How safe is it, really?

[June]

I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
he will be saving money rather than renting.

We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
he has such a young family.

Your opinions would be appreciated.

[Mike Rapoport]

Personal flying is about as safe as riding a motorcycle.

Mike
MU-2


"June" > wrote in message
om...
>I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.

[Icebound]

"June" > wrote in message
om...
>I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.


I suggest you read this article:

http://www.rodmachado.com/Articles/Danger.htm

A pilot has far greater control over his own safety, than does a driver of
an automobile.

[Dale]

In article et>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> Personal flying is about as safe as riding a motorcycle.
>

And depends greatly on the individual.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[NW_PILOT]

"June" > wrote in message
om...
> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.


Just think how you would feel if they told about every car accident on the
news.

[gatt]

"June" > wrote in message

> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news.

Meanwhile, there are so many automobile crashes that they're not even
newsworthy anymore.

[C J Campbell]

While it is true that statistics overall say that flying an airplane is
about as hazardous as riding a motorcycle, the vast majority of flying
accidents are due to pilot error. In other words, the pilot made poor
choices about when to fly, what to fly, or where. Flying IFR at night in
areas of forecast icing over mountains in a light single engine airplane is
probably a poor choice.

If your husband is in the habit of flying low over the ground, showing off
and taking unnecessary risks, then flying is not very safe at all. If he
flies "by the book," carefully weighing the risks created by weather,
terrain, the condition of the airplane, and his own condition at the time,
then he is probably as safe as any airline captain.

The reason you hear about small airplane accidents in the news is because
they are rare. After all, the vast majority of automobile accidents, even
the fatal ones, never make it into the news because there are thousands of
automobile accidents every day. So airplane accidents happen rarely enough
to get reported, but just often enough to keep up a steady drumbeat of
"flying is not safe" in the news.

Risk management is an important concept in flying safety. Pilots are taught
that they should always have an "out" in case something unexpected happens.
For example, flying low in an unfamiliar mountain canyon might seem to be a
lot of fun, but it is more risky than flying at 10,000 feet on a cross
country over a well travelled route. Risks increase when you are flying low
because of the greater chance of encountering obstructions, fewer choices in
emergency landing areas in the event of some malfunction, and the
possibility of getting trapped by rising terrain or lowering weather. Risks
increase at night because of the greater difficulty in choosing an emergency
landing area in the event one is needed, more difficulty in navigation,
invisible terrain, pilot fatigue, and the need to fly on instruments when
the pilot may not be qualified or rusty.

No pilot of small airplanes will intentionally fly into a thunderstorm, yet
pilots do it with alarming frequency. Why? Well, they thought that thin band
of weather up ahead was benign and they decided to just punch through it.
They had gotten away with it many times before and were lulled into thinking
it was safe. But this time the thin band of weather was not so thin and it
concealed a thunderstorm.

Your husband's instrument training will make him a better pilot and,
arguably, a safer one if he flies regularly. He will learn how to handle the
plane better, how to read the weather better, and will be watched much more
closely by air traffic control services. You can do a great deal to help him
fly more safely. First of all, encourage him to fly often to keep in
practice. Discourage him from flying when he is tired or if he is medicated
with drugs or alcohol, sick, or emotionally high or low. Encourage him to
get weather briefings every time he flies and discuss with him the
particular risks involved with each flight. By becoming pro-active,
supportive of good flying practices, and helping him to prepare for his
flights you can be a big factor in his flying safely.

[Mike Rapoport]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> If your husband is in the habit of flying low over the ground, showing off
> and taking unnecessary risks, then flying is not very safe at all. If he
> flies "by the book," carefully weighing the risks created by weather,
> terrain, the condition of the airplane, and his own condition at the time,
> then he is probably as safe as any airline captain.

This is ridiculous. There is no area of GA flying that is even remotely
comparable to airline flying in terms of safety.

Mike
MU-2

[Marco Leon]

I think what he really meant was that there's no reason (when all is said
and done) a private pilot can't end up with the same accident record as an
airline captain.

Marco Leon


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If your husband is in the habit of flying low over the ground, showing
off
> > and taking unnecessary risks, then flying is not very safe at all. If he
> > flies "by the book," carefully weighing the risks created by weather,
> > terrain, the condition of the airplane, and his own condition at the
time,
> > then he is probably as safe as any airline captain.
>
> This is ridiculous. There is no area of GA flying that is even remotely
> comparable to airline flying in terms of safety.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>

[[email protected]]

How can anyone say "how" safe it is? You want statistics? Some say, as
with any other method of transportation, if you get to your destination,
it was safe; if you crash before you get there, it wasn't.

Your concern, having small children, is one shared by many spouses and
SOs, flying and non-flying alike.

Just a couple of *opinions*:
(1) in order to stay on top of all there is to remember and to keep your
actual flying skills sharp, you need to fly regularly, no long lay-offs
between flights. Flying only enough necessary to rent without doing a
checkout beforehand (*generally* once every 60 days -- that varies from
FBO to FBO, depending on the airplane, etc.) is thought by many to be
less safe than flying *more* regularly. If he's working on his
instrument rating, he is not only actively making an effort to increase
his skills/knowledge in order to be as safe as possible, but he's
probably flying often to maintain and build on his skills and is likely
having regular input/evaluation by a CFI;
(2) I'm not so sure about saving money (though having the instrument
rating is a plus with insurance), but being part or full owner of an
airplane means that he would be fully aware of and in a position to
arrange for *maintenance* himself by a mechanic that he knows/trusts ...
as opposed to renting, where some maintenance issues may or may not be
brought to the attention of the facility, may or may not be divulged to
renters, may or may not be addressed in a timely manner, to the degree
YOU would if it were your personal airplane, or by a person whose work
you would put your faith in, etc.

As for there being a small plane crash every time you turn on the news,
airplane crashes are newsworthy and rarely go unreported. Are you
concerned about his safety when he drives to work every morning? ...of
course you are, but my point is, how many automobile crashes are there
every day that never make the news? Most pilots at least *think* about
the possibility each time they fly; do you think about that possibility
every time you load the little ones into the car on a leisurely Sunday
afternoon? Not meaning to make light of your very justifiable concern,
just trying to present a little perspective.

[G.R. Patterson III]

June wrote:
>
> I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news.

They only put things on the news that are unusual. When was the last time you
saw a news report of a car crash 3,000 miles away, yet, if a plane goes down in
California, it'll be on the evening news in New York that night.

As far as statistics is concerned, Mike has it right. Flying light aircraft is
statistically as safe as riding motorcycles on the highway. The additional
training for his instrument rating will make your husband even safer.

He should focus on this hobby now, while he still can. Carpe diem.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>I think what he really meant was that there's no reason (when all is said
> and done) a private pilot can't end up with the same accident record as an
> airline captain.
>
> Marco Leon

That isn't even remotely true.

Mike
MU-2


> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > If your husband is in the habit of flying low over the ground, showing
> off
>> > and taking unnecessary risks, then flying is not very safe at all. If
>> > he
>> > flies "by the book," carefully weighing the risks created by weather,
>> > terrain, the condition of the airplane, and his own condition at the
> time,
>> > then he is probably as safe as any airline captain.
>>
>> This is ridiculous. There is no area of GA flying that is even remotely
>> comparable to airline flying in terms of safety.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

(June) wrote in message >...
> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.

The motorcycle comparison is not a good one. Really, the safety has
everything to do with the type of guy your husband is. If he's the
type of person that is going to want to do low level buzzing over his
friends houses or jump into weather he isn't trained to deal with, it
could be dangerous. Unlike a motorcycle, a pilot gets to choose his
level of risk. I've flown with pilots that worry me, and I've flown
with pilots that will have very long lives. It really depends on his
choices. I have two young boys myself.

-Robert, Flight Instructor.

[C Kingsbury]

"June" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.
>

One of my partners has a 4 year-old daughter who loves to go flying with
him. Obviously he (and more significantly his ex-wife) find the risks
acceptable.

There is risk the minute you get up off the couch. Come to think of it, if
you don't get off the couch, there is a risk you'll die young of heart
disease and diabetes. The fact is that nobody gets out of this life alive.
Flying does involve more risks than, say, carpentry, but as pilots we can
choose to control our risks and avoid many things that increase them.

In my experience people who have the flying "bug" bad enough to actually
make it through the rigmarole of getting a license are a breed apart.
They're all kinds of people- rich, poor, old men, young women, every race
and religion out there, but somewhere along the line we all got a little
chunk of the sky stuck inside us. Dig into his urge to fly and you'll
probably find pieces of the things that made you decide to spend the rest of
your life with him. Are you sure that you want to ask him to suppress this?
There is so much sadness and tragedy in life that doesn't make the papers.
None of us truly know the number of our days, and we owe it to ourselves and
our loved ones to live each present moment with joy and gratitude. For me,
part of that is thankfulness that I was born in the century in which two
bicycle mechanics from Dayton realized an ancient dream, and in a nation
where I, a person of average means, could turn that dream into reality.

Best,
-cwk.

[Newps]

C J Campbell wrote:
> While it is true that statistics overall say that flying an airplane is
> about as hazardous as riding a motorcycle, the vast majority of flying
> accidents are due to pilot error. In other words, the pilot made poor
> choices about when to fly, what to fly, or where. Flying IFR at night in
> areas of forecast icing over mountains in a light single engine airplane is
> probably a poor choice.

Exactly. Take a 182, fly day VFR only, don't buzz anybody and your
chance of dying is the same as driving. You self limit when you can fly
but that's just another term for risk management.

[Mike Rapoport]

You are fooling yourself. According to the Nall Report, the pilot was the
"major cause" of 70% of fatal accidents. This leaves 30%. Even if you
eliminate all the accidents from risky behavior or poor/rusty skills,
personal flying is still more dangerous than other forms of transport.
Pilots like to try to twist the stats to suit their beliefs. This makes no
sense to me. The motorcycle stats have people acting irresponsibly too.

The real question is "What is an acceptable level of risk?" That level
varies by person. I have this discussion with my wife over mountain
climbing all the time. My view is that you cannot perserve life, you have
to live it.

Mike
MU-2


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> (June) wrote in message
> >...
>> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
>> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
>> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
>> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>>
>> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
>> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
>> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
>> he has such a young family.
>>
>> Your opinions would be appreciated.
>
> The motorcycle comparison is not a good one. Really, the safety has
> everything to do with the type of guy your husband is. If he's the
> type of person that is going to want to do low level buzzing over his
> friends houses or jump into weather he isn't trained to deal with, it
> could be dangerous. Unlike a motorcycle, a pilot gets to choose his
> level of risk. I've flown with pilots that worry me, and I've flown
> with pilots that will have very long lives. It really depends on his
> choices. I have two young boys myself.
>
> -Robert, Flight Instructor.

[PaulH]

News outlets seem to focus on small plane crashes for reasons I've
never understood. When was the last time you saw an article in your
local paper about a car crash 100 miles away even though they occur
frequently?

The instrument rating will make your husband a much better pilot
because of the precision required in flying with instruments.

You can also form your own opinion about his attitude about safety.
If he's meticulous about planning and checking the aircraft before
flight, he will be ahead of the motorcycle odds. The major cause of
engine failure in small airplanes is running out of fuel, which is a
highly predictable event.

[Andrew Sarangan]

The accident rate is about 7 per 100,000 hours flown, and the fatal
accident rate is about 1.3 per 100,000 hours flown. Remember that
these are averages, and it includes high risk activities such as low
level maneuvering, scud running and fuel exhaustion. My guess is, for
a conservative pilot with an instrument rating, the rate is likely to
be about half of the above numbers. A typical private pilot flies
about 100 hours per year. At that rate, it would be 300 years before
he would encounter an accident, or 1500 years for a fatal accident.

Comparison to riding a motorcycle is a good one. But the difference
is, a motorcycle accident doesn't always make the evening news.



"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message et>...
> Personal flying is about as safe as riding a motorcycle.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "June" > wrote in message
> om...
> >I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> > his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> > recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> > he will be saving money rather than renting.
> >
> > We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> > another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> > think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> > he has such a young family.
> >
> > Your opinions would be appreciated.

