Risky business . . .

[Gertrude the Wombat]

NB - My recent careers advisor (outplacement support... ) drooled all over my CV complete with flying achievements and looked at me as if I was loony when I asked if i should get rid of that bit! Guess it's a matter of taste.

What you need to avoid is the recruiter looking at the CV and thinking "yeah, fine, but with all that going on when is she going to find time to actually do some work?". I have decided not to call someone for interview because it looked from their CV as if their leisure activities were enough to occupy 25 hours per day.

Personally I do put flying on my CV ... but not the fact that I am a councillor (which does involve rather more time off work during office hours), largely on the grounds that if I get to the interview and the interviewer doesn't know by that stage that I'm a councillor, well, it's hardly my fault if they can't be bothered to do their homework.

[IO540]

A comparison with a motorbike isn't fair.

I have about 100k miles on a motorbike (from the 1970s and early 1980s, when traffic density was about 1/3 of today) and, assuming a reasonably competent rider, the chance of getting killed (as opposed to just grinding off a piece of skin) on one is tiny.

Until cars come into the picture.

Then, all of a sudden, you are playing Russian roulette.

You are approaching a side road, with some old geezer (or old girl) about to pull out. He's looking in your direction, you have your lights on, but he still pulls out.

Flying is nothing like that. Assuming a well maintained aircraft (quite an assumption sometimes, if one is limited to standard G-reg self fly hire), 99% of accidents are pilot error.

Mid-airs are so rare one can forget them, as a probability.

The thing I like about flying is that if I plan carefully, fly carefully, the chance of kicking the bucket is miniscule. I would much rather fly than drive, say 100nm or more. And that's true even if I have to do a GPS/VOR DIY IAP at the far end.

[Paris Dakar]

Happy Wanderer,

If you enjoy your flying (and obviously you do), and you take care, do some planning, then hopefully you will make it as safe as it can be.

When an aircraft has an accident - it makes the news, fact.

A few weeks back a Cessna made a forced landing less than a mile away from my house (the pilot was unhurt) and the newspapers had a hay-day. Two days ago, the traffic at the end of my street came to a standstill due to a road traffic accident, sadly there was a fatality but nothing was reported in the papers or local news?

I do understand your concerns tho, I have two young daughters and the same thoughts have crossed my mind - what would happen to the family if something happened to me?

I try to fly as safely as I possibly can - I was checked out on a 172 last month and the instructor asked me if my pre-flight checks always took so long? 'Yep' was my reply 'and 'sometimes longer' I added.

You never know what is around the corner and waiting for you? My wife was diagnosed with cancer 4 years ago and is receiving ongoing treatment, her outlook on life has changed dramatically. She has gone from being someone who would never take a risk on anything - and I mean anything, to someone wants to grab the bull by the horns and stick two fingers up to anyone who doesn't agree with that view.

Do what you want to do - but be safe.

Good luck

PD

[effortless]

I believe that the reason we have so much trouble with insurance is that there aren't enough of us doing it. The accident rate is really low as compared to motorcycling or driving but since we are a very small group they have no interest in dealing with us. If pilots numbered in the millions or even the hundreds of thousands, they would be fighting to get our business.

Generally it is worth remembering that when we have an accident, it is fairly terminal and the world will hear of it. We can bimble along in our cars and have as many accidents as we like and still survive. How many people do you know who have never had a prang in their motor? I mean never. Not many I'll bet. The chances of having an accident in an aircraft are pretty low providing you act sensibly.

[slim_slag]

I think the figure for pilot error causing accidents in GA is 83% (NTSB figures, don't know about the UK).

[MyData]

With regards mortgage life insurance - I mentioned it to the company I use. The (young sounding) call centre chap said 'No problem'. So I left it a couple of days and called back, this time got someone who went away to check. Still 'No problem'. I asked if they wanted something in writing from me - to confirm that I had told them - 'No, nothing required. You are covered'.

With regards PHI, life insurance at work: I stated I was a PPL student and that I had a CAA medical (Class II). Oh Lordy, this stirred up a whole lot of hassle. Now I need to go for more medical tests - which I *didn't* have to do before I told them I was learning to fly??? Go figure.

