Love flying, not keen on dying :))
 

Hi everyone, allow me to introduce myself, as I am new here. My name is Andre, 39, living in Munich (though not German). I came across this forum in my ongoing research into (i) learning to fly and (ii) ultimately owning an aircraft. I am hoping you might be able to share some advice about the risks associated with GA, and then interestingly enough, with Touring Motor Gliders ("TMG") as a class of aviation, to help guide me to the best means (i.e. the safest means) of getting into (and staying in) this incredible sport.

In a nutshell, I would like to pursue my private pilot's license, on a TMG. There is a school near the city that offers our equivalent of a PPL, on a TMG (Dimona H36 / X-Treme) . Before I take to the skies, I have a few burning questions about TMG specifically, which are proving very hard to find a credible answer on (mainly due to limited granularity in reporting data). I'm generally quite an anxious person, though my anxiety is marginally overshadowed by my love of flying. As a father of 2 young kids I do however have a responsiblity to my family, etc, etc (including "not to die in fiery plane wreck"). I am struggling with balancing the sheer joy and exhilaration (indulgence) of flying versus the risk of leaving my kids as orphans or even worse, incapacitated due to injury etc. Not a nice thought, but one that I can't seem to shake. I have a pang of guilt for wanting to fly knowing that it is somewhat selfish, as I get such enjoyment out of it. My main questions therefore relate to safety, of not just GA in general, but of TMG more specifically, as a sub-segment within GA.

To start with, several people have likened the risks associated with General Aviation to those of riding a motorbike. This obviously puts me off ever wanting to fly or own a plane, as I associate riding a motorcycle with being exposed to risks well outside my own control. More specifically, there are too many external variables associated to riding a motorbike (at least on the road) that I cannot control but which could kill me. I will therefore (again, as a father of 2 young kids) never own or ride a motorcyle. This is beyond my boundary of acceptable risk. My interpretation of this principle with GA and TMG is a little different though, in that most of the risks associated with flying are well within my control. I imagine I could do things to bring flying well below my threshold of acceptable risk. Specifically, things like good training, learning good airmanship, not flying in bad weather or IMC conditions, proper pre-flights, checks, etc are all within my control. If I make a conscious decision to be as "safe as possible" a pilot, even at the risk of being a boring / unadventurous pilot, then so be it. The exhilaration of flying for me comes from simply being in the air, not necessarily being upside down / sideways / whatever else in the air. I am therefore naturally drawn to TMG as they seem to fit my risk profile (among GA alternatives) best. My logic for this is as follows :

• TMG seem fairly "steady" in the air. More so than LSA (another alternative) or regular C152 / 172.
• I have the improved gliding performance (again, only over a C152 / 172) in case I ever need it. Simply put, in the event of an engine out, I have more time to choose a suitable place to land than I would in most other planes.
• I like the feature of airbrakes/spoilers, which again give me the perception of greater control. One can descend more sharply (i.e. with greater speed and therefore more safely) than with a C152 / 172. Again,
• I understand TMG have in general a lower stall speed than other GA alternatives, again, reinforcing my impression that these are fairly steady aircraft with fairly docile flight characteristics.
• I therefore chose TMG to learn to fly as they seem "safer" than the GA alternatives. I recognise that the pilot is what makes a plane safe, but I also acknowledge that some aircraft are inherently less safe than others (just google LSA accident statistics, and you'll see what I mean)

I would love to hear any feedback or thoughts on my impressions above. I realise these could be way-off, hence this post. My burning questions are really : How safe are TMG ? Any safer / less safe than other GA alternatives ? For the purpose of clarity, I think of a TMG as a Diamond Katana X-treme / H36 Dimona, or Grob G109 a / b. If you were advising someone of the safest way to get into aviation, what advice would you give them ? (other than staying on the ground or flying RC planes :))

Oh yeah, one last question - would having a parachute on while I'm flying be a waste of time ?

