Flying is danagerous - a risk assessment - comments please

[Tony Hirst]

Search the AAIB database for "Ground Loop" is interesting and tricycles turn up in the results. However, the results for "landing", "grass strip", "farm strip", "prop strike" all seem pretty much configuration agnostic.

Myth Busted?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

CT - a B747 is more difficult and more challenging to fly than a PA28. Is it therefore a more dangerous aeroplane than the PA28?

SSD

[Contacttower]

Lies, Dam Lies and Statistics:

tunalic2 I don't know how the different methods of collecting data compare but the article that Chili Monster posted does disagree with what you assert:

Conclusion

Choosing "mile to mile" as the more appropriate comparison for differing modes of transportation (and overlooking that small planes often takeoff and land at the same airport, without ever really "going anywhere"), let's review the fatality rates:

• driving: 1.32 fatal accidents and 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles
• airlines: .05 fatal accidents and 1.57 fatalities per 100 million miles
• GA: 7.46 fatal accidents and 13.1 fatalities per 100 million miles

I'm going to stick by that.

[Contacttower]

CT - a B747 is more difficult and more challenging to fly than a PA28. Is it therefore a more dangerous aeroplane than the PA28?

Of course not. But that has a lot to do with the much greater reliability of jet engines, superior training, standardisation of procedures and the strength and redundancy built into the 747 compared to your average GA aircraft. The 'danger' comparison of the two has little to do with how hard they are to fly in the case of 747 vs. PA28.

The reason your statement is not relevant to this discussion is this:

When I said 'taildraggers are more dangerous than nosewheel aircraft' and 'my perception of risk increases slightly when I go flying in the Super Cub' I was drawing a direct comparsion between a GA type with a nosewheel and a GA with a tailwheel. Apart from the landing/take off they are the same; in the air they are both just as likely to have an engine failure, both have solid handling and are both as likely to be involved in a loss of control in VMC or any other accident that happens after take off/before landing.

The 747 however because it has many more engines, better system reliability and all the rest is inherently a safer plane.

Returning to the tailwheel vs. nosewheel I stick by what I said earlier:

Tailwheel aircraft are more likely to be involved in a take off/landing accident than a nosegear aircraft.

Who else is going to disagree with me? (Bearing in mind that I have the opinion of the US aircraft insurance industry on my side).

Edit:

As a little comparison:

When I did my FAA Sea Plane rating I was told that an amphibian was more than three times as likely to be involved in a landing gear related accident than a land based plane, reason being that the gear system is usually more complex and also that one has to remember to have the gear up for water and down for land. Does that make floatplanes dangerous? No. Does it make them more dangerous than a land plane (if we treat them as the same in the air)? Well yes I suppose it does.

[englishal]

The stats prove several things:

a) PPLs who do not continue training are the most likely to come a cropper
b) PPLs who continue beyone PPL level by adding further training (Aero's, IR, CPL etc..) are less likely to come a cropper
c) EF's in SEPs don't kill an awful lot of people
d) IFR at night is no more dangerous than VFR at night, but may be safer depending on where you are flying (i.e. proper IFR, not mickeymouse IFR)
e) IFR is safer than VFR (else all 777's would fly VFR)
f) Pilots of Twins, although less likely to be involved in an accident are more likely to be killed if they do.
g) MOST accidents are pilot error (75%+), or are contributed to be pilot error.

So the conclusion is: Keep training, add new ratings every few years, and be the best you can and don't take silly risks (while aero's is completely safe, what kills people is the bloke who thinks "oh I'll just do a low fly past and do a roll for my wife and kids".....)

By the way, the NTSB publish their stats so anyone can read them....

[Contacttower]

So the conclusion is: Keep training, add new ratings every few years, and be the best you can and don't take silly risks (while aero's is completely safe, what kills people is the bloke who thinks "oh I'll just do a low fly past and do a roll for my wife and kids".....)

Amen to that.

