How 'safe' is private flying?!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central London
Age: 41
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How 'safe' is private flying?!
I'm often asked the question by prospective passengers, and feel a bit disingenuous trotting out the usual line about how flying is safer than driving/walking blah blah. That's certainly the case for commercial aviation, but I'm pretty sure it's not the case for private flying in a spam can.
I've done a few internet searches but can't find much in the way of stats. I've come across a few references to private flying being around the same level of safety as riding a motorcycle but I would intuitively have thought it much safer than this.
The other factor to add to the 'mix', I guess, is that the most common causes of GA accidents (CFIT, VFR into IMC and fuel exhaustion) are largely "self inflicted" and the statistically average risk of suffering this type of accident is higher than the actual risk if proper planning is used, conservative decisions are taken etc.
In particular I'm still unable to take my dad flying because other family members are convinced it's dangerous and reckless (and my dad himself has pointed out that he would need to adjust his life insurance policy, itself suggesting that loss adjusters view light aviation as a risky activity!).
What are peoples' thoughts? I'd like to be able to give an informed response which is still reassuring - along the lines of "admittedly less safe than flying in a BA 747, but still pretty safe when compared to other every day activities" - but can find no real evidence to back this up.
I've done a few internet searches but can't find much in the way of stats. I've come across a few references to private flying being around the same level of safety as riding a motorcycle but I would intuitively have thought it much safer than this.
The other factor to add to the 'mix', I guess, is that the most common causes of GA accidents (CFIT, VFR into IMC and fuel exhaustion) are largely "self inflicted" and the statistically average risk of suffering this type of accident is higher than the actual risk if proper planning is used, conservative decisions are taken etc.
In particular I'm still unable to take my dad flying because other family members are convinced it's dangerous and reckless (and my dad himself has pointed out that he would need to adjust his life insurance policy, itself suggesting that loss adjusters view light aviation as a risky activity!).
What are peoples' thoughts? I'd like to be able to give an informed response which is still reassuring - along the lines of "admittedly less safe than flying in a BA 747, but still pretty safe when compared to other every day activities" - but can find no real evidence to back this up.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'raw numbers' equate it in the same area as motorcycles. Those are the numbers and if you do not like them - work at flying safely!
Just as with motorcycles there are 'safe' riders/pilots and 'unsafe' riders/pilots. As with all things, to a point you can chose which group you align with.
It would however be disingenuious to tell your passengers anything else in terms of relative risk just because you do not 'like' the numbers (unless you are a politican, banker, etc, etc - in which case it would be expected!)
Your 'intuition' is coloured by your assessment of your ability and your understanding of accident frequencies and the like. I've been flying for 20 odd years now and regrettably I remember a number of people who are no longer with us, due to both aircraft and motorcycles. Some did not surprise me, some did - I just work at not being one of them!
Just as with motorcycles there are 'safe' riders/pilots and 'unsafe' riders/pilots. As with all things, to a point you can chose which group you align with.
It would however be disingenuious to tell your passengers anything else in terms of relative risk just because you do not 'like' the numbers (unless you are a politican, banker, etc, etc - in which case it would be expected!)
Your 'intuition' is coloured by your assessment of your ability and your understanding of accident frequencies and the like. I've been flying for 20 odd years now and regrettably I remember a number of people who are no longer with us, due to both aircraft and motorcycles. Some did not surprise me, some did - I just work at not being one of them!
Last edited by gasax; 20th Sep 2012 at 12:35.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Private flying's risk profile is hugely dependent upon the PIC.
Do you chance the weather, or do you wait for perfect days? Even if the latter, would you struggle with deteriorating weather or unexpected x-winds?
Does the PIC have 50 hours or 5,000 hours?
You're wasting your time with trying to find real evidence to back it up.
Ultimately, if someone's THAT worried about the risk, I'd suggest they're probably not going to enjoy it that much eitherway.
Do you chance the weather, or do you wait for perfect days? Even if the latter, would you struggle with deteriorating weather or unexpected x-winds?
Does the PIC have 50 hours or 5,000 hours?
You're wasting your time with trying to find real evidence to back it up.
