general public's perception of "those little planes"

[aloft]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

The difficulty in comparing general aviation safety to automobile safety is that most people view general aviation as a recreational activity (and therefore entirely optional), not as simply a mode of transportation. When you compare aviation to other recreational activities, yeah, it's got an abnormally high risk of injury or death to it. It's only when compared to driving a car in traffic does aviation do better.

John King talked about this in his article in Flying or AOPA Pilot not too long ago, dispelling the myth that the most dangerous part of flying is the drive to the airport. Flying is expensive, and due to this, many pilots do not maintain the proficiency level they should. I know I don't. It's a vicious circle: pilot proficiency decreases, contributing to increased accident rates, causing insurance rates to rise, making flying even more expensive, decreasing pilot proficiency even further.

 

[Mr_Creepy]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

Fate is the Hunter was written 30 years ago!

Maybe YOUR flight school is unsafe, but at mine, we have never had a fatal accident, and the group has been going since 1982.

 

[Sprint100]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

[ QUOTE ]
The difficulty in comparing general aviation safety to automobile safety is that most people view general aviation as a recreational activity (and therefore entirely optional), not as simply a mode of transportation. When you compare aviation to other recreational activities, yeah, it's got an abnormally high risk of injury or death to it. It's only when compared to driving a car in traffic does aviation do better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even in media coverage people always talk about how good a commercial pilot is(not saying they aren't) in a crash or really downplay a tragic pilot error-type incident. The coverage for a recreational pilot involved in a crash is much different, it's viewed many more times and the emphasis isn't on why it crashed it's always just that it crashed.

 

[jeskoe]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

I'm not saying that general aviation is unsafe. But you do have to bring up the argument that yes, there are more auto accidents. But on the other hand, at any given time, how many cars are there on the road compared to general aviation aircraft in the air?

 

[SierraPilot]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

243 fatal accidents this year? According to the NTSB the number is 201 through the end of July 2003 with 93% of them from General Aviation.

General Aviation Statistics for 2002:

According to the NTSB, approximately 1.3 accidents per 100,000 flight hours occured out of 1,714 accidents reported and of those accidents 343 of them were fatal which resulted in 570 fatalities with 2.18 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours or 1.66 deaths per accident from out of 26,078,000 flight hours in 2002 occuring from 201,700 general aviation aircraft in service.

Driving Statistics for 2002:

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, approximately 6,277,000 auto accidents occured in 2002, causing 42,815 fatalities out of a total of 2,829,645 vehicle miles traveled out of 225,655,000 registered vehicles in 2002. The current US population as of 2002 was 288, 368, 698.

Lets do the math:

For every 60.09 vehicle miles traveled 1 person dies driving a vehicle. Only 2.7% of all registered vehicles were involved in a accident with 38,309 of those accidents resulting in a fatality which is less than .0149% of all registered vehicles in the US.

For every 45,750.87 flight hours flown 1 pilot dies flying. Only 0.117% of all general aviation aircraft in service were involved in a accident with 343 of those accidents resulting in a fatality which is less than 0.17% of all general aviation aircraft in service in the US.

Conclusion:

These numbers would seem to support that flying is safer, if you compare that 2.7% vs 0.117% of all aircraft, and vehicles then its clear that aircraft are less likely to be in a accident while flying, and while the numbers would seem to indicate your more likely to die in a plane crash if one takes place, the total numbers would suggest that you are more likely to be involved in a fatal car crash than a fatal airplane crash.

Just my .2 cents worth

 

[outside_looking_in]

Bottom Line

Hey look, I think the bottom line is that you have to have a drive inside that makes you say to heck with it. I mean, you have to want to fly bad enough. Anyone competent enough to speak the English Language should know there are significant risks of dying if you crash. But, if one of your friends have that drive to do it, they will simply swallow the risks and try it. The only thing that numbers do is scare you away. Yeah, you can die doing it, but after you are dead, what do you know, you are dead. It is that simple, you are dead. D-E-A-D, or having a heck of a lot of fun if nothing happens. I'll take the risks.

 

[Mr_Creepy]

Re: Bottom Line

Sierra Pilot - good research. Thanks!

 

[kostcoguy]

Re: Bottom Line

And even if you do crash, another look at the NTSB will show that around 9/10 of all GA crashes are non-fatal, with no serious injuries.

 

[pilot602]

Re: Bottom Line

ESF -

[ QUOTE ]
Strap a parachute to your average dip$hit and throw them out of the plane and I'll bet my next 3 paychecks that they go splat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Write that up as a proposal and I bet you could sell it to Fox as a new reality show!

