GA Flying...is it safe ?!

[Memphis_bell]

Is the following response to this statment ''You are more likely to get be in an accident on the way to the airport, as you are in an aircraft' t rue ?? I personally dont think it is, so i would appreciate peoples opinions:


"This is something we often say to calm nervous fliers, but it's actually not entirely correct. Yes, it's correct for airline travel, but for GA aircraft it's not. Flying/riding in GA planes has about the same statistics of injury as riding a motorcycle, i.e. considerably higher than riding in a car. Not that we want to scare people unnecessarily, but we should also not be disingenuous with this info"

[abgd]

Only if you're driving a really long way.

A few percent of us on this list (private) are likely to die in aircraft accidents sooner or later.

A fair proportion of those few will be idiots who try aerobatics without training or similar dumb stuff. Other people are as competent as can be, but still get unlucky or overstretch themselves. Scott Crossfield (a famous X15 pilot) died a few years back in a small aircraft, so it can happen to the best of us.

On the other hand, flying is great, so in my book it's worthwhile. It's not a question anybody else can answer for you.

[Jan Olieslagers]

If my poor old memory is to be trusted, the discussion quoted continued to say something like "though the accident rates are a bit alike between private flying and motorcycling, the difference is that, if bikers come to grief it is often due to errors by other drivers; whereas pilots mostly bring problems on themselves" or words to that effect.

[RTN11]

When flying, more is down to the person on board, pre flight planning and airworthiness checks, weather checks, and general competance. Also, if you do go down generally the only people who get hurt are those on board, it is very rare to injure people on the ground.

When driving, you are at the mercy of other road users, as the above example of motorcycle users.

Also although GA accidents are still few, they have more dramatic results than a car crash these days with ABS, seat belts and a whole host of air bags.

I find if someone needs to be calmed down, I do everything to reassure them of how safe flying is. I'd certainly have to eat my words if the engine quit shortly after take off with very few landing sites available, but that's the calculated risk I take.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I'm happy believing the motorcycling statistic (until something better comes along) ... but the point is that with aeroplanes you can cheat. The theory goes like this:

If you're riding a bike you're most likely to die because someone else is out to get you, and in fact that's why I stopped riding a bike, too many people pulling out in front of me "sorry mate I didn't see you" (WTF do they think I had the headlight on for).

If you're flying you're more likely (than a motorcyclist is) to die because of something you've done wrong yourself (VFR into IMC, running out of fuel, handling error near the ground, etc) rather than because of something completely extraneous over which you had no control. So you can cheat by reading the accident reports and choosing not to do the things that the other pilots did, where pilot error is identified, thus giving yourself better odds than the average for all pilots.

Example: after reading about two or three cases of fatal accidents following ASI failures I got an instructor to watch me fly a circuit and landing with the ASI covered up, so with this experience I hope that if the ASI fails for real I won't panic and crash.

Only thing is ... the pilots that had accidents were probably operating to the same theory :(

You can also cheat by driving very badly on the way to the airport so that your passenger feels much safer in the air by comparison :)

[Johnm]

This week's prize for a fatuous question.........:ugh:

[GeeWhizz]

Its an interesting proposition. Perhaps somewhat of a paradox.

flying is great, so in my book it's worthwhile. It's not a question anybody else can answer for you.

Absolutely and whole heartedly agree.

In the last 3 months I've had several near misses whilst driving my car (not all my fault I'll add ;)), but none in an aeroplane, no forced nor stupidly baulked landings. But I've driven for upwards of 50hours, and flown only 12 in that time with less sky-users. How many motorcycles were involved in my near misses? None that I remember. There may well be many out there. I was always told when considering purchasing a motorbike 'its not if you crash, its when you crash'. So perhaps bikes are more dangerous than cars - there will inevitably be statistics on this.

But to compare motor vehicles to aeroplanes? I'm not sure this is usefully possible. As with all things mechanical there are risks. Aeroplanes have a more rigorous maintenance regime, and servicing schedule; a greater depth of training for the 'driver' and imposed operating limitations both of which are risk 'mitigators'. Would I take my car for a service after every 50 hours of driving, or do a check with a driving instructor every two years - not bloody likely.

So are aeroplanes safer than cars? I opine that they are in general, but only due to the systems and procedures that are in place to mitigate the risks of anything going wrong.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A certified aeroplane, registered in the UK, is statistically likely to have a fatal accident every 70,000 flying hours.

A reasonally usy PPL, flying about 35 hours per year, has therefore about a 1 in 2,000 chance of being in a fatal accident, in any one year.

Around 2,500 people die in car accidents on British roads annually. Assuming we all travel by car at some point, and there are about 60 million of us: any one of us has about a 1 in 24,000 chance of being killed in a road accident in any given year.

So no, flying light aircraft is not as safe as driving.

On the other hand, according to Oxford University (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Risk/medical.html) the average Brit has a 1 in 396 chance of dying from cancer in any one year.


So, in 2012, an average PPL has a 1 in 2000 chance of dying flying, a 1 in 24,000 chance of dying driving, and a 1 in 400 chance of dying of cancer (and, incidentally about the same odds of dying of heart disease, or about 1 in 4,000 chance of dying of dimentia).

So, if you are too young to worry about dimensia yet, and fly about 35 hours per year, in 2012 your odds are:

1:400 dying of cancer
1:400 dying of heart disease [although that's for the whole population, so hopefully holding flying medicals the odds are better for us.]
1:2,000 being in a fatal air accident (although you might not be the one to die)
1:24,000 dying in a road accident


So the throwaway comment about driving risks is not fair. But, you are far more likely to die of cancer than you are flying. On net, I'd also much rather die flying (although even more so, I'd rather not die).

If you fly a lot of hours, at about 175 hours per year, you about break even on flying and cancer.


(Airline flying is a totally different beast of course - their fatal accident rate is so tiny that it's insignificant, and getting better. But they are regulated, trained and tested to an extent that would abolish GA.)

G

[abgd]

Maybe it's a fatuous question, but it's a very important one all the same.

So are aeroplanes safer than cars? I opine that they are in general

Both are almost equally safe, when drained of petrol. I would agree that aircraft are much better maintained and in that sense are 'safer', but that's just as well because flying is inherently much more dangerous than driving. I think that's probably true for just about everybody.

I think that people like myself who get very hung up on safety like to feel that by knowing everything we possibly can, we wrest back control from fate. Obviously that's valid to some extent, but it's also a psychological crutch that perhaps lets us persevere where we otherwise might not. There are lots of 'gotchas' - Ernest K Gann's book 'Fate is the hunter' illustrates this fact very nicely. Eventually he comes to the realisation that however diligent he is, fate will sooner or later find a way to catch him out.