With regards to risk. Well, yes. It is something you and only you can make the decision on. My view is that this flying lark sharpens your senses, makes you a better person at assessing risks and really improves situational awareness. I've found that my driving habits are much more moderate since learning to fly. I just don't seem to take those risks that I would have previously.

And finally, with regards to skiing / flying / etc. on the CV. I'd put these in every time. If a company were to discriminate on those grounds it says much more about them than you. It demonstrates that you are outgoing and ready to learn new skills, that you are risk taker, but only when the risk is measured and you are in control. I've spent time both as an interviewer and interviewee, and also had 1-2-1 executive coaching. Key characteristics for roles I'm at in my organisation are the ability to be cool, calm and collected under pressure - can you demonstrate this? - Yes, when flying. You have to be able to demonstrate self assuredness and confidence (but not arrogance) - can you demonstrate this? - Yes, when flying. Can you demonstrate an ability to be free thinking, yet when it matters, to adhere to mandated processes and procedures? - Yes, when flying.

I'm not saying you answer all your interview questions with reference to flying ;-), but it can help you focus your answers. Skiiing has similar attributes - one wrong decision or loss of control could have catastrophic results for you.

[J.A.F.O.]

If you have any problems with insurance then try On Risk - they're brokers and sorted me out even though I fly for fun, fly for a living, smoke and ride horses (though never all at the same time).

I do everything that I can to ensure that I'm as safe as I can be but I refuse to sit in my chair at 80 wishing that I'd done it.

[IO540]

"I think the figure for pilot error causing accidents in GA is 83% (NTSB figures, don't know about the UK)."

Do you have the reference, SS?

I don't doubt you, but I'd like to see the breakdown of the other 17%.

The only real worry in flying is loss of control surface(s) or structural failure. The other stuff, e.g. engine failure, is adequately covered by having a second chance, and the probability of two unconnected systems failing concurrently is unbelievably low. An engine failure over land means a forced landing; I think about 80% of those are without injury. For example flying over water is covered by carrying a raft (the chance of an engine failure AND an in-service-interval raft failing to open is near zero). Even flying over mountains above an overcast layer is covered by carrying a GPS with terrain data and being high enough - much as that will make some people cringe.

17% is an awful lot for structural failure in an aircraft operated within design limits. If someone flies into a CB at Vne+20kt and it breaks up, I'd call that "pilot error" too.

[slim_slag]

IO540,

Busy now, when I get back from hols.

I said pilot error comes to 83%. Include human mechanic caused maintanance errors and you get closer to 90%. These are from memory, different years may have different figures.

You came out with 99%, where is your evidence for that?

Merry Christmas

[IO540]

A guesstimate of

100% - (loss of control surface(s) or structural failure)

Can't be far off.

I suppose a lot depends on whether one excludes microlights; they must get a higher % of structural failures (flying WITHIN the operating envelope I mean).

[The Right Stuff]

I think to consider the risks and be aware is healthy, but as has been said, don't become fixated on them.

I get butterflies before flying full size and my r/c models, but once the engine is going, checks being done, my mind is focussed.

Driving home last night I nearly had a head-on at 60mph+; I just rounded a corner and a car is on my side of the road doing an overtake. Less than a second to react, no point braking, just tuck myself into the verge.

Not much you can do about that.

Had a suspension failure on my car a year or so ago. That made me think. I didn't crash it, but had it happened a mile or two earlier, I could have gone off the road and down a big drop.

Not much I could do about that one either.

When flying you've probably got more time than driving, if something goes wrong. Engine failure, even after take off, you've probably got five or six seconds to recognise, react and decide. Head-on as above, suspension failure and into a tree or whatever; not a chance. Structural failure in aircraft, not a chance. Likelyhood very small in non-aerobatic flying.

I'd rather be flying.

[englishal]

Roughly speaking around 89% of the CAUSE of GA accidents is human performance and limitations. 4 % is environmental reasons (wind shear etc...) and the remainder is down to aircraft failures.

Of aircraft failures roughtly half are due to power plant / propulsion, with 25% being related to "Fluid". Struture makes up about 10%.

Of human performance, roughly 65% is due to "Aircraft handling and control", and about a third due to "planning and decision making", the remainder is a mix.

