How safe are we really?

[LondonJ]

I have heard from various people that you are statistically safer in an aircraft than you are driving to an airfield and I have used this little 'fact' to give a few slightly uncertain passengers that little extra boost of confidence. Now I am wondering where does this statistic come from and how is it calculated.

Let's say our theory is 'flying is safer than driving'. The best way to calculate this I suppose would be something like 'accidents per driving hour vs. accidents per flying hour'.

For example the average driver might have 0.0002 accidents per driving hour and the average pilot about 0.00001 accidents per flying hour (completely made up figures). Therefore, flying is safer. Or should it be calculated as fatal accidents, or accidents where someone is injured or where the vehicle is written off?

We could debate this forever but my basic point is; Do any of these sort of statistics actually exists or am I just lying to my passengers?

[topcat450]

The most often quoted stats (such as the 'its safer than driving' line) are referring to commercial flying, and there are plenty of stats regarding that.

Most of the stats I've seen regarding GA and light a/c flying rate in a similar risk catagory to riding a motor bike. I'm pretty sure I saw some stuff produced by the DTI which covered these figures. Also the insurance companies do their own risk assesments and incident severity analysis based upon claims and hours/cycles flown - so if you ask them nicely they might give you some of thier in-house stats, although it could put you off flying for life.

However, when a pax ask's me if it's safe I admit I try to calm them down (by bending the truth slightly) and saying we were more likely to have an accident on the way here than we are whilst up there.

[Aussie Andy]

Most of the stats I've seen regarding GA and light a/c flying rate in a similar risk category to riding a motor bike.These figures come from an Australian study which is available here: Cross Modal Safety Comparisons (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cross_modal.pdf) - I think this was done in 2002.

From memory (no time to re-read it just now!) this essentially shows that in terms of fatalities-per-passenger-per-kilometer you are safer in the family car than flying fixed-wing GA, but puts that into perspective by showing that you are far less safe on a motorbike, or even as a pedestrian! Things like buses and commercial airliners are however much much safer on the same measure than any of these, as you would expect.

Just because things are dangerous doesn't mean we don't do them - but it does mean that we need to focus on safety. I try to avoiid telling people that they are safer in their car as I wouldn't want it on my conscience after the event if I felt I had inappropriately guided them about this. Instead I tell them that it's statistically safer than riding a motorbike, but they have to decide if it's a risk they want to take. I know my choice!

Andy :ok:

[bar shaker]

I'm not sure its a good idea to lie about the relative dangers. After an accident people change and I would not want a pax saying that they only went up as a result of a lie.

If people ask, I tell them that its dangerous, but that we are trained to minimise the risks and to deal safely with an emergency, should the need arise.

I'm sure an element of danger adds to most pax experience.

With regards to the level of danger, the last figures I saw (GASCo ?) were 1 fatality per 70,000 hours flown. This did equate to the risks of riding a motorcycle.

Helicopters and microlights were very slightly worse.

[Tinstaafl]

There's inherent difficulties with trying to compare ground transport statistics with aviation statistics. Do you choose distance travelled, or duration in the vehicle? How do you get the granularity you need when many types of things are lumped together eg agricultural flying is usually included in GA yet is a high risk activity. Similarly for other aspects of GA eg private vs aerial work or public transport ops and also the ratings & experience level of the pilot.

Similarly for ground transport. There are many, many fender benders that go unreported. Again, how much differentiation is contained within the figures for driver age or experience or time of year/day or type of vehicle or was it employment or personal travel related etc. Probably more than in aviation but I'm not sure.

The work vs personal travel distinction is a good one because personal travel is something with a reasonable equivalent in aviation ie private flights.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I tell prospective passengers (or their parents if it's a kid) that it's about as safe as motorcycling but that's an average, and as I choose not to do some of the things that regularly cause GA accidents (such as flying into cloud when not trained for it, or running out of fuel, or taking off from a runway that the book says is impossible) that should put us at better than the average.

[LondonJ]

The Australian study is interesting reading. One thing that you often find is that people's views are far from rational in regards our pastime/sport/hobby. Gone are the days of the 'crazy' aviator, but some people still think that we are just boys (or girls) with big, dangerous toys. Television is partly to blame, how many soaps have included a light aircraft in an episode and allowed it to make a trouble free flight?