The test pilot's prayer says a lot about piloting: 'Dear Lord, I don't care whether I live or die. Just don't let me screw up'.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The test pilot's prayer says a lot about piloting: 'Dear Lord, I don't care whether I live or die. Just don't let me screw up'.

Shepherd's prayer, heard on intercom just before Alan Shepherd's first spaceflight:

"Dear Lord, please don't let me screw up".

Certainly well known throughout the test pilot community. But trust me, we care in that community very deeply whether we live or die.

G

[abgd]

I posted my views on the cancer comparison on another thread a while back. Personally, I feel quite strongly that violent deaths (road deaths, flying accidents) can't readily be compared with other causes of death.

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/468907-pa28-ditched-off-guernsey-6.html

[abgd]

But trust me, we care in that community very deeply whether we live or die.

Yes, I believe you.

[fwjc]

RTN11
I find if someone needs to be calmed down, I do everything to reassure them of how safe flying is. I'd certainly have to eat my words if the engine quit shortly after take off with very few landing sites available, but that's the calculated risk I take.

I don't tell people it's safer than driving. I say that people say that, but really it's more like riding a motorcycle, as has been mentioned here.

I do tell passengers that if the noisy bit up front stops, that's no problem. The aeroplane doesn't stop flying and by the time we reach whatever field we're headed for, the aeroplane is going no more than 60 mph. I then point out that if you swerve off the road at 60mph in a car, it isn't going to be pretty, but if you miss the solid bits it's totally survivable. Then point out that similar applies to aeroplanes, even if at the end the plane's a bit (lot) messed up. It's not strictly comparable, but at least I have some choice of field unlike the car, and I have faith in my ability to FL with at least the people on board intact. I practice lots.

The thing that I don't talk about is those situations where a quiet donkey is the least of my problems - any scenario where I am no longer able to exert control over the aeroplane, or fire. They're the areas I won't discuss, since I don't have any good answers.

On that one, any suggestions from more experienced chaps would be appreciated...

[GeeWhizz]

I'm not experienced by any account but:

'If we have a fire here is the extinguisher and I'll follow the checklist. This could mean shutting the engine down temporarily or landing in a field as I described just now.'

Referring to a document however authoritative or not provides the perception that there is a tried and tested plan in place and the pilot has thought about it. It's worked when I flew a mildly nervous passenger not too long ago.

[Pilot DAR]

Certainly well known throughout the test pilot community. But trust me, we care in that community very deeply whether we live or die.


Yes. I enjoy test flying, and flying in general, but I enjoy going home at the end of the day a whole lot more!

I think that my insurance company thinks that flying is safer than driving, as the insurance for my plane (at a much greater hull value than my car) costs less than the insurance for my car. When last I did the math, my plane's insurance premium suggests that they think that I will fly it for 103 years before I have a total loss claim.

If you are a pilot, and you are generally concerned about flying being safe, you should probably stop being a pilot. If you're asking if you are safe, based upon your training and currency, or if that specific plane is safe, there are long established criteria against which to measure both.

Otherwise, flying is as safe as you, the pilot, make it!

[xrayalpha]

Genghis wrote:

A reasonally usy PPL, flying about 35 hours per year, has therefore about a 1 in 2,000 chance of being in a fatal accident, in any one year.

************

So, in a 20-year period, you have a one in 100 chance of death in an aircraft.

So most flying clubs should expect a death a decade for very 100 members. Strangely, after flying for 20 years, it doesn't feel that way. (although I suppose four people killed in one accident gives the club a 40 year break?)

At our airfield, in existence for 50-odd years, but pretty quiet for most of them, there was one fatal in the early 70s after a cable break on a glider winch launch.

Perhaps we are due another death. Hopefully we will cheat the odds.

The scary one is being a microlight instructor. Usually a death per year (on the ground away from an airfield and in the air, with a couple of ground deaths by suicide so was the root problem aviation - ie being able to make a decent living - or not?) - and with just over 100 active instructors in the Uk, that gives you a one in ten chance of not surviving a decade.

After 20 years in the saddle I am now on a one in five!

[englishal]

I don't believe Gengis's statistics....

The NTSB stats show that a GA pilot has about a 1:100,000 FLIGHT HOUR chance of being killed....So if you get to 100,000 hrs in your log book then your number is up. Few will get to 20,000, most a couple of thousand I imagine. And of those 100,000 hrs, some are engaged in more dangerous flying....

Unless Euro registered aeroplanes are so much more dangerous than N registered aeroplanes and pilots of course (which might be the case).....

For comparison, scheduled air transport accident rate is about 1.5 per million flight hours (that is ACCIDENT rates though, not fatalities.)

[Pilot DAR]

I don't believe any statistics! I spend my time in the cockpit (and life in general) looking for holes in the swiss cheese, so I can do my darnedest to prevent them lining up.

[abgd]

US accident stats are 1.14/100,000 hours.
UK are 1.3/100,000hours so Genghis is right on the money.

It's not such a big difference, considering differences in climate and currency etc.

I heard 1/8 bush pilots die flying...
The big problem is working out what these figures mean for me (low performance vfr non-experimental...)

[ExSp33db1rd]

Why worry about others, if you're happy that G.A. flying is as safe as any other human activity, for all the reasons given above, and want to do it, go ahead.

More people die in bed than in aeroplanes or on motor-bikes.

if you get a prospective passenger who is nervous, tell them not to bother, stop wasting your time persuading them what they have already decided, they can miss out on the fabulous experience if they are flying just for the fun of it, or take train, or car, or bus, or motor bike.

I'm nervous about bungy-jumping ( for reasons witnessed over the Zambesi near Victoria Falls yesterday ! ) and reckon there is no reason to parachute out of a perfectly serviceable aeroplane, so I do neither.

Every time I land my microlight I turn to my passenger and say - " Well, you survived ".

As far as airline flying is concerned I'm reminded of the cartoon I saw of a Priest on his knees, praying, at the bottom of the aircraft steps. The pilot said, "don't worry Father, when your number is up your number is up, there's nothing you can do about it " and the Priest replied " Young Man, I'm not worried about my number coming up, I'm worried about YOUR number coming up "

[Fitter2]

Re Genghis' statistics, it depends whether the risk of an accident in any given year is independant of the probability in any other year.

If independant, the probability of NOT having an accident is (for 1 in 400)399 in 400, so the chance of not having an accident in 20 years is 99.75 raised to the 20th power (or about 95%). For 1 in 2000, close to 99%.

I suspect Genghis is a good enough engineer to actually know that, and was simplifying the argument for pilots to understand, but that's another discussion..........:E

Dangerous stuff statistics - worse than flying.

[spittingimage]

This subject comes up here every few years and the comparison with motorcycling always arises. A number of years ago, 'Pilot' magazine had an interesting article which investigated this very subject. Conclusion ? Private flying carries approximately the same risk as motorcycle racing.