[hobbit1983]

So inferring from englishal's conclusions, the pilots most likely to have an accident are;

Qualified vanilla PPLs, flying VFR - and they're probably not going to die during a forced landing.

And you're much safer off under IFR - so quite possibly IMC, and also safer flying SEP & having done aeros.

So ideally we would keep the IMC and make it a worldwide qualification, and also bring back aeros & spinning to the PPL syallbus.

Or have I got it totally backwards?

[BelArgUSA]

Facts and opinion about how dangerous flying is...

Airline pilot here... one more year to go then will retire... I fly since age 15, and have logged about 22,000 hrs.
xxx
Who are experts in death statistics...? -
The experts are life insurance companies... Some years ago, I took a life insurance with my wife and kids as beneficiairies. I expected to pay an extra for premiums because I was a pilot... It was not the case. The fact was that I could fly as pilot with a commercial airline, and pay no higher premiums. But I would have had to pay extra if flying privately, or flying military aircraft... or had a motorcycle...!
xxx
The most dangerous lightplanes to fly: underpowered light twin engines... one example: the PA-23 Apache (2 x 160 hp) which is unable to maintain flight if one engine fails at maximum certificated weight. With an extra engine, twice as likely to have... an engine failure.
xxx
Taildraggers more dangerous - no - I dont think so... I learned to fly in a Piper L-4 (Cub) and got my PPL in such airplane at 17 of age. My son started to fly at age 13 with me, in a L-21C Super Cub, and he also got his PPL in that type of aircraft. As a knowledgeable pilot, I recommended to him to learn to fly in a taildragger first. A Super Cub will get you "out of troubles" much easier than any of the modern flying machines. You probably can land just about anywhere. And, if you landed there, you will be able to takeoff from that small piece of real estate. Not many planes can do that...
xxx
A 747 is more difficult to fly than a PA-28...?
I do not think so.
Of all the planes I have flown, I consider that the 747 to be the easiest plane to fly, extremely stable, and after 18 years flying it, never had any hard landing... Hand flying an ILS in a 747...? Put it on the localizer and glide slope, and it will stay there... With a PA-28, I bet you must fight all the way down the ILS from FAF to your touchdown.
xxx

Happy contrails

[Contacttower]

Taildraggers more dangerous - no - I dont think so... I learned to fly in a Piper L-4 (Cub) and got my PPL in such airplane at 17 of age. My son started to fly at age 13 with me, in a L-21C Super Cub, and he also got his PPL in that type of aircraft. As a knowledgeable pilot, I recommended to him to learn to fly in a taildragger first. A Super Cub will get you "out of troubles" much easier than any of the modern flying machines. You probably can land just about anywhere. And, if you landed there, you will be able to takeoff from that small piece of real estate. Not many planes can do that...

BelArgUSA- you're clearly a much more experienced pilot than me and as someone who learnt on tailwheels you probably don't see any difference between the two in terms of the likelihood of a landing accident- but in the modern GA enviroment, considering that most taildraggers are flown by people who (like me) started on nosewheels and have the majority of their hours on nosewheels I can't help thinking that a tailwheel aircraft is more likely to be involved in a landing accident than a nosewheel aircraft.

[ATP_Al]

I'm not sure I see the point of this thread. Is the poster trying to absolve him/herself of any worry/responsibility because others say his flying is "safe?"

I would say attitude and training are the biggest variables in calculating the risk. Seemingly straightforward tasks and can be made very dangerous if you don't consider the eventualities and honestly assess your skill and experience. On the other hand you see plenty of "higher risk" flying activities accomplished safely because of the high standard of planning, decision making and training involved.

I'd say the most dangerous types of flying are those you're complacent enough to label as safe.

[Contacttower]

I'm not sure I see the point of this thread. Is the poster trying to absolve him/herself of any worry/responsibility because others say his flying is "safe?"

I think (Fuji correct me if I'm wrong) its just for interest mainly. One is never going to say anything is "safe" in absolute terms. Danger/safety is just relative in reality.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I think the thread is showing that CT is lacking confidence in his TW ability, so feels safer in his NW aeroplane.

