Aviation Safety
- Thread starter nkoenig
- Start date
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
Depends on what you're flying.
A DC-9? Yes, flying is safer.
A Cessna 171? He11 no.
A DC-9? Yes, flying is safer.
A Cessna 171? He11 no.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I meant 172...
Statistically speaking, you're more likely to die in a Cessna 172 than you are in your car. As GA pilots, we have a pretty bad track record...
Statistically speaking, you're more likely to die in a Cessna 172 than you are in your car. As GA pilots, we have a pretty bad track record...
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Statistically, non-corporate GA flying has a higher accident rate than driving. As I recall, the AOPA Nall reports tend to put it somewhere in the neighborhood of riding a motorcycle.
But the stats don't tell the whole story. They almost never do. With a car and motorcycle, a large (maybe the largest?) portion of the risk is other people. You're likely to be hit by someone else. In GA, the largest part of the risk is the pilot. Mid-airs, engine outs, etc are pretty rare compared with flying too low, running out of fuel, and flying into conditions you can't handle.
So, far more than the others, flying risk is in then hands of the pilot.
That's good enough for me.
But the stats don't tell the whole story. They almost never do. With a car and motorcycle, a large (maybe the largest?) portion of the risk is other people. You're likely to be hit by someone else. In GA, the largest part of the risk is the pilot. Mid-airs, engine outs, etc are pretty rare compared with flying too low, running out of fuel, and flying into conditions you can't handle.
So, far more than the others, flying risk is in then hands of the pilot.
That's good enough for me.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
So, far more than the others, flying risk is in then hands of the pilot.
That's good enough for me.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with you!
So, far more than the others, flying risk is in then hands of the pilot.
That's good enough for me.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with you!
Mr_Creepy
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I meant 172...
Statistically speaking, you're more likely to die in a Cessna 172 than you are in your car. As GA pilots, we have a pretty bad track record...
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see these statistics!
All I can find shows a 12x more likelihood of dying in a car accident than in a C172.
Yeah, I meant 172...
Statistically speaking, you're more likely to die in a Cessna 172 than you are in your car. As GA pilots, we have a pretty bad track record...
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see these statistics!
All I can find shows a 12x more likelihood of dying in a car accident than in a C172.
seagull
Well-Known Member
All of the stats are misleading. The Economist did a nice article on the topic a few years ago. Essentially, the issue is this:
On a distance travelled basis, flying is safer (in fact, a ride on the Space Shuttle is safer than any commercial airline on this basis!). Not surprising, airlines and aviation uses this metric.
On a "time" basis, airline travel is about equal to riding in a van.
On a "per trip" basis, (meaning start-up to shutdown, could say "per leg"), airline travel is about even to a motorcycle ride.
So, if you are going from LAX to JFK, flying is the safest, but there is a crossover depending on the length of the trip, etc.
On a distance travelled basis, flying is safer (in fact, a ride on the Space Shuttle is safer than any commercial airline on this basis!). Not surprising, airlines and aviation uses this metric.
On a "time" basis, airline travel is about equal to riding in a van.
On a "per trip" basis, (meaning start-up to shutdown, could say "per leg"), airline travel is about even to a motorcycle ride.
So, if you are going from LAX to JFK, flying is the safest, but there is a crossover depending on the length of the trip, etc.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
All of the stats are misleading. The Economist did a nice article on the topic a few years ago. Essentially, the issue is this:
On a distance travelled basis, flying is safer (in fact, a ride on the Space Shuttle is safer than any commercial airline on this basis!). Not surprising, airlines and aviation uses this metric.
On a "time" basis, airline travel is about equal to riding in a van.
On a "per trip" basis, (meaning start-up to shutdown, could say "per leg"), airline travel is about even to a motorcycle ride.
So, if you are going from LAX to JFK, flying is the safest, but there is a crossover depending on the length of the trip, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Airline travel about even to a motorcycle ride!?! I have a very hard time buying that. Do you have some numbers to back it up? I might be able to buy that GA is roughly equivalent to a motorcycle ride, but I even have a tough time with that...