Happy now ? :E

[abgd]

More people die in bed than in aeroplanes or on motor-bikes.


If we spent as long flying as we do in bed (8 hours a day) then the overwhelming majority of us would die flying. Well over 90% assuming you start when you're 20 and carry on until you're 80.

OK, perhaps it would be slightly less than that because the bold pilots would all die young and the less bold pilots would benefit from their great wealth of experience to fly better and safer than they do now. However, at the current rates, flying is way more dangerous per hour than sleeping, and way more dangerous per mile than driving.

The other difference is that most people who die in their sleep are almost always reasonably old. People who die flying are almost by definition healthy and active, often with dependants. It's a very different thing for your heart to stop whilst you're asleep in bed aged 80, or to auger in aged 30 leaving small kids behind.

[hatzflyer]

Don't get too hung up on statistics.



I have two arms and two legs.

I have a higher than national average of limbs.

Think about it and you will realise it is true. :rolleyes:

[S-Works]

I think that people like myself who get very hung up on safety like to feel that by knowing everything we possibly can, we wrest back control from fate.

Don't get put of bed. But then you might bed sores, get them infected and die anyway....

One Life, Live it.....

[kevmusic]

My PPL instructor, now a friend, is a career instructor, who recently celebrated his 15,000th hour (in a Turbulent!). He has never had an injury from flying, despite several real FLs, in fact his only accident was in a car, and wasn't his fault.

He enjoys aeros and other fun flying, sometimes in extreme conditions.......but he does everything with complete professionalism. He not only knows every part of an aeroplane, he knows its phone number and address as well. He knows all the checklists by heart so when you miss one he'll tell you and where in the list it should have been. He knows all the paperwork, and he can tell excatly what the weather is going to do......in fact, I think he tells the weather what it's going to do!

I've known him for ten years and he is the model for my flying career. We are but humble PPLs, but we can make our flying professional.

[Intercepted]

The other difference is that most people who die in their sleep are almost always reasonably old. People who die flying are almost by definition healthy and active, often with dependants. It's a very different thing for your heart to stop whilst you're asleep in bed aged 80, or to auger in aged 30 leaving small kids behind. If you don't want to risk leaving small kids behind, you will have to stop all your activities considered risky, not only flying. This is what many parents do when they have kids and some of them even think that active and risk taking parents are irresponsible.


I'm a firm believer that positive risk taking must be encouraged and failing to do so can actually harm your kids self confidence and development as an individual in a negative way. Kids that are able to see their parents happy and embracing their passion, such as flying, will in my opinion have a better start in life...

[S-Works]

If you don't want to risk leaving small kids behind, you will have to stop all your activities considered risky, not only flying.

I have a much better idea. Stop breeding in the first place. It will save all the rabbiting on about how important kids are and go much further towards saving the planet than taxing fuel.....

:p

edit: speeeling

[Intercepted]

Over-taxed fuel, hi vis clothing and nimbys are all products of people that where over protected as kids.

[Morris542]

One Life, Live it.....


Can't agree more. Everything we do involves a risk, I just crossed a busy main road, I'm about to do it again, I'm going skiing next week, I drive a car, I have a relative in Afghanistan, I might join the Army myself - all of it involves a risk. Maybe it's just because I'm young but I choose not to think of the risk too much (although it's important to recognise when there is one). I just try to prevent myself from adding any unnecessary risk.

As to the stats, 100% of us will become a cropper at some point. The risk in a light aircraft is low, my passengers don't need to know if this is going to be the most dangerous part of their day, but I let them know what could happen, and what they and I will do if it does.

[Pilot DAR]

I'm a firm believer that positive risk taking must be encouraged and failing to do so can actually harm your kids self confidence and development as an individual in a negative way. Kids that are able to see their parents happy and embracing their passion, such as flying, will in my opinion have a better start in life...

Oh, I sure agree with that!

[The500man]

I'm pretty sure nimbyism and health and safety nonsense is caused by advancing technology and a growing population. Ease of living due to technology means people have more time to think about the little things (such as nimbyism) and a growing population means there are more people to do jobs associated with, or to think about, the little things (such as nimbyism). On top of that a high population density imposes possibly the largest restrictions on personal freedoms (i.e you can't have a runway there because... we don't like you/ it's too noisy/ it's bad for my cousins asthmatic dog)

A caveman didn't have time to worry about trip hazards in his cave, but if he wasn't spending all of his time on survival, and had lots of visitors from other caves he might just have invented hazard tape!

[Flyinganaes]

Absolutely. There's a great book by Warwick Cairns called 'How to live life dangerously' that puts these risks and perceived risks into perspective. As a famous Isle of Man TT racer says 'We're here for a good time not a long time' (or something similar).

[maxred]

This discussion always fascinates me. You can go swim with the sharks, bungee jump, parachute jump, stand on a stingray, drown when your boat sinks, hit the odd pedestrian whilst driving, and yet a lot of people associate flying with death and danger:sad:

If the aeroplane is maintained to the correct degree and standard, you trust the shop doing the work:*, you as the pilot have ensured that you are capable, up to date with ALL training/licence requirements, and you do not attempt to go 4 up, when the aeroplane can only take off with 2 up, do not fly in ice, and in general avoid the ground, then it is perfectly safe.

Those that adhere to most of the above, stand a better than average chance of surviving each trip. Those that dont, well....

As I go about my life, I feel less safe driving, less safe walking about busy streets, particularly as I watch a growing majority wandering about with headphones in, hoods up, and on the mobile, and much safer flying.

I would always prefer to be up there:ok:

[fwjc]

Perhaps we should consider more the question of whether GA Pilots are safe?

[abgd]

Hey, go easy on me. I'm most of the way through my PPL. I came to this via hang-gliding. I used to go climbing and scuba diving. I'm expecting a child soon and my solution to that conundrum has been to get life insurance. The other part, I hope, will be to not die anyway.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't accept an element of risk; just that people should be honest with themselves about the risks they choose to run.

I actually see the inability to do this as being part of the health-and-safety culture gone wrong. If playing conkers is forbidden, then as soon as I get to 18 I may as well take up base-jumping, right? Because both of them are dangerous...

I tend to divide things into:

Looks safe, is (reading)
Looks safe, isn't (going paddling in the African great lakes, horse riding, river fishing, kiddy trampolines)
Looks dangerous, is (hang gliding, motorcycling, base jumping)
Looks dangerous, isn't (roller-coasters)

The ones that really catch people out are the ones that look safe and aren't. Things that look dangerous because they are, like hang-gliding, would be an absolute massacre if it wasn't for the fact that most people who practice these sports realise this.

