How 'safe' is private flying?!

[taxistaxing]

FANS, PM sent as would like your views on the scud running situation...

[piperarcher]

The near misses are par for the course in SE England I think. Everyone and their dog is flying around between 2 and 2500 feet under the LTMA. I'm surprised there aren't more mid-air collisions, frankly.

I tend to agree. I often fly between the section between Luton and Stansted, below CAS, and while I wont say I have had any "near misses" this year, there have certainly been a number of occasions where aircraft have been closer than I might like. I try and get a traffic service where I can, have one of those ZAON thingies, but there are some quite congested areas and at a closing speed of 200 odd kts, there is some risk.

I drive my car every day and theres always someone in front or behind, or coming out a side turning, or going round a rounabout not indicating thats potentially going to do something stupid and cause a 'near miss'. Flying is like driving, you have to be alert, and you have to be in control of your vehicle quite defensively and be prepared to take corrective action.

Walking around London, or anyone where with a lot of movement is risky. You cant avoid all risk, and have to take some chances.

[Echo Romeo]

So what would you describe as a near miss? when you come within, say a 100mt of another aircraft, more or less?

I ask because I recall an occasion when flying with a friend, an aircraft passed in front of us from right to left at the same level, neither of us saw it prior to it passing in front, I suspect it hadn't seen us either, but it must have been 3- 4 hundred mts away, friend yelped, god that was close, I did not take issue. but I felt at the time it was nowhere close to a near miss.

[taxistaxing]

One was probably approx 200m. We both turned to the right to avoid (so probably not that big a deal).

One a LOT closer - certainly less than 200m. Looming large in the windscreen and necessitating a steep turn to the right to avoid . Scary stuff.

Could probably have filed an 'AIRPROX' but there didn't seem a lot of point. It just reiterates the need to keep a good lookout.

I spend quite a bit of time over Essex, near Stapleford which is incredibly busy with training flights heading out to Hanningfield reservoir to practise. And the gap to the west of north weald between the STN zone and the City zone gets very congested.

[Pace]

A near miss?? Is any miss! Two spring to mind One right seating another pilot head down in the map near London in a single prop! Looked up just in time to see the tires of a 172 pass 10 feet above on a reciprical heading.

I know it was that close as I could see the tire grooves. He was on auto as the aircraft did not deviate an inch as it vanished behind.

The second was in a twin descending through cloud and a glider wing flashed past in the gloom also in cloud!

In response to others Flying is not as safe as driving! equivalent to motor cycle riding I think? All I do know is I have lost 7 good friends to flying the majority hardly novice or reckless I have lost one friend in a car accident.

So I maybe wrong? and its very safe???

Pace

[UV]

You only have to ask someone, who has been flying some time, how many people they know who have been killed driving and how many people they know who have been killed flying.

That will give you the information you are looking for.

[clareprop]

How safe compared to what?

Very, when compared against wingflying, skydiving, technical diving, base jumping, unprotected sex in third-world countries, soldiering as an ATO...

..but not when compared to going shopping, lying in bed, or riding on a bus, boat or commercial aircraft.

In the end, it's subjective. A look at the AAIB reports over the past decade will show you how easy it is to sometimes get it horribly wrong. I haven't counted them but I guess there must be three or four hundred fatalities or so over the past twenty years on there for GA.
However else you describe it, going for a "normal" flight in a light aircraft is not the same as going for a "normal" ride in a car. For myself, I decided that I would happily take adults on a "joyride" with me but I have always managed to come up with a reason not to take kids under 16. Arbitrary I know but that's my decision and I'm the Cap'n.

[Olympia 463]

(I can't get the quote thingy to work on my MAC!!)

"Other than a ground incident you are not likely to survive a plane crash! They tend to be fatal!
I have now lost 7 pilot friends most very experienced and some who you would least expect to get killed!"

I'm a glider pilot (retired) and I can't agree with the above comments. I glid (?) for about 20 years, and as you know every landing is a 'controlled crash' in a glider. I took part in about 2200 of these!

In the time I was flying (a lot of it instructing) I saw several accidents from which the participant walked away somewhat shaken, but largely undamaged. The only fatals were a pilot who tried inverted flying having had no dual on this mode of flight, and a tug pilot who didn't keep a good lookout and hit a glider on his way down from a tow. The glider pilot survived (he was was wearing a chute, the tuggie wasn't).

I can't understand the parent who thought he would need to insure himself to fly in a light aircraft. When I took up flying I notified my insurer who said if I was just gliding it I would not need extra cover. He still didn't need more premiums when I became an instructor.

I do most heartily concur with the person who wrote that he was determined to avoid possible death by taking sensible precautions. I was taught early on that 'aeroplanes bite fools' and I never forgot that.

[flyinkiwi]

Originally Posted by taxistaxing

One a LOT closer - certainly less than 200m. Looming large in the windscreen and necessitating a steep turn to the right to avoid . Scary stuff.

Could probably have filed an 'AIRPROX' but there didn't seem a lot of point. It just reiterates the need to keep a good lookout.

I find that attitude quite disturbing. Accurate data on events like this are vital for the Regulating Authority to make informed decisions regarding airspace allocation and approach/departure/transit procedures. What if your incident was not an isolated one? Maybe there are other factors that are causing aircraft to converge on the same piece of sky in opposing directions? When considering filling out an incident report, think about the lives of fellow aviators you might be saving. Too many of our aviation regulations are written in the blood of innocent people.