G
All of the stats are misleading. The Economist did a nice article on the topic a few years ago. Essentially, the issue is this:
On a distance travelled basis, flying is safer (in fact, a ride on the Space Shuttle is safer than any commercial airline on this basis!). Not surprising, airlines and aviation uses this metric.
On a "time" basis, airline travel is about equal to riding in a van.
On a "per trip" basis, (meaning start-up to shutdown, could say "per leg"), airline travel is about even to a motorcycle ride.
So, if you are going from LAX to JFK, flying is the safest, but there is a crossover depending on the length of the trip, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Airline travel about even to a motorcycle ride!?! I have a very hard time buying that. Do you have some numbers to back it up? I might be able to buy that GA is roughly equivalent to a motorcycle ride, but I even have a tough time with that...
G
seagull
Well-Known Member
Yes, on a number of fatalities "per trip". You have to remember that the majority of motorcycle rides are very short, so there is very little time or distance involved, relatively. The stats are available with the research in the back issues of the Economist. You can do your own research at www.economist.com if you like.
flyguy
Well-Known Member
I also have heard that GA flying is about equivelent to a motorcycle ride, and I think that sounds about right, but airline flying being on level with a motorcycle ride is not even close. I remember seeing a show on the discovery channel (I think) about airline disasters and they mentioned that statistically if you board an airliner every day, it will take 10,000 years before being involved in an accident and even then chances for survival are in your favor. If you think about how often you hear about an airliner crashing (not that often) and then think about how many thousands of flights are completed safely every day you can see the ratio. Even September 11th, there were four very unfortunate flights, but then compare that to the thousands of flights without incident just that morning.
Minnesota_Flyer
New Member
Keep in mind that all of these statistics are derived largely from WAG formulas . . . Wild A$$ Guesses. Good figures are available for airline travel (numbers of passengers, miles flown, time in the air, legs, etc.), but that same information is not available for GA or even automobile usage. No one really knows how much GA flying there is. The figures are just guesses. Consequently, the statistics cited by any source need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
In any case, raw numbers can't tell the whole story in GA. If you are well trained and proficient, and you stay out of situations that are over your head (or over your plane's head), and you don't make bone-headed decisions, you're chances of dying in a GA accident are negligible.
MF
In any case, raw numbers can't tell the whole story in GA. If you are well trained and proficient, and you stay out of situations that are over your head (or over your plane's head), and you don't make bone-headed decisions, you're chances of dying in a GA accident are negligible.
MF
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys know how I could check my FBO flight schools' track record as far as accidents? They say they never had any but i would still like to check for myself.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's one, but it's the log way. Go to the NTSB accident database and start putting in N-Numbers (remember though that the airplane may not have been part of your FBO when the accident happened)
For those who are interested in looking at some of the GA safety stats, check out
1. NTSB aviation accident statistics at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
For example, compare 2003: 0.313 accidents and 0.012 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours for the airlines compared with 6.71 accidents and 1.36 fatalities for GA.
2. The AOPA Air Safety Foundation safety page, http://www.aopa.org/asf/safety_topics.html
(AOPA Membership =not= required). You can download the annual Nall Report (big PDF download) there.
Do you guys know how I could check my FBO flight schools' track record as far as accidents? They say they never had any but i would still like to check for myself.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's one, but it's the log way. Go to the NTSB accident database and start putting in N-Numbers (remember though that the airplane may not have been part of your FBO when the accident happened)
For those who are interested in looking at some of the GA safety stats, check out
1. NTSB aviation accident statistics at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
For example, compare 2003: 0.313 accidents and 0.012 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours for the airlines compared with 6.71 accidents and 1.36 fatalities for GA.
2. The AOPA Air Safety Foundation safety page, http://www.aopa.org/asf/safety_topics.html
(AOPA Membership =not= required). You can download the annual Nall Report (big PDF download) there.
Nerdwing
New Member
I did some research on GA safety myself to try and convince myself that it was safe. Here's what I found:
Flipping the NTSB's 1.3 deaths per 100,000 hours number gives approximately 1 death per 74,000 hours of general aviation flying.
As far as interpreting what this means, here are some thoughts:
If a student decided to get his PPL license and spent 50 hours doing it, he'd have a 50/74,000 = approximately 1 in 1,500 chance of being killed during training (with the caveat that this is the "average" pilot in the "average" airplane. In fact, flight training has a better safety record than GA as a whole).
