How 'safe' is private flying?!

[taxistaxing]

I'm often asked the question by prospective passengers, and feel a bit disingenuous trotting out the usual line about how flying is safer than driving/walking blah blah. That's certainly the case for commercial aviation, but I'm pretty sure it's not the case for private flying in a spam can.

I've done a few internet searches but can't find much in the way of stats. I've come across a few references to private flying being around the same level of safety as riding a motorcycle but I would intuitively have thought it much safer than this.
The other factor to add to the 'mix', I guess, is that the most common causes of GA accidents (CFIT, VFR into IMC and fuel exhaustion) are largely "self inflicted" and the statistically average risk of suffering this type of accident is higher than the actual risk if proper planning is used, conservative decisions are taken etc.

In particular I'm still unable to take my dad flying because other family members are convinced it's dangerous and reckless (and my dad himself has pointed out that he would need to adjust his life insurance policy, itself suggesting that loss adjusters view light aviation as a risky activity!).

What are peoples' thoughts? I'd like to be able to give an informed response which is still reassuring - along the lines of "admittedly less safe than flying in a BA 747, but still pretty safe when compared to other every day activities" - but can find no real evidence to back this up.

[WorkingHard]

Does your father do a risk assessment when he rides his bike or drives his car? Does he trust you to drive him anywhere?

[gasax]

The 'raw numbers' equate it in the same area as motorcycles. Those are the numbers and if you do not like them - work at flying safely!

Just as with motorcycles there are 'safe' riders/pilots and 'unsafe' riders/pilots. As with all things, to a point you can chose which group you align with.

It would however be disingenuious to tell your passengers anything else in terms of relative risk just because you do not 'like' the numbers (unless you are a politican, banker, etc, etc - in which case it would be expected!)

Your 'intuition' is coloured by your assessment of your ability and your understanding of accident frequencies and the like. I've been flying for 20 odd years now and regrettably I remember a number of people who are no longer with us, due to both aircraft and motorcycles. Some did not surprise me, some did - I just work at not being one of them!

[FANS]

Private flying's risk profile is hugely dependent upon the PIC.

Do you chance the weather, or do you wait for perfect days? Even if the latter, would you struggle with deteriorating weather or unexpected x-winds?

Does the PIC have 50 hours or 5,000 hours?

You're wasting your time with trying to find real evidence to back it up.

Ultimately, if someone's THAT worried about the risk, I'd suggest they're probably not going to enjoy it that much eitherway.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I tell my passengers that it would be about as risky as motorcycling, except that I cheat by making sure I've got enough fuel, only taking off in weather I can cope with, choosing not to play silly buggers with aerobatics at low level, etc.

I make sure as part of the expectation management that they are expecting a weather cancellation as likely as not. I have, as a result, never ever had any pressure from prospective passengers to take off when I wasn't completely happy.

[Fuji Abound]

My guess would be about as safe as riding a motor bike.

That means not that safe if you take the motor bike population as a whole, but very safe, if you take the population of motor bikers that have developed the skills to ride defensively.

Of course passengers have no idea which category you fit into, and, sometimes, nor do the pilots - we all think we are the best, dont we? ;)

[astir 8]

Tell him that more people die while fishing than any other sport in the UK.:ok:

[Pace]

I would go with the sentiments expressed above.
It is not as safe as driving a car! The biggest difference in the minds of potential PAX is that you are likely to survive a car crash! Other than a ground incident you are not likely to survive a plane crash! They tend to be fatal!
I have now lost 7 pilot friends most very experienced and some who you would least expect to get killed!
There is a real risk and it would be unfair to paint a picture to your potential PAX that it is as safe as driving a car because it is not!
The old adage regarding individual pilots was whether you would be happy sending your kids up for a flight with them?
Many I would not.
As stated by many the risks can be minimized but not eliminated so like many things in life you have to decide whether its risk you want to take and most of us do decide to take that risk as with a lot of higher risk sport from Horse riding to Skiing to scuba diving etc.

Pace

[gasax]

Fine Astir - but fishing is also the largest participant sport in the UK - so no matter how safe, that situation (more people dying fishing than flying) would be likely if only due to heart attacks and general old age (a bit like golf!).

The argument has to be based upon an apple and apples comparison - otherwise your passengers might think (if they know about these things) that you are not being entirely honest with them......

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Taxistaxing,

If you happen to be an AOPA member, why not ask AOPA?

If not, see if another club member will ask them for you.

BP.

