PPL accident stats
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kent UK
Age: 70
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPL accident stats
I'm re-starting (and hopefully completing) my PPL next August; and my wife, who happily admits to being GA-ignorant, is worried over my safety. I have tried to allay her fears by explaining that for every light single she sees over our neck of the woods there may be another hundred or so (complete guess!) in other parts of the UK bumbling around not crashing. This does not help. 
It strikes me that an official sort of 'probability' statistic might do the trick. Anyone know where I can get hold of a "1 injury per X-thousand PPL flights" kind of figure?
TIA,
Kev.
It strikes me that an official sort of 'probability' statistic might do the trick. Anyone know where I can get hold of a "1 injury per X-thousand PPL flights" kind of figure?
TIA,
Kev.
Guest
Posts: n/a
See last diagram in
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...90&pageid=6277
Fatals only, but running at about 15 per million hours.
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...90&pageid=6277
Fatals only, but running at about 15 per million hours.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See last diagram in
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...90&pageid=6277
Fatals only, but running at about 15 per million hours.
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...90&pageid=6277
Fatals only, but running at about 15 per million hours.
It would be interesting to see how it relates with road deaths, I would expect a significant increase compared with air traffic.
I know that commercial air travel is reckoned to be the safest form of transport when compared using passenger air miles.
Lister
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might also want to factor in how safe it can be compared with how safe it is.
You could argue running out of fuel and killing yourself in a botched landing is part of the statistical risk - but you could also argue running out of fuel is just b%43" stupid.
How far you take that argument is up to you
.
Lies, damn lies and .. .. ..
You could argue running out of fuel and killing yourself in a botched landing is part of the statistical risk - but you could also argue running out of fuel is just b%43" stupid.
How far you take that argument is up to you
.Lies, damn lies and .. .. ..
there have been many discussions on various forums, and like most statistics you can put whatever spin on them to support your argument. but the best example i have seen is its about as safe a riding a motorcycle. if i get time later on i will try to find the relevant thread.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
"As safe as riding a motorcycle" is the usual one ...
... except that most motorcyclists are killed by other people outside their control, whilst many pilots kill themselves ...
... so you explain to her that you load the dice in your favour by
(1) obsessively reading the accident reports
(2) making sure you personally don't do any of the dafter things mentioned in them.
Thus, whilst the overall average death rate for pilots remains similar to that for motorcyclists, your personal chances are rather better than that. Press this home by cancelling the occasional trip because the weather is iffy or because you're feeling a bit tired or something.
... except that most motorcyclists are killed by other people outside their control, whilst many pilots kill themselves ...
... so you explain to her that you load the dice in your favour by
(1) obsessively reading the accident reports
(2) making sure you personally don't do any of the dafter things mentioned in them.
Thus, whilst the overall average death rate for pilots remains similar to that for motorcyclists, your personal chances are rather better than that. Press this home by cancelling the occasional trip because the weather is iffy or because you're feeling a bit tired or something.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there have been many discussions on various forums, and like most statistics you can put whatever spin on them to support your argument. but the best example i have seen is its about as safe a riding a motorcycle. if i get time later on i will try to find the relevant thread.
I've been flying single engine aeroplanes for nearly 30 years, in and out of small strips, all VFR, including a fair slice of aeros. So far so good, touch wood.
I've been riding motorcycles for 5 years, and last month a dozy car driver hit my bike FROM BEHIND (so i didn't see him coming), knocking me off and injuring me (not badly, but enough!). There's no equivalent of the dozy car driver in the air.
SSD
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bath, England
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When public transport flights in Hot-air Balloons were being approved (late 80's) the baseline figure for risk used in the risk assesment was the risk of violent death in the UK - about 1 in a million per day. Taking a flight in a balloon gives a risk of death of about 1 per million flights - so doubling your risk of violent death for the day. I recall the risk of GA being a few times higher.
Violent death = car crash, falling down stairs etc etc
Dave
Violent death = car crash, falling down stairs etc etc
Dave
oh dear, seem to have opened a can of worms. as i said earlier, you can make the stats say what you want to believe, but if you want to give a reasonably accurate and understandable answer to a non-flyer, the bike thing is as good as any IMHO (thats what i told my wife anyway).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA stats show that you will be involved in a non-fatal accident about once every 15,000 hours, and you will be killed once every 100,000 flight hours 
I duuno how many hours you will do per year, but 15,000 hours over 35 years is about 23 per month.....!
