I've had many non-pilot friends and co-workers ask, "Is flying a small plane
more or less dangerous than driving a car?", to which my response has always
been "It depends on who is piloting the plane." However, in order to get
a firmer answer from a statistical standpoint on this question, I decided
to do a little homework:

According to the DOT, the 2005 automobile fatality accident rate is:
1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled
(see http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)

According to the 2005 Nall Report, the general aviation fatality accident rate
is: 1.2 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours
(see http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html)

In order to compare these two statistics, we obviously need to assume an
average velocity for either automobiles or GA aircraft. If we assume an
average GA aircraft velocity of 150 mph, then the aviation accident statistic
becomes 1.2 fatalities per 15 million miles.

Thus, based on the above, it appears that the GA fatality rate is somewhere
around 7 times that of automobiles. Now I realize that one could fudge the
average GA aircraft velocity velocity up or down, but I'm farily confident
that it's not above 200 mph, nor below 100 mph, which brakets the aviation
fatality rate between 5 and 10 times that of driving. A sobering thought...

Comments?

-- Dane

Here's a thought exercise that will get you in touch with this data.

1) How many people do you personally know that have been
wiped out in airplanes? (my answer--quite a few; way too many)

2) How many people do you personally know that have been
wiped out in car accidents? (my answer--have to struggle to
remember more than a couple, one of whom was
ironically a pilot)

3) How many more people do you know who drive than fly?
(personal answer: Many X)

Might be more useful to compare flying to those who ride motorcycles.

Bill Hale
Still ducking the bullet

Dane Spearing wrote:
> I've had many non-pilot friends and co-workers ask, "Is flying a small plane
> more or less dangerous than driving a car?", to which my response has always
> been "It depends on who is piloting the plane." However, in order to get
> a firmer answer from a statistical standpoint on this question, I decided
> to do a little homework:
>
> According to the DOT, the 2005 automobile fatality accident rate is:
> 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled
> (see http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)
>
> According to the 2005 Nall Report, the general aviation fatality accident rate
> is: 1.2 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours
> (see http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html)
>
> In order to compare these two statistics, we obviously need to assume an
> average velocity for either automobiles or GA aircraft. If we assume an
> average GA aircraft velocity of 150 mph, then the aviation accident statistic
> becomes 1.2 fatalities per 15 million miles.
>
> Thus, based on the above, it appears that the GA fatality rate is somewhere
> around 7 times that of automobiles. Now I realize that one could fudge the
> average GA aircraft velocity velocity up or down, but I'm farily confident
> that it's not above 200 mph, nor below 100 mph, which brakets the aviation
> fatality rate between 5 and 10 times that of driving. A sobering thought...
>
> Comments?
>
> -- Dane

(Dane Spearing) wrote:

>Thus, based on the above, it appears that the GA fatality rate is somewhere
>around 7 times that of automobiles. Now I realize that one could fudge the
>average GA aircraft velocity velocity up or down, but I'm farily confident
>that it's not above 200 mph, nor below 100 mph, which brakets the aviation
>fatality rate between 5 and 10 times that of driving. A sobering thought...

Since I doubt that I will ever fly 15 million miles I am not too
worried. Plus I do not plan on making a mistake that is at the root
of most flying fatalities...major pilot error.

Ron Lee

"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
> Thus, based on the above, it appears that the GA fatality rate is
> somewhere
> around 7 times that of automobiles. Now I realize that one could fudge
> the
> average GA aircraft velocity velocity up or down, but I'm farily confident
> that it's not above 200 mph, nor below 100 mph, which brakets the aviation
> fatality rate between 5 and 10 times that of driving. A sobering
> thought...

Yup. There've been many threads here on this topic, and (among people who do
the research and the arithmetic) the conclusions have been in line with
yours.

Moreover, according to the Nall Report, personal (as opposed to commercial)
GA flying has about twice the fatality rate of GA flying overall.

On the other hand, instructional flight (solo and dual) has about half the
fatality rate of GA overall (even though the most dangerous phases of
flight--takeoff, landing, and low-altitude maneuvering--are presumably
overrepresented in instructional flight). What that suggests is that flying
simple planes, maintaining proficiency, and having conservative standards
regarding weather adds up to a fatality rate that is only slightly greater
than that of driving.

--Gary

"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
> I've had many non-pilot friends and co-workers ask, "Is flying a small plane
> more or less dangerous than driving a car?", to which my response has always
> been "It depends on who is piloting the plane." However, in order to get
> a firmer answer from a statistical standpoint on this question, I decided
> to do a little homework:
>
> According to the DOT, the 2005 automobile fatality accident rate is:
> 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled
> (see http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)
>
> According to the 2005 Nall Report, the general aviation fatality accident rate
> is: 1.2 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours
> (see http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html)
>
> In order to compare these two statistics, we obviously need to assume an
> average velocity for either automobiles or GA aircraft. If we assume an
> average GA aircraft velocity of 150 mph, then the aviation accident statistic
> becomes 1.2 fatalities per 15 million miles.
>
> Thus, based on the above, it appears that the GA fatality rate is somewhere
> around 7 times that of automobiles. Now I realize that one could fudge the
> average GA aircraft velocity velocity up or down, but I'm farily confident
> that it's not above 200 mph, nor below 100 mph, which brakets the aviation
> fatality rate between 5 and 10 times that of driving. A sobering thought...
>
> Comments?

I did the calculation too, and came up with roughly the same
numbers. Someone said the fatality rate for motorcycles is
roughly the same per mile as for small planes.

But your observation that "It depends on who is piloting
the plane" doesn't fold into this pessimistic ratio. Avoiding
"buzzing",
VFR into IMC, and remembering to fill the tanks sufficiently
and accident rates start to come down. "Pilot error" is responsible
for 75% of all GA accidents (from the Nalls report you site), so
find a "perfect pilot" and its only twice as dangerous ;-)

On 30 Oct 2006 16:34:15 -0800, "Bill" > wrote:

>Here's a thought exercise that will get you in touch with this data.
>
>1) How many people do you personally know that have been
> wiped out in airplanes? (my answer--quite a few; way too many)

A few. I can only think of two that I knew personally.
>
>2) How many people do you personally know that have been
> wiped out in car accidents? (my answer--have to struggle to
> remember more than a couple, one of whom was
> ironically a pilot)
>

A bunch. I'd have to stretch my memory, but I can think of about 10
right now and about half of them were in the last 15 years.


>3) How many more people do you know who drive than fly?
> (personal answer: Many X)

Personally I know about 30 pilots. I know of about 70 locally. We
have about 50,000 drivers in the immediate area.

>
>Might be more useful to compare flying to those who ride motorcycles.
>
When I got to the point I thought I knew what I was doing I sold mine.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Dane Spearing wrote:
> I've had many non-pilot friends and co-workers ask, "Is flying a small plane
> more or less dangerous than driving a car?", to which my response has always
> been "It depends on who is piloting the plane." However, in order to get
> a firmer answer from a statistical standpoint on this question, I decided
> to do a little homework:

It has so much to do both with pilot experience level and type of operation.

Day VFR, Night VFR, Day IFR, and night IFR.

Only Day VFR has the potential for being *very* safe in small,
single-engine aircraft.

No, I cannot pin down what "ver" means exactly in this context. But, my
observations over 50 years of being around this stuff tells me that
experienced pilots seldom crash on good VFR daytime operations.

Sam Spade wrote:
> But, my
> observations over 50 years of being around this stuff tells me that
> experienced pilots seldom crash on good VFR daytime operations.

True enough. However, my observation is that pilots who limit
themselves to nothing but good VFR daytime operations never do become
experienced (they quit after a few hundred hours because flying just
isn't useful under those restrictions), so that doesn't help.

Michael

Gary Drescher wrote:
> Yup. There've been many threads here on this topic, and (among people who do
> the research and the arithmetic) the conclusions have been in line with
> yours.

Because the conclusion is correct.

> Moreover, according to the Nall Report, personal (as opposed to commercial)
> GA flying has about twice the fatality rate of GA flying overall.

In fact, personal flying is the most dangerous segment of GA. Even
cropdusting is safer.

> On the other hand, instructional flight (solo and dual) has about half the
> fatality rate of GA overall (even though the most dangerous phases of
> flight--takeoff, landing, and low-altitude maneuvering--are presumably
> overrepresented in instructional flight).

The same is true of self-flown business travel.