CT - I suggest you find a good TW instructor (not suggesting your previous one was not good) and get some more instruction. Then go fly your Super Cub in the circuit for as long as it takes for you to feel comfortable with it.

Then fly it some more. And some more. It's a great aeroplane and very safe.

SSD

[BelArgUSA]

Contactower -
xxx
Anyone "learning to fly" and asking me "which plane to learn to fly first", I would answer "a taildragger" in any case. I believe the best airplanes would be DH-82 Tiger Moth, or Stampe SV-4 with an open cockpit... The Cubs and equivalent (Auster AOP6 class) are second best trainers.
xxx
I realize 90% of the people now learn to fly in tricycle gear airplanes... and the transition from that type to taildragger requires most pilots some hours of dual instruction... I remember, having my taildragger PPL, getting qualified to fly a tri-gear C-150 required me to get... 45 minutes dual and 3 landings...
xxx
A comparison (about learning to drive cars) -
Would you learn to drive first, with automatic transmission, or would you first learn to drive a car with a clutch and 4 or 5 speeds... same philosophy. How about an old MGA and learn to double clutch down to the first gear which was not synchronized...?
xxx
All the best
Happy contrails

[Tony Hirst]

Contact Tower,

Tailwheel aircraft are more likely to be involved in a take off/landing accident than a nosegear aircraft.

You seem a bit beleaguered, I don't wish to add to the onslaught, just some additional thoughts following a cursory investigation. I completely understand your rational but, surely the crux of Fuji's original post and this debate is to identify something more conclusive. Now if you wrote "Is more likely to widen the eyes a little more than usual" I might tentatively agree with you But I don't see anything to suggest tailwheel aircraft have more accidents during takeoff/landing.

I don't see any practical relevance to takeoff anyway, a tailwheel is only really unstable during deceleration - usually a small window of time at a relatively low speed a few seconds after landing. An aborted take-off is a distinct candidate for problems, but looking at the AAIB I find only one t/w in the 8 results and that was a turboprop that the pilot thought related to his abrupt use of reverse pitch.

Nobody can deny that a tailwheel requires a different technique and can more unforgiving in certain specific circumstances, but that lesser forgiveness does not, in my view, translate to danger or risk. Those are separate propositions that require more parameters that don't seem to be born out by some cursory searches of the AAIB.

Also, don't believe that tricycle gear aircraft are forgiving, they are not. There are numerous AAIB reports where "safety aeroplanes" have ground loops, overran, stalled, undershot, damaged the gear (particularly the nose) and struck props. These events seem to be just as likely regardless of the configuration, except that when searching the AAIB for "propeller struck", 4 out of 16 aircraft returned were t/w.

Interesting stuff

[Contacttower]

Anyone "learning to fly" and asking me "which plane to learn to fly first", I would answer "a taildragger" in any case.

I really regret not learning in a tailwheel because I certainly prefer flying them to nosegear aircraft.

I think the thread is showing that CT is lacking confidence in his TW ability, so feels safer in his NW aeroplane.

To be honest I do feel slightly safer in the PA28 than in the Super Cub...but that is completely different from lacking confidence. I little bit of fear and respect is a good thing...it keeps you alert and it stops you getting complacent. Perception has a lot to do with it.

CT - I suggest you find a good TW instructor (not suggesting your previous one was not good) and get some more instruction. Then go fly your Super Cub in the circuit for as long as it takes for you to feel comfortable with it.

I really don't feel I need to- I'm completely happy with my skills, I just recognise that as a pilot who learnt on nosewheel aircraft and who has the majority of my hours on nosewheel aircraft I am probably more likely to have a landing accident in the Cub than in the PA28. We aren't all as experienced as SSD!

I don't see any practical relevance to takeoff anyway, a tailwheel is only really unstable during deceleration - usually a small window of time at a relatively low speed a few seconds after landing.

