How dangerous is GA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How dangerous is GA.
Anyone have any stats on how dangerous GA is? The reason I am curious is that recently I applied for an increase in my life insurance. One of the questions was "do you participate in any flying activities other than a fare paying passenger". Apparently ticking the yes box invokes a huge penalty for the rates quoted.
I would have thought it was more dangerous to be on the public roads than flying in GA.
Ric
I would have thought it was more dangerous to be on the public roads than flying in GA.
Ric
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno about the stats sorry, but recently I asked my insurance company to confirm that if I die in an aircraft accident while I am working as a pilot they'll still pay out. And they did but only as I had the policy before I took up training to become a pilot.
cub
cub
Nunc est bibendum
What is interesting is that if you're a 'fare paying passenger' then you don't have an increase in premium. It doesn't matter that you may be doing more hours in an aeroplane per annum than those who fly those very same 'fare paying passengers' between point A and point B. However, if you are the one doing the flying of those fare paying passengers then your premium goes through the roof. That doesn't make sense. I did try to explain that point to the insurance company. They didn't buy it! 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
This is from the propaganda figures issued by ATSB, The facts are that that this may be true if you include private, business and agricultural flying along with charter flying. Private and business flying has a high accident rate, about the same as ag flying used to be, Charter flying has a much lower accident rate.
But this is all secret npw, as the actual figures for each category are not available.
This is from the propaganda figures issued by ATSB, The facts are that that this may be true if you include private, business and agricultural flying along with charter flying. Private and business flying has a high accident rate, about the same as ag flying used to be, Charter flying has a much lower accident rate.
But this is all secret npw, as the actual figures for each category are not available.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: OZ
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Keg
Possibly the reason for your insurance issue is this.
"Commercial passenger transport"
Passengers and third parties (ground victims) are covered by mandatory internation law (read 'air carriers liability act). However, employees such as pilots and flight attendants are not. They would be covered under workers compensation.
The other important point is that the operator is strictly liably to the victims of air crashes. That is the victims do not have to sue for negligence, only prove that the they incured damages to person or property. They then receive automatic compensation, however that compensation is "limited" to about $500,000. There are exemptions from this such as acts of 'wilfull misconduct.' I will not go into that.
I pretty sure that the act covers all types of commercial operation, but obviously does not cover private operations.
The insurance companies therefore would not be concerned about policy holders traveling by commercial air transport as they would be covered under the act for some losses. Private pilots on the other hand are statisitically a greater risk to insurance companies.
As for commercial pilots..well maybe the insurance companies believe that we are at greater risk...i don't know.. maybe do a kamakaze or something to claim life insurance.
Any law guru please correct me if I am mistaken. I'd be interested to know what formulae the companies use to determine pilot 'risk.'
U2
Possibly the reason for your insurance issue is this.
"Commercial passenger transport"
Passengers and third parties (ground victims) are covered by mandatory internation law (read 'air carriers liability act). However, employees such as pilots and flight attendants are not. They would be covered under workers compensation.
The other important point is that the operator is strictly liably to the victims of air crashes. That is the victims do not have to sue for negligence, only prove that the they incured damages to person or property. They then receive automatic compensation, however that compensation is "limited" to about $500,000. There are exemptions from this such as acts of 'wilfull misconduct.' I will not go into that.
I pretty sure that the act covers all types of commercial operation, but obviously does not cover private operations.
The insurance companies therefore would not be concerned about policy holders traveling by commercial air transport as they would be covered under the act for some losses. Private pilots on the other hand are statisitically a greater risk to insurance companies.
As for commercial pilots..well maybe the insurance companies believe that we are at greater risk...i don't know.. maybe do a kamakaze or something to claim life insurance.
Any law guru please correct me if I am mistaken. I'd be interested to know what formulae the companies use to determine pilot 'risk.'
U2
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: OZstrayliya
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U2
Wouldn't we all. Dare I say the answer is complete bloody ignorance? 
Rationales a bit like shark or croc attack headlines: "Plane goes down due pilot error" vis a vis "Great white attacks surfer" or "Croc eats German tourist".
Scary isn't it? Sure does sell newspapers though!
TJ
I'd be interested to know what formulae the companies use to determine pilot 'risk.'
Rationales a bit like shark or croc attack headlines: "Plane goes down due pilot error" vis a vis "Great white attacks surfer" or "Croc eats German tourist".
Scary isn't it? Sure does sell newspapers though!
TJ
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: All over the show like a madwomans crap
Posts: 494
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer
As told to me by the insurance company when I said flying is safer than driving...................wait for it...........................
"Yes, but you have to drive to work, so that danger is on top of your flying sir."
Fark me, I never thought of that
Nosey
"Yes, but you have to drive to work, so that danger is on top of your flying sir."
Fark me, I never thought of that
Nosey
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason fare paying pax don't have an increased premium is that airline flying is nearly 10 times safer than recreational flying. Last (US) figures I saw put private flying above road use in the danger stakes.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason fare paying pax don't have an increased premium is that airline flying is nearly 10 times safer than recreational flying. Last (US) figures I saw put private flying above road use in the danger stakes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Given the number of d1ckheads on the road and the close calls I've had that were someone else's fault I had always been lead to believe the drive to the airport was the most dangerous part.
tric
Although a little out of date, there may be something of interest here:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/asi_2002.cfm
A
Although a little out of date, there may be something of interest here:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/asi_2002.cfm
A
Nunc est bibendum
Cloud clutter, you missed my point. I am the one flying those fare paying passengers around. My point was if that if it is so safe for the pax that they don't pay an increased premium, why should I when I'm the one flying them.
Thanks U2, I think you may be closer to the mark. It still disgusts me though!
Thanks U2, I think you may be closer to the mark. It still disgusts me though!
How dangerous is GA?
Check out the ATSB Website for a detailed report on the subject.
To summarise;
Fatality rate per 100,000,000 km in 1999
Air
- High Capacity RPT 0.0
- Low Capacity RPT 1.6
- General Aviation (fixed wing) 8.5
Road
- Drivers 0.5
- Drivers and passengers 0.7
- Motorcycles 17.5
- All motorised vehicles 1.0
- Bus passengers 0.7
So flying is 8 times more dangerous than driving, but 1/2 as dangerous as motorbiking.
Bevan..
Check out the ATSB Website for a detailed report on the subject.
To summarise;
Fatality rate per 100,000,000 km in 1999
Air
- High Capacity RPT 0.0
- Low Capacity RPT 1.6
- General Aviation (fixed wing) 8.5
Road
- Drivers 0.5
- Drivers and passengers 0.7
- Motorcycles 17.5
- All motorised vehicles 1.0
- Bus passengers 0.7
So flying is 8 times more dangerous than driving, but 1/2 as dangerous as motorbiking.
Bevan..
Yup, I'm trying to survive the "Well you'll never do that again will you?" events, including: lining up to land on the wrong runway, setting the wrong frequencies to talk to ATC, not watching electric flaps like a hawk, and not seeing traffic until the last minute.
Of course no one else has ever done any of these things right?
I seem to recall somewhere that the statistics show most dangerous phase of a pilots flying is at about 100 hours. Apparently students like me are too cautious to do totally stupid stuff and the training is reasonably fresh. About 100 hours apparently overconfidence sets in.
Of course no one else has ever done any of these things right?
I seem to recall somewhere that the statistics show most dangerous phase of a pilots flying is at about 100 hours. Apparently students like me are too cautious to do totally stupid stuff and the training is reasonably fresh. About 100 hours apparently overconfidence sets in.