor over this that came to examine the instructors at the school to teach the flying scholarship cadets (btw he passed the check!).

The other bit of advice he often said was "You're much better down here wishing you were up there than up there wishing you were down here".

[flyinkiwi]

Who ever told you that private flying is safe? It's not. That's why we spend so much time thinking about what might go wrong, training for it, discussing accidents and considering how we might react, and trying to learn and better prepare ourselves.

If you think flying is safe, then get that out of your head, and start to consider how you'll mitigate the risks.

Great post! :D

I believe there would be a lot less fatal motor vehicle accidents if people treated driving in the same manner they do flying.

[LD1Racing]

I think most people see (GA) flying as generally safe.

I am currently a PPL(A) student with a fair few hours as P2 with the old man flying microlights over the last 20 years or so. We are expecting our first child in October so the O/H was over the moon when I told her I was selling the motorbikes in order to (finally) learn to fly. Something I largely justified with the safety argument, and also it was something that we could all do together. This is in spite of several EFATOs and other such incidents in the microlights over the years.

I'll admit I haven't looked at any accident statistics comparing driving/motorbikes/flying, but certainly my family were pleased when the bikes went, and generally unconcerned with the flying lessons. I think this largely comes from the fact that one takes more responsibility for one's own safety when flying, whereas the perception of riding bikes on the road is seen as risky due mainly to other traffic*

(*this however is not the case as most bike fatalities are a single vehicle leaving the road with excessive speed - i.e running out of talent mid corner, but people like to blame traffic/diesel/mud etc. and such is the perception.)

I am a professional yachtsman, which in itself carries a small risk, but this barely registers any more after 12 years, yet I have seen more injuries at sea - some very serious, than at any time flying or riding bikes.

As with many things in life, the perception is often at odds with the reality.

[thing]

Train for poor weather, but avoid the poor weather.
Always carry enough fuel for all contingencies, plus a bit extra.
Pay attention to your preflight.
Don't ignore something that seems/looks/sounds different than normal.
Fly as high as possible.
Always have a way out.

Brilliant. I've taken the liberty of printing that if you don't mind and sticking it in the top of my flight bag so I see it every time I open it. I've also added 'QDM and 121.5 are there to be used.'

[gasax]

In pure statistical terms GA flying is around the motorcycle level of fatalities for time at risk. That makes it appreciably more dangerous than driving to the airfield.

Does it make it acceptable or unacceptably dangerous? All depends upon your perceptions of the risk. The posts above show how people have come to their decisions. In my case I look at young people on motorcycles and realise we have a plentiful source of organ donors ;). But using similar thinking to that above I regard my flying as 'safe enough'.

Of course if you asked those young people they would say the same of their motorcycling!

[FANS]

Part of the problem is that people do not fully appreciate the risks of GA. It is not as safe as airline flying, and final approaches can rapidly change from thinking about whether to get a coffee on the way home to near disaster.

There is no pause button in flying, and I think that there is actually a fair amount of complacency amongst certain individuals, but they'd probably say I was too cautious!

[Pilot DAR]

well... although I am not a motorcycle rider, I am a firefighter. I have my own micro statistical snapshot.

We help up fallen motorcyclists and pilots. Two things are different: the pilots walk away more often, because they had some structure around to protect them, and the pilots generally seem to have more been the cause of their own difficulty, rather than being a victim of circumstance (other motorists doing unanticipated things).

Motorcyclists seem to become victim of factors, which they cannot control, and perhaps could not plan early enough to compensate for.

Pilots, on the other hand, seem to come to grief more as a result of their own decision making. Of the 20 or so plane crashes I have attended, 4 were fatal. All were spin in's from close to the ground. Two were very good friends, one horsing around at low altitude (a STOL kit would have compensated his foolishness, and saved his life), and the other a turnback following EFATO. He was a 20,000+ hour pilot, who tried for the airport behind him, rather than the shallow lake ahead. He nearly made it. The other two were very poorly conducted training for EFATO.

Of my four engine failures in flight, two were EFATO. In all cases, I was lucky enough not only to land mostly ahead, but to do so in a place from which a takeoff was possible following rectification.