> What that suggests is that flying
> simple planes, maintaining proficiency, and having conservative standards
> regarding weather adds up to a fatality rate that is only slightly greater
> than that of driving.

If that were truly the way to go, then self-flown business travel would
be far more dangerous than personal flying - the planes are generally
faster and more complex, and the pilots generally are under pressure to
be there on time and will push weather more. But the reality is very
different.

So I would suggest that while maintaining proficiency may well be
important (those who fly for business tend to fly much more than those
who only fly for personal reasons) simple planes and conservative
standards buy you little if anything.

Let's not kid ourselves - even corporate flying, which features pilots
who fly and train a lot more and much better equipment still won't come
within a factor of two of automobiles.

And here's the real kicker - automobile fatality rates are very
unevenly distributed. The teenage kids are way overrepresented, and
the middle aged, middle class types are way underrepresented. So what
does the typical pilot profile look like?

Michael

> Only Day VFR has the potential for being *very* safe in small,
> single-engine aircraft.
>

I got my Instrument rating when a couple of Day VFR flights turned
really wormy because of weather. I've had far less stress and no bad
situations flying conservative IFR compared with the vagaries of trying
to stay VFR in the midwest.

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> What that suggests is that flying
>> simple planes, maintaining proficiency, and having conservative standards
>> regarding weather adds up to a fatality rate that is only slightly
>> greater
>> than that of driving.
>
> If that were truly the way to go, then self-flown business travel would
> be far more dangerous than personal flying - the planes are generally
> faster and more complex, and the pilots generally are under pressure to
> be there on time and will push weather more. But the reality is very
> different.
>
> So I would suggest that while maintaining proficiency may well be
> important (those who fly for business tend to fly much more than those
> who only fly for personal reasons) simple planes and conservative
> standards buy you little if anything.

If self-flown business travel is also relatively safe, then there seem to be
at least two distinct modes of flying that are safer than the GA
average--instructional flying (with novice pilots but with simple planes and
conservative standards) and business travel (with more advanced aircraft and
more-experienced pilots).

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
> If self-flown business travel is also relatively safe, then there seem to be
> at least two distinct modes of flying that are safer than the GA
> average--instructional flying (with novice pilots but with simple planes and
> conservative standards) and business travel (with more advanced aircraft and
> more-experienced pilots).

I think that's sort of a backwards way of looking at it. It's not that
there are safer-than-average GA modes - it's that there is a
particularly dangerous mode that drags everything else down, and that
mode is personal flying. I think what we need to do is look at what
differentiates personal flying from all other forms of GA and figure
out what makes it more dangerous, rather than looking at every other
form (they're all safer) and figure out why.

I think (and of course now that we have departed from statistics into
causation this is purely opinion) the problem is twofold - most
personal flying is done by people who don't fly enough and don't have a
real reason to do it (they have no destination other than up and no
mission). In other words, poor proficiency coupled with the wrong
mindset.

Remember, most accidents are pilot error. Not being focused on what
you are doing is a great way to make mistakes - as is doing something
only rarely. Most insurance companies will give owners a discount for
flying over 100 hours a year, even though this dramatically increases
the exposure. They believe the additional proficiency more than
offsets the increased exposure, and they are in the business of being
right.

If we really wanted to improve the accident picture, we would simply
require one to fly 100 hours a year to keep the license valid, or take
another checkride. I don't favor this because it would kill personal
GA - there wouldn't be enough of us to support the infrastructure.

Michael

A light plane is somewhere in the neighborhood of motorcycle riding, as
far as danger goes. You can double your odds of survival if you avoid
VFR into IMC and low-altitude maneuvering.

Dane Spearing wrote:
> I've had many non-pilot friends and co-workers ask, "Is flying a small plane
> more or less dangerous than driving a car?"

> I think what we need to do is look at what
> differentiates personal flying from all other forms of GA and figure
> out what makes it more dangerous, rather than looking at every other
> form (they're all safer) and figure out why.

I think the answer is fairly evident: Personal flying is not done often
enough by those who do it. This impacts proficiency. Personal flying
often involves decisions which are made independent of the weather,
making the weather a complicating factor rather than a deciding factor.
And since flying is expensive, it is harder to remain proficient.
Also, people who fly for personal transportation often fly on longer
trips, which are not taken all that often. Contrast this to driving,
where trips can be as short as a mile or two, and happen all the time.

So, anything that rasies the cost of flying, or makes it more difficult
to accomplish a mission by flying, or increases the impact of weather on
flying, or discourages flying, will have a component that adversely
affects safety.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> I think the answer is fairly evident: Personal flying is not done often
> enough by those who do it. This impacts proficiency.

I buy that.

> Personal flying
> often involves decisions which are made independent of the weather,
> making the weather a complicating factor rather than a deciding factor.

But that's even more true of self-flown business flying. There are
lots of pilots who only fly for personal reasons that will only fly
when the weather is nice - making weather a deciding factor. Those who
fly on business rarely do this.

> And since flying is expensive, it is harder to remain proficient.

True.

> Also, people who fly for personal transportation often fly on longer
> trips, which are not taken all that often.

But wouldn't that be just as true for self-flown business travel?

> So, anything that rasies the cost of flying, or makes it more difficult
> to accomplish a mission by flying, or increases the impact of weather on
> flying, or discourages flying, will have a component that adversely
> affects safety.

I agree. Thus all safety rules are bad - they do all the above.

Michael

There are so many different ways to be got that I don't think one
can make this assertion. Avoiding scud running is a start. So
is running out of fuel. Nobody plans to do these things.

Incidentally, among more experienced pilots, most accidents
are the result of judgement problems and not basic stick skills.

Bill Hale


Ron Lee wrote:
....
> worried. Plus I do not plan on making a mistake that is at the root
> of most flying fatalities...major pilot error.
>
> Ron Lee

>> Personal flying
>> often involves decisions which are made independent of the weather,
>> making the weather a complicating factor rather than a deciding factor.
> But that's even more true of self-flown business flying. There are
> lots of pilots who only fly for personal reasons that will only fly
> when the weather is nice - making weather a deciding factor. Those who
> fly on business rarely do this.

I was including this kind of business flying as "personal flying". Do
the statistics separate it out?

>>Also, people who fly for personal transportation often fly on longer
>> trips, which are not taken all that often.
> But wouldn't that be just as true for self-flown business travel?

Ditto above.

>> So, anything that rasies the cost of flying, or makes it more difficult
>> to accomplish a mission by flying, or increases the impact of weather on
>> flying, or discourages flying, will have a component that adversely
>> affects safety.
> I agree. Thus all safety rules are bad - they do all the above.

Not quite. All (such)safety rules =contain= a bad component. Some of
them contain sufficient good component as to outweigh that. However (my
point), some safety rules, though they do contain =some= good component,
contain more bad component and are a net bad.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> >> Personal flying
> >> often involves decisions which are made independent of the weather,
> >> making the weather a complicating factor rather than a deciding factor.
> > But that's even more true of self-flown business flying. There are
> > lots of pilots who only fly for personal reasons that will only fly
> > when the weather is nice - making weather a deciding factor. Those who
> > fly on business rarely do this.
>
> I was including this kind of business flying as "personal flying". Do
> the statistics separate it out?

Yes - and it is MUCH safer.

> >> So, anything that rasies the cost of flying, or makes it more difficult
> >> to accomplish a mission by flying, or increases the impact of weather on
> >> flying, or discourages flying, will have a component that adversely
> >> affects safety.
> > I agree. Thus all safety rules are bad - they do all the above.
>
> Not quite. All (such)safety rules =contain= a bad component. Some of
> them contain sufficient good component as to outweigh that.

I'm not convinced that this is ever true. There are two things that
you have to assume about a safety rule to believe the good component
outweighs the bad:

(1) A significant number of people will comply with the rule only
because it is a rule, and not because it is a good idea. Make it
merely advisory, and significant numbers of people will not comply.

(2) The benefit from the above is sufficiently great that the negative
impact on cost, utility, etc. of flying, and the consequent reduction
in proficiency, is offset.

This can really only happen if the people writing the rules are a lot
smarter and/or more knowledgeable about aviation than the people being
forced to comply. I've met a lot of airplane owners, and I've met a
lot of FAA employees. I'm pretty confident that the opposite is true.

> However (my
> point), some safety rules, though they do contain =some= good component,
> contain more bad component and are a net bad.

