Flying vs driving

[walesregent]

Has anyone got access to good analysis of the comparative risks of air transport vs road transport? Based on my (limited) research it seems like a remarkably difficult comparison to make on account of the many differences between the two. For example, most people of driving age in Australia have a drivers license and access to a car, and those that drive privately are likely to be of a similar level of proficiency to those who do it professionally, whereas this is not the case at all for aircraft (any comparison of private vs different types of commercial ops- though mainly awk & chtr- would be appreciated). Also, road travel tends to be measured in distance whereas air travel tends to be measured in time. If your measurement fails to differentiate between a 1000 km road trip conducted over 10 days vs overnight (the latter being more likely for someone who chooses to drive because they can't afford to fly) and between a three hour flight in a c152 and a learjet it is, at best, somewhat irrelevant. Same goes if you fail to account for different types of roads (say the Hume Hwy vs some of the roads to remote Aboriginal communities during the wet season).

I'm not sure if it is excessively naive, but I would like to present the case to my local member that although general aviation safety may not compare too favorably with road transport (an assumption on my part- I would love to be proven wrong) it is not hugely risky either and making it inaccessible by imposing expensive safety measures is having serious adverse consequences on rural and remote communities due to reduced (and increasingly unaffordable) air traffic (maybe it would be best to present such a case to member representing those communities).

[Arm out the window]

Dunno where you'd get the figures, but I wonder what as simple a comparison as deaths per travel hour per head of people travelling would work out to be?

I always tell anyone who expresses worry about my job that I'm more likely to be killed in the car on the way to work than I am flying, but I don't really have a statistical basis for that claim!

[Aussie Bob]

There has been a post just recently on this very matter, sadly I have forgotten where but someone will remember.

You get the annual kilometers driven (from NRMA perhaps?) divide it by an average speed (say 60) and this gives you vehicle hours on the road. You divide this by deaths to get an hours per death.

Similar for aviation ....

[EC120]

Recent article in Flying Magazine quotes 7 times more likely to have a fatal in GA vs MV. per mile traveled.

[Jabawocky]

apparently it is similar to riding a motorcycle.

However!

If you fly like I ride a motorcycle and mitigate all the risks, plan right, fly right, do all the things you should.....then you have immediately removed the majority of risk.

I went from YRED to YWRN-YMOR and back to YRED tonight in a G36 Bo. My staff member also feels it is safer than driving.

Right now I am knackered, but imagine driving ....we would still be only 75% the way there!

And for the regulars about to make jokes about me in a G36.....I give in already :}

[tecman]

Surprisingly good article at:

Aviation safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety)

I also recall the article and the figure that EC120 mentions - private aviation in the US is almost an order of magnitude worse than car travel.

But if you choose to ride a motor cycle, you can nearly forget about your other risks :)

[walesregent]

I have now seen the thread started by Dick Smith and thank you for the replies here. I think the crux of any argument for trimming a lot of the safety and security theatre which makes regulatory compliance so onerous would have to be that commercial ops (I fully appreciate that there are many exemplary private pilots out there but I would be surprised if private pilots weren't disproportionately represented amongst crash stats) are not as hazardous as the overall statistics reveal and that the heavy hand of regulation is gradually squashing GA- without (I would love to demonstrate) actually making it safer. I believe that there are a lot of communities and industries that would benefit from a return to decentralised air travel. I'm pretty sure the 'killing rural communities' theme is something that would resonate with any self respecting politician, so if anyone has any examples of air services being withdrawn from a community because of cost of compliance issues I would also love to hear about it.

Cheers

WR

[gerry111]

Jaba, So how the bloody hell did you get an airways clearance to visit us Mexicans?

[Creampuff]

He was disguised in real aircraft. :E

[VH-XXX]

Drop the 3 from the aircraft type Jabba and THEN we will be impressed ! Try running that bad boy in LOP...

[BEACH KING]

Jaba.. great to see that you have finally shown some maturity and realized the manifold benefits of flying a proper aircraft. :ok:

In regard to the car vs flying thing, I often get asked the question.. and generally engine failure is mentioned. I equate it to the likelihood of getting a flat tyre in a car. Pretty rare events in themselves, however if tyre pressures, condition, wheel alignment etc are not checked prior to travel, then the risk increases. In aircraft this applies to oil level, the PFI, and unusual engine signs.

[Wally Mk2]

Life is one big risk & the dangers are always ever present whether yr just sitting there reading about Jabba's adventures, flying a SE plane in IMC or riding a powerful motorbike drunk as a skunk, it's yr choice, yr decision to take those risks so I see little reason to way up what's riskier, flying or driving or any other activity so therefore if you find it too risky then simply avoid it, mostly no one forces you to do anything your not keen on all of the above can kill you & will continue to do so on a reg basis.:)
My activities, my decisions as to the way I drive, to chose not to fly SE in any inclement wx, the selling of my motor bike all suit ME,generally I don't take risks I am not prepared to die for, choice, it's all about choice:-)

If anyone asks me ..........is flying dangerous? I simply say yes, avoids all logic trying to explain otherwise:).