[A and C]

As said above flying is about as safe as riding a Motoycycle in raw numbers however 75% of motorcycle accidents are the fault of the other driver, in the air there is far less chance of getting hit by another aircraft that you did not see.

Flying accidents are largely due to pilot error with only a few accidents due to mechanical failure.

So the chances of having an accident in a light aircraft are very much reduced if you fly with a pilot who is current in an aircraft that is well maintained, fly in an old dog of an aircraft that has had minimum maintenance with a pilot who has flown two hours in the last six months and the chances of an accident rocket to a point at which jumping busses on a motorcycle looks safe.

[Fuji Abound]

Other than a ground incident you are not likely to survive a plane crash! They tend to be fatal!

Pace - are you sure?

I am always surprised when I read the reports how many aircraft that "crash" do not include fatalities.

I suppose it depends what you mean by "crash" and if you take a crash being flying into the ground in some totally uncontrolled way or flying into the side of a mountain in IMC then you are unlikely to survive.

Even that said I recall the chap recently who ran into fog over the Downs without any instrument training. He kept the thing reasonably straight and level and was found upright in a field on top of the Downs having slid along the surface! Exceptional I know, and a very lucky chap indeed.

[hoodie]

Other than a ground incident you are not likely to survive a plane crash! They tend to be fatal!

That's really not true, and does a disservice to the industry/pastime to say so.

As proof, see for example this NTSB data set (http://www.ntsb.gov/data/datafiles/2001_GA_Annual_Review_Data.xls) (Excel spreadsheet) for 2001, and look at Column G (Highest Injury) and Column O (Flight Phase).

See also this NTSB table (http://www.ntsb.gov/data/table10_2012.html) of Accidents, Fatalities and Rates from 1992-2011.

US General Aviation Accidents per 100,000 flying hours each year range from 6.35 to 9.01.

Corresponding fatalities per 100,000 flying hours range from 1.16 to 1.81.

More NTSB stats here (http://www.ntsb.gov/data/aviation_stats.html).

Edited to say that I'm sure the CAA and AAIB have similar stats, but they didn't come up in my rapid Google. Nevertheless, rates have historically been similar to the US experience.

[taxistaxing]

Thanks for the responses. It's a case of 'lies, damn lies and statistics' I guess as there are so many variables at play.

It's an interesting question though. And one I've thought more and more about this year as I've been hour building and not had the comfort of an instructor sitting beside me. Of the 60 or so hours I've flown this year I've had three occasions where I was genuinely scared. Two of these were 'near-misses' with other aircraft, where I had to take evasive action, and one where I was forced to divert due to low cloud (unforecast) and ended up scudding around at 700 feet near high ground waiting to land. I've learned from those experiences and hopefully I'm a better pilot for them, and I certainly have a new appreciation of just how easily accidents can happen.
If I was to describe my own abilities - I would say I am inexperienced and therefore very risk-averse in my approach to planning (probably more so than some other PPLs I've flown with) - but then everyone would probably say that about themselves!
Ultimately I accept the risk because I love flying - but I want to be in a position to give non-flying passengers some honest insight into the risks. I think that's only fair.


I tell my passengers that it would be about as risky as motorcycling, except that I cheat by making sure I've got enough fuel, only taking off in weather I can cope with, choosing not to play silly buggers with aerobatics at low level, etc.


That probably hits the nail on the nail on the head in terms of a balance between scaring people sh*tless, and not misleading them either. I might just adopt it going forward! :ok:

[FANS]

Of the 60 or so hours I've flown this year I've had three occasions where I was genuinely scared

Two of these were 'near-misses' with other aircraft

ended up scudding around at 700 feet near high ground waiting to land


With "luck" like that, I'd say you're high risk!

[EDMJ]

I agree with the other statements to the effect that flying is definitely not as safe as driving a car, and that it is very much dependent on the pilot how safe (or not) it is.

If you want to convince anyone that it is not downright dangerous when you want to entice them to go along for a ride, you need to argue credibly how you are reducing the risks.