I can think of plenty of those. I would be interested in a rule you
would consider a net good. Please limit to private aviation only (no
commercial ops) since that's clearly where the worst safety problems
exist.

Michael

According to the DOT, the motorcycle accident fatality rate for 2002 was
34.0 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled. That's over 20 times
the rate for automobiles (1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles)!
(see http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/PPT/PresMCFatsUpdate.pdf)

If we compare it with the aviation accident rate of 1.2 fatalities per
100,000 hours flown, and assume an average GA velocity of 150 mph, this
comes to a fatality rate for GA of about 8 fatalities per 100 million miles
flown.

Thus, motorcycle riding is roughly 4 times more dangerous than flying GA.

I feel better now. :)

-- Dane

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>A light plane is somewhere in the neighborhood of motorcycle riding, as
>far as danger goes. You can double your odds of survival if you avoid
>VFR into IMC and low-altitude maneuvering.
>
>Dane Spearing wrote:
>> I've had many non-pilot friends and co-workers ask, "Is flying a small plane
>> more or less dangerous than driving a car?"
>

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > I think what we need to do is look at what
> > differentiates personal flying from all other forms of GA and figure
> > out what makes it more dangerous, rather than looking at every other
> > form (they're all safer) and figure out why.
>
> I think the answer is fairly evident: Personal flying is not done often
> enough by those who do it.

another viewpoint is: Pilots are not managing the risks.

It doesn't matter how often you fly. The pilot that flies within
his abilities is going to have less risk than the pilot that
flies beyond his abilities.

bottomline: it's not about total hours, it's about risk management.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

>>I was including this kind of business flying as "personal flying". Do
>> the statistics separate it out?
> Yes - and it is MUCH safer.

Does this "business flying" include bizjets? That would skew the
statistics. I would include (as personal flying) only that business
flying that is piloted by the person wanting to make the trip.

> I would be interested in a rule you
> would consider a net good.

Well, it was not my stated position that they existed, merely that the
potential for the other (rules that are not a net good) does. But ok,
let me try to think: (I'm on Usenet; I'm out of practice!)

1: requirement for an instrument rating to fly IFR.

2: BFR/wings

3: (old?) requirement for minimum VFR hours before pursuing an
instrument rating (learn how to look out before we teach you to look in)

4: More stringent requrements for a commercial or ATP rating.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:14:52 +0000 (UTC),
(Dane Spearing) wrote:

>According to the DOT, the 2005 automobile fatality accident rate is:
>1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled
>(see http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)
>
>According to the 2005 Nall Report, the general aviation fatality accident rate
>is: 1.2 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours
>(see http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html)
>
>In order to compare these two statistics, we obviously need to assume an
>average velocity for either automobiles or GA aircraft. If we assume an
>average GA aircraft velocity of 150 mph, then the aviation accident statistic
>becomes 1.2 fatalities per 15 million miles.

The 2005 Nall report shows a total 1413 GA accidents, fatal and
non-fatal, or 6.22 accidents/100,000 flight hours. Applying the
assumed average cruising speed of 150, the 6.22 accidents becomes
41.47 accidents per 100 million miles.

According to NHTSA, there were an estimated 6,159,000 police-reported
motor vehicle accidents in 2005, of which there were 43,443
fatalities. Dividing the 43,443 by the 2,965 billion miles traveled is
where they got the figure of 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles.
Dividing the 6,159,000 accidents by the same 2,965 billion miles gives
an accident rate of 207.72 accidents per 100 million miles traveled.

It appears that if you drive a car, you're 5 times more likely to be
involved in an accident than if you fly, even in a General Aviation
aircraft. Since you have to have had some kind of accident in order
for it to be fatal, this is somewhat encouraging.

The problem is that airplanes go so much faster. If you do have an
accident at 150 mph, you're more likely to die as a result, whether
you're in a car or an airplane, and airplanes are much less
crashworthy than automobiles. One might speculate what the fatality
rate for automobiles could be if cars routinely cruised at 150 mph,
even if such speeds didn't bring with it an even higher accident rate.
Examining automotive fatality and accident rates in places like
Germany, where in some parts high speed driving is commonplace, might
be instructive. Only 0.7% of those automobile accidents were fatal
while 20% of the aircraft accidents were fatal. Airplanes don't crash
as often, but when they do, it's bad.

Perhaps one conclusion is that more attention should be paid to making
aircraft accidents survivable. Some work has already been done in this
area, but it looks like there's much room for improvement.

RK Henry

No matter how you present the statistics, GA flying has a higher
fatality rate than driving. But one has to look at all the factors when
evaluating a mode of transportation. Nothing beats walking for safety,
plus it is good for your health too. Yet many people take the car for
even short distances. While GA flying is more convenient, faster and
flexible compared to driving, and even compared to airline travel, they
come at a certain amount of risk. Some people choose to accept that
risk, and some won't. It is better to be aware of the risks in flying
rather than pretend they don't exist, or assume they don't apply to
you.


RK Henry wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:14:52 +0000 (UTC),
> (Dane Spearing) wrote:
>
> >According to the DOT, the 2005 automobile fatality accident rate is:
> >1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled
> >(see http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)
> >
> >According to the 2005 Nall Report, the general aviation fatality accident rate
> >is: 1.2 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours
> >(see http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html)
> >
> >In order to compare these two statistics, we obviously need to assume an
> >average velocity for either automobiles or GA aircraft. If we assume an
> >average GA aircraft velocity of 150 mph, then the aviation accident statistic
> >becomes 1.2 fatalities per 15 million miles.
>
> The 2005 Nall report shows a total 1413 GA accidents, fatal and
> non-fatal, or 6.22 accidents/100,000 flight hours. Applying the
> assumed average cruising speed of 150, the 6.22 accidents becomes
> 41.47 accidents per 100 million miles.
>
> According to NHTSA, there were an estimated 6,159,000 police-reported
> motor vehicle accidents in 2005, of which there were 43,443
> fatalities. Dividing the 43,443 by the 2,965 billion miles traveled is
> where they got the figure of 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles.
> Dividing the 6,159,000 accidents by the same 2,965 billion miles gives
> an accident rate of 207.72 accidents per 100 million miles traveled.
>
> It appears that if you drive a car, you're 5 times more likely to be
> involved in an accident than if you fly, even in a General Aviation
> aircraft. Since you have to have had some kind of accident in order
> for it to be fatal, this is somewhat encouraging.
>
> The problem is that airplanes go so much faster. If you do have an
> accident at 150 mph, you're more likely to die as a result, whether
> you're in a car or an airplane, and airplanes are much less
> crashworthy than automobiles. One might speculate what the fatality
> rate for automobiles could be if cars routinely cruised at 150 mph,
> even if such speeds didn't bring with it an even higher accident rate.
> Examining automotive fatality and accident rates in places like
> Germany, where in some parts high speed driving is commonplace, might
> be instructive. Only 0.7% of those automobile accidents were fatal
> while 20% of the aircraft accidents were fatal. Airplanes don't crash
> as often, but when they do, it's bad.
>
> Perhaps one conclusion is that more attention should be paid to making
> aircraft accidents survivable. Some work has already been done in this
> area, but it looks like there's much room for improvement.
>
> RK Henry

Much of the risk is controllable. Weather is never a
surprise anymore. modern weather satellites and automated
observations are not perfect, but some caution and honest
self-evaluation of a pilot's actual skill level could
eliminate ,any accidents.

JFK Jr. died because he did not have the skill to make the
flight under the conditions which existed at the time he
actually made the flight. The airplane was just fine, the
weather was OK for an IFR rated pilot or a VFR pilot who had
be taught properly how to use the equipment available. He
had lots of instruction, maybe too much instruction and not
enough developed judgment. Perhaps the instructors he had
used did not have "real" experience and thus failed to teach
the procedures that could have saved his plane and the
passengers.

Lidle had a fast airplane and a CFI. But it appears they
simply flew into box without any proper planning. Slow
flight and steep turns, evaluation of the wind, knowing the
East River procedures would have saved his life. Using the
radio to get a clearance would have too. What will never be
known, were they looking at the GPS track or out the damn
windows at the river and shore line?