[Marco Leon]

I don't understand what you're saying here. There are definitely pilots out
there that have flown decades without a reportable accident. Are you saying
that it isn't even remotely possible that an active private pilot can go
through their entire flying experience without an accident? Please clarify.

Marco


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ...
> >I think what he really meant was that there's no reason (when all is said
> > and done) a private pilot can't end up with the same accident record as
an
> > airline captain.
> >
> > Marco Leon
>
> That isn't even remotely true.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > If your husband is in the habit of flying low over the ground,
showing
> > off
> >> > and taking unnecessary risks, then flying is not very safe at all. If
> >> > he
> >> > flies "by the book," carefully weighing the risks created by weather,
> >> > terrain, the condition of the airplane, and his own condition at the
> > time,
> >> > then he is probably as safe as any airline captain.
> >>
> >> This is ridiculous. There is no area of GA flying that is even
remotely
> >> comparable to airline flying in terms of safety.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >> MU-2
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[kontiki]

Here is my opinion, for what it it worth. The safety of flying is very
dependent upon the quality of the pilot. Compared to driving a car for
example, if some nutcase headed in the opposite direction decides to
reach for his beer, your skills as a driver are not worth much.

In an airplane you are many times more likely to be a victim of your
own stupidity/carelessness/ignorance you name it. On the other hand
a cautious pilot is generally not subjected to the degree of idiocy
one experiences on the road on a daily basis. Therefore I feel flying
is safer for careful and conciencous pilots than driving.

I would say that having an IFR rating and several hundred hours of
flying experience (both in VFR and IFR) has a tendency to make someone
a better pilot than one without. But there is no substitute for experience
and you have to get there from somewhere. The best pilots tend to be
a bit meticulous and even a bit anal about their airplanes and flight
preparations. Overconfidence is not a virtue in aviation.

You really need to apply the same criteria to judging the quality of
a pilot that you would for most things in life.

June wrote:
> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.

[Peter Duniho]

"June" > wrote in message
om...
> [...]
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.

Is there really? Where do you live? Here in the Seattle area, we have news
of a fatal car crash on the news almost every night. Local aviation
accidents are extremely unusual, as far as news reports go, maybe 6 or 12 a
year.

I would say before you make the claim that "there is another small plane
crash every other time you turn on the news", you actually do a real survey.
Keep a log of every time you watch the news, and note when a car crash and
which an airplane crash are reported. Do this for a few months. At the
end, compare your notes with your perception.

I think you'll find that there's your perception does not match your notes.
It's human nature to focus on things that worry us the most, in spite of
relatively low risk, and to overlook things that we take for granted, in
spite of relatively high risk.

As far as the actual relative risks go, most people agree that general
aviation is more dangerous than driving (as a point of comparison).
Disagreements come up with respect to just how much more dangerous, and how
safe one can make it. This mainly is a result of the fact that you can
evaluate the relative safety in a variety of ways, not all of which result
in the exact same answer.

Factual things that are not open to debate include that there are nearly
50,000 fatalaties due to motor vehicles every year, while there are only
about 500 fatalities in fixed-wing general aviation aircraft every year
(from around 300 accidents). Granted, there are more people driving than
flying, so the relative risks are higher for flying than driving. But an
individual's total exposure is also almost always lower for flying than for
driving, usually by a significant amount, simply because they do it a lot
less.

It is also a fact that there are lots of activities that people commonly do
that are as dangerous or more dangerous than flying. Whether you have a
similar debate with your husband regarding those types of activities, I
don't know.

IMHO, if you and your family are not prepared to lose either you or your
husband, then you need to fix that. Whether or not he's flying, bad things
can happen, and they won't necessarily wait until the kids are older. If
you ARE prepared, then you ought to (IMHO) live life, and not worry so much
about whether what you're doing could kill you.

Nearly everything we do has the potential for killing us, including taking a
shower. Even for a pilot, the cumulative odds of something else killing
that pilot are MUCH greater than the singular odds of flying killing that
pilot. The real question should not be "how dangerous is flying", but
rather "how much MORE dangerous will be life be if I fly?" I personally
don't believe that the incremental increase in risk of death is all that
great from flying (once you consider all the other ways to get killed), even
if flying itself is demonstrably more dangerous than an individual activity
(like driving).

I realize this reply is as much a philosophical one as it is one that
actually answers your question. But honestly, what did you expect, really?
Every single one of us you've asked has made the decision to fly, in spite
of whatever risks exist. We all obviously think that flying is reasonably
safe, whether that's because of a relatively low accident rate or a
philosophically fatalistic point of view.

Pete

[Back_To_Flying]

>I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.
He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport.
Driving is still the most dangerous activity we humans do.

Richard

"June" > wrote in message
om...

[Aviv Hod]

C Kingsbury wrote:
> "June" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Your opinions would be appreciated.
>>
>
>
> One of my partners has a 4 year-old daughter who loves to go flying with
> him. Obviously he (and more significantly his ex-wife) find the risks
> acceptable.
>
> There is risk the minute you get up off the couch. Come to think of it, if
> you don't get off the couch, there is a risk you'll die young of heart
> disease and diabetes. The fact is that nobody gets out of this life alive.
> Flying does involve more risks than, say, carpentry, but as pilots we can
> choose to control our risks and avoid many things that increase them.
>
> In my experience people who have the flying "bug" bad enough to actually
> make it through the rigmarole of getting a license are a breed apart.
> They're all kinds of people- rich, poor, old men, young women, every race
> and religion out there, but somewhere along the line we all got a little
> chunk of the sky stuck inside us. Dig into his urge to fly and you'll
> probably find pieces of the things that made you decide to spend the rest of
> your life with him. Are you sure that you want to ask him to suppress this?
> There is so much sadness and tragedy in life that doesn't make the papers.
> None of us truly know the number of our days, and we owe it to ourselves and
> our loved ones to live each present moment with joy and gratitude. For me,
> part of that is thankfulness that I was born in the century in which two
> bicycle mechanics from Dayton realized an ancient dream, and in a nation
> where I, a person of average means, could turn that dream into reality.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>

Beautifully put, Mr. Kingsbury! I too am thankful for all that has
allowed me to delight in the freedom of flight. Every time I pull back
on the yoke and guide a magnificent flying machine into the sky, I know
I am not only living my own dream, but also the dream of millions of
others who are not as fortunate as me.

-Aviv

[Dan Luke]

"June" wrote:
> I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news.

It is true that private aviation accidents are over-reported due to their
rarity. However, they are rare mostly due to the relative scarcity of
private pilots, not the low risk of private flying.

By any measure, private flying is more risky than driving. Individual
behavior has a large effect on the actual risk per flight, but even removing
the more egregious "pilot error" accidents from the statistics leaves the
flying risk/hour greater than that for driving -- and that's without
removing the "nut behind the wheel" accidents from the driving statistics.

You are right to be concerned for the safety of your children with respect
to your husband's flying, particularly in weather requiring the instrument
rating. In my opinion, the risk can be managed to an acceptable level if
your husband's airplane is proactively maintained to a high standard, your
husband regularly trains for high proficieny as a pilot, and your husband is
extremely conservative in his decisions about the kind of weather he will
tackle with the family aboard.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Back_To_Flying" wrote:
> He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport.
> Driving is still the most dangerous activity we humans do.

Utter BS.

[Nathan Young]

I wonder if the 30% figure for mechanicals includes fuel exhaustion
(which I consider a pilot error).

-Nathan


On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:47:41 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>You are fooling yourself. According to the Nall Report, the pilot was the
>"major cause" of 70% of fatal accidents. This leaves 30%. Even if you
>eliminate all the accidents from risky behavior or poor/rusty skills,

[Richard Russell]

On 30 Nov 2004 10:33:32 -0800, (Andrew
Sarangan) wrote:

>The accident rate is about 7 per 100,000 hours flown, and the fatal
>accident rate is about 1.3 per 100,000 hours flown. Remember that
>these are averages, and it includes high risk activities such as low
>level maneuvering, scud running and fuel exhaustion. My guess is, for
>a conservative pilot with an instrument rating, the rate is likely to
>be about half of the above numbers. A typical private pilot flies
>about 100 hours per year. At that rate, it would be 300 years before
>he would encounter an accident, or 1500 years for a fatal accident.
>
>Comparison to riding a motorcycle is a good one. But the difference
>is, a motorcycle accident doesn't always make the evening news.
>
>
I ride motorcycles and I fly. I feel much safer when I'm flying
because my safety is in my own hands to a much greater degree in the
plane than it is on the bike. If I die in the plane, it will almost
certainly be because I screwed up. If I die on the bike, it's just as
likely that I die from someone else's screwup.
Rich Russell

[Brian Case]

It depends mostly on you husband.

Flying much more than most any other endeavor is as safe as the pilot
makes it.

If your husband follows the rules, and doesn't get hit by a drunk
driver on the way to the airport, he will become a very old and happy
pilot,


If he doesn't follow the rules, especially the ones about flying to
low, or bad weather, then perhaps you should strongly recommend he
take up fishing in the kiddie pool instead.

I once did some research into the Phrase "The most dangerous thing
about flying is driving to the airport". If you just look at the
numbers for one hour spent in an airplane vs 1 hour spent in a car.
The odds getting hurt in the airplane are much better. However, If you
eliminate all the accidents where the pilot was flying to low or in
bad weather, then the odds are about the same as getting in an
accident in the car as the are in the airplane. So if you husband
avoids flying low and stays out of bad weather, he is just as likely
to get hurt in the car as he is in the airplane.
disclaimer: this was just my interpretation of the NTSB Statistics,
someone else may come to a different conclusion.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Brian Case
Flight instructor
2500 hrs Single Engine
500 hrs Gliders











(June) wrote in message >...
> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.

[[email protected]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> You are right to be concerned for the safety of your children with respect
> to your husband's flying, particularly in weather requiring the instrument
> rating.

She is right to be concerned. But she said it was a hobby, and we don't
know what her husband's intentions are regarding the instrument rating.
Not everyone who pursues that rating gets it with the intention of
taking off routinely in weather "requiring an instrument rating" (except
for the purpose of staying current) ... many get it for the added
training, knowledge and precision as well as for the "just in case"
situation that *might* occur despite all the best laid plans, but not
one you'd actively seek out.

Someone else asked what she expected to hear -- I think she either
expected someone to tell her that she was right and that her husband
should give up flying until their two daughters are adults and no longer
dependants, or maybe she just wanted and needed to hear how others
weigh, justify, rationalize or prioritize the risk in our decision
whether or not to fly, and some assurance that her husband was going in
a sensible direction, not deeper into danger.

Of course it hits home when you turn on the news and see a small plane
crash, but no more or less than it does to see news of a head-on
collision on the local highway, a shooting at a local mini-mart, or a
home invasion.

Regardless of what anyone here thinks, feels or writes, that decision is
something they have to work out. The presence of aviation is a shared
passion in some marriages; in others, it's a continual source of
aggravation and turmoil ... but so are football, golf and truck shows.

[Andrew Gideon]

Nathan Young wrote:

> I wonder if the 30% figure for mechanicals includes fuel exhaustion
> (which I consider a pilot error).

Or issues that should have been caught during a preflight (ie. reversed
aileron cables, Jet-A in the 100LL tank, or some such).

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Aviv Hod wrote:

> I too am thankful for all that has
> allowed me to delight in the freedom of flight.

GA permitted my (2.25 year-old) son to spend more time with his cousins this
past weekend, and also permitted him to avoid several hours locked in a car
seat. That's a very concrete value for which we're all grateful.

- Andrew

[Tobias Mock]

> Driving is still the most dangerous activity we humans do.

Well, not for smokers... ;-)

[Back_To_Flying]

>> He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport.
>> Driving is still the most dangerous activity we humans do.
>
> Utter BS.
>
Ok, unlike you I have done some research on this then . Driving is the
leading cause of death for American drivers between 15 - 20 years of age.
Here is my source http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/041018-3.htm

I have also seen a few more reports concluding the same. So one could
conclude that driving is still much more dangerous than flying regardless of
age group. Do you have proof of the opposite? Then show me your source.