Wmk2

[Homesick-Angel]

You could start here (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/aviation-statistics.aspx) for aviation.

I'm sure there would be something for motor vehicles as well possibly even on the same site?

[thorn bird]

Homesick, you'd be a bit brave believing anything out of the ATSB wouldn't you?

[RENURPP]

I have read way too many research report that claim to have answers to questions like this one seeks, and of course they are an exercise in waisting time and produce no answers.

the comparative risks of air transport vs road transport
How can you cover that.
Are we talking flying as a passenger with a major Australian Airline or a charter flight in a single engine VFR aircraft in inclement weather v riding a motor bike in Bali?
Are we discussing an international operator with a dodgy safety record (fatalities in the last few years) v being a passenger in the latest and safest motor vehicle within Australia.

I'm with Wally on this, there is risk associated with all forms of transport, (and everything we do on a daily basis) statistics will not answer the question for us as there are too many variables.

Is Qantas safer than Virgin Australia? Neither have had a fatality in recent times. Virgin doesn't do near as many hours I would suspect, however due to the number of aircraft Qantas operate and the current industrial climate maybe they are more likely to have an accident?

Its all theoretical clap trap that is at best pie in the sky guess work with way too many variables to prove anything what so ever..

[tecman]

Humans are incredibly bad at judging objective risks, which might be just as well as we'd probably never do anything interesting if we got stuck in a life-long analysis paralysis loop. We all make our choices and live - or die - with them.

Sound statistical comparisons are useful, though, particularly when the element of personal choice is removed. One organization for which I worked required its staff to do many trips from Sydney to the central/north west of NSW and, after a few very close calls on the road, we did obtain comparatively useful stats to show that staff were far better off with the RPT commuter flights than on the road, an argument also perhaps not lost on the OP. With a fairly fixed travel budget, implementing this drove some new directions in the organization and the way we did business. But, over many years, the results have been worthwhile.

Part of the 'problem' in commercial aviation in Aust is that we're dealing wth really small number statistics. I doubt it makes any sense at all to do snapshot comparisons between Virgin and Qantas. But if you believe that the normalized comparison between Qantas and your motor bike is telling you nothing, you're in denial. By all means make your informed choice but man-up to the responsibility: don't shoot the statistical messenger.

[topdrop]

Dom Nozzi's Listing of Comparative Risks (http://www.afn.org/~savanna/risk.htm)

[Andy_RR]

I think one important point regarding flying -v- driving is the infrastructure costs. For aircraft - even large aircraft - the total infrastructure cost, both capital and maintenance, is significantly reduced compared to the road network.

It would be interesting to figure out how much damage the environmental impact of road construction, maintenance etc. compares with the slight per passenger-mile cost advantage of road transport over flying, not that we the advantage much with all our single-passenger vehicles driving around.

[Old Akro]

I was on a board with an ex-politician once. He said two things that stuck with me.

The first one was after I commented that in my experience in business, the best idea always eventually wins. He responded that in the public arena the idea that wins has nothing to do with the merit of the idea. He says that politicians / governments are awash with good ideas and deserving causes. The ones that get through are the ones which achieve some sort of critical mass of opinion.

The second was that there are only 2 reasons why a government doesn't do something. a) money and b) public opinion.

While your intentions are laudable, I don't think it will get any attention from your local member based on road vs air safety. Our decision making is not objectively about safety.

If you want to argue in support of regional aviation (which we should), then you should (in my opinion), look for the issues that our society currently cares about.

Off the cuff, these would be:
Infrastructure
Regional jobs / economy
Hospitals / health
Community facilities / amenity

For example, Australia's rural health care services are dramatically worse than the cities and frankly, not much better than 3rd world. We have dramatically centralised our health car to the major cities. Maintaining an infrastructure for air Ambulance / RFDS / Angel Flight I would think is a significant argument. How many people need to be saved by an Air Ambulance / RFDS evacuation to justify an airport?

Recently, I had a look at air vs road safety. If you really want, I'll tell you how to do it if you PM me. I was trying to challenge that CASA statement inferring that Charter is less safe than an airline. But, for many reasons it got too hard.

If you want a target - look specifically at bus fatalities per passenger mile compared with low volume airline or charter safety per passenger mile. If we applied aviation safety levels to buses, we'd outlaw them.

A town being serviced by a regional airline can make a large difference to its fortunes. Ask Flinders Is, or Merrimbula or even Alice Springs.

I happened to be in Flinders Is before the last State election at a restaurant where the local member was speaking to gain support for his re-election. He spoke of a range of projects on the Island to try and boost the economy. But the reality is that the single most important thing they could do is get the sole airline that services the Island to reduce the $490 return airfare.