These are the arguments that I use:

- I ensure that I keep in practice, and won't bring any passengers if I'm not nor will I fly as PIC if I don't feel physically up to it,
- I fly docile/reliable/tried-and-tested aircraft, which I am current on and am convinced are well-maintained and operated by a serious operator,
- I regularly practice forced landing and/or engine-out approaches, and have regular check rides with an instructor,
- I do a thorough pre-flight inspection, and if I'm in doubt that something's not OK, then there's no doubt: I'm not going,
- I will only fly in weather conditions which are well within personal and legal limits, and if there's any doubt, then there's no doubt: I'm not going or will turn back.
- I acquire a comprehensive and appropriate weather briefing before the flight, and check NOTAMS,
- I do a thorough pre-flight planning (W&B, endurance, T/O length required), even more so in hot and high conditions,
- I brief the passenger thoroughly about anything that will/could happen during a flight, before it occurs (e.g. how to open the door),
- I don't admire the countryside below me during the flight much, only to keep a look-out for potential landing sites, and prefer to keep my head on a swivel looking out for other aircraft

[taxistaxing]

With "luck" like that, I'd say you're high risk!


Cheers buddy :}

I'm trying to "fill up the bag of experience before emptying the bag of luck".

The near misses are par for the course in SE England I think. Everyone and their dog is flying around between 2 and 2500 feet under the LTMA. I'm surprised there aren't more mid-air collisions, frankly.

The weather diversion was more questionable I guess. I like to think I made a good decision to throw it away and divert before things got too hairy.

[Fuji Abound]

Scud running happens - as you know it is far from ideal and a lesson I suspect we all encounter sometime. Its not ideal however, be careful, as I am sure you know its a real potential killer. It is true to say that even when not forecast it usually is the pilot's fault to get caught out in this way.

Near misses happen. To be fair two in that many hour is a lot. My average seems to be one every thousand hours. You might do as well to consider why they occurred and if there is anything you could have done differently.

However also to be fair in the early years of flying we think a near miss is something with a few more years wouldnt even rate as a close encounter. ;). Moreover the stats. prove the chances of a near miss turning into a collision are incredibly remote, not that I am sure that should make us complacent. ;)

[biffo28]

I think that insurance companies have a good idea of risk. When i started to learn to fly last year I rang my insurers to see if my new activity would have an impact on my life assurance policy in terms of premium, cover etc. They were pleased to tell me it wouldn't, I would be covered for private flying with no additional cost - they sent a letter to confirm this.

If the insurance companies (who are putting their money where their mouth is!) are not fussed about the risk of private flying then tell your father he shouldn't be!

[FANS]

It's all experience, but joking aside, scud running around 700' is really pushing your luck, and you need to make sure you're never in that situation again. The panic feeling that comes with that situation can in itself lead to issues, especially with low hour PPL only pilots.

[taxistaxing]

FANS, PM sent as would like your views on the scud running situation...

[piperarcher]

The near misses are par for the course in SE England I think. Everyone and their dog is flying around between 2 and 2500 feet under the LTMA. I'm surprised there aren't more mid-air collisions, frankly.

I tend to agree. I often fly between the section between Luton and Stansted, below CAS, and while I wont say I have had any "near misses" this year, there have certainly been a number of occasions where aircraft have been closer than I might like. I try and get a traffic service where I can, have one of those ZAON thingies, but there are some quite congested areas and at a closing speed of 200 odd kts, there is some risk.

I drive my car every day and theres always someone in front or behind, or coming out a side turning, or going round a rounabout not indicating thats potentially going to do something stupid and cause a 'near miss'. Flying is like driving, you have to be alert, and you have to be in control of your vehicle quite defensively and be prepared to take corrective action.

Walking around London, or anyone where with a lot of movement is risky. You cant avoid all risk, and have to take some chances.

[Echo Romeo]

So what would you describe as a near miss? when you come within, say a 100mt of another aircraft, more or less?

I ask because I recall an occasion when flying with a friend, an aircraft passed in front of us from right to left at the same level, neither of us saw it prior to it passing in front, I suspect it hadn't seen us either, but it must have been 3- 4 hundred mts away, friend yelped, god that was close, I did not take issue. but I felt at the time it was nowhere close to a near miss.

[taxistaxing]

One was probably approx 200m. We both turned to the right to avoid (so probably not that big a deal).

One a LOT closer - certainly less than 200m. Looming large in the windscreen and necessitating a steep turn to the right to avoid :eek:. Scary stuff.

Could probably have filed an 'AIRPROX' but there didn't seem a lot of point. It just reiterates the need to keep a good lookout.

I spend quite a bit of time over Essex, near Stapleford which is incredibly busy with training flights heading out to Hanningfield reservoir to practise. And the gap to the west of north weald between the STN zone and the City zone gets very congested.

[Pace]

A near miss?? Is any miss! Two spring to mind :( One right seating another pilot head down in the map near London in a single prop! Looked up just in time to see the tires of a 172 pass 10 feet above on a reciprical heading.