Richard


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Back_To_Flying" wrote:
>

[Dan Girellini]

== Back To Flying <Back_To_Flying> writes:

>>> He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport.
>>> Driving is still the most dangerous activity we humans do.
>>
>> Utter BS.
>>
> Ok, unlike you I have done some research on this then . Driving is the
> leading cause of death for American drivers between 15 - 20 years of age.
> Here is my source http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/041018-3.htm

> I have also seen a few more reports concluding the same. So one could
> conclude that driving is still much more dangerous than flying regardless
> of age group. Do you have proof of the opposite? Then show me your source.

I don't think anyone disputes that GA flying isn't particularly dangerous to
those who don't participate in it.

yeesh.

dan.

--
PGP key at http://www.longhands.org/drg-pgp.txt Key Id:0x507D93DF

[Andrew Gideon]

Dan Girellini wrote:

> I don't think anyone disputes that GA flying isn't particularly dangerous
> to those who don't participate in it.

Well...some nuts see aircraft falling from the sky. But amongst sane
people, you're right. That's the problem with just comparing numbers like
accidents or fatalities w/o also looking at number of pilots/drivers, miles
travelled, time spent en route, and so on.

- Andrew

[Morgans]

"Back_To_Flying" > wrote

> Ok, unlike you I have done some research on this then . Driving is the
> leading cause of death for American drivers between 15 - 20 years of age.

Stating an argument like that, shows you have little to no grasp of
statistics.

Everyone (nearly) drives. Everyone does not fly.

Still, I agree that flying is an acceptable risk for the careful. If you
suppress your loved one's urge to fly, he will end up resenting it, and
possibly you, too. (to the original poster) Do you want to take the chance
of not having him in your life, because of that?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004

[NW_PILOT]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Back_To_Flying" > wrote
>
> > Ok, unlike you I have done some research on this then . Driving is the
> > leading cause of death for American drivers between 15 - 20 years of
age.
>
> Stating an argument like that, shows you have little to no grasp of
> statistics.
>
> Everyone (nearly) drives. Everyone does not fly.
>
> Still, I agree that flying is an acceptable risk for the careful. If you
> suppress your loved one's urge to fly, he will end up resenting it, and
> possibly you, too. (to the original poster) Do you want to take the
chance
> of not having him in your life, because of that?
> --
> Jim in NC

Wife or flying ill tell her to pack her bags and show her the door. Flying
is a real addiction!!! to some!

[Bob Moore]

"Back_To_Flying" > wrote
> I have also seen a few more reports concluding the same. So one could
> conclude that driving is still much more dangerous than flying
> regardless of age group. Do you have proof of the opposite? Then show
> me your source.

The current issue of "Flying" magazine addresses the issue and
provides the documentation that they used.
As I recall, their conclusion was that flying presented 200-300
times the risk that driving did, contrary to what we have all
been led to believe.

Bob Moore

[Slick]

It's definitely safe as long as the pilot flies regularly. On the other
hand, kinds are the most important thing. From what I've looked into it,
it's cheaper to rent for the average GA pilot. Only because most likely
something will break and need repaired. If nothing broke then it would
definitely be cheaper to own.
"June" > wrote in message
om...
> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Jay Beckman]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "June" > wrote in message
> om...
>>
>> Your opinions would be appreciated.
>>
>
> One of my partners has a 4 year-old daughter who loves to go flying with
> him. Obviously he (and more significantly his ex-wife) find the risks
> acceptable.
>
> There is risk the minute you get up off the couch. Come to think of it, if
> you don't get off the couch, there is a risk you'll die young of heart
> disease and diabetes. The fact is that nobody gets out of this life alive.
> Flying does involve more risks than, say, carpentry, but as pilots we can
> choose to control our risks and avoid many things that increase them.
>
> In my experience people who have the flying "bug" bad enough to actually
> make it through the rigmarole of getting a license are a breed apart.
> They're all kinds of people- rich, poor, old men, young women, every race
> and religion out there, but somewhere along the line we all got a little
> chunk of the sky stuck inside us. Dig into his urge to fly and you'll
> probably find pieces of the things that made you decide to spend the rest
> of
> your life with him. Are you sure that you want to ask him to suppress
> this?
> There is so much sadness and tragedy in life that doesn't make the papers.
> None of us truly know the number of our days, and we owe it to ourselves
> and
> our loved ones to live each present moment with joy and gratitude. For me,
> part of that is thankfulness that I was born in the century in which two
> bicycle mechanics from Dayton realized an ancient dream, and in a nation
> where I, a person of average means, could turn that dream into reality.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>

Very well said...

Jay B

[NW_PILOT]

"Slick" > wrote in message ...
> It's definitely safe as long as the pilot flies regularly. On the other
> hand, kinds are the most important thing. From what I've looked into it,
> it's cheaper to rent for the average GA pilot. Only because most likely
> something will break and need repaired. If nothing broke then it would
> definitely be cheaper to own.

Not really, depends on how much you fly!

I have to put 75 more hours in my Cessna 150 and it will have nearly paid
for itself.

Its been there when I want to fly it you know For them 3:00am sleepless
nights not a problem its there for me,

Weather's bad in the morning not a problem I can fly in the afternoon no
conflicts in schedule.

Machines break it is a given and owned airplanes by responsible people I
believe are safer than rentals.

Want to go fly some place for a week? most rentals have min. daily charges.

Don't like the avionics in the rental? if you own you can make it to your
liking. Ill stop there.

[Darkwing Duck]

"June" > wrote in message
om...
>I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.


Flying low level isn't risky if done right. I know a part time flight
instructor with over 20,000 hours (that's 833.3 days in the air!) with most
of them low level. He is a pipeline patrol pilot! He's cautious and
understands what to look out for, where the obstacles are and how to handle
emergencys. He flies a Cessna 206 and keeps it up on the maintnance. It's
all about risk management. He flies for 4-5 hours sometimes more a day a few
hundred feet off the ground.

[Jeremy Lew]

What are you basing that on? Has anyone done a statistical analysis after
removing night, IMC, non-182, and buzzing accidents?


"Newps" > wrote in message
...

> ...Take a 182, fly day VFR only, don't buzz anybody and your
> chance of dying is the same as driving...

[[email protected]]

If you choose to belive Richard Collins, in the latest issue of Flying
Magazine, personal flying is about 30 times more dangerous than the
airlines.

[Peter]

Bob Moore wrote:

> "Back_To_Flying" > wrote
>
>>I have also seen a few more reports concluding the same. So one could
>>conclude that driving is still much more dangerous than flying
>>regardless of age group. Do you have proof of the opposite? Then show
>>me your source.
>
>
> The current issue of "Flying" magazine addresses the issue and
> provides the documentation that they used.
> As I recall, their conclusion was that flying presented 200-300
> times the risk that driving did, contrary to what we have all
> been led to believe.

That seems like a very high ratio. This comparison of fatality
rates per million hours of a wide variety of activities puts the
ratio at a little over 30 to 1:
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
based on a study by a group that develops risk models for the
insurance industry.
But the relatively high risk per hour is mitigated by the fact
that even avid GA pilots won't usually fly for as many hours as
avid motorists (or motorcyclists) given practical constraints like
cost, availability, and convenience.
As others have mentioned the statistical figures such as those
given above from Failure Analysis Assoc. necessarily lump together
pilots with very different abilities and risk-aversion. But even
based on this statistical average risk you could fly for an hour
every day from age 20 to age 70 and your chances of dying from
an aviation accident would still only be about one in four.

[Bob Moore]

wrote

> If you choose to belive Richard Collins, in the latest issue of Flying
> Magazine, personal flying is about 30 times more dangerous than the
> airlines.

I think that I got my figures off by a factor of ten, but I
thought that it was 30 times more dangerous than driving
and infinately more dangerous than the airlines.

I don't have the magazine here with me, but it does address
this topic.

Bob Moore

[Jeremy Lew]

Of course it is possible, and even likely, for a private pilot to never have
a serious accident during his flying career, but we're talking relative
risks here. Mike's point is that the statistical risk of a serious accident
is much higher for a private pilot than an airline pilot, and about the same
as a motorcycle pilot. Even if you remove pilot error entirely, small GA
planes are much less reliable than airliners. They generally have less
equipment for detecting and dealing with system failures, fires, and
unexpected weather conditions.

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> I don't understand what you're saying here. There are definitely pilots
out
> there that have flown decades without a reportable accident. Are you
saying
> that it isn't even remotely possible that an active private pilot can go
> through their entire flying experience without an accident? Please
clarify.
>
> Marco
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > ...
> > >I think what he really meant was that there's no reason (when all is
said
> > > and done) a private pilot can't end up with the same accident record
as
> an
> > > airline captain.
> > >
> > > Marco Leon
> >
> > That isn't even remotely true.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > >>
> > >> "C J Campbell" > wrote in
message
> > >> ...
> > >> >
> > >> > If your husband is in the habit of flying low over the ground,
> showing
> > > off
> > >> > and taking unnecessary risks, then flying is not very safe at all.
If
> > >> > he
> > >> > flies "by the book," carefully weighing the risks created by
weather,
> > >> > terrain, the condition of the airplane, and his own condition at
the
> > > time,
> > >> > then he is probably as safe as any airline captain.
> > >>
> > >> This is ridiculous. There is no area of GA flying that is even
> remotely
> > >> comparable to airline flying in terms of safety.
> > >>
> > >> Mike
> > >> MU-2
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Rob]

This thread reminded me of a statistic I heard on the NASA channel on cable
while falling asleep one evening a few weeks ago. Miles O'Brien of CNN was
addressing a NASA risk symposium and he made the comment that if statistical
risks were the media's guide, they would air twenty seven and a half minutes
of stories on the hazards of smoking for every one second devoted to plane
crashes.


I was actually able to find a transcript of the conference using Google.
It's here:

http://www.risksymposium.arc.nasa.gov/docs/Transcript1.pdf


and here's a little snippet of O'Brien's interesting presentation:


<snip>
But where else I ask do you find whiners? The media. We are a
bunch of whiners. The media is risk averse but then again we're
everything else averse as well. Kind of the nature of the beast for a
whole host of reasons. Newsrooms attract observers, chroniclers,
malcontents, and chronic complainers. We are as a group professional
skeptics. We are often outright cynics. We look at people, ideas,
philosophies, problems, catastrophes, and calamities, and by nature
and training and years of practice, we reflexively look for the chink in
the armor, the flaws in the logic, the mistakes, the malfeasance, the
masquerades and the manipulators. It's a living, okay?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rain on my own parade
here. It is an important job, I do believe that, in a Darwinian-
Huxleyesque way. We play a role in our democracy. It's sort of a
natural selection of all that is good and true—or so we like to think.
Now does that mean we're always right? Well, the media is always
accurate, except when it isn't. We've refined this rule, it's now called
the Dan Rather Rule.

In any case, there is a long list of stories we could talk about where the
media has whipped up a frenzy of concern about something that
statistically really wasn't that big a deal after all. Think of the socalled
killers that have been local news, ratings sweep fare. Alar on
the apples, radon in the ground, mold in your basement, shark attacks
on the beach, the nuclear power plant down the street. And as we say
in the newsroom, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Seriously, though, this goes right to the heart of what we do for a
living. People always say to me, why do you focus on shark attacks or
murders or Kobe Bryant when there are so many other pressing issues
that affect so many people? And I say to them, the news business is
about what is news, by definition, then, deaths due to smoking or
accidents on the highway, while a terrible scourge in this country, are
less newsworthy, because sadly they are commonplace, they are
routine.

Seriously, if statistical risks were our guide, we would air twenty
seven and a half minutes of stories on the hazards of smoking for
every one second devoted to plane crashes. Twenty seven and a half
minutes on the hazards of smoking, given the number of deaths to
smoking, versus one second devoted to plane crashes. If you hear
that sound in the distance, that's the noise of a million remotes
clicking over to Fox when we do that twenty seven and a half minutes.
Which brings me to Rule #4: There are statistics, damn statistics, and
then there are stories. With rare exceptions, news stories that deal with
some sort of risky endeavor don't put that risk in any sort of context.
Time is short, although for the life of me in a 24-hour network I never
have understood that, why time is short. But most stories you get this
emotional yin and yang. You have a lead that goes something like
this: Some experts say that the Space Shuttle is a bucket of bolts that
needs to be retired. Others disagree. Back and forth it goes for a few
minutes, and then it's, what's Scott Petersen up to anyway, you know?
It is after all a business, and we are reporting against a tide of short
attention spans attached to twitchy thumbs on those cursed remote
controls. Now this really isn't news. While most of us didn't have
remotes in April of 1970 when Apollo XIII was headed toward the
moon, the man in the audience here in command, the country had
already become blasé about such epic voyages.
Imagine that—a trip to the lunar surface and we are blasé. When CBS
broke into regularly scheduled programming with a bulletin indicating
there was trouble on the spacecraft, and the crew was in great peril,
stations were flooded with calls from angry viewers. Put the show
back on, they demanded. The show incidentally was, Lost in Space.