I would be truly grateful for any views / opinions / experiences that you'd be willing to share, and many thanks in advance

Regards from Munich
Andre

I'm afraid you are asking the wrong questions, as your perception of safety and risk is quite unsound. Safety is not about an emotional aversion of all risks but rather about their comprehensive assessment, continuous awareness and proper mitigation. Essentially, there is no such thing as an "acceptable boundary" of the total unmitigated risk - all risk factors should be mitigated to an ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) level; however, an individual risk factor may indeed be considered acceptable in an unmitigated form when an assessment shows it to be minor compared to other risks even when those are mitigated. For example, we teach our children to pay attention to traffic lights to mitigate the risk of being killed in a traffic accident, but we need not teach them to watch out for aircraft falling out of the blue sky directly on their heads, because that risk is much lower than the risk of a traffic accident even when they are already taught to be very careful on the street. Comparing cars and motorcycles, both types of vehicles are significant sources of risks on the risk scale of today's civilisation, and considering the car "acceptable" but the bike "unacceptable" is self-deception. Furthermore, while a motorcycle is less safe on the road than a car, the related risks are well recognised, so accident avoidance training programs are much more popular among motorcyclists than among four-wheel drivers, and a well-trained motorcyclist is obviously safer on the road than a totally absent-minded car driver.

One major problem with emotional risk aversion is the lack of systematic risk assessment - that is, one can easily overlook a major but insidious (or popularly disregarded) risk for fear of a minor but obvious (or exaggerated) one. Thus, for example, when flying as an airline passenger, you are much more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to the airport than in an aircraft crash. Another problem with an emotion-based approach is that even when the ratio of specific risk factors is evident, the risk mitigation process may dramatically change it - a minor factor of unmitigated risk may unexpectedly become the leading one after all safety measures have been put in place just because this factor is less amenable to mitigation.

Coming back to your original topic, the biggest risk factor in case of both TMG and other aircraft is not the aircraft but yourself. Human factors are most frequent cause of accidents in today's aviation, and their share in the total number of accidents is only increasing. So, if I were you, I would choose a school based on the quality of their training rather than the aircraft they operate, and would concentrate my efforts on gaining and maintaining good airmanship skills. Keep in mind that airmanship is a much broader concept than just flying an aircraft, and acting safely is actually the most important aspect of airmanship.

hi

I know nothing about touring motor gliding

nor would I want to do it.

I do know flying though.


While an engine failure is a possibility, have you had an engine failure in your automobile? what did you do? how did you handle it? when you learned to drive did anyone tell you what to do if you had an engine failure while driving?

well, you would be trained in such things at a reputable flying school, even a bad flying school might train you well enough.


I don't care for the 152 or 172...but the Piper Cherokee/Warrior/Archer series is very comfortable and in the same class.


IF you limit your self to flying in good weather, in the daylight, over familiar and relatively hospitable terrain, you should do ok.

I've taught many people to fly and to the best of my knowledge they are all well over the last thirty years plus.


the anxiety...I had one student who shook, physically, before a lesson and I told him to give up on flying...he did.

do you shake?

good luck

and , read "STICK AND RUDDER"

As a motorcyclist, I would say that a plane is probably safer simply because everyone in the sky is better trained.

However, neither riding or flying are more dangerous than walking down the street, provided you know what you are doing.

I'm afraid I agree with half of what Ultranomad says, and disagree with the other half: your questions are perfectly sensible.

I would disagree quite strongly that a moderately dozy driver is more dangerous than a sharp motorcyclist, for example. I regularly see kids in A&E who have gotten high on drugs or alcohol, pulled some kind of ridiculous stunt and walked away from car crashes with glass and blood in their hair but who suffered no more serious injury. In contrast, I have seen a few motorcyclists who were brought into A&E in several bags (one had his arm in a cooler bag - ultimately not required). My understanding was that they were riding in an exemplary fashion.