I'm prepared to bet that if you asked Sharp for 10 things to do / change that would allow them to reduce airfares that 8 of them would lie at the feet of CASA.

[Wally Mk2]

'OA' I haven't' been to FLI in ages, used to go there reg when I was young & dumb (SE over water!!!..ohhh ahhhh:)) to buy crays at $4 kilo!!
I think FLI isn't a good Eg for driving V flying as really there is no other way to get there other than by air, captive market. AS is simply too far to get there via road unless time isn't an issue. MER is still a fair drive for most so air travel & the fact that holidaying in that area is a popular means flying is good & profitable I imagine.

Pretty much the only reason people fly other than for pleasure is TIME, it's all about time in our fast hectic society & road rage is a good reason not to drive half the time if possible

Wmk2

[Old Akro]

WM2

Don't disagree at all.

I was trying to make a slightly different point that having an air service improves the economy of a town.

I list ASP because over the years the airline services have varied a fair bit. A few years ago Qantas pulled out of Alice Springs and nearly every shop window in down had a poster condemning Qantas. It didn't last long before they re-started.

Having better / cheaper airservices would promote a more decentralised economy. But look at places like Mildura. Before the airport "upgrade"I used to look for reasons to stop there. Now after the $6.2m "upgrade", I try and avoid it. Too many regional airports are just plain unfriendly to general aviation.

[walesregent]

Thanks OA, that's sound advice. I was mainly thinking of safety as a way in the door, but I guess you are correct that there may be better ways to frame the argument. Whatever the means I would like to demonstrate that affordable air travel is an effective means of addressing the myriad problems with rural and regional Australia. I also agree that simply chucking money at infrastructure may not be the best means (busselton ad springs to mind- no circuits lest you get in the way of one of the twice weekly Fokker 50s).

The medical transport argument would also work well, I think, and there are definitely stats on the tyranny of distance there. E.g. If you have a major embolic stroke (whilst awake) in Perth (or any major centre) you have a reasonably good chance of getting thrombolysis and preserving brain function. If you were in Laverton you'd likely be a vegetable.

Wmk2, I am very much attune to the concept of acceptable risk (I myself must not be too risk averse because I have spent a lot of time in se bug smashers), but our regulator, it would seem, is not. I was thinking that if I was to get said local member on board providing a pathway to overcoming certain 'opposition' would be important and this would likely mean countering burdensome safety regulation- hopefully with evidence rather than just reason.

[LeadSled]

------ are not as hazardous as the overall statistics reveal and that the heavy hand of regulation is gradually squashing GA- without (I would love to demonstrate) actually making it safer.

Folks,
You do not know how true that is of GA. Many years ago,(about 30) FAA published a comparison of accident rates versus the "weight" of regulation applied, right down to countries that had virtually no real "on the ground" regulation.

Interestingly, there was very little difference in the safety outcomes, and certainly no correlation between the level of regulation and the air safety outcome.

This was, in part, the starting point for FAA's recognition that, in the highly diverse world of GA, the only thing that would work was education to prevent the accident in the first place, and in reality, GA could not be penalised in not having accidents.

Over the years (until relatively recently) the FAA approach has the results to show for it education programs, while countries like Australia, having started with statistics for air safety outcomes almost the same as US, have showed no real improvement, other than that attributable to much reduced private and light business flying hours.

Very heavily regulated west European countries ( like Australia) do not have a good record.

In about 2001, AOPA AU published a very comprehensive comparison of aviation safety statistics, its accuracy was verified for the then Minister, by the NTSB.

It showed AU GA with about double the accident rate of US, the Australian airline accident rate was about three times the US, using ICAO definitions, and not Australian self serving definitions.

I doubt that there would be any significant changes, if you re-ran the research for the present day.

Tootle pip!!

[004wercras]

Well I am still alive and in over 40 years have been involved in the following;
• Flown aircraft for a living
• Raced stock cars
• Owned and ridden motorbikes
• Survived several large earthquakes
• Went tornado chasing in Texas
• Spent a month on foot trekking the Andes
• Lived a somewhat 'robust' lifestyle in Asia for a solid 5 years and never got HIV or knob rot
• And.......had my fishing rod struck by lightning while I was trying to outrun a severs storm, on Moreton Bay, in my 16 foot tinnie.

At this rate I'm guessing that my fu#king luck will run out by getting stung by a wasp or hit by a meteorite.
Facts and figures aside, if you're going to die you will die. No use thinking too much or worrying about it. Life is what it is, go and enjoy yourself and forget what the statistics say :ok:

[walesregent]

Facts and figures aside, if you're going to die you will die. No use thinking too much or worrying about it. Life is what it is, go and enjoy yourself and forget what the statistics say

That's all well and good, but unfortunately someone does think awfully hard about it (note the term 'think' rather than apply evidence) and at random intervals decides to impose rules which suck the joy- not to mention viability- out of it. As boring as stats may be, they may be the only means of reversing the tide.