Flying is danagerous - a risk assessment - comments please
There are actually a few facts available to support the contention that tailwheel aircraft are more difficult to operate in the take-off, landing and ground-handling phases.
1) Position of the main wheels relative to the centre of gravity.
If the aircraft heading is slightly different from the aircraft's direction of motion, a side force is exerted on the wheels. If this force is in front of the center of gravity, the resulting moment rotates the aircraft's heading even further from its direction of motion. This increases the force and the process reinforces itself. This is a divergent condition. To avoid a ground loop, the pilot must respond to any turning tendency quickly, while sufficient control authority is available to counteract it. Once the aircraft rotates beyond this point, there is nothing the pilot can do to stop it from rotating further - et voila, the groundloop!
This is simply not the case with a tricycle gear, as the moment tends to correct the deviation, not reinforce it.
Someone said that groundloops can only happen on landing - well crap! The aircraft doesn't care whether it's coming or going - if the deviation starts (for whatever reason) it will tend to increase, whether on take-off, landing or taxying.
2) Angle of attack of the wing when on the ground.
In a tail-wheel aircraft, the wing is at a high angle of attack when on the ground, leading to handling problems in windy conditions.
Again, this is simply not the case with a nose-gear aeroplane.
3) Poor forward visibility.
Due to the poor forward visibility, landing approach alignment, judgement of flare and taxying are all more difficult than in a tricycle aircraft.
4) Gyro effect
Associated more (and rightly so) with high-power engines, there is an additional gyro effect (swing) with tail-wheel aircraft that is not present in nose-wheel types - i.e. when the tail-wheel lifts off. Combine this effect with the others above to increase further the difficulty of a tail-wheel take-off compared to a tricycle.
Note that the points above simply show why a tail-wheel aircraft is more difficult to fly than a nose-wheel type. It would only be more dangerous if the operator was unable to master the difficulty.
fbw
1) Position of the main wheels relative to the centre of gravity.
If the aircraft heading is slightly different from the aircraft's direction of motion, a side force is exerted on the wheels. If this force is in front of the center of gravity, the resulting moment rotates the aircraft's heading even further from its direction of motion. This increases the force and the process reinforces itself. This is a divergent condition. To avoid a ground loop, the pilot must respond to any turning tendency quickly, while sufficient control authority is available to counteract it. Once the aircraft rotates beyond this point, there is nothing the pilot can do to stop it from rotating further - et voila, the groundloop!
This is simply not the case with a tricycle gear, as the moment tends to correct the deviation, not reinforce it.
Someone said that groundloops can only happen on landing - well crap! The aircraft doesn't care whether it's coming or going - if the deviation starts (for whatever reason) it will tend to increase, whether on take-off, landing or taxying.
2) Angle of attack of the wing when on the ground.
In a tail-wheel aircraft, the wing is at a high angle of attack when on the ground, leading to handling problems in windy conditions.
Again, this is simply not the case with a nose-gear aeroplane.
3) Poor forward visibility.
Due to the poor forward visibility, landing approach alignment, judgement of flare and taxying are all more difficult than in a tricycle aircraft.
4) Gyro effect
Associated more (and rightly so) with high-power engines, there is an additional gyro effect (swing) with tail-wheel aircraft that is not present in nose-wheel types - i.e. when the tail-wheel lifts off. Combine this effect with the others above to increase further the difficulty of a tail-wheel take-off compared to a tricycle.
Note that the points above simply show why a tail-wheel aircraft is more difficult to fly than a nose-wheel type. It would only be more dangerous if the operator was unable to master the difficulty.
fbw
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I remarked the other week whilst making a pigs ear of a landing in a PA-28 that it was a good job I wasn't flying a taildragger. It would have bitten me for sure. Aeros and taildragging (maybe even at the same time) second on my list of must do's after gettting the PPL. 
(lots of thumby thingies)
(lots of thumby thingies)Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While a few do indeed use GA regularly for travelling, most GA flying has nothing to do with getting from point A to point B... So how then would a "transportation oriented" measure, such as fatalities per passenger kilometer, actually tell us anything useful?
I'd fly anyway; it being safe is just an extra (very welcome!) bonus...
I'd fly anyway; it being safe is just an extra (very welcome!) bonus...
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how then would a "transportation oriented" measure, such as fatalities per passenger kilometer, actually tell us anything useful?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Grand Com f'Ort
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's what Chilli Monster found:
(With thanks to the orginators of the information).
These stats are not by any means precise, though they're about as good a stab as you'll find. I'm comfy with them as an accurate representation...
I hesitate to say this, but the numbers for some sorts of GA (gyroplanes, for example), are horrifyingly worse.
GA flying covers small training aircraft capable of cruising at 100mph, and business jets capable of cruising at several hundred miles per hour, so choosing an average cruise speed is difficult, but for the sake of argument, we'll choose 150mph. This gives us a comparison of:
GA: 7.46 fatal accidents and 13.1 fatalities per 100M miles
driving: 1.32 fatal accidents and 1.47 fatalities per 100M miles
So when compared on a mile to mile basis, flying has 5.6 times as many fatal accidents, and 8.9 times as many fatalities (these number would be even worse for flying if we took out motorcyle and pedestrian fatalities).
How about if we compare on an "hour to hour" basis? That requires an assumption of an average speed for autos. We'll choose 40mph. This leads to the following numbers:
GA: 11.2 fatal accidents and 19.7 fatalities per million hours
driving: .528 fatal accidents and .588 fatalities per million hours
On this basis, flying has 21 times the number of fatal accidents and 33.5 times the number of fatalities per hour of operation.
GA: 7.46 fatal accidents and 13.1 fatalities per 100M miles
driving: 1.32 fatal accidents and 1.47 fatalities per 100M miles
So when compared on a mile to mile basis, flying has 5.6 times as many fatal accidents, and 8.9 times as many fatalities (these number would be even worse for flying if we took out motorcyle and pedestrian fatalities).
How about if we compare on an "hour to hour" basis? That requires an assumption of an average speed for autos. We'll choose 40mph. This leads to the following numbers:
GA: 11.2 fatal accidents and 19.7 fatalities per million hours
driving: .528 fatal accidents and .588 fatalities per million hours
On this basis, flying has 21 times the number of fatal accidents and 33.5 times the number of fatalities per hour of operation.
These stats are not by any means precise, though they're about as good a stab as you'll find. I'm comfy with them as an accurate representation...
I hesitate to say this, but the numbers for some sorts of GA (gyroplanes, for example), are horrifyingly worse.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Grand Com f'Ort
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should have said 'sport aviation' rather than 'GA'. 
Also, this site should allow editing of posts without all the carriage returns disappearing. Posh code for this and that, but the basics need to be right!
Also, this site should allow editing of posts without all the carriage returns disappearing. Posh code for this and that, but the basics need to be right!
If we agree that flying (okay, taking off and landing) tailwheel requires more concentration than nosewheel - then it probably makes them safer!
Steve Fossett didn't disappear whilst trying something extremely dangerous/complicated etc. He disappeared (as I understand) 'heading home'.
It's not the full aerial display that's the danger, it's the 'extra loop chucked in at the end'.
You get my drift.
Just my tuppence-worth!
Sam.
Steve Fossett didn't disappear whilst trying something extremely dangerous/complicated etc. He disappeared (as I understand) 'heading home'.
It's not the full aerial display that's the danger, it's the 'extra loop chucked in at the end'.
You get my drift.
Just my tuppence-worth!
Sam.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve Fosset was flying an acrobat machine.. it could be he was doing some acro just for fun in some sort of a canyon.. we don't know that is was just straight and level flight ... may he RIP!