I have not said that there is not luck involved in piloting!

So from that, I take it that proficiency, and good flying practice/discipline go a long way to keeping flying safe for PPL's

[IO540]

In pure statistical terms GA flying is around the motorcycle level of fatalities for time at risk. That makes it appreciably more dangerous than driving to the airfield.

Yes but that is completely misleading because (as an ex biker myself) the majority of motorcycle accidents are and always have been caused by a car driver.

Often he drives off, sometimes unaware that he caused an accident.

Whereas GA safety is 99.x% down to the pilot and the aircraft. If you fly carefully, with diligent preparation, stick to good go/no-go rules, and the plane is maintained properly (which is not at all the same thing as legally) then flying is much safer than riding a motorbike, especially these days with the roads being populated by so many drivers who are either half blind or extremely aggressive.

[blueandwhite]

so Silverair 2 options
Your safe pilot has an inapropriate gauge?

or

He's pushing/pulling too hard

or posibly (number 3)

Faking it

and to the OP, no its not safe. Breathing is dangerouse, you might breath in some germs that ight kill you. Don't give up flying or breathing.

[Pilot DAR]

Interestingly, while renewing my car insurance just now, I saw a different statistical basis for flying safety:

My records of driving and flying are both the best the insurers consider, for setting ratings. My 2009 VW diesel Jetta wagon is in the next to safest rate class (better than VW Jetta sedan, or Golf apparently!). It's insured value is about 3/4 of the insured value of my 1975 C 150M. I fly and drive these two nearly equal amounts each year. (My rating for "distance to work" is very favourable).

The insurance premium is more costly on the car than the plane, per value insured, both hull and liability. That means to me that the insurers must think that the risk of a claim is greater for the car than the plane. They obviously think flying my plane is a safer thing for me to do than driving my car. It's just statistics!

[Pull what]

Flying is safe-its just pilots that are dangerous.

[The500man]

Fly as high as possible.
Always have a way out.

u2Mh3NcIOs4

Not exactly straight and level stuff... but it makes you think doesn't it?

[J.A.F.O.]

More chance of winning the lottery than having an accident with an aeroplane.

AE, those are the odds I'm banking on; both of them.

KT, it's not safe, life isn't safe. Someone much smarter than I am once said that we take (calculated) risks not to escape life but to stop life escaping us.

Your choice, pally.

[Pace]

I remember on my first ever flight in a light GA looking down at some hefty tyres which I know would do serious damage if dropped from ten feet onto someones head and seeing that tyre lifting skywards as the aircraft climbed.
We are not meant to defy gravity gravity defies us.
How many people are paralysed through falling off horses every year or off ladders fixing the house.
If we had a world which had no weather cavok, clear skies and no winds and could stop an aircraft stalling or flying into another flying would be extremely safe.
Bring in the weather, the winds, fog, shear etc and this becomes our enemy.
It then holds that if we can fly in cloud safely as out of cloud and the aircraft is equipt to deal with all that clouds hold including ice flying becomes very safe.
Obviously we still have other factors of weather like thunderstorms, and strong winds.
The airlines are well equipt and their pilots well trained but the light GA is not.
Flown on good weather days the light GAs are very safe but put an underpowered light GA out of its design element to deal with weather its pilots are not trained or experienced to deal with and the airframe is not designed to handle and there lies the problem for heavy accident stats in light GA.

Always have a way out.

From the list and probably the best bit of advice! Never do anything in aviation where there are no options other than the one you are taking as that then becomes a game of russian roulette.
Always fly within your and the aircrafts limit as either you or the aircraft out of those limits is asking for trouble! Above all know what those limits are as many dont.
Contrary to the above is a saying I love which can be read two ways.
" unless you push the boundaries of your limits you will never know what lies beyond" Ie you either survive and become a much more experienced pilot or sadly for some end up as a statistic.

Pace

[ShyTorque]

In my experience it's not that aircraft are unsafe, but what people try to do with them can be.

I watched the Youtube link above of the man falling to his death whilst trying to climb from a biplane wing to a formating helicopter.