Possible titles:

"Bouncing Dip$hits"
"Dude, where's my parachute?"
"Holy cr@p I'm fall..."
"Bonzai Bozos"
"Kamakzi Kicks"
"Death from Above"
"Fox says watch our next cr@ppy reality show ... or you'll be the next contestant!"

 

[EatSleepFly]

Re: Bottom Line

[ QUOTE ]
Write that up as a proposal and I bet you could sell it to Fox as a new reality show!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm...not a bad idea....

I like these two:

[ QUOTE ]

"Bouncing Dip$hits"
"Dude, where's my parachute?"


[/ QUOTE ]

 

[naunga]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

[ QUOTE ]
"yeah i've flown on the airlines but you won't get my up in one of those little planes."

[/ QUOTE ]
I've gotten that one before. I ask why he felt that way, and was told that, "I'd feel safer on like a 747 because there are 4 pilots flying the plane, and that there are more engines."

You should've seen the look on his face when I told him that there are only two or 3 (FE) pilots in the cockpit and that only one of them is flying at any one time.

Then he explained how a 747 is designed to fly without it's engines, but a 172 isn't. I promptly pointed out the laws of physics to him. In the end, I think I've convinced him that flying isn't safe is anything.

I love the people who ask, "How many hours do you need for you license?", I tell them the FAA requires 40, then they say, "Oh my god! They let people fly airliners with only 40 hours in a small plane?" I just shake my head and walk away.

As far as the safety stuff goes, I look at it like this: Any thing you do has the potential to kill you. From driving, to taking a shower, to going into a fast food joint (double if you actually eat there), but it's your responsibility to make that activity as safe as possible. And in the end we're all going to die of something, whether we fly airplanes or lock ourselves in a bomb shelter until we die of old age. The point of life is to get out there and experience things. Good, bad, safe, unsafe. That's my philosiphy anyhow.

Later.

Naunga

 

[chris6387]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

[ QUOTE ]
to going into a fast food joint (double if you actually eat there)

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of miles from my house somebody took the "drive-thru" sign literally, drove into a McDonald's, and killed a couple of people.

 

[b_r]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

I have added this topic to my list of responsibilities since I started flying. It is quite ironic that in a town where traffic fatalities are a weekly occurence, the average person thinks GA planes are bombs with wings.

I will only share with someone that I am a pilot when I have the time and energy to describe to them just how safe and controlled the skies really are. (John Doe, I think you are the first person I have heard of that has had such an experience with aviation, that really is too bad, and uncommon, I think.)

I tell them about preflight preparation, maintenance regulations, emergency procedures, ATC procedures, engine out procedures and just about anything else that will dispell myths and panic brought about by things like 48hrs, 20/20 and other such overdramatized garbage. I tend not to quote statistics of any kind, due to the unreliability of what I have seen. If they are open to it, I'll offer to take them out for a ride.

Thanks to Mayor Daly's recent hijinks, my work is always cut out for me, but usually people listen and are often positively surprised about some aspect of general aviation.

I think with these times, in order to ensure the survival of our past-time and occupations for the lucky few, we do have a responsibility to educate the public. In doing so, you might even inspire someone to take up flying.

When you tell people you are a pilot, you will be asked about JFK. You will be asked about the safety of the type of planes you fly, when you "get to" fly the cool stuff, have you seen any terrorists learning to fly, have you crashed "yet". It is up to you to let people remain ignorant or help us all out by dispelling as much disinformation as possible.

 

[EatSleepFly]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

[ QUOTE ]
It is up to you to let people remain ignorant or help us all out by dispelling as much disinformation as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres no hope. I've tried time and time again when giving scenic rides. And every flight, the pax ask the same stupid questions. So, I made up a little info. flyer that I hand out for them to read while they are waiting for the flight, or whatever. Its made up of FAQ's...and by that I do mean all of the dumb questions people usually ask. Its sort of a humorous, fun and entertaining way to break the ice and put nervous passengers more at ease.

Also, then I can save my breath (since I am skeptical its doing any good to talk to them) and still feel like I'm doing my part to educate the ingoramuses of the world.

 

[Mr_Creepy]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

Hey b_r who's F1 car is that? Is that JPM? I can't tell from the pic.

 

[b_r]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

John Tenney--yup, It's JPM.

Next weekend's going to be good!

 

[Mr_Creepy]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

I am not as up on F1 as I should be but JPM is my New Hero, and the Great Hope for dethroning the Schumacher family.

Listen in on Sunday as we do a webcast of our racing talk show from www.racing-radio.com - 93-11am Eastern.

 

[carlos]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

[ QUOTE ]
243 fatal accidents this year? According to the NTSB the number is 201 through the end of July 2003 with 93% of them from General Aviation.