Flying in all its forms is inherently dangerous, because it's intolerant of mistakes and humans are prone to mistakes. The only reason it's acceptably safe is that we accept this; we try to do things sensibly; we get a lot of training. That's why to me it seems both fundamentally dishonest (sorry, but that's how I see it) and potentially very harmful to pretend that it's as safe as driving to work.

[patowalker]

A crying shame - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/9001650/A-crying-shame.html)

[abgd]

I don't really understand that... it was risky to sit in the cockpit because it was painted? Was it slippery paint, or new radioactive paint (seems unlikely, and hardly a concern when you're 90). It wasn't their new paint job they were worried for, was it?

Seems terribly vague to me.

[mary meagher]

Two questions here, really. Playing about with statistics to compare risks doesn't really answer either.

Question one, are you more likely to be in an accident in GA than driving (or racing) a motor cycle.....

Question two, are you more likely to DIE in an accident in GA than .....whatever.

And then somebody observed that if you have no petrol (gasoline) left, you are less likely to be toasted.....
To what conclusion does that lead the sensible risk taker? Fly an aircraft with NO PETROL and no engine, either. Obviously, take up gliding. General Aviation - (I do have 1200 hours power flying) is definitely more complicated and more dangerous than gliding (I have 1800 hours in gliders). But most power pilots come to grief because of an attitude problem; eg thinking a single engine small aircraft can reasonably used for business - or thinking I MUST get back to the home airfield because my car/wife/girlfriend is there.... or thinking if I throw this aircraft around with a few aerobatics, my passenger will really be impressed, etc etc.
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots....

[maxred]

"This is something we often say to calm nervous fliers, but it's actually not entirely correct. Yes, it's correct for airline travel, but for GA aircraft it's not. Flying/riding in GA planes has about the same statistics of injury as riding a motorcycle, i.e. considerably higher than riding in a car. Not that we want to scare people unnecessarily, but we should also not be disingenuous with this info"

Yes, but the machine itself is not dangerous. It only becomes dangerous, to a degree, when a human interfaces with it. The majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by careless car drivers. The majority of GA crashes are caused by neglect. That neglect comes in a variety of formats, attitude, carelessness, poor training, poor maintenance, poor understanding, bravado. The point of course it is all driven by the individual. Sure **** happens, and it is fate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that is life, is it not?

Anything can be dangerous - roll up to a bank, point a gun at the teller - living life a bit dangerously????The majority go in with their cash card and are perfectly safe. (pre 2008:ugh:):uhoh:

[Crash one]

Flying must be safe compared to living.
Many of those who fly & then stop flying, survive the flying.
Everyone lives, but no-one who lives has yet survived.
Therefore there is a 100% death rate just by living, regardless of what one does.:ugh:




I don't believe any statistics! I spend my time in the cockpit (and life in general) looking for holes in the swiss cheese, so I can do my darnedest to prevent them lining up.


That will do for me!!

[UV]

For you more inexperienced guys...

Ask yourself...

How many people do I know who have been killed or injured on the road?

Then ask yourself...

How many people do I know who have been killed or injured flying?

Wait until you have a few years flying before asking yourself these questions.The answer will be very, very, revealing.

You will no longer believe any of that bull about the drive to the Airfield...

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Shepherd's prayer, heard on intercom just before Alan Shepherd's first spaceflight:

"Dear Lord, please don't let me screw up".


It thought it wasn't 'screw up' but summat more fruity, a 4-letter word beginning with 'F'. ;)

The stats on the number of folk who die in bed are skewed by the fact than when people are very ill, they often go to bed.

And to the person who said 'don't breed and you'll help save the planet'; don't worry about the planet.... it will get on just fine without us. :eek:

[NazgulAir]

It's lack of common sense that kills.
It's get-home-itis that kills.
It's busting personal minimums that kills.
It's not getting recurrent training that kills.
It's the heroism glamour macho culture that kills.
It's the "Oh, you FLY??? How BRAVE!" image that kills.

Steering an airplane is easy. Knowing when not to fly will save your life. Don't ever get coerced into flying outside your personal envelope without an instructor beside you.

Of the people I know that died or were seriously injured flying, only one had an accident in which pilot error was not a factor. And almost all of the deaths were weather related.

And yes, I know many more people who died flying that I know people who died driving (any kind of vehicle)... but to make that statistic a little less skewed, there are more people who can say the exact opposite. So what does that prove?

And how many people admit to having had very close shaves that could easily have killed them if they had been less lucky? Who hasn't had an ILAFFT moment...

Flying is dangerous if you don't impose a safety culture upon yourself. Better safe than brave!!!

[Grob Queen]

I fly by the old adage mentioned on these forums before but I heard first from an experienced pilot,

"A superior pilot is one who uses their superior knowledge so they don't have to use their superior skills".

One of the best pieces of advice I have ever been given and one which I think about often as I am training. In other words, I believe that the more highly trained you are before you are awarded the privileges of the PPL, the more talented, and capable pilot you are in the end, the more aware you are of what could go wrong and why and therefore the more capable of dealing with it if it does happen.

Much the same could be said of driving - although there aren't the checks in place to check drivers (frankly I wish there were, who hasn't seen the dangerous/stupid driving particularly on motorways such as the M25?!!) The more goes it takes to past your driving test, the more likely you are to be a better driver...Theres more to bump into when driving, more idiots less aware of safety...things called lorries....and more speed cameras.....

Know which form of transport i'd choose ;)

[ExSp33db1rd]

....don't worry about the planet.... it will get on just fine without us.

It'll akcherly get on better WITHOUT us !!

[Pilot DAR]

flying outside your personal envelope without an instructor beside you.

Well... I think I know the spirit of what you mean by instructor, but they have accidents too!

You're not going outside your personal envelope because there's an instructor beside you, but because you've briefed another competent pilot, and the two of you agree on the resulting envelope. Perhaps it's your envelope, perhaps that of the other pilot. I've had a couple of instructors sit beside me wide eyed, as I flew a required flight test maneuver. One later asked me to do a roll for him in the 172, I declined. He knew it was not within his envelope (very wise), Those circumstances were not within mine either.

No one plans to have an accident, so obviously for an accident to occur, something had to change, or otherwise not go according to plan. The better, and more broad thinking the plan is, the easier it is to follow, and thus less likely to result in an accident.

Do you plan for your flight to be safe? Do people plan for their drive to be safe? As a volunteer firefighter, I drive my car, and sometimes a fire truck, to car accidents. As I drive, I think to myself, "The person who jut did this before me crashed, what will I do differently?". Similarly, I used to fly into northern lakes to help recover wrecked floatplanes. That pilot just crashed while landing here, what will I do differently so I don't?".

Sometimes a few seconds of thought and planning, or at least enhanced awareness, makes a big difference in safety.