[Laughter]

Can't make this up, folks. Truth was stranger than fiction that night.
And people chose fiction. Now if NASA had been listening closely at
that moment, they would have heard the unmistakable catch phrase of
the robot, "Danger, Will Robinson, danger." Big trouble above and
beyond the urgent crisis facing Lovell and crew was brewing.

<snip>

[Robert M. Gary]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message et>...
> You are fooling yourself.

How so?

> According to the Nall Report, the pilot was the
> "major cause" of 70% of fatal accidents. This leaves 30%.

Good numbers. Compare that to riding a motorcycle. You could probably
invert those numbers for a motorcycle rider. In a motorcyle you are at
the mercy of the drivers around you. In an airplane you can choose
your level of risk.

> Even if you
> eliminate all the accidents from risky behavior or poor/rusty skills,
> personal flying is still more dangerous than other forms of transport.

I wasn't talking about "other forms" I was talking about motorcycle
riding. I never even said flying wasn't as dangerous as a whole as
motorcycle riding. I said you have more control over the level of
risk.

> Pilots like to try to twist the stats to suit their beliefs. This makes no
> sense to me. The motorcycle stats have people acting irresponsibly too.

Have you ridden before?

> The real question is "What is an acceptable level of risk?" That level
> varies by person.

Yes. And you can effect that greatly by the type of flying you choose
to do.

-Robert

[Michael]

(Andrew Sarangan) wrote
> The accident rate is about 7 per 100,000 hours flown, and the fatal
> accident rate is about 1.3 per 100,000 hours flown. Remember that
> these are averages, and it includes high risk activities such as low
> level maneuvering, scud running and fuel exhaustion.

It also includes low risk activities such as flight training and going
around the patch to practice landings on nice VFR days. Further,
don't forget that this statistic includes business flying, which is
lower risk than personal flying.

> My guess is, for
> a conservative pilot with an instrument rating, the rate is likely to
> be about half of the above numbers.

I do not believe this is realistic. I also do not believe there is
any data indicating that instrument rated private pilots are any safer
than those not rated.

> A typical private pilot flies about 100 hours per year.

Really? A typical private airplane flies 26 hours a year, and owners
typically fly more than renters. I know relatively few private pilots
- all of them owners - who fly 100 hours a year or more.

> At that rate, it would be 300 years before
> he would encounter an accident, or 1500 years for a fatal accident.

A more realistic way of looking at it - the likelihood of surviving a
year of private flying is about 99.9%.

Michael

[Judah]

Mike,
You seem to insist that flying is inherently more dangerous than other
modes of transportation, but fail to quote any sources or relevant
statistics. True, some percentage of motorcycle and automobile accidents
are caused by "pilot error". But living in the New York area, I am much
more sensitive to the fact that many accidents in high traffic areas are
caused by errors of ANOTHER driver. For example, over the last few days on
the news, they have been updating the story of a van that veered into
oncoming traffic and caused an accident that involved 2 fatalities. I
believe they are bringing charges up on the driver (who survived). A few
months ago, a family was killed on the Tappan Zee Bridge when traffic came
to a stop, but a Tractor Trailer failed to be able to stop in time. I
believe 4 or 5 cars were involved in the final accident results, but at
least one family was killed, including a baby if I remember correctly.

Accidents like these are not very likely in GA aircraft. I can't think of
any situation in an airborne craft when you would be 2 seconds away from
the plane in front of you. And while there are unquestionably mechanical
failures that will most likely lead to an accident in an airplane, such as
a failed engine, or failed instruments, there are also failures in
automobiles that lead to accidents. Some years back, Audi was sued because
of failures related to their accelerator and brakes that led to fatalities.
Tire blowouts can be serious. Sure an engine out is not as likely to cause
a fatality on the ground as it is on the air, but a brake failure on a car
is much worse in a car on a highway than in a plane in the air (or even on
the ground for that matter!).

I am fairly convinced that most of the fears of flying are just control
issues and/or ignorance. The risks of flying are real, just as the risks of
driving are real. Just as the risks of crossing the street are real! I know
people who refuse to drive on highways, or at night, because they are too
afraid. In some ways, it has to do with "What is an acceptable level of
risk." But moreso I think it has to do with, "How can I manage the risks
(ie: control my fate)?" And if someone doesn't understand the hows and whys
of flying, they will believe it to be out of their control, and be afraid
of it.

The answer is education...

To the OP I say go take a lesson! Go have a Discovery Flight at your
husband's flight school and find out for yourself the realities of how it
works and how natural it really is! Then, even if you end up not flying
again, you'll probably feel more comfortable with the whole thing...


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in
ink.net:

> You are fooling yourself. According to the Nall Report, the pilot was
> the "major cause" of 70% of fatal accidents. This leaves 30%. Even if
> you eliminate all the accidents from risky behavior or poor/rusty
> skills, personal flying is still more dangerous than other forms of
> transport. Pilots like to try to twist the stats to suit their beliefs.
> This makes no sense to me. The motorcycle stats have people acting
> irresponsibly too.
>
> The real question is "What is an acceptable level of risk?" That level
> varies by person. I have this discussion with my wife over mountain
> climbing all the time. My view is that you cannot perserve life, you
> have to live it.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
>> (June) wrote in message
>> >...
>>> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
>>> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
>>> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
>>> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>>>
>>> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
>>> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
>>> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
>>> he has such a young family.
>>>
>>> Your opinions would be appreciated.
>>
>> The motorcycle comparison is not a good one. Really, the safety has
>> everything to do with the type of guy your husband is. If he's the
>> type of person that is going to want to do low level buzzing over his
>> friends houses or jump into weather he isn't trained to deal with, it
>> could be dangerous. Unlike a motorcycle, a pilot gets to choose his
>> level of risk. I've flown with pilots that worry me, and I've flown
>> with pilots that will have very long lives. It really depends on his
>> choices. I have two young boys myself.
>>
>> -Robert, Flight Instructor.
>
>

[Clay]

"Back_To_Flying" > wrote in message >...
> >I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> > his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> > recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> > he will be saving money rather than renting.
> >
> > We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> > another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> > think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> > he has such a young family.
> >
> > Your opinions would be appreciated.
> He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport.
> Driving is still the most dangerous activity we humans do.
>
> Richard
>
> "June" > wrote in message
> om...
Actually, It would be more dangerous to call out someone else's name
while making love to your spouse. lol

[kage]

I completely agree. NOT safe. Dangerous!

I've been flying for 40 years. I can count at least 30 people I knew who are
dead from flying light aircraft.

I know of only one friend who died in a car accident. And I know hundreds of
times the people who drive rather than fly.

Looks about right to me. 200-300 times more dangerous to fly than drive.

Every time that happen I always wish that I could have been there, just to
say---NO, it's not a good day. Or, John Jr., level the wings! ( I met John
Jr.) Or, lets stop here for gas and spend the night. I am forever being
chicken to fly in certain conditions, and the older I get the chickener I
get! Also, I carry 150 pounds of survival gear. That's why I need a Skywagon
to carry it all.

Karl "curator" N185KG
ATP BE30, CE-500, LR-JET, DA-50

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "Back_To_Flying" > wrote
>> I have also seen a few more reports concluding the same. So one could
>> conclude that driving is still much more dangerous than flying
>> regardless of age group. Do you have proof of the opposite? Then show
>> me your source.
>
> The current issue of "Flying" magazine addresses the issue and
> provides the documentation that they used.
> As I recall, their conclusion was that flying presented 200-300
> times the risk that driving did, contrary to what we have all
> been led to believe.
>
> Bob Moore

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Russell wrote:
>
> If I die on the bike, it's just as
> likely that I die from someone else's screwup.

Actually it will be because some automobile driver succeeded in his or her
attempt to kill you.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Gene Seibel]

(June) wrote in message >...
> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.

I have been flying for 28 years. My daughter grew up in the back seat
of an airplane. First flew before she was born. She had the
opportunity to see so much more of this country and Mexico than most
kids do growing up. She learned to enjoy life and not be afraid of
every possible thing that "might" happen.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[[email protected]]

Judah > wrote:
> You seem to insist that flying is inherently more dangerous than other
> modes of transportation, but fail to quote any sources or relevant
> statistics.

What difference does it make in the big picture? Even if flying *is*
more dangerous than other modes of transportation, how does that help
the original poster?...is she going to go back and tell her husband that
someone on this newsgroup cited a source that says "flying is inherently
more dangerous than other modes of transportation" and is he just going
to say "Oh, okay, honey ... here's my pilot certificate, we'll just
shred it right now!" ???

Does anyone here make the decision on whether or not to fly based on
"more dangerous" or "less dangerous" claims or on relevant or irrelevant
*statistics*? If you *thought* your odds of surviving a year's worth of
flying were 99%, and then someone showed you statistics that said your
odds are really 80% instead, would that be enough to make you give it
up?...or would you still strive to be as skilled as you can and do as
much to assure that each flight you take is as safe as is feasibly
possible and keep flying?

Bottom line is it doesn't matter what statistics show ... if a person
has a passion for flying, if they trust that their aircraft is
mechanically sound, and if they are diligent about weather, personal
limits and other factors that go into planning each flight, it isn't
going to matter which method of transportation is statistically safer
than another. If statistics showed that taking the train is safer, are
you going to stop flying and take up train conducting instead? There's
no guarantee that every flight's going to be safe, and while OTHERS may
try and quote statistics to stop someone ELSE from flying, I don't
believe the actual numbers (more safe?/less safe?) are the deciding
factor when it boils down to the individual actually doing the flying.

[mindenpilot]

"June" > wrote in message
om...
>I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.

I've got you beat.
I've got 3 little girls, ages 6, 4, and 1 1/2.
I would never do anything I felt would leave them without a father.
Furthermore, I would NEVER put them in harm's way.
I am a private pilot (thinking about instrument), and I just bought my first
plane, and I fly for fun, too.
That being said, I take my girls flying all the time, and they love it.
I only fly in conditions I am comfortable with, especially if I have them
with me.
I have gone up in some yucky conditions, but never dangerous, just bumpy,
and never with the kids.
I steer clear of clouds, and maintain enough altitude to safe land in an
emergency.
I THOROUGHLY inspect my plane before AND AFTER each flight.
If something's not right, I don't fly.
If your husband does these simple things, he will be an extremely safe
pilot, and you and your girls will probably learn to love flying with him.

Best Wishes,

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[G.R. Patterson III]

PaulH wrote:
>
> News outlets seem to focus on small plane crashes for reasons I've
> never understood.

Because if it happens frequently, it's not news. They concentrate on them
because crashes don't happen very often.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Andrew Sarangan]

It is important to remember than airline pilots flying an airliner is
different from an airline pilot flying a small GA aircraft.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
om...
> The accident rate is about 7 per 100,000 hours flown, and the fatal
> accident rate is about 1.3 per 100,000 hours flown. Remember that
> these are averages, and it includes high risk activities such as low
> level maneuvering, scud running and fuel exhaustion. My guess is, for
> a conservative pilot with an instrument rating, the rate is likely to
> be about half of the above numbers. A typical private pilot flies
> about 100 hours per year. At that rate, it would be 300 years before
> he would encounter an accident, or 1500 years for a fatal accident.
>
> Comparison to riding a motorcycle is a good one. But the difference
> is, a motorcycle accident doesn't always make the evening news.
>

I agree that those are the odds but I don't understand why you think that
the risk for a "conservative pilot with an instrument rating is about half".
Keep in mind that the 1.3/100k hrs includes corporate flying which has a
fatal accident rate *much* lower than for piston GA and a lot of the "GA"
hours are in that catagory.