One sarcastic but to the point comment from "pilotmanfisher" took my eye and it illustrates my point exactly:

"hmmm so how can we make walking on the outside of planes safer????"

[Johnm]

Nothing in life is without risk, so the question as posed is not very useful.:ugh:

A better question "Is flying safer than x?"

If x = being seated in an armchair, answer equals NO

If x = mountaineering in winter then answer equals YES (probably)

[subsonicsubic]

What a bunch of candyasses...

I miss the days when " Flying was dangerous and sex was safe."

I ride a 1000 cc sports bike every day in HK traffic. It goes faster than the Cessna I fly when I find time to unleash it.

It is as safe as I choose it to be...just like my flying.

I'm fed up with candyasses who blame stats for their inability to perform with adequacy.

PIC means just that. If you are unable or unwilling to take responsibility up there or down here, don't :mad: bother.

Stick to posing and answering dumb fear issues on a GA forum.

Man up people!

[SDB73]

What an angry little person you are! :)

[Pace]

Subsonicscubic

Just had a wander through your previous posts?? As a fairly recent 172 driver I am sure you have all the experience in the world to make your comments.

I really hope you dont end up as another statistic yourself.

For myself I have lost 5 friends to flying and could have equally joined them on 5 occasions that spring to mind of my own making.

The difference? someone was looking down on me.

" unless you push the limits you will never know what lies beyond". But in pushing those limits as far as aviation goes you will either survive or perish.

If you survive you will probably become an experienced pilot who has learnt from his/her mistakes or you end up as my friends.

Far safer to fly within your limits and the aircraft limits and to know those limits.

pace

[Pilot DAR]

It goes faster than the Cessna I fly when I find time to unleash it

Lots of motorcycles go faster than some Cessnas. I'd rather be in the Cessna though - you can pull up!

I take it that while you're "unleashing" your 1000CC crotch rocket, you imagine you can find a place in Hong Kong, which is long and straight enough, and unoccupied enough, to safely get going faster than a Cessna? I'm not sure that Hong Kong even has enough airspace for a Cessna to go faster than a Cessna, much less a road that would enable that to be done safely on the ground!

[ShyTorque]

you imagine you can find a place in Hong Kong, which is long and straight enough, and unoccupied enough, to safely get going faster than a Cessna?

There are roads where it can be done in the New Territories, done it myself on a big bike. Not many people there but you do have to watch out for wandering cattle, though.

[2hotwot]

People have evolved to withstand falls on the level and collisions at running speed. If you want to go faster / higher than that you must be able to assess risk and control it to an acceptable level.

Trouble is that most people can't assess risk accurately and resort to all sorts of approaches which make them feel safe (including for example lucky pebbles).

So assess the risk of flying (and anything else for that matter) then either accept it or don't do it.

It was understanding and accepting the risks that got man to the moon. Safety is an enabler and if it is ever not an enabler then it is a weak excuse for something else like fear of litigation or cost avoidance.

[Pace]

So assess the risk of flying (and anything else for that matter) then either accept it or don't do it

2hotwot

Fine but here lies the big question? You can climb a cliff face without ropes!
You take that risk. If you fall and die you hurt no one but yourself. Your choice.

Flying is different! Your PAX? Do you have a right to assess that risk on behalf of others especially when those others are not aviation knowlegable?

Should a newbie pilot with a green licence inform his passenger that he is new and inexperienced before taking that passenger for a flight thus giving them the chance not to take the flight.

The PPL flying PAX in bad weather? Should he explain the risks of flying a light single prop without deice anti ice and without back up systems to his un knowing passengers before the flight or does he have the right to assess the risk and make decisions for them?

What you do with your own life is one thing what you do with others is another matter?

Pace

[J.A.F.O.]

including for example lucky pebbles

That is just ridiculous.

It's a FOD risk.

That's why I keep my lucky coin on a key ring.

;)

[Capetonian]

On what basis can we say that flying is more or less safe than motoring?

Almost whatever measurements you use will be slewed.
By passenger/mile is slewed as plane journeys tend to be longer and accidents tend to occur at the beginning/end of the cycle.
By accidents per journey is slewed because when a 'plane crashes the odds are you will die, when a car crashes the odds are you won't.
and so on .........