[NazgulAir]

Well... I think I know the spirit of what you mean by instructor, but they have accidents too!

Of course, I stand corrected. The sentence should have read "suitably qualified safety pilot/instructor".
Going outside your personal envelope should actually be encouraged, under the proper conditions.

The problem is that many pilots lose sight of what their envelope is in reality, as opposed to what they believe their envelope is. Add marginal weather/pressures/ego/complacency/whatever and the risk increases. The best thing you can do is to be completely honest with yourself and not be afraid of looking "uncool" when you decide to stay on the ground.

I've had a couple of instructors sit beside me wide eyed, as I flew a required flight test maneuver.
LOL, reminds me of that checkflight with a young instructor. When I was slipping during a crosswind landing he started screaming "WHAT ARE YOU DOING???"

[abgd]

Here's the obligatory reference for this discussion. Though since I last read it, I heard that the authors made some mistakes with their statistics so I guess one may choose not to believe it:
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1999, Vol. 77, No. 6. ] 121-1134
Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0022-3514/99/S3.00
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Cornell Univer


http://blog.bruceabernethy.com/mirror/unskilled.pdf

[NazgulAir]

@abgd, thanks for the link. An interesting read.

Perhaps it is thanks to flying being perceived as "difficult" that gross overestimation of competence does not occur more often in low-time pilots, as they are more aware of the need to build their skills. But there is definitely a "danger zone" at which such overestimation occurs, and situations in which it might become life-threatening.

Especially when you are an aircraft owner, never train emergency procedures, and are blissfully unaware of the true state that your airplane is in (you may have paid for just the paperwork and the bare necessities)...
Not that one should lie awake worrying about what might go wrong, but a little caution is healthy.

Note: the studies are American, and the American education system having suffered two generations of dumbing down and positive thinking may have influenced the results)

[NazgulAir]

"you have to believe it can never happen to you, while simultaneously knowing it absolutely will if you let it"
Wow, that's a great quote. Thank you!

[abgd]

Yes, I like that quote too... I see he's still around.

[Piper.Classique]

Especially when you are an aircraft owner, never train emergency procedures, and are blissfully unaware of the true state that your airplane is in (you may have paid for just the paperwork and the bare necessities)...None of the above is necessarily correct. Many private owners do their own maintenance, and practise for emergencies. If you aren't renting you can take the time to train, the insurance and hangarage are paid, so it's just the petrol. And if the weather goes sour nobody is yelling at you to get the aircraft back.:ok:

[NazgulAir]

None of the above is necessarily correct. Many private owners do their own maintenance, and practise for emergencies. If you aren't renting you can take the time to train, the insurance and hangarage are paid, so it's just the petrol. And if the weather goes sour nobody is yelling at you to get the aircraft back.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
Very true, PC. I was just referring to a type of owner that exists also, unfortunately.

It won't be just the petrol, there's the wear and maintenance on timed components, oil changes, etc. Otherwise you are perfectly right.

[The500man]

If flying was perfectly safe would you still enjoy it the same as you do now? Surely part of the exhilaration of flying is down to the fact that it is dangerous. I'm not suggesting we are all adrenaline junkies but there is some part of us all that gets a kick from defying gravity. Is GA flying safe? No it isn't; how could it be? We didn't evolve to fly so we need a lot of gear to get us up into the sky and to keep us up in the sky. Is it safe enough to fly as much as you would like? Pretty much. When looking at statistics a 1/100,000 chance or whatever of dieing doesn't mean you won't die on your first trial flight within 20 minutes.

It's the danger involved and the fear it generates that keeps most pilots safe. If flying was safe pilots would be more dangerous. Just look at how some people drive on the road; perfectly awful. Not because driving is safe, but because those drivers perceive it to be. So I think if you are a pilot and you accept flying is dangerous, and you listen to your own fear when flying, you are probably as safe as you could possibly be. If that isn't safe enough for you than you probably should not be a pilot... just being alive, isn't enough for some of us though.

[peterh337]

Being an aircraft owner gives you considerable freedom, and like in most walks of life it is up to you whether you take that and use it to your best advantage, or use it as a rope to hang yourself with.

Aviation regulation around the world has never managed to get its head around this concept :)

Being an owner is just about the only way that you can fly a plane that's maintained to a high standard, with a zero tolerance to defects. It is not economical for a rental plane to be thus maintained, unless it is an extremely simple type.

Ownership gives you total access (subject only to hangarage arrangements and airport opening hours) and gives you the lowest marginal operating cost. These factors deliver maximum incentive to currency on type, and most of aviation safety hangs on currency on type.

Most owners also know their plane intimately. I am not saying I won't kill myself one day (and if I do you all have my permission to dissect it indefinitely ;) ) but if I do it won't be through not knowing which knob does what.

But ownership also makes it easier to conceal dodgy maintenance, especially if you can find a maintenance company who is willing to collude in dodgy practices. Of course this never happens... What is worse however is renting a plane which you naturally expect to be 100% but it is full of bodges, and yes I have flown a few of those. Today, I wouldn't rent if you paid me for it.

There are some exceptions of outfits which have high quality hardware available for rental. More so now than say 10 years ago, but still scarce. And very expensive, per hour.

It is true that the accident stats are overweight in sole-owner prangs, but that is probably because owners fly the most hours - for the reasons above. Few people fly a lot of hours on rental because the hourly cost is so high, you can't take it away for long, etc, etc. Most prangs (fixed wing) are not maintenance related anyway.

wear and maintenance on timed components

A bit of a contradiction there, don't you think? ;)

Replacing bits which are worn is OK.

Replacing bits on a pure time basis is in most cases in fixed wing GA totally pointless.

[M-ONGO]

Tell me that when your alternator and vacuum goes awry on a solid IFR day Peter.

Replacing bits on a pure time basis is in most cases in fixed wing GA totally pointless.

A bit of a contradiction there, dont you think? ;)

Being an owner is just about the only way that you can fly a plane that's maintained to a high standard, with a zero tolerance to defects. It is not economical for a rental plane to be thus maintained, unless it is an extremely simple type.

[maxred]

I started flying in 1996, bought my own plane, and hired an instructor to teach me in it. From the outset, the 'dangers' inherent were obvious, and in my view, maintenance-or lack of, could be a prime danger. So, entrusting maintenance organisations to look after my baby, particularly when these organisations were officially 'approved', by the regulating authority, I assumed, that all would be correct. How wrong was I.

I worked my way through ratings, added instructor hours, and attempted to understand the workings of flight, what would happen, or what one would expect to happen, with pilot induced input. Therefore I was giving myself as much chance of lessening any dangers, that I could. This is still the case,and a lot of that is knowing when to sit on the ground.