You can practice the East River turn anywhere, pick a road
or river and practice a 180° turn within the confines of the
allotted space. You can even learn when an airspace
violation is better than dying.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P






"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| No matter how you present the statistics, GA flying has a
higher
| fatality rate than driving. But one has to look at all the
factors when
| evaluating a mode of transportation. Nothing beats walking
for safety,
| plus it is good for your health too. Yet many people take
the car for
| even short distances. While GA flying is more convenient,
faster and
| flexible compared to driving, and even compared to airline
travel, they
| come at a certain amount of risk. Some people choose to
accept that
| risk, and some won't. It is better to be aware of the
risks in flying
| rather than pretend they don't exist, or assume they don't
apply to
| you.
|
|
| RK Henry wrote:
| > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:14:52 +0000 (UTC),

| > (Dane Spearing) wrote:
| >
| > >According to the DOT, the 2005 automobile fatality
accident rate is:
| > >1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled
| > >(see http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)
| > >
| > >According to the 2005 Nall Report, the general aviation
fatality accident rate
| > >is: 1.2 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours
| > >(see http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html)
| > >
| > >In order to compare these two statistics, we obviously
need to assume an
| > >average velocity for either automobiles or GA aircraft.
If we assume an
| > >average GA aircraft velocity of 150 mph, then the
aviation accident statistic
| > >becomes 1.2 fatalities per 15 million miles.
| >
| > The 2005 Nall report shows a total 1413 GA accidents,
fatal and
| > non-fatal, or 6.22 accidents/100,000 flight hours.
Applying the
| > assumed average cruising speed of 150, the 6.22
accidents becomes
| > 41.47 accidents per 100 million miles.
| >
| > According to NHTSA, there were an estimated 6,159,000
police-reported
| > motor vehicle accidents in 2005, of which there were
43,443
| > fatalities. Dividing the 43,443 by the 2,965 billion
miles traveled is
| > where they got the figure of 1.47 fatalities per 100
million miles.
| > Dividing the 6,159,000 accidents by the same 2,965
billion miles gives
| > an accident rate of 207.72 accidents per 100 million
miles traveled.
| >
| > It appears that if you drive a car, you're 5 times more
likely to be
| > involved in an accident than if you fly, even in a
General Aviation
| > aircraft. Since you have to have had some kind of
accident in order
| > for it to be fatal, this is somewhat encouraging.
| >
| > The problem is that airplanes go so much faster. If you
do have an
| > accident at 150 mph, you're more likely to die as a
result, whether
| > you're in a car or an airplane, and airplanes are much
less
| > crashworthy than automobiles. One might speculate what
the fatality
| > rate for automobiles could be if cars routinely cruised
at 150 mph,
| > even if such speeds didn't bring with it an even higher
accident rate.
| > Examining automotive fatality and accident rates in
places like
| > Germany, where in some parts high speed driving is
commonplace, might
| > be instructive. Only 0.7% of those automobile accidents
were fatal
| > while 20% of the aircraft accidents were fatal.
Airplanes don't crash
| > as often, but when they do, it's bad.
| >
| > Perhaps one conclusion is that more attention should be
paid to making
| > aircraft accidents survivable. Some work has already
been done in this
| > area, but it looks like there's much room for
improvement.
| >
| > RK Henry
|

Michael wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>But, my
>>observations over 50 years of being around this stuff tells me that
>>experienced pilots seldom crash on good VFR daytime operations.
>
>
> True enough. However, my observation is that pilots who limit
> themselves to nothing but good VFR daytime operations never do become
> experienced (they quit after a few hundred hours because flying just
> isn't useful under those restrictions), so that doesn't help.
>
> Michael
>
Depends whether the self-imposed limit is imposed going into the game or
much later on after the cat has shed several lives. ;-)

In article om>,
"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> Nothing beats walking for safety,

yet my most serious accident occurred while I was walking
and required surgery, a 14 day hospital stay, was out of
work for more than to months, and I'm still recovering.

Nothing is 100% safe.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message ...
| Much of the risk is controllable. Weather is never a
| surprise anymore. modern weather satellites and automated
| observations are not perfect, but some caution and honest
| self-evaluation of a pilot's actual skill level could
| eliminate many accidents.
|
| JFK Jr. died because he did not have the skill to make the
| flight under the conditions which existed at the time he
| actually made the flight. The airplane was just fine, the
| weather was OK for an IFR rated pilot or a VFR pilot who
had
| be taught properly how to use the equipment available. He
| had lots of instruction, maybe too much instruction and
not
| enough developed judgment. Perhaps the instructors he had
| used did not have "real" experience and thus failed to
teach
| the procedures that could have saved his plane and the
| passengers.
|
| Lidle had a fast airplane and a CFI. But it appears they
| simply flew into box without any proper planning. Slow
| flight and steep turns, evaluation of the wind, knowing
the
| East River procedures would have saved his life. Using
the
| radio to get a clearance would have too. What will never
be
| known, were they looking at the GPS track or out the damn
| windows at the river and shore line?
|
| You can practice the East River turn anywhere, pick a road
| or river and practice a 180° turn within the confines of
the
| allotted space. You can even learn when an airspace
| violation is better than dying.
|
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
|
ups.com...
|| No matter how you present the statistics, GA flying has a
| higher
|| fatality rate than driving. But one has to look at all
the
| factors when
|| evaluating a mode of transportation. Nothing beats
walking
| for safety,
|| plus it is good for your health too. Yet many people take
| the car for
|| even short distances. While GA flying is more convenient,
| faster and
|| flexible compared to driving, and even compared to
airline
| travel, they
|| come at a certain amount of risk. Some people choose to
| accept that
|| risk, and some won't. It is better to be aware of the
| risks in flying
|| rather than pretend they don't exist, or assume they
don't
| apply to
|| you.
||
||
|| RK Henry wrote:
|| > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:14:52 +0000 (UTC),
|
|| > (Dane Spearing) wrote:
|| >
|| > >According to the DOT, the 2005 automobile fatality
| accident rate is:
|| > >1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled
|| > >(see http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)
|| > >
|| > >According to the 2005 Nall Report, the general
aviation
| fatality accident rate
|| > >is: 1.2 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours
|| > >(see http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html)
|| > >
|| > >In order to compare these two statistics, we obviously
| need to assume an
|| > >average velocity for either automobiles or GA
aircraft.
| If we assume an
|| > >average GA aircraft velocity of 150 mph, then the
| aviation accident statistic
|| > >becomes 1.2 fatalities per 15 million miles.
|| >
|| > The 2005 Nall report shows a total 1413 GA accidents,
| fatal and
|| > non-fatal, or 6.22 accidents/100,000 flight hours.
| Applying the
|| > assumed average cruising speed of 150, the 6.22
| accidents becomes
|| > 41.47 accidents per 100 million miles.
|| >
|| > According to NHTSA, there were an estimated 6,159,000
| police-reported
|| > motor vehicle accidents in 2005, of which there were
| 43,443
|| > fatalities. Dividing the 43,443 by the 2,965 billion
| miles traveled is
|| > where they got the figure of 1.47 fatalities per 100
| million miles.
|| > Dividing the 6,159,000 accidents by the same 2,965
| billion miles gives
|| > an accident rate of 207.72 accidents per 100 million
| miles traveled.
|| >
|| > It appears that if you drive a car, you're 5 times more
| likely to be
|| > involved in an accident than if you fly, even in a
| General Aviation
|| > aircraft. Since you have to have had some kind of
| accident in order
|| > for it to be fatal, this is somewhat encouraging.
|| >
|| > The problem is that airplanes go so much faster. If you
| do have an
|| > accident at 150 mph, you're more likely to die as a
| result, whether
|| > you're in a car or an airplane, and airplanes are much
| less
|| > crashworthy than automobiles. One might speculate what
| the fatality
|| > rate for automobiles could be if cars routinely cruised
| at 150 mph,
|| > even if such speeds didn't bring with it an even higher
| accident rate.
|| > Examining automotive fatality and accident rates in
| places like
|| > Germany, where in some parts high speed driving is
| commonplace, might
|| > be instructive. Only 0.7% of those automobile accidents
| were fatal
|| > while 20% of the aircraft accidents were fatal.
| Airplanes don't crash
|| > as often, but when they do, it's bad.
|| >
|| > Perhaps one conclusion is that more attention should be
| paid to making
|| > aircraft accidents survivable. Some work has already
| been done in this
|| > area, but it looks like there's much room for
| improvement.
|| >
|| > RK Henry
||
|
|

"Bill" > wrote:

> Here's a thought exercise that will get you in touch with this data.
>
> 1) How many people do you personally know that have been
> wiped out in airplanes? (my answer--quite a few; way too many)
>
> 2) How many people do you personally know that have been
> wiped out in car accidents? (my answer--have to struggle to
> remember more than a couple, one of whom was
> ironically a pilot)
>
> 3) How many more people do you know who drive than fly?
> (personal answer: Many X)
>
> Might be more useful to compare flying to those who ride motorcycles.