Ultimately, if someone's THAT worried about the risk, I'd suggest they're probably not going to enjoy it that much eitherway.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I tell my passengers that it would be about as risky as motorcycling, except that I cheat by making sure I've got enough fuel, only taking off in weather I can cope with, choosing not to play silly buggers with aerobatics at low level, etc.
I make sure as part of the expectation management that they are expecting a weather cancellation as likely as not. I have, as a result, never ever had any pressure from prospective passengers to take off when I wasn't completely happy.
I make sure as part of the expectation management that they are expecting a weather cancellation as likely as not. I have, as a result, never ever had any pressure from prospective passengers to take off when I wasn't completely happy.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess would be about as safe as riding a motor bike.
That means not that safe if you take the motor bike population as a whole, but very safe, if you take the population of motor bikers that have developed the skills to ride defensively.
Of course passengers have no idea which category you fit into, and, sometimes, nor do the pilots - we all think we are the best, dont we?
That means not that safe if you take the motor bike population as a whole, but very safe, if you take the population of motor bikers that have developed the skills to ride defensively.
Of course passengers have no idea which category you fit into, and, sometimes, nor do the pilots - we all think we are the best, dont we?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would go with the sentiments expressed above.
It is not as safe as driving a car! The biggest difference in the minds of potential PAX is that you are likely to survive a car crash! 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!
There is a real risk and it would be unfair to paint a picture to your potential PAX that it is as safe as driving a car because it is not!
The old adage regarding individual pilots was whether you would be happy sending your kids up for a flight with them?
Many I would not.
As stated by many the risks can be minimized but not eliminated so like many things in life you have to decide whether its risk you want to take and most of us do decide to take that risk as with a lot of higher risk sport from Horse riding to Skiing to scuba diving etc.
Pace
It is not as safe as driving a car! The biggest difference in the minds of potential PAX is that you are likely to survive a car crash! 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!
There is a real risk and it would be unfair to paint a picture to your potential PAX that it is as safe as driving a car because it is not!
The old adage regarding individual pilots was whether you would be happy sending your kids up for a flight with them?
Many I would not.
As stated by many the risks can be minimized but not eliminated so like many things in life you have to decide whether its risk you want to take and most of us do decide to take that risk as with a lot of higher risk sport from Horse riding to Skiing to scuba diving etc.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 20th Sep 2012 at 12:39.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fine Astir - but fishing is also the largest participant sport in the UK - so no matter how safe, that situation (more people dying fishing than flying) would be likely if only due to heart attacks and general old age (a bit like golf!).
The argument has to be based upon an apple and apples comparison - otherwise your passengers might think (if they know about these things) that you are not being entirely honest with them......
The argument has to be based upon an apple and apples comparison - otherwise your passengers might think (if they know about these things) that you are not being entirely honest with them......
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As said above flying is about as safe as riding a Motoycycle in raw numbers however 75% of motorcycle accidents are the fault of the other driver, in the air there is far less chance of getting hit by another aircraft that you did not see.
Flying accidents are largely due to pilot error with only a few accidents due to mechanical failure.
So the chances of having an accident in a light aircraft are very much reduced if you fly with a pilot who is current in an aircraft that is well maintained, fly in an old dog of an aircraft that has had minimum maintenance with a pilot who has flown two hours in the last six months and the chances of an accident rocket to a point at which jumping busses on a motorcycle looks safe.
Flying accidents are largely due to pilot error with only a few accidents due to mechanical failure.
So the chances of having an accident in a light aircraft are very much reduced if you fly with a pilot who is current in an aircraft that is well maintained, fly in an old dog of an aircraft that has had minimum maintenance with a pilot who has flown two hours in the last six months and the chances of an accident rocket to a point at which jumping busses on a motorcycle looks safe.
Last edited by A and C; 20th Sep 2012 at 13:22.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other than a ground incident you are not likely to survive a plane crash! They tend to be fatal!
I am always surprised when I read the reports how many aircraft that "crash" do not include fatalities.
I suppose it depends what you mean by "crash" and if you take a crash being flying into the ground in some totally uncontrolled way or flying into the side of a mountain in IMC then you are unlikely to survive.