This NTSB document for the year 2000 makes interesting reading:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/ARG0401.pdf

[172driver]

Didn't have any trouble with mortgage and/or insurance. All I had to do was fill in an 'Aircrew Questionaire' which asked for hours, type of flying (recreational or biz) and a few other questions. Never heard from them again (and have remortgaged two or three times in the interval, remaining with same insurance). If you shop around a bit, this should really not be a problem.

About the risk - that's a different matter. I reckon (other than the various comments above), one of the biggest risk-reducing strategies is the courage to say NO. No to a flight in marginal conditions, no to pushing on in weather that's getting worse, no to departing with an airplane you're not 100% sure about. It's not easy to send friends who have come to the aiport for a pleasure flight back home, I know. But sometimes this is exactly what you have to do.

Enjoy flying - and stay careful up there.

[snowfalcon2]

It's an attitude thing, as my CFI used to say. Your question already indicates that you're highly interested in flying as safely as possible, which is great.

Besides the excellent advice already contributed, I add two.
1) Always be aware of your risk-taking level. Often, one risk is manageable but taking several risks at once (for example, both marginal weather and lowish fuel status) may lead to problems. 2) Browse through accident reports at the AAIB website. After reading say fifty reports, you'll have a decent picture of what causes accidents and how they could have been avoided. Use that knowledge.

[High Wing Drifter]

Happy Wanderer,

With regard to the CV thing. There is a view by some that putting your hobbies on the CV is a bit naff. Was the advice to remove it related to the general idea of a hobbies section or flying/sking in particular.

On the question of risk, some potentially useless anecdotal evidence: I used to be a London motorcycle courier and a bike nut in general. I know a few dead bikers (non couriers strangely) but I don't know of any dead pilots even though I probably know/knew of more pilots than bikers.

[kookabat]

one of the biggest risk-reducing strategies is the courage to say NO. No to a flight in marginal conditions, no to pushing on in weather that's getting worse, no to departing with an airplane you're not 100% sure about. It's not easy to send friends who have come to the aiport for a pleasure flight back home, I know. But sometimes this is exactly what you have to do.

That's it in a nutshell. Decision-making would have to be one of the more important skills in flying - and one that's difficult to teach I'd think.
For me, I fly solely for the fun of it. So I can keep outside pressures to a minimum (Weather's marginal? ahh well, suppose we'll stay on the ground today - there's always next weekend!) - no 'schedule' to keep as such. And I'd like to keep it that way! It's one way of reducing the risk somewhat.
Life's short - flying's too fun to miss out on - and if something should happen to me while I'm up there, hopefully it was because I made an 'original' mistake. Read the accident report, learn from it and don't make the same mistake I did!!

Adam

[Footless Halls]

Thought-provoking topic.

just to endorse what most posters have said, insurance shouldn't be a problem given either sympathetic insurers and / or a modicum of shopping around.

Risk? Well yes it's an issue. At 250 hrs there have been times when I have been scared and worried. But would I give it up because of that? No. I enjoy flying too much. So I think about risk the whole time to try to be as sure as I can that I don't kill myself (or anyone else). And I've insured myself up to the hilt. At least if I go West my wife and kids can say - he died doing what he wanted to most of all and he made sure we wouldn't suffer - financially at least...

[DFC]

IO540,

I suppose a lot depends on whether one excludes microlights; they must get a higher % of structural failures (flying WITHIN the operating envelope I mean).

Microlights in the UK are required to meet a minimum design flight envelope of +6 and -3 G. In the flight manual this is limited to a operatin limit of +4 and -2G.

In 3 axis microlights, structural failure is as rare as it is in VLA or -23 aircraft.

Some of the older types actually come out at meeting a +8 limit and due to the high drag have to be aimed vertically down to reach VNE.

A matchstick can withstand over 100G.

Regards,

DFC

[slim_slag]

Happy New Year to all.

Happy Wanderer,

Take a look at this AOPA report (pdf). Suggests that 75% of accidents are pilot error, so you have a lot of influence on how safe your general aviation flying is. Don't become complacent.

Why is comparing motor cycle safety to general aviation safety wrong? It's easy for a new pilot asking the question to understand and uses an example we can get our heads around. It seems to me that it is generally accepted that flying on airlines is safer than driving a car. Why not say flying GA is safer than riding a bike? (Unless it isn't, does anybody believe that?)

[charliegolf]

But it will burn in the post-crash conflagration!

CG