I now have gotten involved far more in maintenance, and check/double check everything the chosen shop now does. And believe me they still f*** up. That is the one aspect of owner operated flying that still bothers me from a safety perspective, and it should be the least:ouch:

[Pace]

Firstly I would change the word taking on dangerous flights for challenging flights.
Some of us like to use our skills and knowledge to successfully complete flights which are difficult or challenging that doesn't make them dangerous for all but maybe for some.
I go back to the statement of flying within your and the aircrafts limits!
Amongst the PPL fraternity your limits may well be low.
Single engine pistons may also have low limits on what they can safely fly in.
Go out of those limits with either yourself or the aircraft and the flight becomes dangerous !
The secret of the above is knowing and respecting both your own and the aircrafts limits and there lies the problem!

Pace

[peterh337]

So, MONGO, how often do you replace your alternator and vac pump?

Which types of these two do you use?

[M-ONGO]

I use both of them Peter. Is this a p#ssing competition? How many vac failures or alternator failures have you had? You fly IFR at high altitude (for a light aircraft) - do you have 2 vac pumps on the TB, or indeed a backup alternator? If not, why not? I'm sure a backups could be fitted, especially as its an N reg you own.

Common sense dictates if your going to fly solid IFR you would not let these items go on until failure. Prevention is better than cure don't you think? After all, as you state, being an owner is the only way you can fly a plane that's maintained to a high standard.

I'm not saying replace/inspect every 2 years, don't get me wrong. I certainly wouldn't wait until failure however on a 10 year old aircraft though.

From your own website on backup systems it would appear you agree with me...

Socata TB20 Trinidad (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/tb20-experience/index.html)

Backup Vacuum: This is a second electrically driven vacuum pump. It's not a bad idea because the autopilot requires the main horizon which is vacuum powered so if the standard vacuum pump fails, you lose the autopilot as well. It's quite bulky and heavy... an alternative approach is to replace the existing vacuum pump every few hundred hours. Vacuum pumps are cheap enough to replace at every Annual if so desired.

Does this FAA rule still apply to icing?

IO540
5th Nov 2008, 12:38
Of course there is also the TB20 or the turbocharged TB21 :)

Not made anymore but there are a number of potentially very fine 2002 specimens on the market, and Socata remains very much in business making the TBM850.

The TB2x, with full TKS, is certified for flight into icing, but only on a G-reg, not on an N-reg (because the FAA requires two alternators, etc).

Do bear in mind that full TKS costs about 50-70kg and a turbo costs another ~50kg. While the basic TB20 (20k ceiling) has a 500kg payload, the TB21 with full TKS is really only a 2-seater albeit a highly capable one. These payload tradeoffs will apply to every other type, too, so one needs to define one's mission profile carefully. For a start, most of this mission capability is not usable without the full IR unless one just wants to takeoff from Norwich and zoom up in circles over Anglia :)

[proudprivate]

US accident stats are 1.14/100,000 hours.
UK are 1.3/100,000 hours so Genghis is right on the money.


What is your reference for either of those two figures ?

[peterh337]

I use both of them Peter. I asked what types. Perhaps you were flying with ones which gave you a lot of trouble. What do you fly?

Is this a p#ssing competition? Why do you interpret my question as such? It was a straight question.

How many vac failures or alternator failures have you had? Zero.

You fly IFR at high altitude (for a light aircraft) - do you have 2 vac pumps on the TB, or indeed a backup alternator? If not, why not? I'm sure a backups could be fitted, especially as its an N reg you own.I deal with this issue by making sure the stuff I have is in good condition, and having other backups.

The vac pump gets changed at every 2nd annual i.e. every ~250hrs of airborne time.

The alternator gets slip rings and bearings inspected and gets new brushes at every annual. The current one is ~500hrs old and will probably be changed in a year's time.

Common sense dictates if your going to fly solid IFR you would not let these items go on until failure. Prevention is better than cure don't you think? After all, as you state, being an owner is the only way you can fly a plane that's maintained to a high standard. You are being disingenuous. You picked two items on which life limits (which would not be mandatory on Part 91 but possibly are under EASA) are far too long, for sensible risk management, and also both items are relatively cheap. A vac pump is a few hundred bucks. If one has any engine work done in the USA it is completely normal to just fit all new accessories like that, always.

What argument would you make for things like seat belts which can be inspected easily and thus life limits make no sense?

Or perhaps Teflon oil hoses, which have no engineering/technical support for life limits, which are operated at about 1/10 of their continuous working rate pressure, yet which are generally lifed under EASA.

That is why I wrote earlier that ownership gives you both options: do it well, or hang yourself.

I'm not saying replace/inspect every 2 years, don't get me wrong. I certainly wouldn't wait until failure however on a 10 year old aircraft though.See above. A vac pump costs nothing, relatively speaking.

What I could add is that the bit the vac pump drives, typically a KI256 or similar, is likely to fail as often as the pump, but costs about 20x as much. Tell me what you do about that? The KFC225 STC mandates a KI256 (or some ludicrous alternatives).

An electric backup vac pump doesn't help with that, because if the AI goes, so does (on Honeywell systems) the autopilot, which is just what you want :)

I've had one KI256 last 200hrs, another 700hrs.

Two alternators would be a huge mod for a TB20. Even in the USA, nobody did that AFAIK despite it possibly facilitating a FIKI certification. One could fit a small vac pump drive alternator, but it would have to be at least a PMAd part, and what will you drive with it? An electric AI? That would be nice but it's a pretty significant-paperwork project. You cannot drive "electronic" avionics from such an alternator unless you have a battery also, unless it is the GAMI one which is not even PMAd. Also the chances of a vac failure or a vac AI failure and a general electric failure is miniscule (two independent systems).

Anyway, you did very well to read through that 100k word essay :ok:

[M-ONGO]

Not at all, it was an interesting read.

Outside the jet for work, I fly a twin turboprop Peter. For light aircraft the list is too long. I've lost 2 vac pumps (not at the same time) on a C310, one on a Cherokee, several whilst instructing on singles such as the TB10 and that ilk. In the region of 5 pumps over several thousand hours g/a time.

You say you change the (inexpensive) pump every 250 hours. That's my whole point. Your the one suggesting replacing parts on a pure time basis is in most cases totally pointless.

Replacing bits on a pure time basis is in most cases in fixed wing GA totally pointless.

Contradiction? I take it the two items I mention come under your "mostly" part? You also self admittedly say two vac pumps are not a bad idea...

Replacing bits which are worn is OK.

Well, thanks for the advice. I'll make sure I let our company engineers know that... ;)

What about the Thai aero clubs TB20 with two alternators? They base their regs pretty much on the FAR's. It must be possible.

Seatbelts? Now who's being "disingenuous"...