Mike
MU-2

[Bob Fry]

"Mike Rapoport" > writes:

> "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ...
> >I think what he really meant was that there's no reason (when all is said
> > and done) a private pilot can't end up with the same accident record as an
> > airline captain.
> >
> > Marco Leon
>
> That isn't even remotely true.

It's at least remotely true. Look, airline flying is safer because of
better training and better equipment. 2 points for them. But, they
must fly on schedule and therefore in bad weather. The average PP-ASEL
doesn't have the great equipment and training, but *if they choose*,
they can decide when they fly and under what conditions.

So the VFR rated PP can take a cross country trip and be quite safe,
*if they allow for slack time*. If the PP gets into a situation where
they must meet a schedule they are inviting disaster, sooner, or later.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>I don't understand what you're saying here. There are definitely pilots out
> there that have flown decades without a reportable accident. Are you
> saying
> that it isn't even remotely possible that an active private pilot can go
> through their entire flying experience without an accident? Please
> clarify.
>
> Marco
>
Sure its possible, its even likely that the PP will survive his flying but
the fact remains that the only way for the private pilot to have the same
risk as the airline pilot is to be sitting in the back of an airliner.

There are a lot of things that make the airline safety record unapproachable
by GA, even turbojet corporate GA. Among them are:

1 Airlines fly into the largest airports and they never send a crew where
neither of them has been there before. The airports have to be certified
for Part 121 operations.
2 They fly the best equipment. FAR 25, multi engine turbojets for the most
part with huge radar antenna, heated-wing deice ect
3 The have a professional dispacher doing the flight planning
4 They always have two *highly trained* pilots trained to act as a crew.
There are very few, if any, private pilots who have the experience or
currency or an airline pilot, nor do they have the training.

When you contrast this to even excellent private pilots, it is apparant why
GA will never be as safe as airline flying. The airlines fly to safer
airports, fly safer airplanes and have better pilots.

Mike
MU-2






>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>> >I think what he really meant was that there's no reason (when all is
>> >said
>> > and done) a private pilot can't end up with the same accident record as
> an
>> > airline captain.
>> >
>> > Marco Leon
>>
>> That isn't even remotely true.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "C J Campbell" > wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > If your husband is in the habit of flying low over the ground,
> showing
>> > off
>> >> > and taking unnecessary risks, then flying is not very safe at all.
>> >> > If
>> >> > he
>> >> > flies "by the book," carefully weighing the risks created by
>> >> > weather,
>> >> > terrain, the condition of the airplane, and his own condition at the
>> > time,
>> >> > then he is probably as safe as any airline captain.
>> >>
>> >> This is ridiculous. There is no area of GA flying that is even
> remotely
>> >> comparable to airline flying in terms of safety.
>> >>
>> >> Mike
>> >> MU-2
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Here is my opinion, for what it it worth. The safety of flying is very
> dependent upon the quality of the pilot. Compared to driving a car for
> example, if some nutcase headed in the opposite direction decides to
> reach for his beer, your skills as a driver are not worth much.
>
> In an airplane you are many times more likely to be a victim of your
> own stupidity/carelessness/ignorance you name it. On the other hand
> a cautious pilot is generally not subjected to the degree of idiocy
> one experiences on the road on a daily basis. Therefore I feel flying
> is safer for careful and conciencous pilots than driving.
>

You may feel safer but there is no evidence to support your feeling and a
lot to refute it. GA has well over 100 times the fatal accident rate of
airlines and about 10 time the fatal rate of driving. Personal flying ( as
opposed to business, corporate or flight training) has an even higher risk
than the average GA rate. Even if you remove all the pilot error accidents,
personal flying is still much more dangerous than driving.

Mike
MU-2

[Cockpit Colin]

The brutal truth is "It will be as safe, or as dangerous, as he makes it".

The biggest problem I've observed is how it's only ever the OTHER guy who
does the dangerous things.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
high risk.
>
> IMHO, if you and your family are not prepared to lose either you or your
> husband, then you need to fix that. Whether or not he's flying, bad
> things can happen, and they won't necessarily wait until the kids are
> older. If you ARE prepared, then you ought to (IMHO) live life, and not
> worry so much about whether what you're doing could kill you.

> Pete

Good point and well put!

Mike
MU-2

[Cockpit Colin]

Unfortunately, how safe people "feel" often bares little corelation to how
save they really are. One of the side-effects of the way many people learn
about aviation is that if they take a risk enough times - and get away with
it - they teach themselves that what they're doing is safe - which holds
true right up until the time it bites them in the bum.


> I ride motorcycles and I fly. I feel much safer when I'm flying
> because my safety is in my own hands to a much greater degree in the
> plane than it is on the bike. If I die in the plane, it will almost
> certainly be because I screwed up. If I die on the bike, it's just as
> likely that I die from someone else's screwup.
> Rich Russell

[Mike Rapoport]

Are you assuming that the 1.3/100k fatal accident rate applies to the type
of flying that you do?

Mike
MU-2

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> et>...
>> You are fooling yourself.
>
> How so?
>
>> According to the Nall Report, the pilot was the
>> "major cause" of 70% of fatal accidents. This leaves 30%.
>
> Good numbers. Compare that to riding a motorcycle. You could probably
> invert those numbers for a motorcycle rider. In a motorcyle you are at
> the mercy of the drivers around you. In an airplane you can choose
> your level of risk.
>
>> Even if you
>> eliminate all the accidents from risky behavior or poor/rusty skills,
>> personal flying is still more dangerous than other forms of transport.
>
> I wasn't talking about "other forms" I was talking about motorcycle
> riding. I never even said flying wasn't as dangerous as a whole as
> motorcycle riding. I said you have more control over the level of
> risk.
>
>> Pilots like to try to twist the stats to suit their beliefs. This makes
>> no
>> sense to me. The motorcycle stats have people acting irresponsibly too.
>
> Have you ridden before?
>
>> The real question is "What is an acceptable level of risk?" That level
>> varies by person.
>
> Yes. And you can effect that greatly by the type of flying you choose
> to do.
>
> -Robert

[Mike Rapoport]

I didn't realize that people would participate in a debate without any
facts. Try www.ntsb.gov and
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf.
Keep in mind that the fatal accident rate for light piston GA is
significantly higher than the ntsb data which includes biz jets. Also
understand that personal flying has a significantly higher fatal rate than
light piston GA as a whole.

Mike
MU-2

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mike,
> You seem to insist that flying is inherently more dangerous than other
> modes of transportation, but fail to quote any sources or relevant
> statistics. True, some percentage of motorcycle and automobile accidents
> are caused by "pilot error". But living in the New York area, I am much
> more sensitive to the fact that many accidents in high traffic areas are
> caused by errors of ANOTHER driver. For example, over the last few days on
> the news, they have been updating the story of a van that veered into
> oncoming traffic and caused an accident that involved 2 fatalities. I
> believe they are bringing charges up on the driver (who survived). A few
> months ago, a family was killed on the Tappan Zee Bridge when traffic came
> to a stop, but a Tractor Trailer failed to be able to stop in time. I
> believe 4 or 5 cars were involved in the final accident results, but at
> least one family was killed, including a baby if I remember correctly.
>
> Accidents like these are not very likely in GA aircraft. I can't think of
> any situation in an airborne craft when you would be 2 seconds away from
> the plane in front of you. And while there are unquestionably mechanical
> failures that will most likely lead to an accident in an airplane, such as
> a failed engine, or failed instruments, there are also failures in
> automobiles that lead to accidents. Some years back, Audi was sued because
> of failures related to their accelerator and brakes that led to
> fatalities.
> Tire blowouts can be serious. Sure an engine out is not as likely to cause
> a fatality on the ground as it is on the air, but a brake failure on a car
> is much worse in a car on a highway than in a plane in the air (or even on
> the ground for that matter!).
>
> I am fairly convinced that most of the fears of flying are just control
> issues and/or ignorance. The risks of flying are real, just as the risks
> of
> driving are real. Just as the risks of crossing the street are real! I
> know
> people who refuse to drive on highways, or at night, because they are too
> afraid. In some ways, it has to do with "What is an acceptable level of
> risk." But moreso I think it has to do with, "How can I manage the risks
> (ie: control my fate)?" And if someone doesn't understand the hows and
> whys
> of flying, they will believe it to be out of their control, and be afraid
> of it.
>
> The answer is education...
>
> To the OP I say go take a lesson! Go have a Discovery Flight at your
> husband's flight school and find out for yourself the realities of how it
> works and how natural it really is! Then, even if you end up not flying
> again, you'll probably feel more comfortable with the whole thing...
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
>> You are fooling yourself. According to the Nall Report, the pilot was
>> the "major cause" of 70% of fatal accidents. This leaves 30%. Even if
>> you eliminate all the accidents from risky behavior or poor/rusty
>> skills, personal flying is still more dangerous than other forms of
>> transport. Pilots like to try to twist the stats to suit their beliefs.
>> This makes no sense to me. The motorcycle stats have people acting
>> irresponsibly too.
>>
>> The real question is "What is an acceptable level of risk?" That level
>> varies by person. I have this discussion with my wife over mountain
>> climbing all the time. My view is that you cannot perserve life, you
>> have to live it.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>> (June) wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
>>>> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
>>>> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
>>>> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>>>>
>>>> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
>>>> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
>>>> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
>>>> he has such a young family.
>>>>
>>>> Your opinions would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> The motorcycle comparison is not a good one. Really, the safety has
>>> everything to do with the type of guy your husband is. If he's the
>>> type of person that is going to want to do low level buzzing over his
>>> friends houses or jump into weather he isn't trained to deal with, it
>>> could be dangerous. Unlike a motorcycle, a pilot gets to choose his
>>> level of risk. I've flown with pilots that worry me, and I've flown
>>> with pilots that will have very long lives. It really depends on his
>>> choices. I have two young boys myself.
>>>
>>> -Robert, Flight Instructor.
>>
>>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"mindenpilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> "June" > wrote in message
> om...
>>I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
>> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
>> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
>> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>>
>> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
>> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
>> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
>> he has such a young family.
>>
>> Your opinions would be appreciated.
>
> I've got you beat.
> I've got 3 little girls, ages 6, 4, and 1 1/2.
> I would never do anything I felt would leave them without a father.
> Furthermore, I would NEVER put them in harm's way.
> I am a private pilot (thinking about instrument), and I just bought my
> first plane, and I fly for fun, too.
> That being said, I take my girls flying all the time, and they love it.
> I only fly in conditions I am comfortable with, especially if I have them
> with me.
> I have gone up in some yucky conditions, but never dangerous, just bumpy,
> and never with the kids.
> I steer clear of clouds, and maintain enough altitude to safe land in an
> emergency.
> I THOROUGHLY inspect my plane before AND AFTER each flight.
> If something's not right, I don't fly.
> If your husband does these simple things, he will be an extremely safe
> pilot, and you and your girls will probably learn to love flying with him.
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Adam
> N7966L
> Beech Super III
>
>
How can you say that you "never put then in harms way" or that you "never
fly in dangerous conditions". You have no idea of whether you are doing
these things or not. I am not trying to say that you are crazy or ignorant,
I just would like to know how you can rationalize those statements with
reality.

Mike
MU-2

[AJW]

It seems to me (a fairly high time Mooney driver) that most GA airplanes end up
bent, not worn out. The arguement here, and the question I answer in the
affermative every time I take the runway for takeoff, is that I'm willing to
roll the die one more time. I've assumed my particular die has a couple of
thousand white faces, and only one black one. Having said that, the black face
has come fairly close to the top a few times, and I consider myself (don't we
all) a careful pilot.

At about 400 hours tt I was flying a Ranger (normal carberated Mooney) IFR,
started an approach, pulled on the carb heat, and the damned carb heat cable
broke. Tried everything to get power -- gear, landing light, flaps, everything.
Turned out if I leaned the engine it ran well enough for me to fly the miss and
struggle to my alternate. Yes, it was IMC, night, and an approach into an
uncontolled airport. One might argue one shouldn't attempt VOR approaches under
those circumstances, but hell, the airports nearby were reporting conditions
fairly well above my personal minimums.