But there will always be that element of risk (however small now), which is what, I argue keeps people interested. That adrenaline rush as you approach the threshold in difficult conditions and the satisfaction you get when you then nail the landing is hard to find in most other activities you engage in.

[On Track]

When I go flying, I usually get to the airport on my motorbike.

Does that mean I have a death wish?

[IO540]

Speaking as a former motorcyclist, I think it means that you are FAR more likely to get killed through no fault of your own on the way to the airport :O

And that is really the big difference. On the road, a large % of accidents are caused by someone else. In the air, the % is absolutely miniscule.

I think taxiing is far more risky than flying. One might not get injured but it enough hurts the chequebook. A bit of carelessness on the ground can easily end one's flying for good - a few £20k bills and nobody will insure you.

[englishal]

"The Killing Zone - How and Why Pilots die" has some interesting stats on GA. If I remember rightly the author comes to the conclusion that flying fixed wing GA works out at about the same risk as driving.

Its interesting to note that statistically a GA pilot who gets the PPL and then ceases to train for further ratings or courses but carries on flying is more likely to end up in trouble than someone who keeps training for further ratings. i.e. two 500 hour pilots, one a basic PPL holder, and one a PPL/IR (or aero's course, or IMC, or CPL etc) holder the PPL/IR holder is statistically less likely to be killed. A situation that is not helped by ridiculous JAA training requirements which actually hinder safety from a PPL point of view.

Don't ask me to reproduce the stats, they're somewhere on the web but haven't got time to find them at the mo. Sounds reasonable though.....

[MLS-12D]

"The most dangerous part of flying is the drive to the airfield" is an old wives' tale that, as topcat says, misrepresents statistics based upon airline travel.

I feel safer in in an aircraft than a car, because (with the sole and rare exception of midair collisions) I know that I am essentially invulnerable to the negligence of others and completely responsible for my own safety: which cannot be said of travelling in a car. However, statistically speaking the chances of having a flying accident are considerably great than a car crash.

See further page 7 (http://www.wgc.mb.ca/sac/freeflight/98_01.pdf) of the 1/98 issue of Free Flight (reprinting an article that originally appeared in a 1993 issue of Aerokurier), which is specifically aimed at soaring but generally applicable to all branches of recreational aviation.

[bar shaker]

MLS

I think soarers are substantially better at landing without power (OK, its a gimme) than 6 hour per year GA pilots.

Those of us that post on here are, mostly, fanatics (your wives will agree with me). We fly as much as we can and probably far, far more than the average low hours, once every couple of months, circuit basher/occasion club renter.

Its a safe hobby, provided you know the risks, know the drills and can act the drills out without panicking.

On Track... love your take on life, mate :cool:

[Microheavy]

What about flying making you drive dangerously ?

I always have to stop myself speeding when I'm driving away from the airfield.

It must be the feeling of exhilaration after a nice flight but I have had a few totally stupid scary moments, before I recognised this trait,when I was going much faster than I realised.

Anyone else get this ?

[Cusco]

Micro heavy:

Quote: 'I always have to stop myself speeding when driving from the airfield'

I get this all the time, but fortunately the airstrip is a good 10 minutes drive along cr*p twisty Suffick country lanes before I reach a half decent road.

By that time the adrenalin rush has subsided.

Unlike when I was training (Ipswich RIP) 12 years ago when the notorious A45 (now A14) was 2 minutes from the door.

The Flying school/instructor always used to see us (the studes) out of the door after a flight with "Drive slowly now"

safe (but mind the VNE) flying.

Cusco

[shortstripper]

Just remember on the way home; when that suicidal biker on his way to the airfield pulls out in front of you :mad: ... that you must stick your foot on the brake and not just to pull lamely at the steering wheel hoping to fly over! :E

SS

[Yorks.ppl]

Interesting point about the effects of flying on driving, I reckon my driving has improved as a result of getting used to the much higher levels of situational awarenes required when flying.

Perhaps I should see if I can get a reduction in my insurance!

[slim_slag]

Being on a motorbike feels far more dangerous to me than being in a beat up GA plane, but insurance companies don't appear to see it the same way.

[Genghis the Engineer]

In such cases, it's often best to actually play with some known statistics.


Let's start with motoring. There are, roughly, 3,500 deaths on British roads in a year. Out of a population of 60m Brits, it would probably be fair to say that everybody travels by car at-least once per year.