I know it was that close as I could see the tire grooves. He was on auto as the aircraft did not deviate an inch as it vanished behind.

The second was in a twin descending through cloud and a glider wing flashed past in the gloom also in cloud!

In response to others Flying is not as safe as driving! equivalent to motor cycle riding I think? All I do know is I have lost 7 good friends to flying the majority hardly novice or reckless I have lost one friend in a car accident.

So I maybe wrong? and its very safe???

Pace

[UV]

You only have to ask someone, who has been flying some time, how many people they know who have been killed driving and how many people they know who have been killed flying.

That will give you the information you are looking for.

[clareprop]

How safe compared to what?

Very, when compared against wingflying, skydiving, technical diving, base jumping, unprotected sex in third-world countries, soldiering as an ATO...

..but not when compared to going shopping, lying in bed, or riding on a bus, boat or commercial aircraft.

In the end, it's subjective. A look at the AAIB reports over the past decade will show you how easy it is to sometimes get it horribly wrong. I haven't counted them but I guess there must be three or four hundred fatalities or so over the past twenty years on there for GA.
However else you describe it, going for a "normal" flight in a light aircraft is not the same as going for a "normal" ride in a car. For myself, I decided that I would happily take adults on a "joyride" with me but I have always managed to come up with a reason not to take kids under 16. Arbitrary I know but that's my decision and I'm the Cap'n.

[Olympia 463]

(I can't get the quote thingy to work on my MAC!!)

"Other than a ground incident you are not likely to survive a plane crash! They tend to be fatal!
I have now lost 7 pilot friends most very experienced and some who you would least expect to get killed!"

I'm a glider pilot (retired) and I can't agree with the above comments. I glid (?) for about 20 years, and as you know every landing is a 'controlled crash' in a glider. I took part in about 2200 of these!

In the time I was flying (a lot of it instructing) I saw several accidents from which the participant walked away somewhat shaken, but largely undamaged. The only fatals were a pilot who tried inverted flying having had no dual on this mode of flight, and a tug pilot who didn't keep a good lookout and hit a glider on his way down from a tow. The glider pilot survived (he was was wearing a chute, the tuggie wasn't).

I can't understand the parent who thought he would need to insure himself to fly in a light aircraft. When I took up flying I notified my insurer who said if I was just gliding it I would not need extra cover. He still didn't need more premiums when I became an instructor.

I do most heartily concur with the person who wrote that he was determined to avoid possible death by taking sensible precautions. I was taught early on that 'aeroplanes bite fools' and I never forgot that.

[flyinkiwi]

One a LOT closer - certainly less than 200m. Looming large in the windscreen and necessitating a steep turn to the right to avoid http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif. Scary stuff.

Could probably have filed an 'AIRPROX' but there didn't seem a lot of point. It just reiterates the need to keep a good lookout.

I find that attitude quite disturbing. Accurate data on events like this are vital for the Regulating Authority to make informed decisions regarding airspace allocation and approach/departure/transit procedures. What if your incident was not an isolated one? Maybe there are other factors that are causing aircraft to converge on the same piece of sky in opposing directions? When considering filling out an incident report, think about the lives of fellow aviators you might be saving. Too many of our aviation regulations are written in the blood of innocent people.

[xj8driver]

..but not when compared to going shopping, lying in bed, or riding on a bus, boat or commercial aircraft.

Actually, it's much safer than lying in bed.. statistically, that's where most people die

:ooh:

[Pace]

Very, when compared against wingflying, skydiving, technical diving, base jumping, unprotected sex in third-world countries, soldiering as an ATO...

Clare

This is the point My other passion other than G???s and not in third world countries unprotected :) is scuba diving especially filming large fish and was car racing.
It does not matter if there is an element of risk as we try to minimize those risks by safeguarding ourselves as much as possible but there is always THE risk and you have to accept that or stay at home and lock the doors.
WHATEVER turns you on??? if its playing chess great but if its flying single engine aircraft how far do you go? Some of us only go out to play on sunny still days others of us like the challenge of man/woman against the elements.
Always thought the Red Bull racers were mad but WOW what a kick they must get.
So as the saying goes " Feel the fear and do it anyway" :E but dont anyone kid themselves that its as safe as driving.

Take care

Pace

[clareprop]

Actually, it's much safer than lying in bed.. statistically, that's where most people die

Ah yes but I think most of them are lying in bed ill. :p

[SloppyJoe]

52 people lost their lives in skydiving accidents in 2011.