I've had an alternator failure in soft IFR, a vacuum pump fail in similiar
circumstances. It wouldn't have taken much for one other minor error or
condition to have turned what might be considered 'trained for' emergencies
into something the NTSB would have written about.

What about you guys? I suspect if your log book has more than a few hundard
hours you've been in circumstances where your particular die's black face
nearly came up. Was the start of the sequence 'pilot error' or equipment?

I've figured the Mooney lies somewhere between bike and car as a safe means of
transportation. Aren't bikes about 10 X the risk of a car on a per mile basis,
and GA about 3 X (after excluding drunk pilots and those who run out of gas,
those kinds of what most of us would call avoidable errors)?

[Newps]

Back_To_Flying wrote:

> He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport.
> Driving is still the most dangerous activity we humans do.

Nope, not even close.

[Blanche]

Just remember --- a car accident is not news unless it's really
unusual. Any aircraft event is considered news by the local
media because they don't know any better.

[Dan Thompson]

Also plane crashes are newsworthy because something bad has happened to
"good" people. I.e., us, friends.

Let's step way back for the big picture view, drop the customary caution,
and say it: airplane people are from the top drawer of society. We are
successful enough to afford flying, smart enough to be able to learn it, and
persistent enough to see it through. If it were high school, we're in the
top 1% of the class. Not too many crack whores out on the flight line.

So, there is melodrama and entertainment value in a news tory where, for
example, a dentist and his family make a smoking hole in the ground on
Thanksgiving. A gazillion other people from all walks of life also bought
it on Thanksgiving in an untold number of mundane ways, but if it happened
to one of us, it was news.



"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> PaulH wrote:
>>
>> News outlets seem to focus on small plane crashes for reasons I've
>> never understood.
>
> Because if it happens frequently, it's not news. They concentrate on them
> because crashes don't happen very often.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
> have
> been looking for it.

[NW_PILOT]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> high risk.
> >
> > IMHO, if you and your family are not prepared to lose either you or your
> > husband, then you need to fix that. Whether or not he's flying, bad
> > things can happen, and they won't necessarily wait until the kids are
> > older. If you ARE prepared, then you ought to (IMHO) live life, and not
> > worry so much about whether what you're doing could kill you.
>
> > Pete
>
> Good point and well put!
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
Well Said Pete.

[Dan Thompson]

I think you also have to focus on the safety risks of different kinds of
"driving." A Sunday morning drive on a deserted country lane is quite safe.
Anywhere close to a high school at 4 pm on a school day is like Russian
roulette.

Big city freeways, when not at a standstill, are congested, high speed,
tailgating, free-for-alls. I am sure my flying in my plane is safer than my
driving on my city freeways. I have to drive about 20 miles on those
freeways to get to my airport, and always breathe a sigh of relief that the
dangerous part is over when I pull onto the airport ramp. Statistics are
relevant to me only if the sample is of people very close to people like me
taking risks like mine. It is quite possible that for many of us, our
driving is more dangerous than our flying.



"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Here is my opinion, for what it it worth. The safety of flying is very
>> dependent upon the quality of the pilot. Compared to driving a car for
>> example, if some nutcase headed in the opposite direction decides to
>> reach for his beer, your skills as a driver are not worth much.
>>
>> In an airplane you are many times more likely to be a victim of your
>> own stupidity/carelessness/ignorance you name it. On the other hand
>> a cautious pilot is generally not subjected to the degree of idiocy
>> one experiences on the road on a daily basis. Therefore I feel flying
>> is safer for careful and conciencous pilots than driving.
>>
>
> You may feel safer but there is no evidence to support your feeling and a
> lot to refute it. GA has well over 100 times the fatal accident rate of
> airlines and about 10 time the fatal rate of driving. Personal flying (
> as opposed to business, corporate or flight training) has an even higher
> risk than the average GA rate. Even if you remove all the pilot error
> accidents, personal flying is still much more dangerous than driving.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
. com...
> I think you also have to focus on the safety risks of different kinds of
> "driving." A Sunday morning drive on a deserted country lane is quite
safe.
> Anywhere close to a high school at 4 pm on a school day is like Russian
> roulette.
>
> Big city freeways, when not at a standstill, are congested, high speed,
> tailgating, free-for-alls. I am sure my flying in my plane is safer than
my
> driving on my city freeways. I have to drive about 20 miles on those
> freeways to get to my airport, and always breathe a sigh of relief that
the
> dangerous part is over when I pull onto the airport ramp. Statistics are
> relevant to me only if the sample is of people very close to people like
me
> taking risks like mine. It is quite possible that for many of us, our
> driving is more dangerous than our flying.

You will not find any supporting evidence for your assumptions. Any way you
want to look at it GA flying is more likely to result in your death than
driving many times over. What you would find is that two lane country roads
are among the most dangerous. Two way undivided traffic allows for very
little error and even single car accidents are spectacular. Divided
multilane traffic is among the safest.

The Nall report is available on the AOPA WEB site. It makes for interesting
reading.

[C Kingsbury]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> You seem to insist that flying is inherently more dangerous than other
> modes of transportation, but fail to quote any sources or relevant
> statistics.

I'm with Mike on this. Flying is higher risk than gardening. That doesn't
mean we should all switch to growing tomatoes.

> are caused by "pilot error". But living in the New York area, I am much
> more sensitive to the fact that many accidents in high traffic areas are
> caused by errors of ANOTHER driver.

Living in Boston I am sensitive to the fact that people around me drive like
maniacs. (I on the other hand am merely defensively aggressive) It still
doesn't mean flying is safer. There is virtually no trip in an airplane that
can't be made safer by car or airliner. Unless you live in Alaska, flying in
a small plane for transportation is done for benefits other than risk
reduction.

> Accidents like these are not very likely in GA aircraft. I can't think of
> any situation in an airborne craft when you would be 2 seconds away from
> the plane in front of you. And while there are unquestionably mechanical
> failures that will most likely lead to an accident in an airplane, such as
> a failed engine, or failed instruments, there are also failures in

> automobiles that lead to accidents. Some years back, Audi was sued because
> of failures related to their accelerator and brakes that led to
fatalities.

Yet another one of the great myths invented by the plaintiff's bar. Despite
untold thousands of hours of tests, they were never able to replicate this
problem. It ruined Audi's sales here for most of a decade though. Damn shame
as they are among the most wonderfully engined machines on four wheels.

> Tire blowouts can be serious. Sure an engine out is not as likely to cause
> a fatality on the ground as it is on the air, but a brake failure on a car
> is much worse in a car on a highway than in a plane in the air (or even on
> the ground for that matter!).

Passenger cars and trucks have dual brake systems. I lost one side of the
system in an F-150 on a nice steep hill headed towards a busy intersection.
Had no trouble stopping in time. In fact still had enough brakes to drive it
to the dealership (I took it slow). I don't lose a moment's sleep on
mechanical failures in cars and I drive a middle-aged Ford Escort on which I
avoid every repair that isn't necessary to pass inspection or get rid of a
noise that might embarass me on a date.

Frankly I don't worry so much about mechanicals in my airplane either
because I don't spare a dime on maintenance of critical systems. I worry
about failure of the primary FMS, aka the pilot, aka Me. Even if I do have a
mechanical failure it's likely that the decisions I make will have a large
impact on how it turns out.

> (ie: control my fate)?" And if someone doesn't understand the hows and
whys
> of flying, they will believe it to be out of their control, and be afraid
> of it.
>
> The answer is education...

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned
into." (Jonathan Swift)

-cwk.

[Larry Dighera]

On 30 Nov 2004 07:50:54 -0800, (June) wrote in
>::

>I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
>his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
>recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
>he will be saving money rather than renting.

To save money, he will have to fly about 100 hours or more annually.
Better reasons for owning an airplane are the scheduling convenience
and attention to maintenance.

>We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
>another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news.

Flying is inherently dangerous and unforgiving. The airman who fails
to keep constant vigil on the weather, equipment and navigation will
be at peril. Flying is serious business, and needs to be addressed
from a professional perspective.

>I think he should focus on this hobby

If he views flying as a hobby, he will be a hazard to himself, his
passengers and those over whom he navigates. Flying may be
recreation, but it isn't a hobby in the usual sense. An airman's
constant adherence to all regulations and safe operating and planning
practices (as he was taught) is imperative, as is an appreciation of
his responsibility to those whose trust he has accepted. It will take
time and experience for him to appreciate that responsibility.

>when the kids are older, not when he has such a young family.

Perhaps term life insurance would permit you to rest easier while your
spouse flys. Once you become comfortable with flight in General
Aviation aircraft, and you're spouse's competence in the air, you may
come to view light aviation as suitable for the whole family; many do.

[Slip'er]

> Unlike a motorcycle, a pilot gets to choose his
> level of risk.

LOL, Obviously you do not ride a motorcycle. I race up and down Palomar
Mountain, Ortega Highway, and many other popular Southern California sport
bike roads. Motorcycle riders definitely choose their own level of risk
every time they get onto a motorcycle. However, I do largely accept the
premise that when I am flying, the likelihood is that if I have an accident,
it will be because of my poor decision process. On the other hand, if I have
a motorcycle accident, it is more likely to be an accidental or intentional
action from another motorist.

[Slip'er]

> Are you assuming that the 1.3/100k fatal accident rate applies to the type
> of flying that you do?

I'll take that bate. Yes, it is one component of the statistic. The
1.3/100K is an aggregate of all types of GA flying. Divide that into
different categories of flight (mountain flying, bush flying, IMC, Night,
etc: of course being careful that categories don't share population like my
examples...) and it is very reasonable to hypothesize that the statistics
across types could be very different.

Carl

[MLenoch]

>Mike
>MU-2

Do you know Sandy McAusland?
VL

[Dan Luke]

"Back_To_Flying" wrote:

> >> He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport.
> >> Driving is still the most dangerous activity we humans do.
> >
> > Utter BS.
> >
> Ok, unlike you I have done some research on this then .

Evidently you haven't, or you'd know that the fatal accident rate of private
flying is 700% higher than that of driving in the U. S.

> Driving is the
> leading cause of death for American drivers between 15 - 20 years of age.
> Here is my source http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/041018-3.htm

Yes. So? Are you saying kids fly as much as they drive?

> I have also seen a few more reports concluding the same. So one could
> conclude that driving is still much more dangerous than flying regardless
of
> age group. Do you have proof of the opposite? Then show me your source.

You said: "He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the
airport.", indicating that you believe there is greater risk in one driving
trip than in one flying trip. Then you presented statistics about death
rates from a population that contains almost no pilots. In other words,
you've ignored the relative exposure of pilots vs. drivers. That old
chestnut you quoted about the drive to the airport may be true for traveling
by scheduled airlines, but it is not even close to true about private
flying.

As for my source, I get the Nall Report from the ASF every year:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/02nall.pdf -- you can get the GA fatal
accidents/hour from it and compare that to the rate for driving.

Just for fun, ask yourself these three questions: How many celebrities do
you know of that have died in GA accidents? How many in car crashes? How
much time do celebrities spend traveling in GA aircraft vs traveling in
cars?

As Richard Collins noted in a recent article in Flying Magazine, anyone who
has been heavily involved in aviation for decades will know more people that
have died in plane crashes than have died in car crashes, even though most
people they know don't fly.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:
> > You are right to be concerned for the safety of your children with
respect
> > to your husband's flying, particularly in weather requiring the
instrument
> > rating.
>
> She is right to be concerned. But she said it was a hobby, and we don't
> know what her husband's intentions are regarding the instrument rating.
> Not everyone who pursues that rating gets it with the intention of
> taking off routinely in weather "requiring an instrument rating" (except
> for the purpose of staying current) ... many get it for the added
> training, knowledge and precision as well as for the "just in case"
> situation that *might* occur despite all the best laid plans, but not
> one you'd actively seek out.

IMO that's a dangerous attitude to have. An instrument rated pilot who does
not regularly use the rating cannot be proficient unless he is exceptionally
committed to regular training. I don't know any pilots who fit that
description. The ones I know who keep the rating "just to get through a
cloud deck" would be in real danger if unexpectedly forced to fly an
approach to minimums.