Or ask yourself: how many celebrities can you name who have been killed in
plane crashes vs. the number kiled in car crashes? In the former, quite a
few; in the latter, just a couple.

Now ask yourself: how much time do celebrities spend travelling in airplanes
vs. the time spent in cars?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Jim Macklin wrote:
>
> You can practice the East River turn anywhere, pick a road
> or river and practice a 180° turn within the confines of the
> allotted space.

Anybody remember "S-Turns" from the PP-ASEL PTS?


Linked 180's...

Michael wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>But, my
>>observations over 50 years of being around this stuff tells me that
>>experienced pilots seldom crash on good VFR daytime operations.
>
>
> True enough. However, my observation is that pilots who limit
> themselves to nothing but good VFR daytime operations never do become
> experienced (they quit after a few hundred hours because flying just
> isn't useful under those restrictions), so that doesn't help.
>
> Michael
>
The OP stated,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've had many non-pilot friends and co-workers ask, "Is flying a small
plane more or less dangerous than driving a car?", to which my response
has always been "It depends on who is piloting the plane."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your observation is from the pilot perspective. A better answer to the
OP would include both pilot experience and type of operation.

I have always admonished my non-flying friends and relatives to only fly
with an experienced pilot and only during solid Day VFR conditions.
That will fit them into the safety slot I feel they deserve to be in.

If the pilot who they fly with chooses to fly at other times during the
night in IMC, dodging TRWs in the Rockies with his XM weather display,
that risk is not imposed upon those I am advising.

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article om>,
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
>
>> Nothing beats walking for safety,
>
>
> yet my most serious accident occurred while I was walking
> and required surgery, a 14 day hospital stay, was out of
> work for more than to months, and I'm still recovering.
>
Where you walking during good daylight conditions? Were you on a
sidewalk or otherwise away from motor vehicles?

I'm not being coy; there is walking then there is walking.

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
>
>>>I think what we need to do is look at what
>>>differentiates personal flying from all other forms of GA and figure
>>>out what makes it more dangerous, rather than looking at every other
>>>form (they're all safer) and figure out why.
>>
>>I think the answer is fairly evident: Personal flying is not done often
>>enough by those who do it.
>
>
> another viewpoint is: Pilots are not managing the risks.
>
> It doesn't matter how often you fly. The pilot that flies within
> his abilities is going to have less risk than the pilot that
> flies beyond his abilities.
>
> bottomline: it's not about total hours, it's about risk management.
>

The capabilities of the aircraft have a lot to do with the risk
management equation.

I was far more capable when I was flying an L-1011 IMC than I was flying
a Comanche 250 IMC.

Miscalcuations about ice, etc, are very unforgiving in a Comanche 250.
Not so in an L-1011 (or Citation X).

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...

> another viewpoint is: Pilots are not managing the risks.
>
> It doesn't matter how often you fly. The pilot that flies within
> his abilities is going to have less risk than the pilot that
> flies beyond his abilities.
>
> bottomline: it's not about total hours, it's about risk management.

To wit: Scott Crossfield

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
>> Nothing beats walking for safety,
>
> yet my most serious accident occurred while I was walking
> and required surgery, a 14 day hospital stay, was out of
> work for more than to months, and I'm still recovering.
>
> Nothing is 100% safe.

Quite!! A Islamofascist might play bumper cars on the sidewalk.

Jim Macklin wrote:

>
> Lidle had a fast airplane and a CFI.



Not that fast, he had the SR20.

Jose wrote:
> >>I was including this kind of business flying as "personal flying". Do
> >> the statistics separate it out?
> > Yes - and it is MUCH safer.
>
> Does this "business flying" include bizjets?

No. Professionally flown is a separate (and even safer) category.

> That would skew the
> statistics. I would include (as personal flying) only that business
> flying that is piloted by the person wanting to make the trip.

That is how the Nall Report does it.

> > I would be interested in a rule you
> > would consider a net good.
>
> Well, it was not my stated position that they existed, merely that the
> potential for the other (rules that are not a net good) does. But ok,
> let me try to think: (I'm on Usenet; I'm out of practice!)
>
> 1: requirement for an instrument rating to fly IFR.

Because otherwise people would blunder around in IMC without training?
Seriously? There are actually quite a few people who fly IFR without
an instrument rating. I don't mean VFR in IMC, either. They file and
fly in the system. These days, we have a lot more IFR in IMC crashes
(loss of control, CFIT) than we have VFR into IMC crashes - but all
those people have instrument ratings. The ones doing it illegally
don't seem to crash.

At least one person I know who used to do it routinely before he
finally got legal and got one is now an airline captain.

What's important for flying IFR is skill and knowledge, not a piece of
paper from the FAA. I find there is little correlation between the
two.

Truth is, a person with no instrument rating isn't going to file and
fly IFR unless he is confident he can do it. Someone with an
instrument rating is likely to assume he can do it (since he has the
rating and is legal).

> 2: BFR/wings

Because you belive a BFR is effective at keeping people sharp? Most
BFR's are a joke. Most people who are serious about their flying do a
lot more recurrent training than the BFR.

> 3: (old?) requirement for minimum VFR hours before pursuing an
> instrument rating (learn how to look out before we teach you to look in)

Rule is gone now, but that's not so much the point. Some people are
ready for an instrument rating at 100 hours. Most are not. All the
rule ever accomplished is holding back the ones who were.

> 4: More stringent requrements for a commercial or ATP rating.

But now we're in commercial territory. With a profit motive, people
will be tempted to do dumb ****. I agree with rules for commercial
activity. I simply think that they don't have a place for private
operators. The marine world actually operates that way. Private boats
have almost no rules (unless they are quite large) but start operating
for hire, and regulation kicks in.

Michael

Sam Spade wrote:
> > True enough. However, my observation is that pilots who limit
> > themselves to nothing but good VFR daytime operations never do become
> > experienced (they quit after a few hundred hours because flying just
> > isn't useful under those restrictions), so that doesn't help.
> >
> Depends whether the self-imposed limit is imposed going into the game or
> much later on after the cat has shed several lives. ;-)

True enough. My point is that you don't get to be an experienced and
capable pilot without taking some significant risks somewhere along the
line.

Michael

Bob Noel wrote:
> another viewpoint is: Pilots are not managing the risks.
>
> It doesn't matter how often you fly. The pilot that flies within
> his abilities is going to have less risk than the pilot that
> flies beyond his abilities.

The problem is that if you don't fly often enough, you will not have
the abilities to safely fly on an average day in average conditions.
At that point, your risk management becomes flying easy hops on
bluebird days only. Then that gets boring and you quit.

Michael

The point is that turn radius is directly related to speed.
It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower speed than
Lidle was flying his SR20 and thus make the turn. Putting
aside the fact that the NTSB investigation is barely begun,
certain facts are known. Airplanes have flown the East
River for many years. Basic flight skills should have
allowed the flight to be completed safely. It was pilot
error, the question is why did the pilots make the error?



"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| >
| > Lidle had a fast airplane and a CFI.
|
|
|
| Not that fast, he had the SR20.

>>Does this "business flying" include bizjets?
> No. Professionally flown is a separate (and even safer) category.

>>I would include (as personal flying) only that business
>> flying that is piloted by the person wanting to make the trip.
> That is how the Nall Report does it.

Then the relative safety of "business flying" is news to me. I'll have
to look further. Thanks.

>>1: requirement for an instrument rating to fly IFR.
> Because otherwise people would blunder around in IMC without training?

Because it codifies the required training. Absent such a requirement,
people would blunder around in IMC without =sufficient= or =appropriate=
training.

> What's important for flying IFR is skill and knowledge, not a piece of
> paper from the FAA. I find there is little correlation between the
> two.

I suppose that's your point. But I suspect that there is enough
correlation to warrant the instrument rating rules. Even the cheaters
have a standard to go by.

>>2: BFR/wings
> Because you belive a BFR is effective at keeping people sharp?

