GA Flying...is it safe ?!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 40
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GA Flying...is it safe ?!
Is the following response to this statment ''You are more likely to get be in an accident on the way to the airport, as you are in an aircraft' t rue ?? I personally dont think it is, so i would appreciate peoples opinions:
"This is something we often say to calm nervous fliers, but it's actually not entirely correct. Yes, it's correct for airline travel, but for GA aircraft it's not. Flying/riding in GA planes has about the same statistics of injury as riding a motorcycle, i.e. considerably higher than riding in a car. Not that we want to scare people unnecessarily, but we should also not be disingenuous with this info"
"This is something we often say to calm nervous fliers, but it's actually not entirely correct. Yes, it's correct for airline travel, but for GA aircraft it's not. Flying/riding in GA planes has about the same statistics of injury as riding a motorcycle, i.e. considerably higher than riding in a car. Not that we want to scare people unnecessarily, but we should also not be disingenuous with this info"
Only if you're driving a really long way.
A few percent of us on this list (private) are likely to die in aircraft accidents sooner or later.
A fair proportion of those few will be idiots who try aerobatics without training or similar dumb stuff. Other people are as competent as can be, but still get unlucky or overstretch themselves. Scott Crossfield (a famous X15 pilot) died a few years back in a small aircraft, so it can happen to the best of us.
On the other hand, flying is great, so in my book it's worthwhile. It's not a question anybody else can answer for you.
A few percent of us on this list (private) are likely to die in aircraft accidents sooner or later.
A fair proportion of those few will be idiots who try aerobatics without training or similar dumb stuff. Other people are as competent as can be, but still get unlucky or overstretch themselves. Scott Crossfield (a famous X15 pilot) died a few years back in a small aircraft, so it can happen to the best of us.
On the other hand, flying is great, so in my book it's worthwhile. It's not a question anybody else can answer for you.
Last edited by abgd; 8th Jan 2012 at 21:52.
If my poor old memory is to be trusted, the discussion quoted continued to say something like "though the accident rates are a bit alike between private flying and motorcycling, the difference is that, if bikers come to grief it is often due to errors by other drivers; whereas pilots mostly bring problems on themselves" or words to that effect.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When flying, more is down to the person on board, pre flight planning and airworthiness checks, weather checks, and general competance. Also, if you do go down generally the only people who get hurt are those on board, it is very rare to injure people on the ground.
When driving, you are at the mercy of other road users, as the above example of motorcycle users.
Also although GA accidents are still few, they have more dramatic results than a car crash these days with ABS, seat belts and a whole host of air bags.
I find if someone needs to be calmed down, I do everything to reassure them of how safe flying is. I'd certainly have to eat my words if the engine quit shortly after take off with very few landing sites available, but that's the calculated risk I take.
When driving, you are at the mercy of other road users, as the above example of motorcycle users.
Also although GA accidents are still few, they have more dramatic results than a car crash these days with ABS, seat belts and a whole host of air bags.
I find if someone needs to be calmed down, I do everything to reassure them of how safe flying is. I'd certainly have to eat my words if the engine quit shortly after take off with very few landing sites available, but that's the calculated risk I take.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm happy believing the motorcycling statistic (until something better comes along) ... but the point is that with aeroplanes you can cheat. The theory goes like this:
If you're riding a bike you're most likely to die because someone else is out to get you, and in fact that's why I stopped riding a bike, too many people pulling out in front of me "sorry mate I didn't see you" (WTF do they think I had the headlight on for).
If you're flying you're more likely (than a motorcyclist is) to die because of something you've done wrong yourself (VFR into IMC, running out of fuel, handling error near the ground, etc) rather than because of something completely extraneous over which you had no control. So you can cheat by reading the accident reports and choosing not to do the things that the other pilots did, where pilot error is identified, thus giving yourself better odds than the average for all pilots.
Example: after reading about two or three cases of fatal accidents following ASI failures I got an instructor to watch me fly a circuit and landing with the ASI covered up, so with this experience I hope that if the ASI fails for real I won't panic and crash.
Only thing is ... the pilots that had accidents were probably operating to the same theory
You can also cheat by driving very badly on the way to the airport so that your passenger feels much safer in the air by comparison
If you're riding a bike you're most likely to die because someone else is out to get you, and in fact that's why I stopped riding a bike, too many people pulling out in front of me "sorry mate I didn't see you" (WTF do they think I had the headlight on for).
