Someone (can't remember who) said "The Cub is a very safe aircraft, it can only just kill you."

Okay, since this thread has been switched to a more respectable location, let me add a twist.

I deliberately excluded Autogyros from my original post because, there's little doubt they most certainly are very dangerous aircraft.

Despite Commander Wallis' antics we all know what happens when you put the nose down sharply, what follows, and why.

So would all agree that AutoGyro safety would definitely come third in the list of three?

Quite possibly, but I don't think your diagnosis is correct doctor.

My suggestion is that the historical gyro accident rate is due to no certification standard for airworthiness and virtually no training.

In the UK and other parts new airworthiness design standards and better training have improved things somewhat.

Which is assisted by the fact that autogyros give you even more opportunities to kill yourself when not being extremely cautious and disciplined (sideslip, fast gyration/yaw, push-over, strong turbulence, often horrific H-V diagram, did I forget anything?), not to mention the fact that there are some quite unforgiving designs out there (High Thrust Line, no stab).

edit:
Regading the comparison FW - RW it has to be said that from a purely technical perspective FW have far less non- redundant critical parts that can lead to unrecoverable/unsurvivable situations when they fail. That can be mitigated to some extent by more rigourous maintenance though.

It's like that you want to compare ships vs. trains, all that statistics is bull*hit ...

If you decided to fly helicopters then you even don't think is it more or less safer than aeroplane.

I fly both (only PPL on aeroplane), and I feel more safe in helicopter, I don't know why ! Probably because I like choppers.



JR

Rather old but some interesting comparisons here.

So we are making progress, all seem to concur that Autogyros are death-traps, requiring extra-tight certification and pilot training/regulation.

Anybody here been brave enough to fly an Autogyro?

Yes, thanks; thoroughly enjoyable, and I personally rate an autogyro with it's engine switched off as safer that an R22 in a similar condition.

BTW, I've several 1000s of hours in the front of helicopters, many hours as pax in both FW and RW, and I'm not dead. How does that sway your computation?

Yes I fly autogyros: one of the PartT manufactured ones. It is a more affordable form of pleasure flying. I confine it to nice days. I usually fly by myself (sad) but it leaves me with greater margins and fuel in the tank. I am careful and keep well within the aircraft limits. Open cockpit is great, if you have not flown it before. I very rarely take it to the mountains (hills really) we have here, cos it is too light (which is a shame because I just love mountain flying).

I also flew R22s (about 2000 hrs). Really enjoyed that too. When i was in good instructing practice I really used to enjoy demoing and teaching EOLs etc, bearing in mind sensible limits. I was very careful to avoid serious turbulence. Had 1 eng failure: still here & so is the aircraft.

Moved onto bigger RW. Nice to get someone else to pay for that. Great privilege.

After more than a decade, found myself in an R22 a while ago. Horrible little thing; everything flaps and rattles [But it got me into the best job I ever had]

Also a PPL(A). About 300 hrs. Boring and pointless unless you need to get somewhere a fair distance away.

All IMHO.

The real question is the balance between risk and benefit/cost.

For most things you use a hele for you can't use a FW. I bet the FW accident rate for confined areas would be higher than for RW, but you know what, we will never find out.

I fly FW and RW and as much as I prefer to fly RW , which will always be my first love , there's no comparison. So much more can go wrong, so much quicker in RW. The nature of off airport landings, critical components and the nature of rotational stresses all add up to making RW machines an indulgence that is far more likely to to separate one's head from one's neck when things go pear shaped.

As for which is more fun, more challenging to fly ..RW wins hands down in my humble opinion

UK CAA publish a safety review every few years, where they look at various classes of aviation, and their preferred metric is fatalities per million flying hours, which is a fairly reasonable one.

The numbers vary from report to report, but are actually pretty consistent over the last 15 years or so and look something along the lines of:

Airlines - tiny numbers
Certified GA FW, large helicopters: approx 1 fatality per 80,000hrs
Smaller RW, microlights, gliders: 1 fatality per 40-50,000hrs
Homebuilts: 1 per 25,000hrs
Gyroplanes: 1 per 6,000hrs

Or thereabouts.

I agree that helicopters are a heck of a lot of fun, but I defy anybody to show me that a helicopter at £200++/hr gives me more than five times as much fun as I do in a flexwing microlight at £40/hr on the weekends.

G

My preferred metric would be 'fatalities per departure'. Whether crossing the road or going half-way around the world, on departure it's nice to have some idea of the chances of arriving in one piece.

As an aside, from the doccy puntosaurus linked:
Oh for that attitude this side of the Atlantic!

Genghis,

You quote UK CAA safety data that quantify fatalities as a function of flight hours...
Please define "tiny numbers". For example, if the fatality rate for large helicopters is 1 per 80,000 hours, is the airline fatality rate per 80,000 hours .1, .01, .001, .0001?

HT

diginagain:
We've not made any calculations yet, because we can't decide what to use as a measure, and doesn't look like we will be able to.

But the Law of Averages, and probability, have their beady eyes on you, so you may wish to consider retirement.

I'm working on it, believe me, but it is the Weather Gods who are preventing me from notching-up pax hours today.

Helinut:
This is the key isn't it? Knowing where they are, and double-watching yourself to ensure you keep within them.

I'm sure Cmmdr. Wallis holds tightly onto his designs because he knows punters definitely won't do that.

I won't dare you to try the legs over the side, and hands in the air trick.

Yes, that'd be a good factor in the measure, but so woolly.

Safety of fixed wing over cities compared to helicopters over cities: Single engine, yes helicopter must be safer.

Goody35:
Thanks for the honest appraisal.

Are those dare-devil Kiwis still out netting deer with helicopters, or have they finally caught them all?

Genghis:
Ahh numbers... We have proof at last!

No, seriously, I can readily see how they need to be broken down, and qualified before any conclusion can be drawn.

I'm surprised to see gliders lumped with microlights and Robinsons.
I feel very safe in gliders, especially with a parachute on.

But that's obviously skewed to favour fixed wings aircraft, which have far fewer "departures" than helicopters. Sorry that wouldn't do.

Seems that any machine certified for flight is inherently safe when all its parts are working properly.

Airplanes probably have the advantage in safety though for three reasons.

1. They are more stable, and usually have more automation reducing pilot workload and decreasing the chance of pilot error.

2. They land at the safest places - airports (typically). People don't buy helicopters to land at airports.

3. They spend far more time enroute than a helicopter. Accidents are far more likely to happen on a departure or arrival.

The advantage a helicopter has is that it can land nearly anywhere if there is a problem. For instance, if there were a fire on board I could likely be on the ground in minutes, where as an airplane must find an airport. Many accidents could've been avoided if a safe landing area could be found in time.