Even that said I recall the chap recently who ran into fog over the Downs without any instrument training. He kept the thing reasonably straight and level and was found upright in a field on top of the Downs having slid along the surface! Exceptional I know, and a very lucky chap indeed.
Originally Posted by Pace
Other than a ground incident you are not likely to survive a plane crash! They tend to be fatal!
As proof, see for example this NTSB data set (Excel spreadsheet) for 2001, and look at Column G (Highest Injury) and Column O (Flight Phase).
See also this NTSB table of Accidents, Fatalities and Rates from 1992-2011.
US General Aviation Accidents per 100,000 flying hours each year range from 6.35 to 9.01.
Corresponding fatalities per 100,000 flying hours range from 1.16 to 1.81.
More NTSB stats here.
Edited to say that I'm sure the CAA and AAIB have similar stats, but they didn't come up in my rapid Google. Nevertheless, rates have historically been similar to the US experience.
Last edited by hoodie; 20th Sep 2012 at 13:46.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central London
Age: 41
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the responses. It's a case of 'lies, damn lies and statistics' I guess as there are so many variables at play.
It's an interesting question though. And one I've thought more and more about this year as I've been hour building and not had the comfort of an instructor sitting beside me. Of the 60 or so hours I've flown this year I've had three occasions where I was genuinely scared. Two of these were 'near-misses' with other aircraft, where I had to take evasive action, and one where I was forced to divert due to low cloud (unforecast) and ended up scudding around at 700 feet near high ground waiting to land. I've learned from those experiences and hopefully I'm a better pilot for them, and I certainly have a new appreciation of just how easily accidents can happen.
If I was to describe my own abilities - I would say I am inexperienced and therefore very risk-averse in my approach to planning (probably more so than some other PPLs I've flown with) - but then everyone would probably say that about themselves!
Ultimately I accept the risk because I love flying - but I want to be in a position to give non-flying passengers some honest insight into the risks. I think that's only fair.
That probably hits the nail on the nail on the head in terms of a balance between scaring people sh*tless, and not misleading them either. I might just adopt it going forward!
It's an interesting question though. And one I've thought more and more about this year as I've been hour building and not had the comfort of an instructor sitting beside me. Of the 60 or so hours I've flown this year I've had three occasions where I was genuinely scared. Two of these were 'near-misses' with other aircraft, where I had to take evasive action, and one where I was forced to divert due to low cloud (unforecast) and ended up scudding around at 700 feet near high ground waiting to land. I've learned from those experiences and hopefully I'm a better pilot for them, and I certainly have a new appreciation of just how easily accidents can happen.
If I was to describe my own abilities - I would say I am inexperienced and therefore very risk-averse in my approach to planning (probably more so than some other PPLs I've flown with) - but then everyone would probably say that about themselves!
Ultimately I accept the risk because I love flying - but I want to be in a position to give non-flying passengers some honest insight into the risks. I think that's only fair.
I tell my passengers that it would be about as risky as motorcycling, except that I cheat by making sure I've got enough fuel, only taking off in weather I can cope with, choosing not to play silly buggers with aerobatics at low level, etc.
That probably hits the nail on the nail on the head in terms of a balance between scaring people sh*tless, and not misleading them either. I might just adopt it going forward!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of the 60 or so hours I've flown this year I've had three occasions where I was genuinely scared
Two of these were 'near-misses' with other aircraft
ended up scudding around at 700 feet near high ground waiting to land
With "luck" like that, I'd say you're high risk!
I agree with the other statements to the effect that flying is definitely not as safe as driving a car, and that it is very much dependent on the pilot how safe (or not) it is.
If you want to convince anyone that it is not downright dangerous when you want to entice them to go along for a ride, you need to argue credibly how you are reducing the risks.