The death rate for automobiles is given as 1 per 1.4 MILLION hours. It follows that an hour spent in an airplane is 19 time more likely to kill you than an hour in a car.
On the other hand, if you assume that the "average" auto speed is 35mph and that the average GA airplane speed might be 3 times as much, you could say GA is "only" 6 times as fatal on a per mile basis. Is this safe? It depends on how you feel about accepting a greater risk than you would riding in a car.
Good luck trying to find safety statistics for individual airplane make/models (they seem to exist only for airliners). I tried everywhere and and only came up with certain well-known airplanes (e.g. the 172) being a little safer than the average. I went with an FBO that has been in business for a long time and therefore has a history that can be researched (I only found 2 minor accidents associated with the FBO, neither recent) and (hopefully) a reputation to maintain. And there's always the "smell" test. During an intro flight at another company, I constantly smelled exhaust during the flight and afterwards I felt nauseous and dizzy. When added to the visibly shabby condition of the airplane, I decided to take this as an indication of poor maintenance and that I wasn't going to chance it on this particular outfit. If you see something that gives you doubts, why not go elsewhere?
Keep in mind that the statistics for GA are only approximate and encompass all pilots, no matter how careless or careful, all types of airplanes, no matter how airworthy/unairworthy, and all types of flight (some, like GA night IFR, are statistically much more accident prone than others).
What I get out of the statistics is a fairly sober perspective on GA flying. It reminds me not to screw around when it comes to weather, poorly maintain airplanes, drinking and flying, etc. I love to fly and decided that even though GA flying isn't as safe as I'd like it to be, if I'm careful and work to meet the requirements of piloting safely, I can probably have a long flying career. But I do this accepting that there is a certain element of risk involved.
When people ask me if it's 'safe' I'd rather just give them the information because it's up to them to decide whether it's worth it or not.
Flipping the NTSB's 1.3 deaths per 100,000 hours number gives approximately 1 death per 74,000 hours of general aviation flying.
As far as interpreting what this means, here are some thoughts:
If a student decided to get his PPL license and spent 50 hours doing it, he'd have a 50/74,000 = approximately 1 in 1,500 chance of being killed during training (with the caveat that this is the "average" pilot in the "average" airplane. In fact, flight training has a better safety record than GA as a whole).
The death rate for automobiles is given as 1 per 1.4 MILLION hours. It follows that an hour spent in an airplane is 19 time more likely to kill you than an hour in a car.
On the other hand, if you assume that the "average" auto speed is 35mph and that the average GA airplane speed might be 3 times as much, you could say GA is "only" 6 times as fatal on a per mile basis. Is this safe? It depends on how you feel about accepting a greater risk than you would riding in a car.
Good luck trying to find safety statistics for individual airplane make/models (they seem to exist only for airliners). I tried everywhere and and only came up with certain well-known airplanes (e.g. the 172) being a little safer than the average. I went with an FBO that has been in business for a long time and therefore has a history that can be researched (I only found 2 minor accidents associated with the FBO, neither recent) and (hopefully) a reputation to maintain. And there's always the "smell" test. During an intro flight at another company, I constantly smelled exhaust during the flight and afterwards I felt nauseous and dizzy. When added to the visibly shabby condition of the airplane, I decided to take this as an indication of poor maintenance and that I wasn't going to chance it on this particular outfit. If you see something that gives you doubts, why not go elsewhere?
Keep in mind that the statistics for GA are only approximate and encompass all pilots, no matter how careless or careful, all types of airplanes, no matter how airworthy/unairworthy, and all types of flight (some, like GA night IFR, are statistically much more accident prone than others).
What I get out of the statistics is a fairly sober perspective on GA flying. It reminds me not to screw around when it comes to weather, poorly maintain airplanes, drinking and flying, etc. I love to fly and decided that even though GA flying isn't as safe as I'd like it to be, if I'm careful and work to meet the requirements of piloting safely, I can probably have a long flying career. But I do this accepting that there is a certain element of risk involved.
When people ask me if it's 'safe' I'd rather just give them the information because it's up to them to decide whether it's worth it or not.