Whilst it's true that the pilot is the most important factor in the safety of any aircraft, a sensible pilot chooses a sensible aircraft. There are certainly aircraft out there e.g. the Gee-Bee that are so unforgiving that they frequently pay back with death what might, in another aircraft, merely result in a fright. Even amongst more mainstream types, there are large differences in the safety profile. I wouldn't criticise anyone who had reason to want to fly a Gee-Bee, but wouldn't suggest it for commuting either.

A while back I trawled through the NTSB database looking at Long-EZ and Vari-EZ crash statistics. I've lost them now, but as I recall over half of off-airport landings resulted in a fatality, whereas only a few per-cent of Piper Cub engine failures did. As a general rule, lower stalling speeds result in a safer aircraft. My view was that if I lived in an area with lots of airports, I might fly a Long-EZ. However, I fly over rugged terrain and after reading the statistics, I reconsidered.

Where I would agree, is that it's important not to get too caught up on any single cause of accidents: you have to try to avoid all of them. My own feeling is that flying can be made acceptably safe. One of the big differences between flying and motorcycling is that in the air, you are primarily responsible for your safety. On a motorbike other drivers can kill you quite easily however well you ride. My feeling would be that we get too caught up on causes of accidents such as mid-air collisions and engine failures, where another party is at least partly to blame, whereas most accidents are due to our own pilot errors.

In my part of the US we have plenty of motorgliders, as towplanes are few and far between.

The pilots of the motorgliders (Katanas, Taifuns, Stemmes, Ximangos) all act, fly, and behave like regular powered aircraft PPL's. They follow all the same regulations. The physics and aeronautical concepts are the same.

The only area in which they might be safer is in the landing process, as their landing speeds are low, such that in a pinch they can land on a neighborhood street. And yes, this is a big thing for low-time recreational pilots.

The downside, in my opinion, is that there might be a tendency to think "well, I'm in a glider, nothing bad will happen even if my skills aren't that great". Disaster awaits that attitude.

I agree with others -- find a good school which will teach you good flying habits and good judgement, regardless of the equipment used.

Twoddle. Sorry, but it is.

General aviation is dangerous by any reasonable definition. Even if you're supremely careful, well trained and competent. Even good people get killed.

There are 3 ways of dealing with this:

1) Stop flying

2) Be in denial

3) Look at the risks objectively. Accept them. Do what you can within reason to reduce them.

Options 1 and 3 are perfectly acceptable, provided that 3 doesn't lead to a disabling degree of anxiety.

Read Stick and Rudder. If that does not put you off then nothing will.
Risk. My motorcycling friends think it is crazy that I gave up motorbikes because I felt them to be too dangerous but I fly an aeroplane. Flying is dangerous and you can get killed. There are a million things that can get you killed; only one of them will kill you and you do not get a choice. It is not possible to know which one and so you either live life in a sterile bubble, waiting for God or live dangerously knowing that the odds are in your favour. That is up to you. If you are too frightened then why do you want to fly?
The correct state of mind is excitement at the challenge. If that is not in you, do something else.

I know a bloke who was so nervous before flying that he used to puke during the wak around. He was flying Harriers though and went on to be a test pilot.

He should have just given up though hey?

if he was flying harriers, he may have done it on a carrier...maybe he was seasick

but nice of you to clean up after him.


no, really, this is an indictment of British food , right?

There is NO comparison between engine failure in a car vs. a plane. I regret having to point that out, I thought it should be obvious to anyone with even the slightest notions about flying.

Parachutes?
 

Interesting point made in this topic. Should we wear parachutes. I suppose the answer is complex.

1. What aeroplane do we fly? Most are quite capable of landing in a field, assuming there is an available field, so don't fly over big towns or water :)

2. The RAF trained us pilots to parachute jump. Maybe better to run into a hedge at 10 mph than to hit the ground on the end of a parachute at 30 mph.