Because I believe that it helps keep the ones that don't fly often
enough up to a minimum standard. A BFR for someone who flies a lot is
probably going to seem like a joke. A BFR from a responsible CFI for
someone who doesn't, will probably involve more. Sure some will slip
through the cracks - nothing is perfect.

> Some people are
> ready for an instrument rating at 100 hours. Most are not. All the
> rule ever accomplished is holding back the ones who were.

I think that is a good thing. "Being ready for" an isntrument rating is
not sufficient, IMHO, especially in this electronic world. I think that
one must be well in the habit of looking OUTSIDE before one starts to
look inside. Otherwise, one may never get into the habit of really
LOOKING outside.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The point is that turn radius is directly related to speed.
> It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower speed than
> Lidle was flying his SR20



The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph. That's Cessna 150 territory.

It is still knots faster than he should have been to make
the turn. The true airspeed is what controls the radius,
along with the bank angle. He had a quartering headwind and
the turn was such that it was a nearly direct tailwind.
Being aware of the required turn and the speed and wind
[which should have been on display in the glass panel] both
pilots screwed up IMHO.



"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The point is that turn radius is directly related to
speed.
| > It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower speed
than
| > Lidle was flying his SR20
|
|
|
| The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph. That's
Cessna 150 territory.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> It is still knots faster than he should have been to make
> the turn.

Probably. But even at that airspeed (112 mph), if they'd turned with a
60-degree bank, they'd have had room to spare even if the crosswind
component had been as high as 30 knots (the turn diameter would have been
975', and the turn would have taken 10 seconds, adding 500' of drift; the
river is 2000' wide).

--Gary

> The true airspeed is what controls the radius,
> along with the bank angle. He had a quartering headwind and
> the turn was such that it was a nearly direct tailwind.
> Being aware of the required turn and the speed and wind
> [which should have been on display in the glass panel] both
> pilots screwed up IMHO.
>
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
> |
> |
> | Jim Macklin wrote:
> | > The point is that turn radius is directly related to
> speed.
> | > It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower speed
> than
> | > Lidle was flying his SR20
> |
> |
> |
> | The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph. That's
> Cessna 150 territory.
>
>

Jim Macklin wrote:
> It is still knots faster than he should have been to make
> the turn.

No, it's not. The turn could be made at that speed at pretty much any
flyable crosswind.

Jose wrote:
> >>Does this "business flying" include bizjets?
> > No. Professionally flown is a separate (and even safer) category.
>
> >>I would include (as personal flying) only that business
> >> flying that is piloted by the person wanting to make the trip.
> > That is how the Nall Report does it.
>
> Then the relative safety of "business flying" is news to me. I'll have
> to look further. Thanks.

Start with the Nall Report. It contains much that is unexpected. In
fact, I formulated my theory of the J-curve as it relates to flight
safety largely on the basis of the results - which I initially found
surprising.

> >>1: requirement for an instrument rating to fly IFR.
> > Because otherwise people would blunder around in IMC without training?
>
> Because it codifies the required training. Absent such a requirement,
> people would blunder around in IMC without =sufficient= or =appropriate=
> training.

Actually, that is what is happening now. The standards for an
instrument rating are inappropriate. They focus too much on what is
unimportant, and too little on what is important. I must admit this is
changing - some relatively unimportant maneuvers were dropped, and some
things having to do with new technology were added. But there are
still major problems.

Much of instrument training still focuses on holds and hold entries -
and while this isn't totally worthless, I would argue that for the
average IFR pilot flying a light single or twin, it's not of much value
either. Lost comm stuff is largely a joke, and goes directly contrary
to what a controller would actually want you to do. On the other hand,
active weather avoidance and planning for partial/gradual engine
failure is not even considered.

When an instrument rated pilot upgrades from a trainer-class airplane
into something actually useful for IFR, I train him very differently
then when I train for the checkride. I can focus on what I know (from
years of experience flying IFR) is important, rather than what's in the
PTS.

> > What's important for flying IFR is skill and knowledge, not a piece of
> > paper from the FAA. I find there is little correlation between the
> > two.
>
> I suppose that's your point. But I suspect that there is enough
> correlation to warrant the instrument rating rules. Even the cheaters
> have a standard to go by.

I think the cheaters make their own standards. That's why they're
safer than the rated pilots.

> >>2: BFR/wings
> > Because you belive a BFR is effective at keeping people sharp?
>
> Because I believe that it helps keep the ones that don't fly often
> enough up to a minimum standard.

There we disagree. I don't think it actually accomplishes this. See
below.

> A BFR for someone who flies a lot is
> probably going to seem like a joke.

It sure does. My favorite quote, from the first time I took a BFR in
my own airplane: "Wow, you do these maneuvers even better than someone
who just took his private checkride." The CFI actually said this, and
truly meant it as a compliment. Implicitly, he was saying that people
are routinely passing BFR's without meeting private pilot standards.

> > Some people are
> > ready for an instrument rating at 100 hours. Most are not. All the
> > rule ever accomplished is holding back the ones who were.
>
> I think that is a good thing. "Being ready for" an isntrument rating is
> not sufficient, IMHO, especially in this electronic world. I think that
> one must be well in the habit of looking OUTSIDE before one starts to
> look inside. Otherwise, one may never get into the habit of really
> LOOKING outside.

Some people get into that habit quickly. Some don't. 100 hours can
easily be enough.

Michael

: > A BFR for someone who flies a lot is
: > probably going to seem like a joke.

: It sure does. My favorite quote, from the first time I took a BFR in
: my own airplane: "Wow, you do these maneuvers even better than someone
: who just took his private checkride." The CFI actually said this, and
: truly meant it as a compliment. Implicitly, he was saying that people
: are routinely passing BFR's without meeting private pilot standards.

Not to pick nits (FWIW I mostly agree with what you are saying), but this logic isn't quite true. Just because someone going
for a BFR is not passing maneuvers as well as a student pilot going for a checkride does not mean that he's not up to checkride PTS
standards. Many a checkride candidate *well* exceeds the PTS standards on most airwork things, but is held up due to other reasons.
A student pilot likely has lots of recent experience, which results in a good "feel."

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Yes, also, reported that they were in the middle of the
river, not near the upwind shore.



"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > It is still knots faster than he should have been to
make
| > the turn.
|
| Probably. But even at that airspeed (112 mph), if they'd
turned with a
| 60-degree bank, they'd have had room to spare even if the
crosswind
| component had been as high as 30 knots (the turn diameter
would have been
| 975', and the turn would have taken 10 seconds, adding
500' of drift; the
| river is 2000' wide).
|
| --Gary
|
| > The true airspeed is what controls the radius,
| > along with the bank angle. He had a quartering headwind
and
| > the turn was such that it was a nearly direct tailwind.
| > Being aware of the required turn and the speed and wind
| > [which should have been on display in the glass panel]
both
| > pilots screwed up IMHO.
| >
| >
| > "Newps" > wrote in message
| > . ..
| > |
| > |
| > | Jim Macklin wrote:
| > | > The point is that turn radius is directly related to
| > speed.
| > | > It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower
speed
| > than
| > | > Lidle was flying his SR20
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph. That's
| > Cessna 150 territory.
| >
| >
|
|

In article . com>,
"Michael" > wrote:

> Bob Noel wrote:
> > another viewpoint is: Pilots are not managing the risks.
> >
> > It doesn't matter how often you fly. The pilot that flies within
> > his abilities is going to have less risk than the pilot that
> > flies beyond his abilities.
>
> The problem is that if you don't fly often enough, you will not have
> the abilities to safely fly on an average day in average conditions.
> At that point, your risk management becomes flying easy hops on
> bluebird days only. Then that gets boring and you quit.

bored is better than dead.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article >, Sam Spade >
wrote:

> >> Nothing beats walking for safety,
> >
> > yet my most serious accident occurred while I was walking
> > and required surgery, a 14 day hospital stay, was out of
> > work for more than to months, and I'm still recovering.
> >
> Where you walking during good daylight conditions? Were you on a
> sidewalk or otherwise away from motor vehicles?

I was crossing a street, but there was no involvement or contact with
any motor vehicle.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, also, reported that they were in the middle of the
> river, not near the upwind shore.

Was their path recorded with enough precision to make that determination?