If you're flying you're more likely (than a motorcyclist is) to die because of something you've done wrong yourself (VFR into IMC, running out of fuel, handling error near the ground, etc) rather than because of something completely extraneous over which you had no control. So you can cheat by reading the accident reports and choosing not to do the things that the other pilots did, where pilot error is identified, thus giving yourself better odds than the average for all pilots.
Example: after reading about two or three cases of fatal accidents following ASI failures I got an instructor to watch me fly a circuit and landing with the ASI covered up, so with this experience I hope that if the ASI fails for real I won't panic and crash.
Only thing is ... the pilots that had accidents were probably operating to the same theory
You can also cheat by driving very badly on the way to the airport so that your passenger feels much safer in the air by comparison
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its an interesting proposition. Perhaps somewhat of a paradox.
Absolutely and whole heartedly agree.
In the last 3 months I've had several near misses whilst driving my car (not all my fault I'll add
), but none in an aeroplane, no forced nor stupidly baulked landings. But I've driven for upwards of 50hours, and flown only 12 in that time with less sky-users. How many motorcycles were involved in my near misses? None that I remember. There may well be many out there. I was always told when considering purchasing a motorbike 'its not if you crash, its when you crash'. So perhaps bikes are more dangerous than cars - there will inevitably be statistics on this.
But to compare motor vehicles to aeroplanes? I'm not sure this is usefully possible. As with all things mechanical there are risks. Aeroplanes have a more rigorous maintenance regime, and servicing schedule; a greater depth of training for the 'driver' and imposed operating limitations both of which are risk 'mitigators'. Would I take my car for a service after every 50 hours of driving, or do a check with a driving instructor every two years - not bloody likely.
So are aeroplanes safer than cars? I opine that they are in general, but only due to the systems and procedures that are in place to mitigate the risks of anything going wrong.
flying is great, so in my book it's worthwhile. It's not a question anybody else can answer for you.
In the last 3 months I've had several near misses whilst driving my car (not all my fault I'll add
), but none in an aeroplane, no forced nor stupidly baulked landings. But I've driven for upwards of 50hours, and flown only 12 in that time with less sky-users. How many motorcycles were involved in my near misses? None that I remember. There may well be many out there. I was always told when considering purchasing a motorbike 'its not if you crash, its when you crash'. So perhaps bikes are more dangerous than cars - there will inevitably be statistics on this. But to compare motor vehicles to aeroplanes? I'm not sure this is usefully possible. As with all things mechanical there are risks. Aeroplanes have a more rigorous maintenance regime, and servicing schedule; a greater depth of training for the 'driver' and imposed operating limitations both of which are risk 'mitigators'. Would I take my car for a service after every 50 hours of driving, or do a check with a driving instructor every two years - not bloody likely.
So are aeroplanes safer than cars? I opine that they are in general, but only due to the systems and procedures that are in place to mitigate the risks of anything going wrong.
A certified aeroplane, registered in the UK, is statistically likely to have a fatal accident every 70,000 flying hours.
A reasonally usy PPL, flying about 35 hours per year, has therefore about a 1 in 2,000 chance of being in a fatal accident, in any one year.
Around 2,500 people die in car accidents on British roads annually. Assuming we all travel by car at some point, and there are about 60 million of us: any one of us has about a 1 in 24,000 chance of being killed in a road accident in any given year.
So no, flying light aircraft is not as safe as driving.
On the other hand, according to Oxford University the average Brit has a 1 in 396 chance of dying from cancer in any one year.
So, in 2012, an average PPL has a 1 in 2000 chance of dying flying, a 1 in 24,000 chance of dying driving, and a 1 in 400 chance of dying of cancer (and, incidentally about the same odds of dying of heart disease, or about 1 in 4,000 chance of dying of dimentia).
So, if you are too young to worry about dimensia yet, and fly about 35 hours per year, in 2012 your odds are:
1:400 dying of cancer
1:400 dying of heart disease [although that's for the whole population, so hopefully holding flying medicals the odds are better for us.]
