Flying is danagerous - a risk assessment - comments please
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hellfire Corner
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
taildraggers are more dangerous than nose gear planes in general
ContactTower please elucidate. I am in danger of needing a RA before walking up to my aeroplane now. Will she explode because there's no wheel at the front? Does the tailwheel trigger a landmine as it trundles along the grass? I'm intrigued.
I think I would refer the OP and all since to what is basic in risk assessments. People make accidents, not the tools and equipment.
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
Risk is the degree of exposure to both negative events and their probable consequences.
Risk differs from uncertainty in that it can be measured.
Risk is measured in terms of both consequences and likelihood.
It is therefore pretty meaningless in discussion to say that there is a "risk" of death associate with an activity - unless the probability of that outcome is also stated.
Risk assessment is concerned with identifying the hazards associated with an activity, and also assessing the probabilities associated with each hazard - the sum of "hazard x probability" is effectively the overall risk.
From this a strategy of risk management can be implemented to mitigate the effects of the hazards and / or reduce the probabilities to lower the overall risk to an acceptable level, commensurate with the objectives (e.g. to go flying).
It may be that it is not possible to manage the risk to an acceptable level, in which case the sane decision would be not to embark on the endeavour!
Of course, the above is a great simplification of a complex subject! It is rarely easy to quantify all the hazards and associated consequences, let alone to calculate the probabilities. And I have not mentioned categorizing risk according to severity. Yet we do this daily at both conscious and unconscious levels for a wide variety of activities, from crossing the street to deciding whether the weather is suitable to go flying.
SD
Risk differs from uncertainty in that it can be measured.
Risk is measured in terms of both consequences and likelihood.
It is therefore pretty meaningless in discussion to say that there is a "risk" of death associate with an activity - unless the probability of that outcome is also stated.
Risk assessment is concerned with identifying the hazards associated with an activity, and also assessing the probabilities associated with each hazard - the sum of "hazard x probability" is effectively the overall risk.
From this a strategy of risk management can be implemented to mitigate the effects of the hazards and / or reduce the probabilities to lower the overall risk to an acceptable level, commensurate with the objectives (e.g. to go flying).
It may be that it is not possible to manage the risk to an acceptable level, in which case the sane decision would be not to embark on the endeavour!
Of course, the above is a great simplification of a complex subject! It is rarely easy to quantify all the hazards and associated consequences, let alone to calculate the probabilities. And I have not mentioned categorizing risk according to severity. Yet we do this daily at both conscious and unconscious levels for a wide variety of activities, from crossing the street to deciding whether the weather is suitable to go flying.
SD
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brighton. UK. (Via Liverpool).
Posts: 5,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You take a risk getting up in the morning, crossing the street, or sticking your face in a fan!"
Name the film...
xxxx
f
Name the film...
xxxx
f
Do I win a pint????????
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ContactTower please elucidate. I am in danger of needing a RA before walking up to my aeroplane now. Will she explode because there's no wheel at the front? Does the tailwheel trigger a landmine as it trundles along the grass? I'm intrigued.
Having said that though as far as the landing and take off phase is concerned one would be a fool to treat the Super Cub like it was the idiot proof PA28. In that sense at least...all other things being equal...taildraggers are more 'dangerous' than nose gear aircraft.
And just so we are clear...if I had my way all light aircraft would be taildraggers.
Last edited by Contacttower; 23rd Nov 2007 at 14:23.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attempting to remain VFR with lowering cloud base.
A recent report into flying out to the rigs in the North Sea put the most dangerous part of the trip as the drive to the airport. And they still make everyone wear rubber suits and do the dunker every three years.
A recent report into flying out to the rigs in the North Sea put the most dangerous part of the trip as the drive to the airport. And they still make everyone wear rubber suits and do the dunker every three years.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all other things being equal...taildraggers are more 'dangerous' than nose gear aircraft.
You're talking rubbish.
The only difference in handling between a nosewheel and tailwheel aeroplane is during taxying, take-off and landing.
With the appropriate skills both are fine.
Insurers do not make any differences in premiums between the two set ups making it fairly obvious that there is no additional risk.
You may have a taildragger in your avatar but if these are the convictions you hold I doubt that you are either very experienced or confident.
What I will grant you is that windwise tailwheel boats are sooner at the handling limits than the comparable nosewheel variants (ie nosewheel vs tailwheel Maule) but there is such a variety in aeroplanes that you can not use that generalisation.
A DC3 in skilled hands can be flown in more adverse conditions than a PA28 by a low houred PPL.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO ground operations are the most dangerous bit of flying.