[xj8driver]

..but not when compared to going shopping, lying in bed, or riding on a bus, boat or commercial aircraft.

Actually, it's much safer than lying in bed.. statistically, that's where most people die

[Pace]

Very, when compared against wingflying, skydiving, technical diving, base jumping, unprotected sex in third-world countries, soldiering as an ATO...

Clare

This is the point My other passion other than G???s and not in third world countries unprotected is scuba diving especially filming large fish and was car racing.
It does not matter if there is an element of risk as we try to minimize those risks by safeguarding ourselves as much as possible but there is always THE risk and you have to accept that or stay at home and lock the doors.
WHATEVER turns you on??? if its playing chess great but if its flying single engine aircraft how far do you go? Some of us only go out to play on sunny still days others of us like the challenge of man/woman against the elements.
Always thought the Red Bull racers were mad but WOW what a kick they must get.
So as the saying goes " Feel the fear and do it anyway" but dont anyone kid themselves that its as safe as driving.

Take care

Pace

[clareprop]

Actually, it's much safer than lying in bed.. statistically, that's where most people die

Ah yes but I think most of them are lying in bed ill.

[SloppyJoe]

52 people lost their lives in skydiving accidents in 2011.

Is skydiving more dangerous than flying in a light aircraft?

59 people lost their lives last month in light aircraft according to the NTSB database.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by xj8driver

Actually, it's much safer than lying in bed.. statistically, that's where most people die

I know it was a tongue in cheek comment, but for conversations around 'how safe is x' or 'how risky is x' you need to know both exposure and outcome. So comparing lying in bed vs. being struck by lighting in terms of safety in the UK, we probably have

Deaths in bed per annum 1,000,000
Deaths by lighting per annum 5

(so clearly being struck by lighting is less deadly than lying in bed)

Of course the exposure will be, in number of instances
lying in bed - 20,000,000,000
struck by lighting - 8

so lying in bed is less risky than life on average but being struck by lighting is deadly.

In the GA context, most private pilots have relatively little exposure, say 30 hours /year, vs cars which is probably 500 hours/year - so even though GA is more dangerous than driving (per hour), you don't do enough of it to make a significant difference in your overall odds of dying (the number the life insurer looks at). For commercial pilots this is less true due to the much higher exposure. I believe Commercial Pilot of a non-turbine aircraft is one of the most 'dangerous' jobs in America (in the analysis of work related fatalities by sector) - certainly more dangerous than police or fire - though I don't think as dangerous as lumberjack or fisherman.

[PompeyPaul]

I worked this out a couple of years ago

I asked this question at a CAA safety evening and the guy said the numbers were available, but didn't know off the top of his head. So I went and looked them up.

1st problem CAA fatality is worked out in hours, RTA fatality is per mile so I had to do some adjustment. I worked on the assumption average cruise speed was 100 knots.

in the UK there are 666 casualties per billion vehicle miles

At the CAA I was told there was a fatality every 10,000 hours for a PPL (with gyro copters being fatal every 2,500 hours )

So munging some results, with a cruise speed of N100 average there is a fatality, in the air, every 1,000,000 nautical miles or 1,150,779.45 statute miles. So to get to 666 casualties you need 766,419,113.7 statute miles. Presuming the UK government has used the US billion, flying is around 30% more dangerous than driving to the airport.

That said the statistics are for everyone on the roads, motorcycle are 35 times more likely to die than a passenger in a car.

So given that, flying is less safe than using the road, but only just so when I first ran these numbers there were 710 fatalities per billion vehicle miles in 2009 so they were about the same. On the other hand it is way, way safer than motor cycling.

That's my back of a fag packet calculation anyway!

[Pace]

MM

A Bed is a stupid comparison unless your actually killed by the bed itself That is a bit like saying your 100% likely to die during our lives so being alive is a very high risk occupation and not worth undertaking.
You have to die somewhere but it will be by some organ failure rather than the 4 poster collapsing on top of you!
Anyway if you are dying is that not where they stick you in hospital so that you do not die but recover? It could therefore asked how many lives are saved not lost by being put in bed?
I could think of a few things in it that could lead to heart failure like a spider

Pace

[jxk]

On numerous occasions I've been asked to take non-flying people across the Channel to France. I immediately refuse because I don't think they understand the risk of going down in the drink. With other pilots I have no problem.

[Fuji Abound]

Pace you shouldnt refer to STMBOAAT as a spider.

[peterh337]

As has been said, one cannot compare GA risks with driving risks because in GA there is almost never anybody else to blame but the pilot, or in a small % of cases the aircraft.

Also we have almost no data on the kind of flying people do. Pompey's analysis is IMHO a good start but really we need to know much more about risk exposure because e.g. a simple high altitude IFR flight of say 700nm across the flatter parts of Europe, in VMC, and ending with an ILS, is going to be far safer than the same flight done as a "VFR" low level scud run in the winter, collecting ice at -5C and dodging wind turbine blades over Belgium and ending with a DIY letdown into some grass strip in OVC005 and +RA People fly both of those profiles (I prefer the former one, and indeed most IFR flying is like that) and also people fly everything in between, with a large chunk of the renter community flying on very good days only (but possibly being disadvantaged by poor currency and being disproportionately exposed to risks beyond their control such as crappy maintenance).

My own gut feeling is that good-wx high altitude IFR, in a well maintained plane, is far safer than driving the same distance would be, at a high speed on motorways.

Below that, I am still happier doing a normal UK-type VFR flight than I would be driving say 200nm.

Below that, I am not so sure...