General Aviation Statistics for 2002:

According to the NTSB, approximately 1.3 accidents per 100,000 flight hours occured out of 1,714 accidents reported and of those accidents 343 of them were fatal which resulted in 570 fatalities with 2.18 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours or 1.66 deaths per accident from out of 26,078,000 flight hours in 2002 occuring from 201,700 general aviation aircraft in service.

Driving Statistics for 2002:

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, approximately 6,277,000 auto accidents occured in 2002, causing 42,815 fatalities out of a total of 2,829,645 vehicle miles traveled out of 225,655,000 registered vehicles in 2002. The current US population as of 2002 was 288, 368, 698.

Lets do the math:

For every 60.09 vehicle miles traveled 1 person dies driving a vehicle. Only 2.7% of all registered vehicles were involved in a accident with 38,309 of those accidents resulting in a fatality which is less than .0149% of all registered vehicles in the US.

For every 45,750.87 flight hours flown 1 pilot dies flying. Only 0.117% of all general aviation aircraft in service were involved in a accident with 343 of those accidents resulting in a fatality which is less than 0.17% of all general aviation aircraft in service in the US.

Conclusion:

These numbers would seem to support that flying is safer, if you compare that 2.7% vs 0.117% of all aircraft, and vehicles then its clear that aircraft are less likely to be in a accident while flying, and while the numbers would seem to indicate your more likely to die in a plane crash if one takes place, the total numbers would suggest that you are more likely to be involved in a fatal car crash than a fatal airplane crash.

Just my .2 cents worth

[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm.... You may want to check those numbers. Seems to be a few zeros missing from the automobile statistics. Following is a quote from an NHTSA press release announcing the USDOT Releases 2002 Highway Fatality Statistics:

Though overall fatalities increased to 42,815 in 2002 from 42,196 in 2001, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) remained at 1.51, a historic low. According to Federal Highway Administration estimates, VMT increased in 2002 to 2.83 trillion, up from 2.78 trillion in 2001.

(See the full press release here.)

So, it should read "For every .00006009 vehicle miles traveled 1 person dies driving a vehicle" or, put another way, there is 1 fatality for every 66 million miles traveled.

And, using a conservative average of 60 mph for those 66 million miles, that's 1 fatality for every 1.1 million hours. Compared to the statement that "for every 45,750.87 flight hours flown 1 pilot dies flying", automobile travel would seem much safer on a per hour basis.

Now, quoting from another post:

[ QUOTE ]
However (and I don't have quantative data on this), I'll bet if you filter out the fatalities caused by "pilot error" from these statistics, you might find that small planes are quite safe. In other words, the plane is not necessarily dangerous. The pilot is the biggest factor in making the plane safe or not. If you're a safe pilot with good judgement, your flight will be safe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you were to remove driver error from the Highway Fatality Statistics, you would find, too, that automobiles would be quite safe. In other words, the driver is the biggest factor in making the automobile safe or not. I mean, just take a look at some of the posts in the Dear God No!!! thread, and you can understand why driving can be so hazardous.

 

[sixpack]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

SierraPilot: I don't buy your data. I do however, like your approach. Perhaps the cut-paste went bad. Please check the source and re-do the calculations. (you can edit your post if you need to)

[ QUOTE ]
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, approximately 6,277,000 auto accidents occured in 2002, causing 42,815 fatalities out of a total of 2,829,645 vehicle miles traveled out of 225,655,000 registered vehicles in 2002. The current US population as of 2002 was 288, 368, 698.
...
For every 60.09 vehicle miles traveled 1 person dies driving a vehicle.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll buy the 6M accidents.
I'll buy the 42K fatalities.
I'll buy the 225M vehicles.
I don't buy 2.8M total miles traveled (that's only 100 people driving 28K)
I don't buy "one fatality every 60 miles" Perhaps that's not what you meant.

If I take a WILD guess and say the average american rides 5K miles/year in a car, that would yield one trillion passenger miles in the car (about 40B hours). 42K fatalities in 40B car hours yields one fatality every million car hours. Hence, much safer than (GA) airplane.

NOTE: my numbers were wild guesses, could be more than +100% or -70%, but somewhere in the ballpark.

 

[lilrkt]

Re: general public\'s perception of \"those little planes\"

Just a thought you have to remember too. You have to compare apples to apples. If you are going to use statute mile traveled in a car then you have to use the same measurement in your comparison. I would prefer to use hours because it is more indicative of how much time you have to put yourself in danger. And I think when you use this fair comparison, you will see that GA is safer than the auto.