3. Is you parachute going to work? When was it last serviced?

4. They are not cheap.

5. Jolly useful if the wing comes off though, but unlikely unless you hit someone or pull 10 G.

The list in endless. Personally I would not even use the parachute fitted to a Cirrus unless I really had to.

Dangerous? What about

Motorcycling?
Horse riding?
Using a chainsaw?
Scuba diving?
Rock climbing?
etc?

Of these I believe that horse riding tops the 'high-risk' rating based on injuries! Life Insurance companies rate Skydiving, scuba diving and mountain climbing as more risk than aviation (in any form).

Many things can get you killed. Unless you abstain the only things that reduces risk are training and attitude.

You cite motorcycling (as do others) as being too dangerous. IAM or ROSPA training - if those skills are then applied (back to your attitude) - will reduce your likelihood of causing an accident by over 90% and reduce your risk of being involved in an accident (whoever caused it) by 75%. So it's not 'risk-free' but the risk can be managed. I ride a motorcycle most days, have done since I was 17, and now commute in heavy city traffic. Yes, even in winter. No, I have not been knocked-off my bike by a car since undertaking IAM training in 1982.

I fly helicopters (statistically more dangerous than fixed-wing) and my daughter is currently training for a commercial helicopter license. Get the best training, set your limits and stay within them, constantly apply all of your skill and judgement, and when you have your license don't stop trying to improve / train.

Applies to aircraft, motorcycles, chain saws, horses, and everything else that 'might' be dangerous.

jan


both are engines


if an engine quits in a car while you are pulling out and you suddenly stop in the middle of a road, or a track, you can be in trouble...as a car or train can hit you.

i went through formal driver's training and was never taught what to do if an engine in a car quits.

engines in planes are usually better maintained in planes than in cars and even have two sets of spark plugs (piston).


sorry jan, i do think there are comparisons.

Now, I do realize that as a pilot you should be trained to handle engine failures and with my other provisos about daylight, and terrain...someone should be able to handle things without jumping out with a parachute.


if you want to really scare the original poster, talk about mid air collisions.

out west in the USA (near the capital of Nevada) a business jet collided with a glider.

the jet landed (belly landing) safely. the glider pilot had a parachute as the glider fell apart in the sky.

so, let's scare everyone with talk of collision, airborne fire, vertigo and other things.

eyesup

it sounds like you have an issue about control. and that's fine, but at some point it is YOU and YOUR PLANE vs the sky.

the sky will win if it wants to, and you must be able to think and avoid the problems.

Lindbergh flew from NY to Paris without a parachute. And that was 86 years ago...engines are pretty darn reliable.

there is a plane called a cirruss that has a parachute built into the plane itself...maybe you would like that plane ? of course it didn't save someone from hitting the side of a building.

The biggest factor in safety is you, and your attitude. I know lots of motorcyclist who have been riding all their lives and never had a serious accident (they generally had some near misses when they were young and less aware). They have all taken post-qualification training such as Bikesafe or IAM because motorcycling is potentially more dangerous than car driving as one is exposed more to the bad driving of others. But 'awareness' training can greatly lessen that risk though of course it can never totally remove it.

The same with flying. You are less at risk from the mistakes of others when in an aeroplane than when on a bike, but there are more insidious things that can bite you. Perhaps the biggest is your attitude to weather... 'get home itis' is a big killer in recreational flying.

Engine failure is probably the worst mechanical 'gotcha' that can happen. It's rare but it does happen. Real nasties like structural failure and fire in the air are thankfully almost unheard of, though the former can result from loss of control of the aeroplane in a weather-related scenario. I have had engine failure on take off, and I know quite a few others who have. A great deal of PPL training is about dealing with it. However I knew a guy who suffered it on take off and died. But he let it stall and spin as the speed bled off as he held the climb attitude. His mayday call was, apparently, exemplary though. He just forgot to fly the aeroplane. Ask yourself if you might do that as well. Personality type is an important safety factor in the air.