I duuno how many hours you will do per year, but 15,000 hours over 35 years is about 23 per month.....!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you strip out the stupid things that pilots do (like running out of fuel) then the risk is much lower than the "motorbike" figure. Probably an order of magnitude lower.
The real question is: how do you avoid doing stupid things like running out of juice? The fuel management practices in many flying schools leave a lot to be desired. You have to be really conservative in the way you do things.
I've done many thousands of miles on motorbikes and would not go on them today - too many half blind drivers on the roads. In flying, it's down to you - except when you are given a badly serviced plane and something falls off, and that's very rare. You can greatly improve the chances of that one too, by refusing to fly something that is too knackered. You may have to pay a somewhat higher hourly rate though
The real question is: how do you avoid doing stupid things like running out of juice? The fuel management practices in many flying schools leave a lot to be desired. You have to be really conservative in the way you do things.
I've done many thousands of miles on motorbikes and would not go on them today - too many half blind drivers on the roads. In flying, it's down to you - except when you are given a badly serviced plane and something falls off, and that's very rare. You can greatly improve the chances of that one too, by refusing to fly something that is too knackered. You may have to pay a somewhat higher hourly rate though
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to a recent safety evening the fatal accident rate in the uk for fixed wing aircraft is 1 in 70,000 hours. For Gyro’s it is 1 in 1500 hours. This includes all the stupid ones so for the ½ competent pilot who stays current you are going to be looking at well over 1 in 100,000.
Rod1
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are not two but three kinds of statistics:
Real ones.
Fake ones.
CAA ones.
For an example of really sloppy analysis (too strong a word to use) see the CAA Ontrack report on CAS busts.
To get any meaningful grip on GA safety one would need a more detailed breakdown than I have ever seen. The problem is the vast spectrum of pilot skills, and the vast spectrum of aircraft ages, maintenance practices, and also a pretty wide spectrum of maintenance engineering skills.
There are lots of planes flying whose reliability is far below average - due to engine types, or simply sheer age.
There are also pilots flying who do zero flight planning. They don't get any weather data, and occassionally get badly caught out.
Unless one strips these out into separate categories, it's all a bit like saying the average of 0 and 10 is 5, which is true but the standard deviation shows the mockery of it
Real ones.
Fake ones.
CAA ones.
For an example of really sloppy analysis (too strong a word to use) see the CAA Ontrack report on CAS busts.
To get any meaningful grip on GA safety one would need a more detailed breakdown than I have ever seen. The problem is the vast spectrum of pilot skills, and the vast spectrum of aircraft ages, maintenance practices, and also a pretty wide spectrum of maintenance engineering skills.
There are lots of planes flying whose reliability is far below average - due to engine types, or simply sheer age.
There are also pilots flying who do zero flight planning. They don't get any weather data, and occassionally get badly caught out.
Unless one strips these out into separate categories, it's all a bit like saying the average of 0 and 10 is 5, which is true but the standard deviation shows the mockery of it
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Age: 38
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope Genghis the Engineer won't mind me quoting one of his exellent replies in a thread which I seem to remember covering this. See Below:
Probably the best time to tell her you wish to buy a motorbike too! 
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sth Bucks UK
Age: 60
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was trying to convince someone as to the relative safety of GA, the LAST thing I would want to compare it to would be motorcycling, regardless of whether the statistics are accurate or not.
I have ridden bikes for 25 years, and have today sold my bike, helmet jacket, boots, the whole shebang, because I KNOW that after all the miles I've done, and all the accidents I've had, I'm on borrowed time.
Like all good politicians, I would be tempted to find some statistic that SUPPORTS my argument and then massage it accordingly!
I have ridden bikes for 25 years, and have today sold my bike, helmet jacket, boots, the whole shebang, because I KNOW that after all the miles I've done, and all the accidents I've had, I'm on borrowed time.
Like all good politicians, I would be tempted to find some statistic that SUPPORTS my argument and then massage it accordingly!
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
How about a bit of cunning psychology:
Tell her you are going to get a motorbike! Then when she rightly points out the dangers, say OK, no motorbike, flying instead.
Job done!
SD
Tell her you are going to get a motorbike! Then when she rightly points out the dangers, say OK, no motorbike, flying instead.
Job done!
SD