1:2,000 being in a fatal air accident (although you might not be the one to die)
1:24,000 dying in a road accident
So the throwaway comment about driving risks is not fair. But, you are far more likely to die of cancer than you are flying. On net, I'd also much rather die flying (although even more so, I'd rather not die).
If you fly a lot of hours, at about 175 hours per year, you about break even on flying and cancer.
(Airline flying is a totally different beast of course - their fatal accident rate is so tiny that it's insignificant, and getting better. But they are regulated, trained and tested to an extent that would abolish GA.)
G
A reasonally usy PPL, flying about 35 hours per year, has therefore about a 1 in 2,000 chance of being in a fatal accident, in any one year.
Around 2,500 people die in car accidents on British roads annually. Assuming we all travel by car at some point, and there are about 60 million of us: any one of us has about a 1 in 24,000 chance of being killed in a road accident in any given year.
So no, flying light aircraft is not as safe as driving.
On the other hand, according to Oxford University the average Brit has a 1 in 396 chance of dying from cancer in any one year.
So, in 2012, an average PPL has a 1 in 2000 chance of dying flying, a 1 in 24,000 chance of dying driving, and a 1 in 400 chance of dying of cancer (and, incidentally about the same odds of dying of heart disease, or about 1 in 4,000 chance of dying of dimentia).
So, if you are too young to worry about dimensia yet, and fly about 35 hours per year, in 2012 your odds are:
1:400 dying of cancer
1:400 dying of heart disease [although that's for the whole population, so hopefully holding flying medicals the odds are better for us.]
1:2,000 being in a fatal air accident (although you might not be the one to die)
1:24,000 dying in a road accident
So the throwaway comment about driving risks is not fair. But, you are far more likely to die of cancer than you are flying. On net, I'd also much rather die flying (although even more so, I'd rather not die).
If you fly a lot of hours, at about 175 hours per year, you about break even on flying and cancer.
(Airline flying is a totally different beast of course - their fatal accident rate is so tiny that it's insignificant, and getting better. But they are regulated, trained and tested to an extent that would abolish GA.)
G
Maybe it's a fatuous question, but it's a very important one all the same.
Both are almost equally safe, when drained of petrol. I would agree that aircraft are much better maintained and in that sense are 'safer', but that's just as well because flying is inherently much more dangerous than driving. I think that's probably true for just about everybody.
I think that people like myself who get very hung up on safety like to feel that by knowing everything we possibly can, we wrest back control from fate. Obviously that's valid to some extent, but it's also a psychological crutch that perhaps lets us persevere where we otherwise might not. There are lots of 'gotchas' - Ernest K Gann's book 'Fate is the hunter' illustrates this fact very nicely. Eventually he comes to the realisation that however diligent he is, fate will sooner or later find a way to catch him out.
The test pilot's prayer says a lot about piloting: 'Dear Lord, I don't care whether I live or die. Just don't let me screw up'.
So are aeroplanes safer than cars? I opine that they are in general
I think that people like myself who get very hung up on safety like to feel that by knowing everything we possibly can, we wrest back control from fate. Obviously that's valid to some extent, but it's also a psychological crutch that perhaps lets us persevere where we otherwise might not. There are lots of 'gotchas' - Ernest K Gann's book 'Fate is the hunter' illustrates this fact very nicely. Eventually he comes to the realisation that however diligent he is, fate will sooner or later find a way to catch him out.
The test pilot's prayer says a lot about piloting: 'Dear Lord, I don't care whether I live or die. Just don't let me screw up'.
"Dear Lord, please don't let me screw up".
Certainly well known throughout the test pilot community. But trust me, we care in that community very deeply whether we live or die.
G
I posted my views on the cancer comparison on another thread a while back. Personally, I feel quite strongly that violent deaths (road deaths, flying accidents) can't readily be compared with other causes of death.
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...uernsey-6.html
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...uernsey-6.html
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTN11
I don't tell people it's safer than driving. I say that people say that, but really it's more like riding a motorcycle, as has been mentioned here.