--Gary

> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | ...
> | > It is still knots faster than he should have been to
> make
> | > the turn.
> |
> | Probably. But even at that airspeed (112 mph), if they'd
> turned with a
> | 60-degree bank, they'd have had room to spare even if the
> crosswind
> | component had been as high as 30 knots (the turn diameter
> would have been
> | 975', and the turn would have taken 10 seconds, adding
> 500' of drift; the
> | river is 2000' wide).
> |
> | --Gary
> |
> | > The true airspeed is what controls the radius,
> | > along with the bank angle. He had a quartering headwind
> and
> | > the turn was such that it was a nearly direct tailwind.
> | > Being aware of the required turn and the speed and wind
> | > [which should have been on display in the glass panel]
> both
> | > pilots screwed up IMHO.
> | >
> | >
> | > "Newps" > wrote in message
> | > . ..
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | Jim Macklin wrote:
> | > | > The point is that turn radius is directly related to
> | > speed.
> | > | > It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower
> speed
> | > than
> | > | > Lidle was flying his SR20
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph. That's
> | > Cessna 150 territory.
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

I got the information second-hand from the President of
Cirrus Design via a conversation with Rudy Frasca.


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > Yes, also, reported that they were in the middle of the
| > river, not near the upwind shore.
|
| Was their path recorded with enough precision to make that
determination?
|
| --Gary
|
| > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
message
| > . ..
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | ...
| > | > It is still knots faster than he should have been to
| > make
| > | > the turn.
| > |
| > | Probably. But even at that airspeed (112 mph), if
they'd
| > turned with a
| > | 60-degree bank, they'd have had room to spare even if
the
| > crosswind
| > | component had been as high as 30 knots (the turn
diameter
| > would have been
| > | 975', and the turn would have taken 10 seconds, adding
| > 500' of drift; the
| > | river is 2000' wide).
| > |
| > | --Gary
| > |
| > | > The true airspeed is what controls the radius,
| > | > along with the bank angle. He had a quartering
headwind
| > and
| > | > the turn was such that it was a nearly direct
tailwind.
| > | > Being aware of the required turn and the speed and
wind
| > | > [which should have been on display in the glass
panel]
| > both
| > | > pilots screwed up IMHO.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > "Newps" > wrote in message
| > | > . ..
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | Jim Macklin wrote:
| > | > | > The point is that turn radius is directly
related to
| > | > speed.
| > | > | > It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower
| > speed
| > | > than
| > | > | > Lidle was flying his SR20
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph.
That's
| > | > Cessna 150 territory.
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | ...
> | > Yes, also, reported that they were in the middle of the
> | > river, not near the upwind shore.
> |
> | Was their path recorded with enough precision to make that
> | determination?
>
> I got the information second-hand from the President of
> Cirrus Design via a conversation with Rudy Frasca.

Did he mention where the information came from?

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
>>| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
>>in message
>>| ...
>>| > Yes, also, reported that they were in the middle of the
>>| > river, not near the upwind shore.
>>|
>>| Was their path recorded with enough precision to make that
>>| determination?
>>
>>I got the information second-hand from the President of
>>Cirrus Design via a conversation with Rudy Frasca.
>
>
> Did he mention where the information came from?

That brings to mind a question I've had about panel-mount GPSs. Sorry
for the thread-creep.

All the handheld GPSs I've seen have a "recording" feature that allows
you to see where you've been. I've never seen that in any panel-mount,
but I wonder whether there's a hidden feature that is not accessible
from the normal user interface. Seems like it would be valuable for
accident investigation.

If I were the NTSB, I'd recommend this feature be added, if it doesn't
already exist.

In case there's a portable GPS in an accident aircraft, does the NTSB
extract the position history as part of its investigation?

Dave

Dan Luke wrote:

> Or ask yourself: how many celebrities can you name who have been killed in
> plane crashes vs. the number kiled in car crashes? In the former, quite a
> few; in the latter, just a couple.
>
> Now ask yourself: how much time do celebrities spend travelling in airplanes
> vs. the time spent in cars?
>

Light aircraft? Not very many.

Biz jets? Quite a few.

Peter wrote:
> In addition to the large # of replies here, there is one huge factor
> to consider:
>
> When driving, and much more so when riding a motorbike, you are at the
> mercy of other drivers.

If cars were spread out like airplanes are, then the advantage driving
safety enjoys over light aircraft would be far greater than it is.

I was just talking to Rudy and the accident as it might
relate to glass cockpit came up. Rudy said that he had just
talked with the Cirrus President and that besides the
tailwind and bank angle issues, they were not making use of
the full width of the river. How the Cirrus President knew
this was not a question during the conversation.

I'm assuming that there may be witnesses or even video
surveillance records. I will certainly read the NTSB final
report, but educated guesses can help pilots plan for a
safer flight before the final report is issued.


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
message
| > . ..
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | ...
| > | > Yes, also, reported that they were in the middle of
the
| > | > river, not near the upwind shore.
| > |
| > | Was their path recorded with enough precision to make
that
| > | determination?
| >
| > I got the information second-hand from the President of
| > Cirrus Design via a conversation with Rudy Frasca.
|
| Did he mention where the information came from?
|
| --Gary
|
|

If the system included a "black box" that data could be
saved, but after a crash and fire and likely fractures
chips, recovery of such data is not likely.


"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
| Gary Drescher wrote:
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in message
| > ...
| >
| >>"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
message
| . ..
| >>| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| >>in message
| >>| ...
| >>| > Yes, also, reported that they were in the middle of
the
| >>| > river, not near the upwind shore.
| >>|
| >>| Was their path recorded with enough precision to make
that
| >>| determination?
| >>
| >>I got the information second-hand from the President of
| >>Cirrus Design via a conversation with Rudy Frasca.
| >
| >
| > Did he mention where the information came from?
|
| That brings to mind a question I've had about panel-mount
GPSs. Sorry
| for the thread-creep.
|
| All the handheld GPSs I've seen have a "recording" feature
that allows
| you to see where you've been. I've never seen that in any
panel-mount,
| but I wonder whether there's a hidden feature that is not
accessible
| from the normal user interface. Seems like it would be
valuable for
| accident investigation.
|
| If I were the NTSB, I'd recommend this feature be added,
if it doesn't
| already exist.
|
| In case there's a portable GPS in an accident aircraft,
does the NTSB
| extract the position history as part of its investigation?
|
| Dave

Local pilots that do that trip know not to go up the East river unless
they've already talked to LGA tower and know they are cleared through at
the other end. The river isn't that wide and turning a 180 is a
challenge for most pilots in todays GA planes.

If you find yourself in that situation it would make more sense to head
over to the Manhattan side and turn towards Long Island City. There are
a lot fewer high buildings over there. Worst case you bust LGA's
airspace on the East side, it beats being dead.

Robert

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I was just talking to Rudy and the accident as it might
> relate to glass cockpit came up. Rudy said that he had just
> talked with the Cirrus President and that besides the
> tailwind and bank angle issues, they were not making use of
> the full width of the river. How the Cirrus President knew
> this was not a question during the conversation.
>
> I'm assuming that there may be witnesses or even video
> surveillance records. I will certainly read the NTSB final
> report, but educated guesses can help pilots plan for a
> safer flight before the final report is issued.
>
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | ...
> | > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
> message
> | > . ..
> | > | "Jim Macklin" >
> wrote
> | > in message
> | > | ...
> | > | > Yes, also, reported that they were in the middle of
> the
> | > | > river, not near the upwind shore.
> | > |
> | > | Was their path recorded with enough precision to make
> that
> | > | determination?
> | >
> | > I got the information second-hand from the President of
> | > Cirrus Design via a conversation with Rudy Frasca.
> |
> | Did he mention where the information came from?
> |
> | --Gary
> |
> |
>
>

Nothing beats local knowledge. Being a high time instructor
from Florida does not qualify that instructor to teach
glacier flying. Likewise, a CFI from Atlanta does not have
experience with NYC.

ATC is not uniform in all regions. The air may be the same
everywhere, but it behaves differently. Here in Kansas and
Oklahoma, student pilots are regularly soloed with winds as
high as 25 knots. But in many places, 15 knot winds cause
panic with the CFIs.

Every tower publishes local procedures and is very happy to
speak with any pilot at any time. I have not flown VFR in
the NYC area, all my trips have been in a King Air or
Beechjet. But if I was VFR, I'd have the terminal chart, I
would call the local tower and I'd seek a local instructor.