Oil hoses? Are they not a 10 year lifed item on your '20? if that's what the AMM suggests, then do it. But you have haven't you? I'm sure that's on the website somewhere! Personally if it was my aircraft, I would. That's regardless as to whether under part 91 it's required or not. The JAA seem to think so.

An electric backup vac pump doesn't help with that, because if the AI goes, so does (on Honeywell systems) the autopilot, which is just what you want

Oh no, the autopilot has failed! Declare an emergency!

[dublinpilot]

You say you change the (inexpensive) pump every 250 hours. That's my whole point. Your the one suggesting replacing parts on a pure time basis is in most cases totally pointless.

In fairness, he even under lines the "in most cases" bit. This to any reasonable reader indicates that he clearly has in mind some exceptions to his rule.

Replacing bits on a pure time basis is in most cases in fixed wing GA totally pointless.

Could you not see why he underlined that part?

[M-ONGO]

Dublin

The ambiguity comes from the:

Quote:
Replacing bits which are worn is OK.


The above fact is rather obvious, don't you think? As no parts were mentioned, who knows?

This obviously was not highlighted when I copied and pasted it or am I missing something? (ref post 59)

Quote:
Replacing bits on a pure time basis is in most cases in fixed wing GA totally pointless.

[abgd]

Reference for the UK figures:

www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/RegReview.pdf

1.3 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours for the UK:
(over a decade ending in 2004)

As an aside, the really interesting statistic is for gyroplanes - over 40 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours. I think I understand where the naysayers for statistics are coming from, and I know the numbers should also be interpreted with caution due to the relatively small number of aircraft. But I think when you get differences like that, they're trying to tell you something.

1.14 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours for the US:

Fact Sheet – General Aviation Safety (http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13103&omniRss=fact_sheetsAoc&cid=103_F_S)

(2010 figure)

To be honest, it wasn't hard to find. '1.3 100,000 caa' and '1.14 100,000 faa' in google work fairly well.

[dublinpilot]

This obviously was not highlighted when I copied and pasted it or am I missing something? (ref post 59)

Yes you are missing something;) when you copy and paste on this forum it doesn't copy the formatting.

But we know that io540 didn't go and add the underlining after you post because if he edited his post after someone posted another post, then pprune tells us that he did so and the time that the last edit was made. For example we can see that you edited your post 59.

It doesn't show any editing of io540's post so we know that the underlining WA always there and you didn't notice it or failed tho take it into account.

[M-ONGO]

You learn something every day! BTW you can indeed edit a post without a time stamp as long as its soon after. Just done it on another thread.

With observation skills like that you should go for a radar validation! ;)

[peterh337]

You also self admittedly say two vac pumps are not a bad idea.

Do I?

Fitting an electric backup vac pump (which is a massive clumsy lump) is a bit like replacing an IO540 with a steam engine, and if the plane doesn't fly with it, fitting a second steam engine.

The reality is that when you fly a typical IFR single you accept a lower level of redundancy than when you are flying a twin with both engines fully loaded with accessories. Unless the single is a Cessna 400... or a TBM, etc. And even a twin with two totally separate buses (with crossbars) is unlikely to have two separate pitch/roll sources for the autopilot. Unless it is a 737+ :)

One can improve redundancy but the cost and hassle just goes up and up, because everything that's actually worthwhile safety-wise is a major mod, and sometimes virtually infeasible paperwork-wise.

99% of my high altitude IFR is VMC.

I haven't been to Thailand lately (have a very nice girlfriend, thank you) so pardon me for not knowing that somebody out there has fitted a second (full-size?) alternator to a TB. If you have access to their paperwork I would like to see a copy; it might be useful. Is it on an N-reg? No I didn't think so; I do know one pilot there and you can't keep an N out there permanently.

You seem to have some sort of agenda, Mongo, to pick holes. Have we crossed wires in some other life?

[M-ONGO]

I have a contact there (expat instructor) who may be able to help if you're interested. It's on an HS reg.

If you need to fly with an autopilot outside of RVSM levels, you simply shouldn't be flying. (not a comment aimed AT you - just in answer to your autopilot comment)

There is no cost on safety Peter. It's simply justifying that cost or mitigating the risk a la SMS.

99% of the flying I do below FL200 in Europe would certainly not be VMC, but then again I don't necessarily choose my flying days, granted I only fly down there for short periods.

BTW I'm glad you have a 'very nice girlfriend' - I can only hope she enjoys conversation topics such as egnos, gps, tcas and the like.

Oh, and yes you do:

Backup Vacuum: This is a second electrically driven vacuum pump. It's not a bad idea because the autopilot requires the main horizon which is vacuum powered so if the standard vacuum pump fails, you lose the autopilot as well. It's quite bulky and heavy... an alternative approach is to replace the existing vacuum pump every few hundred hours. Vacuum pumps are cheap enough to replace at every Annual if so desired.

That's from you're website.

No, we've never met Peter. No agenda - this is a discussion forum, after all.

I haven't been to Thailand lately (have a very nice girlfriend, thank you) so pardon me for not knowing that somebody out there has fitted a second (full-size?)

You seem to Think you know about most other things aviation. ;) thought that this would be on the TB20 owners/pilots forum.

[peterh337]

I have to be quick with your posts because you keep editing them...

thought that this would be on the TB20 owners/pilots forum.

I got kicked out of there in 2008, for upsetting the web admin, not to mention some bible carriers :)

[M-ONGO]

Peter I'm using an iPad. The only way I can use multiple quotes is to post, go back, copy... Should've brought my laptop!

Don't upset the bibles! :ok:

[Contacttower]

Hopefully the OP will have picked up on the point by now that there is little point in trying to make generalisations about GA.

Yes I'd agree, made about GA, the quote about the drive to the airport is nonsense, as a generalisation at least. The point here is that general aviation flying is very much as safe as one makes it.

I was recently perusing an article in Flying, a US aviation magazine, and in particular a discussion about how to make GA safer; one of the contributers noted that possibly one route cause of the comparatively high accident rate is that the issue of danger is not addressed sufficiently in initial training and that we should spend less time trying to convince people who want to learn to fly that light aircraft are safe and more time convincing them of the dangers yet going on to explain how to overcome them.

So I'd say to the OP in answer to his question: It depends, if one is a diligent student pilot with good instructors after a while one will get an idea of what is 'best practice', follow it, and apply it with mounting experience and by then you will probably have found your answer...

[proudprivate]

To be honest, it wasn't hard to find. '1.3 100,000 caa' and '1.14 100,000 faa' in google work fairly well.


:hmm:, quite.

In the same paragraph of the UK document where we find the ratio you dug up, we read:


Meaningful comparison of the UK data with other foreign States was not possible due to differences in the definition of GA and a lack of available information, particularly utilisation.


and a few sentences down...