These are the arguments that I use:
- I ensure that I keep in practice, and won't bring any passengers if I'm not nor will I fly as PIC if I don't feel physically up to it,
- I fly docile/reliable/tried-and-tested aircraft, which I am current on and am convinced are well-maintained and operated by a serious operator,
- I regularly practice forced landing and/or engine-out approaches, and have regular check rides with an instructor,
- I do a thorough pre-flight inspection, and if I'm in doubt that something's not OK, then there's no doubt: I'm not going,
- I will only fly in weather conditions which are well within personal and legal limits, and if there's any doubt, then there's no doubt: I'm not going or will turn back.
- I acquire a comprehensive and appropriate weather briefing before the flight, and check NOTAMS,
- I do a thorough pre-flight planning (W&B, endurance, T/O length required), even more so in hot and high conditions,
- I brief the passenger thoroughly about anything that will/could happen during a flight, before it occurs (e.g. how to open the door),
- I don't admire the countryside below me during the flight much, only to keep a look-out for potential landing sites, and prefer to keep my head on a swivel looking out for other aircraft
If you want to convince anyone that it is not downright dangerous when you want to entice them to go along for a ride, you need to argue credibly how you are reducing the risks.
These are the arguments that I use:
- I ensure that I keep in practice, and won't bring any passengers if I'm not nor will I fly as PIC if I don't feel physically up to it,
- I fly docile/reliable/tried-and-tested aircraft, which I am current on and am convinced are well-maintained and operated by a serious operator,
- I regularly practice forced landing and/or engine-out approaches, and have regular check rides with an instructor,
- I do a thorough pre-flight inspection, and if I'm in doubt that something's not OK, then there's no doubt: I'm not going,
- I will only fly in weather conditions which are well within personal and legal limits, and if there's any doubt, then there's no doubt: I'm not going or will turn back.
- I acquire a comprehensive and appropriate weather briefing before the flight, and check NOTAMS,
- I do a thorough pre-flight planning (W&B, endurance, T/O length required), even more so in hot and high conditions,
- I brief the passenger thoroughly about anything that will/could happen during a flight, before it occurs (e.g. how to open the door),
- I don't admire the countryside below me during the flight much, only to keep a look-out for potential landing sites, and prefer to keep my head on a swivel looking out for other aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central London
Age: 41
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With "luck" like that, I'd say you're high risk!
I'm trying to "fill up the bag of experience before emptying the bag of luck".
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.
The weather diversion was more questionable I guess. I like to think I made a good decision to throw it away and divert before things got too hairy.
Last edited by taxistaxing; 20th Sep 2012 at 14:27.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scud running happens - as you know it is far from ideal and a lesson I suspect we all encounter sometime. Its not ideal however, be careful, as I am sure you know its a real potential killer. It is true to say that even when not forecast it usually is the pilot's fault to get caught out in this way.
Near misses happen. To be fair two in that many hour is a lot. My average seems to be one every thousand hours. You might do as well to consider why they occurred and if there is anything you could have done differently.
However also to be fair in the early years of flying we think a near miss is something with a few more years wouldnt even rate as a close encounter.. Moreover the stats. prove the chances of a near miss turning into a collision are incredibly remote, not that I am sure that should make us complacent.
Near misses happen. To be fair two in that many hour is a lot. My average seems to be one every thousand hours. You might do as well to consider why they occurred and if there is anything you could have done differently.
However also to be fair in the early years of flying we think a near miss is something with a few more years wouldnt even rate as a close encounter.
. Moreover the stats. prove the chances of a near miss turning into a collision are incredibly remote, not that I am sure that should make us complacent.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ulster
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance assessment
I think that insurance companies have a good idea of risk. When i started to learn to fly last year I rang my insurers to see if my new activity would have an impact on my life assurance policy in terms of premium, cover etc. They were pleased to tell me it wouldn't, I would be covered for private flying with no additional cost - they sent a letter to confirm this.
If the insurance companies (who are putting their money where their mouth is!) are not fussed about the risk of private flying then tell your father he shouldn't be!
If the insurance companies (who are putting their money where their mouth is!) are not fussed about the risk of private flying then tell your father he shouldn't be!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all experience, but joking aside, scud running around 700' is really pushing your luck, and you need to make sure you're never in that situation again. The panic feeling that comes with that situation can in itself lead to issues, especially with low hour PPL only pilots.