I've never had as much as a scare when airborne, but had one or two major mishaps (none my fault) on the ground, plus a load of sticky situations (usually to do with negligent airfield surface maintenance at some of the places I've been to) which luckily did not result in damage.
As for flying itself, one should always have an escape route. Therefore, I avoid SE night flight for long periods because there is no escape route. Other stuff e.g. over water flight is handled by carrying a raft etc. Mountains are OK - fly high above and have a GPS displaying the topo chart so one can glide into a valley if there is an overcast.
I've never had as much as a scare when airborne, but had one or two major mishaps (none my fault) on the ground, plus a load of sticky situations (usually to do with negligent airfield surface maintenance at some of the places I've been to) which luckily did not result in damage.
As for flying itself, one should always have an escape route. Therefore, I avoid SE night flight for long periods because there is no escape route. Other stuff e.g. over water flight is handled by carrying a raft etc. Mountains are OK - fly high above and have a GPS displaying the topo chart so one can glide into a valley if there is an overcast.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night IMC - I recall reading more than once that some of the most demanding of all flying we do is night IMC. If you read the NTSB reports it is indeed noteworthy how many accidents occur at night in IMC. Of course in Europe so little night IMC is flown that the number of accidents are insignificant.
Formation - some would have you believe this accounts for the highest number of accidents. I am not sure whether the evidence supports that assertion. As has been discussed on another thread there are of course variation of formation from flying in very well spaced company, to tactical and close formation.
Tail wheel in to farm strips - I guess I mentioned this one not so much with an eye on the tail wheel in particular, but because it is tail wheel aircraft that are more likely to go into the shortest strips and therefore press the boundaries of what is possible. While usually the accidents aren’t serious, they do seem to account for a fair number. Perhaps that is just because pilots are “pushing” the boundaries, or because conditions are less controlled (usually the strips are un- managed and inevitably grass).
Risk can be managed, although I am not sure how you manage the risk of night flying with one engine. If the engine stops there is a large amount of unmanageable luck involved.
Only a fool doesn’t try and manage the risk (albeit there are plenty of fools around). We might assume that most pilots who fly night IMC have therefore taken what steps they consider necessary to best manage the risk. However the accident rate is high. This might suggest it is one of the most “demanding” forms flying takes. However, on the other hand so is aerobatics, but interestingly the accident rate is very low. I wonder if this is because the pilots manage the risk better or because the risk is inherently less?
Formation - some would have you believe this accounts for the highest number of accidents. I am not sure whether the evidence supports that assertion. As has been discussed on another thread there are of course variation of formation from flying in very well spaced company, to tactical and close formation.
Tail wheel in to farm strips - I guess I mentioned this one not so much with an eye on the tail wheel in particular, but because it is tail wheel aircraft that are more likely to go into the shortest strips and therefore press the boundaries of what is possible. While usually the accidents aren’t serious, they do seem to account for a fair number. Perhaps that is just because pilots are “pushing” the boundaries, or because conditions are less controlled (usually the strips are un- managed and inevitably grass).
Risk can be managed, although I am not sure how you manage the risk of night flying with one engine. If the engine stops there is a large amount of unmanageable luck involved.
Only a fool doesn’t try and manage the risk (albeit there are plenty of fools around). We might assume that most pilots who fly night IMC have therefore taken what steps they consider necessary to best manage the risk. However the accident rate is high. This might suggest it is one of the most “demanding” forms flying takes. However, on the other hand so is aerobatics, but interestingly the accident rate is very low. I wonder if this is because the pilots manage the risk better or because the risk is inherently less?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We might assume that most pilots who fly night IMC have therefore taken what steps they consider necessary to best manage the risk. However the accident rate is high. This might suggest it is one of the most “demanding” forms flying takes.
The more interesting question is why so many people know this and yet still do it (and yes, that includes me, including directly over the North Sea on a few occasions ...) ?
FF
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Umm ... or could this possibly be because, unlike flying aeros etc, there's by and large sweet FA you can do if the donkey stops ?
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're talking rubbish.
Insurers do not make any differences in premiums between the two set ups making it fairly obvious that there is no additional risk.
I don't know about this country...but in the US insurance companies do recognise that taildraggers are more likely to be crashed. I was talking to some US pilot in passing a while ago and he said that due to his low hours he couldn't get insurance for a Husky that he dreamed of buying. Why do you think that schools in the US are so 'funny' about taildraggers? Even if the actual risk is the same, the percieved risk is greater.
I quite agree about the DC-3...but the experience of the pilot is not relevant to what I was saying since I made it clear that I meant 'all things being equal'.