Due to torque, gyro and weather cock it is harder to maintain directional control on take off in a taildragger than in a nosewheel aircraft. That is what I was taught.

Also, don't believe that tricycle gear aircraft are forgiving, they are not. There are numerous AAIB reports where "safety aeroplanes" have ground loops, overran, stalled, undershot, damaged the gear (particularly the nose) and struck props. These events seem to be just as likely regardless of the configuration, except that when searching the AAIB for "propeller struck", 4 out of 16 aircraft returned were t/w.

I'm going to spend some time on the AAIB website and try and find out exactly what the stats say on this. Until then I'll try and shut up because I must be sounding like a dog who won't let go of a bone.

To SSD and all those who disagreed with me:

Please, please don't get me wrong; I don't believe that taildraggers are 'dangerous' at all and I love the Super Cub...its a great plane and I will continue to fly it with confidence. I just think planes have become more idiot proof over the years.

I'm really sorry Fuji about this, the discussion is probably not what you envisaged at all.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I just think planes have become more idiot proof over the years.

And therein lies the answer to this long discussion.

By making airplanes more idiot proof you open the door to having more idiots with pilot licenses.

I would like to make one more comment and that has to do with amphibious aircraft.

The reason there are a lot of landing accidents are due to poor training and lack of proper pre landing checks by the pilots...the aircraft are safe if operated with the gear in the correct position for landing.

Now I'll fasten my seat belt and wait for another onslaught of comments like I got commenting about judging height during forced landings.

[Fuji Abound]

I think (Fuji correct me if I'm wrong) its just for interest mainly. One is never going to say anything is "safe" in absolute terms. Danger/safety is just relative in reality.

Correct.

.. .. .. and a very interesting debate about perception, evidence (of which there has not been a lot yet) and explanation.

I'm really sorry Fuji about this, the discussion is probably not what you envisaged at all.

Actually I think it is very interesting. I suspect many pilots think tail wheel aircraft are more "dangerous". In fact I agree because my perception is they will try and get into short grass strips - sometimes they are just too short and they come to grief. Maybe I am wrong?

[ChampChump]

Having bitten CT's head off earlier, but ever so gently (although I didn't put the thumb up as I thought it wasn't necessary but some sort of smiley-thingy proabably was, with hindsight), I've kept fairly quiet but followed the thread with interest.

CT admits his choice of words wasn't as well chosen as ppruners allow. In a pub, we'd have thrashed that bit out over the first pint and moved on.

What most of us seem to agree on now is that for those whose training is in tricycle geared aircraft, conventional gear seems to convey anything from another useful addition in the private pilot repertoire to a part of the aviation chart marked Here Be Dragons. Well, there are dragons all over the chart. Gotchas abound, in any aircraft, with any rating, in any weather.

I repeat: people make accidents. With decent training, from those decently experienced on type, we can reduce risk. If we accept we know less than we thought we did, try to take nothing for granted and still have fun, it's a risk worth taking.

And I don't think statistics prove a damned thing, either way.

[Tony Hirst]

Rotory, now there be dragons

[Major Major]

G-EMMA

You've nailed it there. It's either Freakonomics or the Undercover Economist, I forget which, but in one of those books exactly that statistical analysis is done.

And the answer is predictable - in terms of hours doing the activity, flying is more risky than driving, because people spend less time flying than virtually any other activity. Even passenger flying on a big jet is more risky than driving. I'm not sure how the probabilities are skewed for private pilots but I'll dig out the books tonight and have a look.

I often think 'I could die whilst doing this', or, 'get it right or there's a risk you'll be dead'. I actually think it helps focus on getting things right, as I'm convinced even as a stude that everything I've been taught is for a reason and therefore doing it reduces the likelihood of death or serious injury.

I secretly think the risk is one of the reasons I do it... Interestingly, every non pilot I've spoken to thinks it's more risky than it is...

Stick & Rudder makes a case for tailwheels being more difficult to fly than tricycles. Whether or not that converts into risk or any difficulty is netted out by the additional training required is up to your individual perception of risk.