[Pace]

capetonian

Flying a light single engine piston with a PPL is substantially more risky than flying Easyjet or Ryanair with two crew holding ATPs.
Flying a light single engine piston carries a greater risk than driving your car.
I believe its simular to riding a high powered motorbike.
I dont have the details here but I am sure someone will give you the stats

Pace

[Pilot DAR]

Umm, you mean that

(including for example lucky pebbles)

doesn't work!? My seven year old daughter has been picking up a stone most everywhere we land, and we've been getting home just fine. She found a very pretty piece of quartz today. Soon I will have flown home the start a very pretty driveway!

On the other hand if pebbles work, I guess water must be lucky too, 'cause when I take her in the amphib, she just comes home a bit wet, but no pebble!

[The500man]

Should a newbie pilot with a green licence inform his passenger that he is new and inexperienced before taking that passenger for a flight thus giving them the chance not to take the flight.Yeah I think they should.

What you do with your own life is one thing what you do with others is another matter?You mentioned flying passengers in bad weather, but a more obvious risk to others is if you crash on someone's house. Aeromexico 498 and a PA-28 spring to mind.

Would we all still fly for fun if it was completely safe though?

Something that irritates me with modern cars is the stupid blind spots where the front pillars are made so large and so far in front of you that it's almost impossible to see around corners. They then stick in a 3 foot deep dash board and pretend that makes the car safer. They also stick in power assisted everything to take every last ounce of enjoyment out of driving. I'm glad this hasn't happened in the design of GA aircraft yet!


What a bunch of candyasses...

@ Subsonicsubic. So you have such a blase attitude to safety but you find the word arse offensive?

[Capetonian]

Pace
Flying a light single engine piston with a PPL is substantially more risky than flying Easyjet or Ryanair with two crew holding ATPs.
Flying a light single engine piston carries a greater risk than driving your car.
I believe its simular to riding a high powered motorbike.
I dont have the details here but I am sure someone will give you the stats

I understand what you are saying but how are you defining 'risk'? What do the stats tell you?

If the stats show that 1 motorbike journey in 100 ends in an accident, and 1 light a/c journey in 100 ends in an accident, are they equally 'risky'?

You could say yes, but then if the motorbike accidents result in death 40% of the time and the a/c accidents result in death 80% of the time, then flying appears more dangerous.

If you extrapolate it to passenger miles flown/driven, you will get yet another misleading statistic.

[Fitter2]

I gave up driving on two wheels about 50 years ago, when I became convinced that too high a proportion of car drivers were trying to kill me. I have been car/van driving and flying ever since.

My point is that different activities are affected differently by ones own safety approach to them. Flying is broadly speaking as safe as a pilot decides to make it a careful motorcyclist - they do exist - can still be wiped out by a careless driver.

A regulatory system is a significantly less effective factor (although it may prolong the life of a pilot with less inhibitions about killing himself and others).

[Mark1234]

I hope I'm not tempting fate here, but as someone who's tried to avoid motorbikes for years, and reluctantly switched to 2 wheels after a move to london a year back.. I'm finding massive parallels between bikes and planes.. and finding the bike surprisingly satisfying as an exercise in observation and anticipiation.

In the greater part you do set your own risk level for either. Yes, on a bike you can get blindsided by the idiot in a car, in a plane there are also the odd unfathomables. But from what I've seen so far the true 'outrageous circumstance' moments are rare - in the main case it's impatience and a lack of understanding. I believe you can manage the risk to a large exetent in either case - the aircraft angle is well covered, on the bike - by hanging back, expecting and leaving room for people to do stupid things. For example, it may not be unreasonable from a motorcyclists point of view to travel rapidly between two lanes of traffic - but when you consider how hard it is for that car changing lanes to a) see you, and b) judge your approach speed when they're thinking at an almost stationary speed, maybe not.. Part of me thinks that bikes intrinsically attract demographic that is more inclined to be impatient and pushy.. :hmm:

[Mimpe]

Engine failure in a GA single has over 80 % chance of avoiding major injury or death. The survival rate is significantly lower in light twins, especially LOC in proximity to the ground. Accident rates peak 80 - 200 hours overall flying time. There is a gradual improvement with most of the significant safety gains from pilot error occurring in the first 500 hours.Accident rates go up again just a little over 1500 hours experience in GA flying, perhaps due to complacency, however never going anywhere near the risk of sub 500 hours pilots.