I do tell passengers that if the noisy bit up front stops, that's no problem. The aeroplane doesn't stop flying and by the time we reach whatever field we're headed for, the aeroplane is going no more than 60 mph. I then point out that if you swerve off the road at 60mph in a car, it isn't going to be pretty, but if you miss the solid bits it's totally survivable. Then point out that similar applies to aeroplanes, even if at the end the plane's a bit (lot) messed up. It's not strictly comparable, but at least I have some choice of field unlike the car, and I have faith in my ability to FL with at least the people on board intact. I practice lots.
The thing that I don't talk about is those situations where a quiet donkey is the least of my problems - any scenario where I am no longer able to exert control over the aeroplane, or fire. They're the areas I won't discuss, since I don't have any good answers.
On that one, any suggestions from more experienced chaps would be appreciated...
I find if someone needs to be calmed down, I do everything to reassure them of how safe flying is. I'd certainly have to eat my words if the engine quit shortly after take off with very few landing sites available, but that's the calculated risk I take.
I do tell passengers that if the noisy bit up front stops, that's no problem. The aeroplane doesn't stop flying and by the time we reach whatever field we're headed for, the aeroplane is going no more than 60 mph. I then point out that if you swerve off the road at 60mph in a car, it isn't going to be pretty, but if you miss the solid bits it's totally survivable. Then point out that similar applies to aeroplanes, even if at the end the plane's a bit (lot) messed up. It's not strictly comparable, but at least I have some choice of field unlike the car, and I have faith in my ability to FL with at least the people on board intact. I practice lots.
The thing that I don't talk about is those situations where a quiet donkey is the least of my problems - any scenario where I am no longer able to exert control over the aeroplane, or fire. They're the areas I won't discuss, since I don't have any good answers.
On that one, any suggestions from more experienced chaps would be appreciated...
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not experienced by any account but:
'If we have a fire here is the extinguisher and I'll follow the checklist. This could mean shutting the engine down temporarily or landing in a field as I described just now.'
Referring to a document however authoritative or not provides the perception that there is a tried and tested plan in place and the pilot has thought about it. It's worked when I flew a mildly nervous passenger not too long ago.
'If we have a fire here is the extinguisher and I'll follow the checklist. This could mean shutting the engine down temporarily or landing in a field as I described just now.'
Referring to a document however authoritative or not provides the perception that there is a tried and tested plan in place and the pilot has thought about it. It's worked when I flew a mildly nervous passenger not too long ago.
Moderator
Certainly well known throughout the test pilot community. But trust me, we care in that community very deeply whether we live or die.
I think that my insurance company thinks that flying is safer than driving, as the insurance for my plane (at a much greater hull value than my car) costs less than the insurance for my car. When last I did the math, my plane's insurance premium suggests that they think that I will fly it for 103 years before I have a total loss claim.
If you are a pilot, and you are generally concerned about flying being safe, you should probably stop being a pilot. If you're asking if you are safe, based upon your training and currency, or if that specific plane is safe, there are long established criteria against which to measure both.
Otherwise, flying is as safe as you, the pilot, make it!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis wrote:
A reasonally usy PPL, flying about 35 hours per year, has therefore about a 1 in 2,000 chance of being in a fatal accident, in any one year.
************
So, in a 20-year period, you have a one in 100 chance of death in an aircraft.
So most flying clubs should expect a death a decade for very 100 members. Strangely, after flying for 20 years, it doesn't feel that way. (although I suppose four people killed in one accident gives the club a 40 year break?)
At our airfield, in existence for 50-odd years, but pretty quiet for most of them, there was one fatal in the early 70s after a cable break on a glider winch launch.
Perhaps we are due another death. Hopefully we will cheat the odds.
The scary one is being a microlight instructor. Usually a death per year (on the ground away from an airfield and in the air, with a couple of ground deaths by suicide so was the root problem aviation - ie being able to make a decent living - or not?) - and with just over 100 active instructors in the Uk, that gives you a one in ten chance of not surviving a decade.
After 20 years in the saddle I am now on a one in five!
A reasonally usy PPL, flying about 35 hours per year, has therefore about a 1 in 2,000 chance of being in a fatal accident, in any one year.
************
So, in a 20-year period, you have a one in 100 chance of death in an aircraft.
So most flying clubs should expect a death a decade for very 100 members. Strangely, after flying for 20 years, it doesn't feel that way. (although I suppose four people killed in one accident gives the club a 40 year break?)