So, divide one by the other and we get a roughly 1 in 17,000 chance of any of us being killed in a road accident per year.



Now flying, we know that the average rate of fatal accidents in certified light aircraft is about 1 per 70,000 hours. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the average light aircraft pilot flies about 15 hours per year. So, again, divide one by the other, and a light aircraft pilot has a chance of being killed flying of about 1 in 4,700.


So, that means you have, on average, about 3½ times the chance of being killed during the flight as you do of being killed on the roads between flights.



However, based upon the same stats, let's say we all go near a road every other day on average - so the risk of being killed on that day comes out at about 1 in 313,000.

And again, the risk of dying on that day in which you chose to go flying (1 in 15) is about 1 in 70,000.

So, the risk of being killed on the way to or from the airport is about 4½ times less than it is of being killed during the flight - but clearly both risks are pretty darned low.

So there you go, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

G

[effortless]

As with all aviation - motoring comparisons, it is unfair to compare hours or miles travelled. The only fair measure is number of journeys since most accidents, when flying, occur at landing or take off. Aviation still wins but not quite so well. See "Tombstone Imperative" by Andrew Weir, its about commercial but still relevant.

I have seen quite literally hundreds of motor accidents and there have been six fatal or near fatal motorcycle accidents at the end of my road in the last eighteen years. I have only seen one GA fatality and that was in 1957 when an Auster flew into a hill near me. I was unlucky enough to see three accidents at Biggin Airshow a couple of years ago and one of those killed two very fine people but flying ancient jets is like that.

[Whirlybird]

On driving and flying...

I now do a walkaround before I get in my car, checking for flat tyres and the like; never used to even think of things like that before I started flying. :)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

On driving and flying... I once found myself a couple of miles down the road before noticing that the tachometer was reading zero ... clearly in an aircraft I wouldn't have got so far as to take the brakes off (yes, there was a real problem, something blew up a bit later and dumped the oil all over the road).

[UV]

If you have been flying a few years ask yourself the following questions..

1. How many people do I know who drive? and
2. How many people do I know who fly?

The ask yourself how many people you know of who have been killed in a car and how many in an aeroplane?

The answer will be come as a nasty surprise.

UV

[Wide-Body]

Oh Dear, Forced to Agree with IO-540. :{

He has an incredibly valid point. On the bike you are less in control of your destiny. One careless BMW driver at a junction and game over. In the air to a much greater extent you have your destiny in your own hands.

Look at how people are killed in GA. Then look at yourself and your equipment. Could you prevent yourself being that statistic. I know it sounds like preaching, but in so many cases it is that simple. Keep on learning, keep your ac in tip top condition. And always think, I can flyBa, Ezy etc if the wx gets bad.

Regards to all

Wide

[fox golf]

Put it this way - how many people do you know who have been killed or seriously injured whilst driving to the airfield....

Flying is safe if we acknowledge the inherent danger in what we're doing and don't get blase/complacent about the risks.

[Vee One...Rotate]

Lovely mental image, cheers shortstripper :O :p

V1R

[Confabulous]

I'd definitely recommend 'The Killing Zone' by Paul Craig. Apparently you're at most risk between 50-350 hrs experience. Sounds about right.

Here's an interesting link:

NASA GA Training Incident Reports (http://http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets/ga_train.pdf)

And the home page:

ASRS Homepage (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov)

Edited to THOROUGHLY recommend 'Stick & Rudder' by Langeweische. I'll even lend it to someone!

[MLS-12D]

On the subject of improving one's personal odds: I highly recommend Norbert Slepyan's Defensive Flying (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0026115204/qid%3D1106242210/026-9806675-3356455), which provides lots of practical tips and suggestions. It was published some years ago, but the information remains just as valid today.

[stuartforrest]

Again I would reiterate others comments. This book is a good read although it unnerved my girlfriend.

Statistics can prove and dissprove anything because of course you drive much more than you fly in most peoples cases so you should be extremely experienced yet we still have loads of accidents on the roads, both minor and serious.

In flying (I know from my personal experience) that regular flying makes you a better pilot but we get much much less chance to practice.

If you compare apples with apples there and compare 1000 pilots with 100 hours experience with 1000 drivers with 100 hours experience I bet the stats are very different. I know from my days as an insurance broker that the rate that inexperienced drivers crash is far higher than the experienced drivers.

All that said the car crashes usually hurt much less I suspect!