Perhaps what I should have said was 'To the fairly low experience pilot the taildragger is more risky than the nose wheel'. Once the pilot has lots of hours on taildraggers, or if he has always flown taildraggers then the risk difference disappears.
Last edited by Contacttower; 23rd Nov 2007 at 14:26.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see why night IMC should be particularly dangerous, if one is a current enough instrument pilot to fly the approaches at the end.
Flying at night is harder work but one needs an autopilot for any serious IFR anyway.
Flying at night is harder work but one needs an autopilot for any serious IFR anyway.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I avoid SE night flight for long periods because there is no escape route.
Ever heard of a parachute (either personal or fitted to the airframe)? Granted it might only be a good idea during daylight.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see why night IMC should be particularly dangerous, if one is a current enough instrument pilot to fly the approaches at the end.
Flying at night is harder work but one needs an autopilot for any serious IFR anyway.
Flying at night is harder work but one needs an autopilot for any serious IFR anyway.
Approaches that go wrong also seem to be a big factor where the differing visual cues may be relevant.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look I don't want to get into a silly arguement about this...because actually I suspect in reality that our views on taildraggers are pretty much the same. A little while ago a friend of mine started doing his PPL on a Super Cub and on his first solo he ground looped it and damaged it to the point that he had to complete his PPL on the C152.
Once your friend is trained to fly taildraggers, he'll find it no more 'dangerous' than nosewheel flying. There is nothing intrinsically more dangerous about a tailwheel aeroplane over a nosewheel one.
Indeed once tailwheel trained, you friend will actually be a safer pilot since, even when flying a nosewheel aircraft, he will hold off correctly because of his tailwheel training. He will thus be far less likely to become one of those several pilots in the AAIB reports each month who break their aircraft's noselegs. Just watch the C172s and PA28s landing at GA fields - many will land on all 3 wheels together, with little or no attempt at a hold off.
Yer tailwheel pilot would never inflict that on an aeroplane.
SSD
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed once tailwheel trained, you friend will actually be a safer pilot since, even when flying a nosewheel aircraft, he will hold off correctly because of his tailwheel training. He will thus be far less likely to become one of those several pilots in the AAIB reports each month who break their aircraft's noselegs. Just watch the C172s and PA28s landing at GA fields - many will land on all 3 wheels together, with little or no attempt at a hold off.
Once airbourne the plane doesn't care where the nose wheel is so from a risk point of view they are the same. But are you seriously telling me that you aren't more likely to be involved in a take-off/landing accident in a taildragger than a nose gear aircraft?
If someone was trying to say: 'Taildraggers are dangerous' then I'd be the first to stand up and correct him...because I don't believe they are and like you said, with proper training they are fine.
But danger and risk are relative terms as well and I think if I asked an instructor: 'Which is more likely to be involved in a landing or take off accident, a nose or tailwheel aircraft?' They would say tailwheel.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But are you seriously telling me that you aren't more likely to be involved in a take-off/landing accident in a taildragger than a nose gear aircraft?
But danger and risk are relative terms as well and I think if I asked an instructor: 'Which is more likely to be involved in a landing or take off accident, a nose or tailwheel aircraft?' They would say tailwheel.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I refer you again to all those broken noselegs, props, and shock-loaded engines in the AAIB reports every month.
As I said I don't really want an arguement over this...so I'm not going to reassert what I said earlier (because you'll just disagree with me). Instead I'm just going to say what I think...in terms of me i.e. my personal perception of risk when I go flying:
When I go flying in the PA28 I don't really think about landing/taking off too much...after all it's a pretty solid plane...it doesn't pull any tricks and to be fair in good conditions its difficult to mess up the landing if you arrive over the threshold at the right height and speed; power off as you flare, raise the nose a bit, hold and 99/100 the main gear will kiss the ground followed by the nosegear shortly afterwards. Overall in terms of the different risks associated with different parts of the flight take off/landing does not rank very high.
When I go flying in the Super Cub my perception of the risk changes slightly...I'm never worried about running out of runway for example...but the risk associated with take off/landing increases in my mind slightly. When you open up the throttle it's not just 'sit there and wait for the speed to build'; one has to be much more active with the controls. I personally find landing the Super Cub harder than landing a PA28...and in my mind that equates to a greater degree of risk involved in the action.
These aren't the words of someone spreading 'barroom bravado' about taildraggers or someone who flys in fear of what the aircraft might do to them but someone who is slightly in awe of one of the greatest planes ever built and has the sense to treat it with the respect it needs and deserves.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said I don't really want an arguement over this...
Go get a tailwheel checkout and discover what tosh you are spouting.
Edit: You say you fly Supercubs. I find that worrying... I'm glad it's not my Supercub.