As far as age goes, the safest pilots are between 50 and 55 years of age, with pilots in their sixties being safer than pilots in their 30's. Pilots under the age of 25 are especially risky, and under 20 years of age highly risky.The age related safety figures apply equally to ppl's, cpl's, or atpl's.

Night flight in GA aircraft Vfr is about the same risk as riding a motorbike.

Most deaths in GA are CFIT, weather related, Loss of contol at low altitude, fuel, or VMC into IMC.


WOrk hard. to sytematically eliminate the above risks from your flying. Practice your emergency routines regularly. Flw with abundant caution. Avoid flying over inhospitable coutry if you can avoid it. If you feel uncomfortable with your situation in the air , act decisively toward the conservative option. Actively plan for a wide range of contigencies.Be current, healthy, hydrated, rested and non-distracted when you fly.

So if you want to be thrilled,go on the first solo night flight of an 18 year old friend who has 85 hours experience ,over inhospitable terrain in marginal weather after a big night out.....etc etc

If you want to live, a pleasant flight in the day and good weather, with a 1000 hour 53 year old GA pilot who doesnt drink, had a great sleep, and who has a lovely neat kneeboard and flies regaularly, over open terrain, I could happily go to sleep in the aircraft with plenty of confidence.

[mm_flynn]

Pace


I understand what you are saying but how are you defining 'risk'? What do the stats tell you?

If the stats show that 1 motorbike journey in 100 ends in an accident, and 1 light a/c journey in 100 ends in an accident, are they equally 'risky'?

You could say yes, but then if the motorbike accidents result in death 40% of the time and the a/c accidents result in death 80% of the time, then flying appears more dangerous.

If you extrapolate it to passenger miles flown/driven, you will get yet another misleading statistic.
you are correct there are multiple ways to measure exposure and outcome, however, the outcome is normally standardised as Death directly related to the incident within a limited time (typically about 30 days). This data is reasonably available for cars, bikes, planes, horses etc. agreeing a consistent 'exposure' is not so easy.

aircraft do very well and horses very badly on a per mile basis. cars are exceptionally good on a per journey basis. however, on all measures I have seen developed world light aircraft are worse than developed world cars, and closer to bikes.

in the UK big airline jets are best, FAA operated corporate jets next, then aoc jets, aoc other (I believe then non AOC owner flown IFR), training, PPL operations, gliders and finally at a pretty shocking level gyrocopters (I can't remember where helicopters come in the list).

the group of owner flown IFR, training, PPL has a broadly similar rate of fatal accidents vs. motorcycles when looking at the sensible numbers of per hour, per mile, per journey (with journey least favourable and per mile most) (this is all from memory of various bits of academic analysis.

[thing]

It would be interesting to see the stats for non pilot error deaths in light aircraft. IE where the pilot did everything absolutely right and could have done absolutely nothing to prevent his/her death.

Being a newbie PPL I'm still at the stage where I see people making decisions on the ground and think 'Well I wouldn't do that but what do I know' but I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that they maybe shouldn't be doing that regardless of experience. Although mouth shut and ears open at my stage obviously.

As far as risk goes, it goes with the hobby. I'm not talking about pro pilots here, just people who don't have to fly in light aircraft if they choose not to. I'm an ex motorcyclist, never had a prang other than sliding on some black ice once and rubbing some footrest and handlebar off but then I used to be a defensive driver. Still am when driving a car. My old man told me to treat everyone else on the road as an idiot and you won't go far wrong, I apply the same philosophy to flying. I also use the old maxim of if it can go wrong it will, so I'm always looking for a field to land in and I certainly am not over keen flying in hilly terrain unless there's an out.

It seems to me there are lots of things you can do to minimise risk, it depends how much you value your own skin (and others) I suppose.