If I was flying a seaplane up the East River, I might land
and turn on the water. I certainly don't consider myself
qualified to fly into every airport without "study" of local
procedures. I have flown singles and light twins, as well
as the King Air into STL, ATL, ORD and several other busy
airports single-pilot. IFR is a piece of cake until you
land, even from the higher cockpit of a King Air, taxiing at
ATL or ORD is the difficult procedure. But landing or
taking off from many airports is just difficult to do.
Leadville is obvious, but Tahoe, Aspen, AngelFire don't
look hard.

Just heard a radio news report, the feds (NTSB?) are citing
stiff wind and pilot error.




"Robert Chambers" > wrote in
message . ..
| Local pilots that do that trip know not to go up the East
river unless
| they've already talked to LGA tower and know they are
cleared through at
| the other end. The river isn't that wide and turning a
180 is a
| challenge for most pilots in todays GA planes.
|
| If you find yourself in that situation it would make more
sense to head
| over to the Manhattan side and turn towards Long Island
City. There are
| a lot fewer high buildings over there. Worst case you
bust LGA's
| airspace on the East side, it beats being dead.
|
| Robert
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > I was just talking to Rudy and the accident as it might
| > relate to glass cockpit came up. Rudy said that he had
just
| > talked with the Cirrus President and that besides the
| > tailwind and bank angle issues, they were not making use
of
| > the full width of the river. How the Cirrus President
knew
| > this was not a question during the conversation.
| >
| > I'm assuming that there may be witnesses or even video
| > surveillance records. I will certainly read the NTSB
final
| > report, but educated guesses can help pilots plan for a
| > safer flight before the final report is issued.
| >
| >
| > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
message
| > . ..
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | ...
| > | > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
| > message
| > | > . ..
| > | > | "Jim Macklin"
>
| > wrote
| > | > in message
| > | > | ...
| > | > | > Yes, also, reported that they were in the middle
of
| > the
| > | > | > river, not near the upwind shore.
| > | > |
| > | > | Was their path recorded with enough precision to
make
| > that
| > | > | determination?
| > | >
| > | > I got the information second-hand from the President
of
| > | > Cirrus Design via a conversation with Rudy Frasca.
| > |
| > | Did he mention where the information came from?
| > |
| > | --Gary
| > |
| > |
| >
| >

"Sam Spade" wrote:
>
>> Or ask yourself: how many celebrities can you name who have been killed
>> in plane crashes vs. the number kiled in car crashes? In the former,
>> quite a few; in the latter, just a couple.
>>
>> Now ask yourself: how much time do celebrities spend travelling in
>> airplanes vs. the time spent in cars?
>>
>
> Light aircraft? Not very many.

Cory Lidle, Scott Crossfield, Game show host Peter Tomarken, vocalist
Aaliyah, Mel Carnahan, Tony Lee Bettenhausen Jr., JFK Jr., John Denver,
baseball player Jim Hardin, Art Scholl, Hale Boggs, Buddy Holly, Audie
Murphy, Rocky Marciano, Jim "Gentleman" Reeves, Patsy Cline, Buddy Clark,
Will Rogers & Wiley Post... and that's not including helicopters. Not many?

> Biz jets? Quite a few.


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Sam Spade" wrote:
>
>>>Or ask yourself: how many celebrities can you name who have been killed
>>>in plane crashes vs. the number kiled in car crashes? In the former,
>>>quite a few; in the latter, just a couple.
>>>
>>>Now ask yourself: how much time do celebrities spend travelling in
>>>airplanes vs. the time spent in cars?
>>>
>>
>>Light aircraft? Not very many.
>
>
> Cory Lidle, Scott Crossfield, Game show host Peter Tomarken, vocalist
> Aaliyah, Mel Carnahan, Tony Lee Bettenhausen Jr., JFK Jr., John Denver,
> baseball player Jim Hardin, Art Scholl, Hale Boggs, Buddy Holly, Audie
> Murphy, Rocky Marciano, Jim "Gentleman" Reeves, Patsy Cline, Buddy Clark,
> Will Rogers & Wiley Post... and that's not including helicopters. Not many?

How many of those are dead?

Some of those folks flew when biz jets were yet a dream.

Nearly everyone in the *21st Century* in show biz who has the money uses
biz jets, especially since fractional ownership came into being.

High end turbine helicopters fit into the biz jet category. They are
generally professionally flown. Much of the high-end rotorcraft stuff
the Wall Street Barons use up and down the East River are flown by two
crew members.

"Sam Spade" wrote:

>>>>
>>>
>>>Light aircraft? Not very many.
>>
>>
>> Cory Lidle, Scott Crossfield, Game show host Peter Tomarken, vocalist
>> Aaliyah, Mel Carnahan, Tony Lee Bettenhausen Jr., JFK Jr., John Denver,
>> baseball player Jim Hardin, Art Scholl, Hale Boggs, Buddy Holly, Audie
>> Murphy, Rocky Marciano, Jim "Gentleman" Reeves, Patsy Cline, Buddy
>> Clark, Will Rogers & Wiley Post... and that's not including helicopters.
>> Not many?
>
> How many of those are dead?

Uh, all of them.

> Some of those folks flew when biz jets were yet a dream.

So?

> Nearly everyone in the *21st Century* in show biz who has the money uses
> biz jets, especially since fractional ownership came into being.

So what?

> High end turbine helicopters fit into the biz jet category. They are
> generally professionally flown. Much of the high-end rotorcraft stuff the
> Wall Street Barons use up and down the East River are flown by two crew
> members.

Your point escapes me--I guess that makes us even.

--
Dan

"Fiction was invented the day Jonah arrived home and told his wife
that he was three days late because he had been swallowed by a
whale." -Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Those "10 times as dangerous" stats do get your attention.

However, assume that our approximately million pilots each fly 100
hours at 150 mph. 998,800 will survive the year.

If driving is 10 times as safe, 999,880 of a million drivers would
survive the year.

998,800 vs 999,880 for survival is not a big issue for me.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.






Dane Spearing wrote:
> I've had many non-pilot friends and co-workers ask, "Is flying a small plane
> more or less dangerous than driving a car?", to which my response has always
> been "It depends on who is piloting the plane." However, in order to get
> a firmer answer from a statistical standpoint on this question, I decided
> to do a little homework:
>
> According to the DOT, the 2005 automobile fatality accident rate is:
> 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled
> (see http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)
>
> According to the 2005 Nall Report, the general aviation fatality accident rate
> is: 1.2 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours
> (see http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html)
>
> In order to compare these two statistics, we obviously need to assume an
> average velocity for either automobiles or GA aircraft. If we assume an
> average GA aircraft velocity of 150 mph, then the aviation accident statistic
> becomes 1.2 fatalities per 15 million miles.
>
> Thus, based on the above, it appears that the GA fatality rate is somewhere
> around 7 times that of automobiles. Now I realize that one could fudge the
> average GA aircraft velocity velocity up or down, but I'm farily confident
> that it's not above 200 mph, nor below 100 mph, which brakets the aviation
> fatality rate between 5 and 10 times that of driving. A sobering thought...
>
> Comments?
>
> -- Dane

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Sam Spade" wrote:
>
>
>>>>Light aircraft? Not very many.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cory Lidle, Scott Crossfield, Game show host Peter Tomarken, vocalist
>>>Aaliyah, Mel Carnahan, Tony Lee Bettenhausen Jr., JFK Jr., John Denver,
>>>baseball player Jim Hardin, Art Scholl, Hale Boggs, Buddy Holly, Audie
>>>Murphy, Rocky Marciano, Jim "Gentleman" Reeves, Patsy Cline, Buddy
>>>Clark, Will Rogers & Wiley Post... and that's not including helicopters.
>>>Not many?
>>
>>How many of those are dead?
>
>
> Uh, all of them.
>
>
>>Some of those folks flew when biz jets were yet a dream.
>
>
> So?
>
>
>>Nearly everyone in the *21st Century* in show biz who has the money uses
>>biz jets, especially since fractional ownership came into being.
>
>
> So what?
>
>
>>High end turbine helicopters fit into the biz jet category. They are
>>generally professionally flown. Much of the high-end rotorcraft stuff the
>>Wall Street Barons use up and down the East River are flown by two crew
>>members.
>
>
> Your point escapes me--I guess that makes us even.
>

The rich folks are not flying around in little single engine birds or
Part 23 twins.