However, the estimated FARs for the various classes of UK GA were found to be [...] better than the rate for most European States.


which is quite a statistical find, in view of admitting they're comparing apples to oranges and that they are only doing a survey once in a blue moon.

The UK CAA definition of GA is "anything civil that is not a CAT operation"
whereas other states use : GA = light aircraft (under 12500 lbs) or some other definition.

The UK CAA also don't say how they measure/estimate "hours flown", which is of course the denominator of your accident ratio, just that it is "constant" at 1.4 million hours. They are also not clear about counting the N-reg hours in the UK, which inevitably would drive their accident rate down.

By comparison, General Aviation in the USA had 1518 accidents for about 23.8 million hours flown in 2006, or about 6.3 accidents per 100000 flying hours. The 2006 number of fatal accidents per 100000 flying hours was about 1.1

It should be noted that the US have something out there like Alaska, which due to the harsh flying circumstances (and living conditions) distort the US result somewhat.

US references all on www.faa.gov (http://www.faa.gov/) (search) with very detailed materials on methodologies, statistical errors and a great many additional indicator...

Although the data presented doesn't statistically support it, the UK accident rate might actually be better than the continental european one if only for the existence of the IMC rating. A similar recognition was made by EASA in its introductory comments about FCL.008 (the accessable instrument rating). The same argument could then explain why the UK has a slightly higher GA (fatal) accident rate than the US.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that most of these statistics are a finger in the wind.

So far as I know, the only major GA countries with regular centralised reporting of flying hours are the UK and Australia.

The USA does not centrally record these hours, therefore any hours per fatal accident estimate is just that - an estimate, and could be very badly out.

The best you can do is compare fatalities per number of similar airframes. And that is also very approximate because useage patterns of aeroplane types vary a lot between countries as well.

G

[proudprivate]

So far as I know, the only major GA countries with regular centralised reporting of flying hours are the UK and Australia.


The US is systematically surveying. What does the UK (or Australia) do to collect (GA) hours flown data ?

[Genghis the Engineer]

The US is systematically surveying. What does the UK (or Australia) do to collect (GA) hours flown data ?

In the UK the hours are reported to the CAA at the annual Permit Renewal, or 3 yearly CofA renewal (depending upon aircraft category).

Total hours, with date valid, are available on G-INFO (and pay the CAA a few hundred quid and you can have it on a CD exportable to Excel, which makes analysis pretty easy).


I'm less sure what the Australians do, but I think it's fairly similar.


So far as I know, the USA does what they call the "Air Taxi Survey" of parts of the fleet, but it's not a whole fleet dataset in the way that certainly exists for the UK.

G

[abgd]

As I recall, the UK also surveys aircraft movements, the concern being that this gives the impression that hours are declining but fails to take into consideration the move towards flying from farmstrips (i.e. may understimate flying). There's another document out there (near the top of the search list) that gives more details about how the accidents were counted.

The UK and USA figures were originally posted more to argue that they were within the same ballpark, which is to say that general aviation remains an order of magnitude (or so) more dangerous than driving in a car in both countries. To really argue against this, you'd have to argue that the aviation statistics were out by an order of magnitude, or that the driving statistics were considerably different in both countries - which of course they are. Obviously arguing that they may be out by a factor of 2 or 3 weakens the argument somewhat, but there's still considerable latitude for being wrong, and still being right.

I agree that the US publishes very good statistics, but part of the reason for this has got to be simply that there aren't enough aircraft or accidents to make this worthwhile in most other countries. The UK statistic was calculated from data collected over the course of a decade, and still only covered about 140 accidents. This makes for a 95% confidence interval of about 120 to 170, without even taking into account the fact that we're not sure how many hours were flown not to mention all the other (valid) concerns about fleet composition etc.

[maxred]

And of course this is the big problem with statistics in that they can be presented and manipulated to give credence to an argument/discussion. I remember Reading not long ago that the general long term 'trend' in GA accidents was stable. i.e static at a level. This could be perceived as 'the acceptable level, although that term relevent to safety is not a good one. A bit like drunk driving, where regardless of initiatives, there will always be a base level that will be difficult to break. On reading about that trend u was concerned that it would appear despite advances in design, glass cockpit technology, the accident rate did not diminish. Statistically one would have thought that it might.

[abgd]

Regarding the idea that flying gives you control over your fate, but driving doesn't because of all the other numpties on the road, I thought I'd post a graph showing the relationship between age and fatal accidents:

From a study cited in:
http://http://transportation.njit.edu/nctip/final_report/Mature_Driver.htm (http://http//transportation.njit.edu/nctip/final_report/Mature_Driver.htm)

Figure 1:

http://transportation.njit.edu/nctip/final_report/Mature_Driver_files/image009.jpg

The fact that there's such a marked effect of age on driver safety implies that the way that different drivers drive has a very strong influence on their risk of having a fatal accident.

In other words, you have considerable say in your fate in driving accidents, as well as flying accidents. I can imagine that this is less the case for motorcyclists though.

[Contacttower]

Completely agree with the above, one can obviously do a huge amount with one's driving to decrease the risk. Once one has become a sensible and experienced driver though there still is that element of uncertainty about other people's behaviour that can never be completely eliminated and I think that element remains larger in driving than it does in flying.

[dont overfil]

abgd,
Am I reading your graph correctly?

I would imagine the 25-65 age group would on average drive a lot more miles than a 16 or 80 year old.

Does that in real terms mean the youngest and oldest drivers are even more likely to die than the scale of the graph suggests?

D.O.

[abgd]

Am I reading your graph correctly?

No, the fact that different age groups drive different numbers of miles is already taken into account. You may well argue how well it was taken into account. I'll confess I haven't read the original source in enough detail to hold an opinion, however I think it's fairly well recognised that young men are a very high risk group and their insurance premiums reflect this.

I think that element remains larger in driving than it does in flying.

In relative or absolute terms? I would agree potentially in relative terms, but not in absolute terms.

[peterh337]

I think that graph is a lot of dodgy stats (not entirely but largely).

Many people drive in a manner where they attract and induce accidents but since they do not technically cause them, they get away scot free.

I'd imagine teenagers crash a lot due to a lack of experience, not knowing how to drive defensively, and occassionally due to recklessness inherent in youth :)

But old people get into a lot of accidents because they tend to drive crappily, often excessively slowly, but people tend to drive into them instead.

Also a lot of miles get driven by various groups of commercial travellers but inevitably many end up doing a lot of their miles on the open road.

Similarly, in flying, you might have the following very different situations:

- short trips in good weather, VFR
- long trips in good weather, VFR
- long trips in good weather, IFR

I'd say the last one is safest per mile. But it won't be the safest per trip, not least because those are mostly high-hour pilots.