[maxred]

Thing - you need to learn from them. Trust me they are everywhere, and you are usually correct in the assertion - that you would not do it that way. Plenty of us have seen the most stupendous decisions taken by people who should have known better, and they get away with it until the day they pile into a hill:ugh:

Kid I know died on Friday. Driving his motorbike, hit a pot hole, fell off, under the wheels of a car. Lost the helmet on the way off.

A crazy accident - but, was he going too fast, did not spy the pot hole, and sods law that a car just happened to be passing?????

A terrible accident, however, I feel at lot of GA pilots make their own safety. Obviously an accident will occur where the pilot did everything, and fate happened to look the other way:confused: That, unfortunately, is life.

[2hotwot]

Pace
Understood, but the legislative controls should (note should) address the safety of 2nd and 3rd parties (that's why the law in general allows you to fall off cliffs). Whether they go far enough in warning passengers of low time pilots is another matter.

In assessing and accepting risks it must be done against the background of existing control measures and some of those will be legislative.

Going right back to the start of this thread: the use of statistics as a measure of risk, is depending on their presentation and interpretation, probably highly flawed. Following your point, general flight safety (i.e. fatalities per hour flown by aircraft type) statistics don't apply to a low time pilot caught out by bad weather.

[Pilot DAR]

Whether they go far enough in warning passengers of low time pilots is another matter.

There would be no reason for the regulator to do this. If the person is a licensed pilot, flying an aircraft within their privileges, they have demonstrated the ability to fly the aircraft to the minimum standard. If they are "low time", and the warning is appropriate, they have a pilot permit of some kind, rather than a license.

The fact that there are "high time" pilots against whom to compare other pilots, is not the concern of the regulator. Who knows, perhaps the "low time" pilot, who spend the preceding years in front of Flight Simulator might actually be better that the old high time pilot at making the best of fancy avionics!

If the regulator insisted on "high time" before a pilot could fly pax without having to warn them, the minimum number of hours to qualify for a license would be in the hundreds, and all the students would give up (except for those few who needed the few hundred hours just to get the license in the first place!)

[J.A.F.O.]

Spot on, DAR. If you're licensed, you're licensed and you're arguably safer at 70 hours having recently passed than at 270 but having only feetingly met an instructor at any point in the past few years.

And I take it all back about pebbles, if you're getting home every time then they must work. I've got an anti-tiger pebble like that, I've been carrying it around for over twenty years and I've never once been attacked by a tiger.

[AdamFrisch]

But with a little experience (and I by no means have much of it) one also inevitably starts to accept lower personal minimas. I can today fly in a lot worse weather than when I started. Then, if there was a cloud in the sky I got nervous and would think twice about it. Today I'll happily fly with low ceilings as long as I have an escape route and options. In fact, I actually think it's important to do so, to hone one's decision making skills.

I have an upcoming flight from California to Chicago in the week VFR (if all goes to plan) and I have to say I'm a little apprehensive crossing both the Sierra Nevadas and the Rockies as the weather in that area has been a bit dodgy. Water and mountains still make me slightly uncomfortable even with 2 engines. Good thing is I have time on my hands, so any hint of trouble and I'll either wait it out or go around it.

[Pace]

Pilot Dar

My comments are nothing to do with regulations or whether a newly qualified pilot is licenced to carry pax or not.

My comments were directed at one poster who thought he had the rights to judge his own risks and suffer the consequences of taking those risks.

I purely pointed out that on the whole passengers are not aviation knowledgable and not in a position to make their own risk decisions.

They should be aware of the experience of the pilot who is holding their lives in his hands so they can either accept or reject that flight.

New pilots are just one example another example maybe a hot shot IMC pilot who risks a single in bad weather, icing and high winds.

The PAX are probably unaware that the aircraft never mind the pilot is not up to the job (I am thinking of a couple of recent CFIT accidents one where the Captain should have been shot for what he did.

Airlines have multiple back up systems, far better performance, deicing and anti ice. Two pilots trained to far higher standards than the PPL hence the far lower accident rate.