So get the best training you can and once you are qualified, stay as current as you can. And be careful extending the edges of your flying envelope.

Learning to 'drive the aeroplane' is the easy bit (though it won't feel like it at the time!). Developing high airmanship skills takes effort and application and self-awareness. But it's the latter that makes the difference where safety is concerned.

I had the same questions as the original poster before I started my training 4 years ago (see my original posts). I was obsessed with best glide ratio!

I therefore think that in the context of someone who does not have extensive real life experience with this topic they are all reasonable questions.

I agree with Jan though -An engine failure in a car is mostly nothing more but inconvenient - different for anything that flies!!

eyesup - You already know more than you think, train with a good school, do your bit in reading up bits and pieces as you probably have done anyway, and like you say - no reason to fly in crap weather.

Vabsie

Gents / Ladies (if applicable), thanks for all the replies. I appreciate them all. A few points :

1. I include this research as part of my first steps to becoming a safe pilot, specifically to (i) understand and then (ii) as best as possible manage the risks involved. To that end, every reply is helpful, especially those that took some time and thought to post.
2. From research and from the above replies, it's clear that pilot related risks outweigh any other. This ever-growing list is surely the best focal point for my risk mitigation, I accept that.
3. That said, there is also clearly a risk spectrum for aircraft types. At the risk of upsetting some forumites or making an ill-informed statement, I would contend that many LSA are not as safe as regular GA aircraft (a fact support by the statistics). I would also contend that some GA planes are safer than others (e.g the Diamond DA20/40 are statistically far safer than C152 /172's and even a BRS fitted Cirrus, on a standardised data basis). So, choosing to fly GA, and then choosing one with a superior safety record, would be a good start, surely ?
4. Assuming I manage the pilot related risks as best I can, what could I do to better manage the risks related to the type of aircraft that I fly ? I moved away from LSA after much research as they are in my view simply less safe as most GA alternatives (on a standardised data basis) . I also stopped flying microlights (as a student pilot) for exactly that reason. A light airframe + low wing loading meant I got blown around a lot more and was more exposed to strong and unanticipated gusts of wind. Now that I want to get back into flying, I am simply looking for the "safest" (relatively speaking) form or point of re-entry into flying.
5. I recognise, this is more to do with "how" I fly, than "what" I fly, but the "what" is still a factor, albeit a smaller one.

So here is what I know :

1. There seems no statistical basis for thinking TMG are safer than other GA alternatives. They may in fact be less stable due to low wing loadings
2. The Diamond DA20/40 range are known to be safer than most GA alternatives. Fewer crashes, fewer fatals. Low stall rates, good glide rates.
3. Failing that, the C172 / taper wing PA28 seems really good alternatives. Alternately something with a low stall speed
4. The remaining risk, as they say, is up to me

Just for the record, my anxiety is not completely unfounded. I was a student pilot on trikes at a microlight school in South Africa when my instructor crashed with a student on board. They were practising EO landings over the strip and the student froze on the control bar and they hit the deck at 45 deg. Both survived but student lost his leg. I switched to GA, my instructor there was on a commercial flight off the Mozambique coast, flew into a storm, IFR, crashed and died. Now, you could argue both accidents had nothing to do to with the plane (one trike and one King Air), and you'd be right, but had the student been in a C172 and not a weight shift, freezing on the "controls" (i.e. bar) would not be an issue. As for the instructor that flew into the storm, well, see my earlier point about focusing on the pilot as a risk factor. In a way I am grateful for my anxiety as it makes me think of (and aim to manage) risks that perhaps others would not.

You forgot marriage

Indeed.


In an aircraft, after shoving the nose forwards you've probably got minutes to think about it, decided what to do, plan, then act.


In a car (and this has happened to me twice) you've got to barge your way through however many lanes of nose-to-tail juggernauts with no means of indicating to them that you are not under full control. It isn't fun - you're dealing with seconds and feet, not miles and minutes.