> Someone else asked what she expected to hear -- I think she either
> expected someone to tell her that she was right and that her husband
> should give up flying until their two daughters are adults and no longer
> dependants, or maybe she just wanted and needed to hear how others
> weigh, justify, rationalize or prioritize the risk in our decision
> whether or not to fly, and some assurance that her husband was going in
> a sensible direction, not deeper into danger.

I think she is justifiably worried. Look at it from her side: she knows
zip-all about flying aside from what she sees on TV, which is nearly 100%
bad. How would you feel? I think it shows some good sense that she is at
least willing to research the subject. We don't know her husband; she does.
She doesn't know flying; we do (well, some of us do). So she has to weigh
what she reads here against what she thinks about her husband's judgement.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
> It is important to remember than airline pilots flying an airliner is
> different from an airline pilot flying a small GA aircraft.

Yes. For one thing, he most likely has better recurrent training. For
another, he has more rigorous procedures he must follow, which are monitored
by voice and data recorders. And last, but not least, he has help from
another pilot.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

>> ...Take a 182, fly day VFR only, don't buzz anybody and your
>> chance of dying is the same as driving...

Gosh, do we *really* need to quantify that statement?

Let's see.... Hmmm.. If we remove needless risk taking, do you think flying
might be safer?

I believe the answer can only be "yes."

Heck, if we remove "running out of gas" and "flying planes that haven't been
maintained properly", personal flying might actually be SAFER than driving.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Thompson]

I've read the Nall report.

You're missing my point. My point is, the way *I* fly, in *my* plane, is
safer than *my* drive to *my* airport, which is my main concern and the only
thing I can directly influence.

Isn't it possible I could be right? Do you agree that some kinds of GA
flying are safer than some kinds of automobile driving?



"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> I think you also have to focus on the safety risks of different kinds of
>> "driving." A Sunday morning drive on a deserted country lane is quite
> safe.
>> Anywhere close to a high school at 4 pm on a school day is like Russian
>> roulette.
>>
>> Big city freeways, when not at a standstill, are congested, high speed,
>> tailgating, free-for-alls. I am sure my flying in my plane is safer than
> my
>> driving on my city freeways. I have to drive about 20 miles on those
>> freeways to get to my airport, and always breathe a sigh of relief that
> the
>> dangerous part is over when I pull onto the airport ramp. Statistics are
>> relevant to me only if the sample is of people very close to people like
> me
>> taking risks like mine. It is quite possible that for many of us, our
>> driving is more dangerous than our flying.
>
> You will not find any supporting evidence for your assumptions. Any way
> you
> want to look at it GA flying is more likely to result in your death than
> driving many times over. What you would find is that two lane country
> roads
> are among the most dangerous. Two way undivided traffic allows for very
> little error and even single car accidents are spectacular. Divided
> multilane traffic is among the safest.
>
> The Nall report is available on the AOPA WEB site. It makes for
> interesting
> reading.
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

"Dan Luke" wrote:
> Just for fun, ask yourself these three questions: How many celebrities do
> you know of that have died in GA accidents?

This isn't really an accurate way to judge *anything* (see below), but
just to play along, let's at least add the limitation "in the last 45
years":

As Pilot in Command (I'm sure there are more, but these are the only two
that come to mind):
1. John Denver
2. John Jr.

As a passenger (where they're hopping on board something that will
either get them home or on to the next destination to meet a schedule
.... how many pleasure pilots like the one the *original poster* wrote
about begin their flights with those time constraints?):
1. Rick Nelson
3. Stevie Ray Vaughan
4. Aliyah
5. Randy Rhoads (guitarist for Ozzy Osborne)
6. Buddy Holly

>How many in car crashes?

1. Princess Grace
2. Princess Diana
3. Cliff Burton (Metallica)
4. Michael Hedges (guitarist)
5. Jayne Mansfield

> How much time do celebrities spend traveling in GA aircraft vs traveling in
> cars?

Probably a lot more in aircraft (GA or otherwise).
Designate any other *select group* of people who travel in conjunction
with work or for pleasure -- let's say, the top-5 executives of all
major corporations -- over the past 45 years, and I'm sure, if there
were a way to track it, you'd have a similar number that have had
plane/car crashes, we just haven't made mental note of those because
they simply aren't as noteworthy to us.

> As Richard Collins noted in a recent article in Flying Magazine, anyone who
> has been heavily involved in aviation for decades will know more people that
> have died in plane crashes than have died in car crashes, even though most
> people they know don't fly.

Yes, but again, that's not a fair representation of anything. While
pilots represent a small percentage of the total population, the flying
community of "anyone who has been heavily involved in aviation for
decades" stretches far and wide -- most people who fly either know or
know-of other pilots at their airport and at other airports at close AND
distant locations. It's not unusual, if you've been "heavily involved
for decades", to know, or know OF the pilot when an accident occurs. How
many people at your airport or at other airports have you met and BS'ed
with, even if just about how they burned your toast at the Hangar Café?
If something happens to them, you will remember them or their airplane.
But if you BS with someone at the grocery store or at a friend's party,
unless there was something particularly noteworthy about them, odds are
you wouldn't remember them 5 or 10 years later if they die in a car
crash.

That flying community that is built over "decades" encompasses a far
larger number of people than the total of your family and circle of
friends and co-workers, even though we often don't know more about them
than their name and the aircraft they fly. If we had that same kind of
link/connection to everyone and way to remember them that we do to other
pilots, I'm sure the number of car crash fatality victims we know or
know-of would be *at least* as great or greater.

IMO, that Richard Collins comment is simply NOT an indication of
anything other than what we've already established ... we know or
know-of many other pilots and airplanes in a more personal, identifiable
way than we can possibly know or know-of all other random cars and
drivers.

And again, bottom line, what difference does it make which mode of
transportation statistics say is more or less safe?...I don't think most
people look at the stats every morning as a way to gauge whether or not
to fly that day.

[Jay Honeck]

> What about you guys? I suspect if your log book has more than a few
> hundard
> hours you've been in circumstances where your particular die's black face
> nearly came up. Was the start of the sequence 'pilot error' or equipment?

The types of experiences you have described are so far beyond the realm of
anything I've experienced, that I feel the need to reassure the original
poster that this is NOT typical of most pilots who fly light planes. If it
were, this poor lady should drag her husband out of the cockpit, kicking and
screaming, right NOW.

I've been flying for ten years. I've got over 900 hours as PIC, and another
400 hours of right seat time (my wife is a pilot, too.). In that time I
have NEVER experienced an in-flight emergency or come close to death.

We have flown from coast to coast, in all seasons, first in poorly
maintained rental planes, and -- since '98 -- in our own well-maintained
aircraft.

In the rental planes I experienced a couple of failures:

1. Electrical system. The lights went out in two rental planes, resulting
in little more than inconvenience.
2. Water in the fuel. I once sumped over a QUART of water from a rental
plane. That's why we do pre-flight inspections.
3. Broken throttle cable. This happened on the ground, luckily, during
run-up.

In planes I have owned, we have experienced no mechanical failures of any
kind, mostly because I insist on maintaining our aircraft to perfection.

We watch the weather closely, and carefully pick our times to fly. We
ALWAYS refuel after every flight, so that we always have full tanks. Since
we can fly non-stop for over 5 hours, this pretty much eliminates the
"running out of gas" scenario.

We don't "buzz" anyone, we don't overload the aircraft, and we don't fly
when the weather sucks. Our one concession to safety (we also have two
kids, both of whom have flown since they were tots) is that we no longer fly
at night.

We also ride motorcycles, BTW, although less and less as time goes by.

Life is a terminal condition, and there ain't no one getting off this planet
alive. There are so many people in this world who are simply waiting to
die -- I hope the original poster lets her husband live his dream.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

> wrote:
> > She is right to be concerned. But she said it was a hobby, and we don't
> > know what her husband's intentions are regarding the instrument rating.
> > Not everyone who pursues that rating gets it with the intention of
> > taking off routinely in weather "requiring an instrument rating" (except
> > for the purpose of staying current) ... many get it for the added
> > training, knowledge and precision as well as for the "just in case"
> > situation that *might* occur despite all the best laid plans, but not
> > one you'd actively seek out.
>
"Dan Luke" wrote:
> IMO that's a dangerous attitude to have. An instrument rated pilot who does
> not regularly use the rating cannot be proficient unless he is exceptionally
> committed to regular training. I don't know any pilots who fit that
> description. The ones I know who keep the rating "just to get through a
> cloud deck" would be in real danger if unexpectedly forced to fly an
> approach to minimums.

Agreed. Obviously a person has to practice regularly to keep the skills
sharp. Most of the IA pilots I know of do this, I'm surprised to hear
you say you don't know of any who do. Point I was trying to make is that
people who are not familiar (the original poster) often mistakenly
think, when they hear that someone wants an instrument rating, that it
means they are then going to then take off in *any* weather because they
"know how to fly in the clouds". Hopefully, that's not the case. And
while I agree that a person needs to use the rating to stay proficient,
even going through the training, ground work and testing to get it will
make him/her more competent unless they forget everything once they're
done with the checkride.

> I think she is justifiably worried. Look at it from her side: she knows
> zip-all about flying aside from what she sees on TV, which is nearly 100%
> bad. How would you feel? I think it shows some good sense that she is at
> least willing to research the subject. We don't know her husband; she does.
> She doesn't know flying; we do (well, some of us do). So she has to weigh
> what she reads here against what she thinks about her husband's judgement.

I concurred in all of my comments that she had justifiable concern. And
yes, it shows good sense *and* an open mind that she was willing to get
and weigh more info. Where did you get the idea I was saying anything
else?

[Dan Luke]

"Dan Thompson" wrote:
> I've read the Nall report.
>
> You're missing my point. My point is, the way *I* fly, in *my* plane, is
> safer than *my* drive to *my* airport, which is my main concern and the
only
> thing I can directly influence.
>
> Isn't it possible I could be right?

It's possible, if each activity were conducted at the opposite extremes of
behavior and circumstances with respect to risk, but how realistic is that?

> Do you agree that some kinds of GA
> flying are safer than some kinds of automobile driving?

I have seen no evidence for it, but I would bet that a proficient pilot
making a 50-mile trip in a 172 on a nice day is at less risk than a drunk
redneck speeding down a two-lane mountain road at night in the rain. So
what?

Look at it this way: you fit somewhere on the bell curve of drivers WRT
judgement and ability, probably on the good slope, in your opinion. Don't
you think you occupy about the same spot on the private pilot bell curve?
But the risk/hour for all private pilots is *much* greater than the
risk/hour for all drivers, so, even though compared to others you're as good
a pilot as you are a driver -- better than most --, your risk while flying
is still greater than your risk while driving.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:

> > How much time do celebrities spend traveling in GA aircraft vs traveling
in
> > cars?
>
> Probably a lot more in aircraft (GA or otherwise).

Now I think you're just pulling my leg. You can't be serious.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:
> > IMO that's a dangerous attitude to have. An instrument rated pilot who
does
> > not regularly use the rating cannot be proficient unless he is
exceptionally
> > committed to regular training. I don't know any pilots who fit that
> > description. The ones I know who keep the rating "just to get through a
> > cloud deck" would be in real danger if unexpectedly forced to fly an
> > approach to minimums.
>
> Agreed. Obviously a person has to practice regularly to keep the skills
> sharp. Most of the IA pilots I know of do this, I'm surprised to hear
> you say you don't know of any who do.

I was trying to say, perhaps clumsily, that I don't know any i-rated pilots
who seldom use the rating yet at the same time are exceptionally committed
to regular training.

[snip]
> while I agree that a person needs to use the rating to stay proficient,
> even going through the training, ground work and testing to get it will
> make him/her more competent unless they forget everything once they're
> done with the checkride.

Which they often do, in my experience. On the occasions when I've flown in
the right seat with a couple of these guys, it's been obvious to me they
were not proficient, even though they were current by the reg's.

> > I think she is justifiably worried. Look at it from her side: she knows
> > zip-all about flying aside from what she sees on TV, which is nearly
100%
> > bad. How would you feel? I think it shows some good sense that she is
at
> > least willing to research the subject. We don't know her husband; she
does.
> > She doesn't know flying; we do (well, some of us do). So she has to
weigh
> > what she reads here against what she thinks about her husband's
judgement.
>
> I concurred in all of my comments that she had justifiable concern. And
> yes, it shows good sense *and* an open mind that she was willing to get
> and weigh more info. Where did you get the idea I was saying anything
> else?