The PAX should be far better informed of who they are flying with and the capabilities of the aircraft re weather that they are flying in.

This is so that they can make their own risk choice on risk.

The new pilot sporting a pair of raybans might look the part but IMO should state that he is a recently qualified pilot of low experience.

The passenger can then make his /her own judgement?

An old instructor of mine used to judge pilots by saying " would you be happy to send your two 8 and 10 year olds up with that guy" ?

There are plenty of experienced and unexperienced pilots who my answer would be NO, NO, NO!!!

Its all very well saying X is licenced so must be good but I know a few licenced Dick heads who you wonder how they ever got a licence and who gave it them.

Pace

[AdamFrisch]

Pace, it's like driving - I have tons of friends who have driver's licenses, but who have zero feel for driving and are dangerous.

I have one who's drives more than anyone else I know (100miles a day most days), yet still can't drive to save his life. Always too fast, not concentrated, talking, fiddling, always involved in episodes and parking accidents etc, blaming everyone else for being bad drivers when he's the dangerous one. Lovely guy and a dear friend, but not a good driver. No amount of experience is going to change this.

[thing]

I think a lot of that is down to mechanical empathy. I know loads of high time drivers who accelerate/brake throughout the whole of their driving. They have no understanding of machinery.

One of the nicest things my flying instructor said to me when I was a stude was 'You have feel for the aircraft.' I like to think I have for any machine but it was nice all the same.

I don't think you can learn empathy, you either have it or don't, it doesn't make you necessarily dangerous if you don't have it but you can tell almost immediately people who don't. They are the sort who make you think 'I wish you wouldn't do that..' not because it's dangerous but because it's just not right, it doesn't 'gel' with the machine.

I suppose there will be two camps reading this, those who think 'Yeah I know what he means' and the other camp goes 'Eh?' If you're going 'Eh?' then if the cap fits........:)

[Pilot DAR]

Pace, I completely agree with the sentiment of what you are saying, and believe me, my wife and kids do not fly privately with anyone I have not "approved of", but I'm fortunate, in that I am fairly well qualified to judge a pilot's skill in that realm, and being the husband/dad, have the right to do so, without incurring society's wrath.

If, on the other hand, I come on PPRuNe, and assert that "low time" pilots should fly with passenger carrying privilege restrictions, all the new pilots here will whine me to death.

It was not too long ago, we were discussing this here: http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/462636-i-am-new-forums-sorta-new-pilot.html (sorry to seem to single you out Adrian, it was not intentional). But the experienced pilots in the group tend to wince when the "low time" pilots express their intent to do those things in planes, and with passengers, that we still think twice about.

I remember. I did a lot of not so bright things in planes, and probably grazed fate more often than I knew (never bent a plane in flight though!). It might have happened while flying yesterday, but it's statistically more likely it was in my first few hundred hours, more than 30 years ago.

In hind sight, it was probably the few hundred hours I did as a 14 and 15 year old passenger with my buddy, where I saw first hand what not to do. Lucky me, getting to watch, and live through someone else's mistakes, so I could learn, and repeat only a few of them.

I did quite a lot of "mentoring" flying with Doctor/Dentist/Lawyer types in their fancy floatplanes and amphibians. I though began thinking I was going for a fun lunch, I soon learned that the boss sent me along to keep them safe. I realized that the fresh pilot's license, and a few hundred thousand dollars invested in a plane, does not take away the risks - only experience can, and lots of it. JFK Jr. might have realized this a few hundred feet above the ocean, at Mach 0.7. He was probably a nice fellow, but he just never had the opportunity to learn on his own (scare himself solo), before he had to live up to the pressure of the image with passengers....

Discouraging and demeaning new pilots is not the way to make things better here. Imposing immeasurable restrictions is not the way either. Only cheerful mentoring, and setting, and presenting, a good example of caution from the old timers, will keep our industry safe, and growing. (And, by the way, an instructor rating does not automatically make you an "old timer"!)

"Low time" pilots (whoever you are) learn your limitations cautiously, either solo, or with qualified supervision. Then, take your passengers in circumstances well within those limitations. Caring pilots never carry passengers to the limitations of the pilot or the plane!