Is skydiving more dangerous than flying in a light aircraft?

59 people lost their lives last month in light aircraft according to the NTSB database.

[mm_flynn]

Actually, it's much safer than lying in bed.. statistically, that's where most people die

:ooh:
I know it was a tongue in cheek comment, but for conversations around 'how safe is x' or 'how risky is x' you need to know both exposure and outcome. So comparing lying in bed vs. being struck by lighting in terms of safety in the UK, we probably have

Deaths in bed per annum 1,000,000
Deaths by lighting per annum 5

(so clearly being struck by lighting is less deadly than lying in bed)

Of course the exposure will be, in number of instances
lying in bed - 20,000,000,000
struck by lighting - 8

so lying in bed is less risky than life on average but being struck by lighting is deadly.

In the GA context, most private pilots have relatively little exposure, say 30 hours /year, vs cars which is probably 500 hours/year - so even though GA is more dangerous than driving (per hour), you don't do enough of it to make a significant difference in your overall odds of dying (the number the life insurer looks at). For commercial pilots this is less true due to the much higher exposure. I believe Commercial Pilot of a non-turbine aircraft is one of the most 'dangerous' jobs in America (in the analysis of work related fatalities by sector) - certainly more dangerous than police or fire - though I don't think as dangerous as lumberjack or fisherman.

[PompeyPaul]

I asked this question at a CAA safety evening and the guy said the numbers were available, but didn't know off the top of his head. So I went and looked them up.

1st problem CAA fatality is worked out in hours, RTA fatality is per mile so I had to do some adjustment. I worked on the assumption average cruise speed was 100 knots.

in the UK there are 666 casualties per billion vehicle miles (http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/reported-road-casualties-gb-main-results-2011/)

At the CAA I was told there was a fatality every 10,000 hours for a PPL (with gyro copters being fatal every 2,500 hours :eek:)

So munging some results, with a cruise speed of N100 average there is a fatality, in the air, every 1,000,000 nautical miles or 1,150,779.45 statute miles. So to get to 666 casualties you need 766,419,113.7 statute miles. Presuming the UK government has used the US billion, flying is around 30% more dangerous than driving to the airport.

That said the statistics are for everyone on the roads, motorcycle are 35 times more likely to die than a passenger in a car (http://www.dyingtoride.org/STATS.htm).

So given that, flying is less safe than using the road, but only just so when I first ran these numbers there were 710 fatalities per billion vehicle miles in 2009 so they were about the same. On the other hand it is way, way safer than motor cycling.

That's my back of a fag packet calculation anyway!

[Pace]

MM

A Bed is a stupid comparison ;) unless your actually killed by the bed itself :E That is a bit like saying your 100% likely to die during our lives so being alive is a very high risk occupation and not worth undertaking.
You have to die somewhere but it will be by some organ failure rather than the 4 poster collapsing on top of you!
Anyway if you are dying is that not where they stick you in hospital so that you do not die but recover? It could therefore asked how many lives are saved not lost by being put in bed?
I could think of a few things in it that could lead to heart failure like a spider :E

Pace

[jxk]

On numerous occasions I've been asked to take non-flying people across the Channel to France. I immediately refuse because I don't think they understand the risk of going down in the drink. With other pilots I have no problem.

[Fuji Abound]

Pace you shouldnt refer to STMBOAAT as a spider.

[peterh337]

As has been said, one cannot compare GA risks with driving risks because in GA there is almost never anybody else to blame but the pilot, or in a small % of cases the aircraft.

Also we have almost no data on the kind of flying people do. Pompey's analysis is IMHO a good start but really we need to know much more about risk exposure because e.g. a simple high altitude IFR flight of say 700nm across the flatter parts of Europe, in VMC, and ending with an ILS, is going to be far safer than the same flight done as a "VFR" low level scud run in the winter, collecting ice at -5C and dodging wind turbine blades over Belgium and ending with a DIY letdown into some grass strip in OVC005 and +RA :) People fly both of those profiles (I prefer the former one, and indeed most IFR flying is like that) and also people fly everything in between, with a large chunk of the renter community flying on very good days only (but possibly being disadvantaged by poor currency and being disproportionately exposed to risks beyond their control such as crappy maintenance).

My own gut feeling is that good-wx high altitude IFR, in a well maintained plane, is far safer than driving the same distance would be, at a high speed on motorways.

Below that, I am still happier doing a normal UK-type VFR flight than I would be driving say 200nm.

Below that, I am not so sure...