At our airfield, in existence for 50-odd years, but pretty quiet for most of them, there was one fatal in the early 70s after a cable break on a glider winch launch.
Perhaps we are due another death. Hopefully we will cheat the odds.
The scary one is being a microlight instructor. Usually a death per year (on the ground away from an airfield and in the air, with a couple of ground deaths by suicide so was the root problem aviation - ie being able to make a decent living - or not?) - and with just over 100 active instructors in the Uk, that gives you a one in ten chance of not surviving a decade.
After 20 years in the saddle I am now on a one in five!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe Gengis's statistics....
The NTSB stats show that a GA pilot has about a 1:100,000 FLIGHT HOUR chance of being killed....So if you get to 100,000 hrs in your log book then your number is up. Few will get to 20,000, most a couple of thousand I imagine. And of those 100,000 hrs, some are engaged in more dangerous flying....
Unless Euro registered aeroplanes are so much more dangerous than N registered aeroplanes and pilots of course (which might be the case).....
For comparison, scheduled air transport accident rate is about 1.5 per million flight hours (that is ACCIDENT rates though, not fatalities.)
The NTSB stats show that a GA pilot has about a 1:100,000 FLIGHT HOUR chance of being killed....So if you get to 100,000 hrs in your log book then your number is up. Few will get to 20,000, most a couple of thousand I imagine. And of those 100,000 hrs, some are engaged in more dangerous flying....
Unless Euro registered aeroplanes are so much more dangerous than N registered aeroplanes and pilots of course (which might be the case).....
For comparison, scheduled air transport accident rate is about 1.5 per million flight hours (that is ACCIDENT rates though, not fatalities.)
Moderator
I don't believe any statistics! I spend my time in the cockpit (and life in general) looking for holes in the swiss cheese, so I can do my darnedest to prevent them lining up.
US accident stats are 1.14/100,000 hours.
UK are 1.3/100,000hours so Genghis is right on the money.
It's not such a big difference, considering differences in climate and currency etc.
I heard 1/8 bush pilots die flying...
The big problem is working out what these figures mean for me (low performance vfr non-experimental...)
UK are 1.3/100,000hours so Genghis is right on the money.
It's not such a big difference, considering differences in climate and currency etc.
I heard 1/8 bush pilots die flying...
The big problem is working out what these figures mean for me (low performance vfr non-experimental...)
Why worry about others, if you're happy that G.A. flying is as safe as any other human activity, for all the reasons given above, and want to do it, go ahead.
More people die in bed than in aeroplanes or on motor-bikes.
if you get a prospective passenger who is nervous, tell them not to bother, stop wasting your time persuading them what they have already decided, they can miss out on the fabulous experience if they are flying just for the fun of it, or take train, or car, or bus, or motor bike.
I'm nervous about bungy-jumping ( for reasons witnessed over the Zambesi near Victoria Falls yesterday ! ) and reckon there is no reason to parachute out of a perfectly serviceable aeroplane, so I do neither.
Every time I land my microlight I turn to my passenger and say - " Well, you survived ".
As far as airline flying is concerned I'm reminded of the cartoon I saw of a Priest on his knees, praying, at the bottom of the aircraft steps. The pilot said, "don't worry Father, when your number is up your number is up, there's nothing you can do about it " and the Priest replied " Young Man, I'm not worried about my number coming up, I'm worried about YOUR number coming up "
More people die in bed than in aeroplanes or on motor-bikes.
if you get a prospective passenger who is nervous, tell them not to bother, stop wasting your time persuading them what they have already decided, they can miss out on the fabulous experience if they are flying just for the fun of it, or take train, or car, or bus, or motor bike.
I'm nervous about bungy-jumping ( for reasons witnessed over the Zambesi near Victoria Falls yesterday ! ) and reckon there is no reason to parachute out of a perfectly serviceable aeroplane, so I do neither.
Every time I land my microlight I turn to my passenger and say - " Well, you survived ".
As far as airline flying is concerned I'm reminded of the cartoon I saw of a Priest on his knees, praying, at the bottom of the aircraft steps. The pilot said, "don't worry Father, when your number is up your number is up, there's nothing you can do about it " and the Priest replied " Young Man, I'm not worried about my number coming up, I'm worried about YOUR number coming up "