I didn't mean to imply that you did. Not everything I post is an argument!
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"AJW" wrote:
> What about you guys? I suspect if your log book has more than a few
hundard
> hours you've been in circumstances where your particular die's black face
> nearly came up. Was the start of the sequence 'pilot error' or equipment?

In 900+ hours I've had one emergency: a voltage regulator failure in IMC.
Not too scary, really. I had time to notify ATC of my intentions and I used
the portable GPS on the yoke to fly a VOR approach into BFM.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Mike Rapoport]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" > writes:
>
>> "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>> >I think what he really meant was that there's no reason (when all is
>> >said
>> > and done) a private pilot can't end up with the same accident record as
>> > an
>> > airline captain.
>> >
>> > Marco Leon
>>
>> That isn't even remotely true.
>
> It's at least remotely true. Look, airline flying is safer because of
> better training and better equipment. 2 points for them. But, they
> must fly on schedule and therefore in bad weather. The average PP-ASEL
> doesn't have the great equipment and training, but *if they choose*,
> they can decide when they fly and under what conditions.
>
> So the VFR rated PP can take a cross country trip and be quite safe,
> *if they allow for slack time*. If the PP gets into a situation where
> they must meet a schedule they are inviting disaster, sooner, or later.

Your analysis is flawed and doesn't represent reality. First, the weather
and schedule risks are already included in the airline data of .012 fatal
accidents per 100K hours. The *total* GA fatal rate (including bizjets over
12,500lb) is 1.36/100k hrs. This is a rate 113 times higher than the
airline rate. The source for both of these is the NTSB.

Second, GA over 12,500lb has an accident rate about 2-3x the airline rate
and flys a significant percentage of the total GA hours. This makes the
"light GA" accident rate higher than the NTSB numbers.

Third, "Personal flying" (light GA excluding business and training)
constitutes 47% of "light GA" flight hours and 72% of fatal accidents so the
"personal flying" accident rate is 50% higher than the overall "light GA"
rate. So, the light GA fatal accident rate is *over* 169 times the airline
rate. I don't have the over 12,500lb hours and accident rates so I can't
demonstrate how much over the 169 times "light GA" but I suspect that it is
another 50% higher (254 times)

Even if you eliminate weather, hostile terrain and "stupid pilot tricks" you
don't eliminate over 99% of light GA fatal accidents.

The bottom line is that personal flying is not even remotely close to
airline flying *under any conditions* in terms of safety.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

No, I don't think so. Should I?

Mike
MU-2


"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> >Mike
>>MU-2
>
> Do you know Sandy McAusland?
> VL

[Mike Rapoport]

"Slip'er" > wrote in message
news:Kpdrd.190624$hj.182656@fed1read07...
>
>> Are you assuming that the 1.3/100k fatal accident rate applies to the
>> type
>> of flying that you do?
>
> I'll take that bate. Yes, it is one component of the statistic. The
> 1.3/100K is an aggregate of all types of GA flying. Divide that into
> different categories of flight (mountain flying, bush flying, IMC, Night,
> etc: of course being careful that categories don't share population like
> my
> examples...) and it is very reasonable to hypothesize that the statistics
> across types could be very different.
>
> Carl
>
Exactly. My reason for asking is that pilots seem to think that the
1.3/100K rate represents what they think of as "GA" but it encompasses a lot
of hours of bizjet flying which have a accident rate about 3% of the light
GA rate so the light GA rate is actually much higher. If you then separate
light GA into catagoies you find that personal flying is 50% greater than
the average light GA rate (Nall Report). So personal flying across all
risks (including "stupid pilot tricks") has about twice the fatal accident
rate as the often quoted 1.3/100K.

Mike
MU-2

[C Kingsbury]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
> [snip]
> > while I agree that a person needs to use the rating to stay proficient,
> > even going through the training, ground work and testing to get it will
> > make him/her more competent unless they forget everything once they're
> > done with the checkride.
>
> Which they often do, in my experience. On the occasions when I've flown
in
> the right seat with a couple of these guys, it's been obvious to me they
> were not proficient, even though they were current by the reg's.
>

Two of my partners call me once every six months to sit in the right seat
while they fly some approaches and hold on a VOR. Their procedures and radio
work are clumsy but their aircraft control is pretty solid. Neither have
filed an IFR flight plan in probably some years, but if they ended up in IMC
I don't see any reason to think they wouldn't get the plane on the ground at
an airport with their passengers' underwear still clean.

This sort of "survival IFR" probably does not require you to be able to make
an approach down to ILS minimums in a howling storm. The only places close
to me that I can think of where conditions go from MVFR to LIFR that rapidly
are along the atlantic coast where fog can roll in quite rapidly. However,
if you're flying to Nantucket and this happens, you can probably do a 180
and head back inland where it's likely CAVU to the moon. I have a lot more
trust that this sort of pilot will survive the kind of encounters with
weather that can happen when VFR turns into MVFR or MIFR, than one who has
little or no instrument training.

But in the end we cannot really use statistics to guide us, since we can
really only guess at the number of hours flown in IMC versus VMC.

-cwk.

[Mike Rapoport]

Not even close.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:XQkrd.186130$R05.52165@attbi_s53...
>>> ...Take a 182, fly day VFR only, don't buzz anybody and your
>>> chance of dying is the same as driving...
>
> Gosh, do we *really* need to quantify that statement?
>
> Let's see.... Hmmm.. If we remove needless risk taking, do you think
> flying might be safer?
>
> I believe the answer can only be "yes."
>
> Heck, if we remove "running out of gas" and "flying planes that haven't
> been maintained properly", personal flying might actually be SAFER than
> driving.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[C Kingsbury]

"Slip'er" > wrote in message
news:sldrd.190623$hj.62009@fed1read07...
> > Unlike a motorcycle, a pilot gets to choose his
> > level of risk.
>
> LOL, Obviously you do not ride a motorcycle. I race up and down Palomar
> Mountain, Ortega Highway, and many other popular Southern California sport
> bike roads. Motorcycle riders definitely choose their own level of risk

I like the idea of a motorcycle but I live in Boston and the thought of
riding around here sends chills down my spine. I get nearly run down at
least once a month by soccer moms in SUVs because they don't see my low car
in their blind spot when they change lanes without signaling (one of many
fine local traditions). I'm surprised at how *few* motorcycle fatalities
there are around here. (FYI, I used to work at a local newspaper so I did
see "all the accidents that didn't make the news")

The way I look at it is that in an airplane, it's relatively unlikely that
I'll pay for someone else's mistake. Not impossible, just exceedingly
unlikely. There are very few chains of events leading to a fatal accident in
which an avoidable pilot error does not feature at some point.

I have friends who ride and they have told me about defensive driving and
such, but the fact remains that riding a bike in a populated area, you will
often be surrounded by vehicles capable of turning you into a grease spot.
You can do a lot to protect yourself but there's an infinite number of
possibilities where another driver's screwup will punch your ticket.

-cwk.

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:04:13 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>Some years back, Audi was sued because
>of failures related to their accelerator and brakes that led to fatalities.

My recollection of this was that Audi was found to be blameless in
terms of "unintended acceleration". In every single car tested, no
matter how hard anyone stomped on the accelerator, the brakes held it
in place. In other words, no audi engine could move the car if the
brakes were applied.

So in those vehicals in which the alleged "unintended acceleration"
occured, what actually was happening? The owners were stepping on the
accelerator, not the brake pedal.

How could this be? Like many european cars Audi arranged the brake
and accelerator pedal close together and at the same height so that
the driver could easily transition from one to the other. So there
was not much space between the two. Plus, the wheel well intruded
somewhat so that both pedals were displaced to the right more so than
most american drivers were used to. I know, you'd think that this
would mean that drivers would more likely mistake the brake pedal for
the accelerator but it was cited as a factor.

Many of the car magazines did extensive testing to see if they could
either duplicate the situation or find out why it was happening.

Stepping on the gas when you intended to step on the brakes is
something seniors do all the time, and they aren't often in Audi's.
To them when it's happening, they think they are stepping on the
brake, because that's what they thought they had done. So they cannot
react quickly enough to remove their foot from the gas to the brake
before bad things happen.

Corky Scott

[Andrew Gideon]

C Kingsbury wrote:

> I'm with Mike on this. Flying is higher risk than gardening.

You've not seen the weeds in my garden.

- Andrew

[Richard Russell]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:22:02 -0800, "Slip'er" >
wrote:

>> Unlike a motorcycle, a pilot gets to choose his
>> level of risk.
>
>LOL, Obviously you do not ride a motorcycle. I race up and down Palomar
>Mountain, Ortega Highway, and many other popular Southern California sport
>bike roads. Motorcycle riders definitely choose their own level of risk
>every time they get onto a motorcycle. However, I do largely accept the
>premise that when I am flying, the likelihood is that if I have an accident,
>it will be because of my poor decision process. On the other hand, if I have
>a motorcycle accident, it is more likely to be an accidental or intentional
>action from another motorist.
>

You started out arguing against this premise but in your last sentence
supported it. Sure, you can choose a level of riding that has more
inherent risk than conventional road riding, but the point is exactly
as you stated in your last sentence. On a bike you are much more
likely to suffer the consequences of someone else's error (that is,
you have less control over the total risk involved in the activity).
Rich Russell

[Richard Russell]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:59:51 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>
>"Slip'er" > wrote in message
>news:sldrd.190623$hj.62009@fed1read07...
>> > Unlike a motorcycle, a pilot gets to choose his
>> > level of risk.
>>
>> LOL, Obviously you do not ride a motorcycle. I race up and down Palomar
>> Mountain, Ortega Highway, and many other popular Southern California sport
>> bike roads. Motorcycle riders definitely choose their own level of risk
>
>I like the idea of a motorcycle but I live in Boston and the thought of
>riding around here sends chills down my spine. I get nearly run down at
>least once a month by soccer moms in SUVs because they don't see my low car
>in their blind spot when they change lanes without signaling (one of many
>fine local traditions). I'm surprised at how *few* motorcycle fatalities
>there are around here. (FYI, I used to work at a local newspaper so I did
>see "all the accidents that didn't make the news")
>
>The way I look at it is that in an airplane, it's relatively unlikely that
>I'll pay for someone else's mistake. Not impossible, just exceedingly
>unlikely. There are very few chains of events leading to a fatal accident in
>which an avoidable pilot error does not feature at some point.
>
>I have friends who ride and they have told me about defensive driving and
>such, but the fact remains that riding a bike in a populated area, you will
>often be surrounded by vehicles capable of turning you into a grease spot.
>You can do a lot to protect yourself but there's an infinite number of
>possibilities where another driver's screwup will punch your ticket.
>
>-cwk.
>

I ride my motorcycle to work in Philadelphia every day, year 'round
except for when there is snow or ice on the road. I keep a constantly
evolving contingency plan in my brain for what I'm going to do when
this car, or that car attacks me. I avoid minivans with women drivers
on cellphones at all costs. I know that sounds sexist and I don't
mean it that way. I don't think that women are inherently worse
drivers than men, but the one's that fit that description are deadly.
Point is, I don't feel like I'm in anywhere near that level of danger
when I fly. The reason is that I don't have to deal with all of those
people that are trying to kill me. I only have to protect myself from
myself (for the most part). With myself as the greatest risk factor
when I'm flying, that is an ideal situation in which to control and
minimize the risk, unlike on the bike.
Rich Russell

[Captain Wubba]

Hello :)

I'm a flight instructor, and I often get asked this question by
prospective students, their family members, and interested people in
general.

Other people here have given you some numbers that pan out to about 1
accident per 2,200,000 miles flown and one fatal accident per
13,000,000 miles flown. These are based on a conservative 125 knots
average cruise for the 'average GA' plane and 1.15 statute miles per
nautical mile, which kind of 'normalizes' the data in relation to 'car
miles'. (Please no flames from purists...these are ballpark numbers).

As an in instructor, one thing I look for in evaluating the 'safety'
of any given pilot is his or her personality. And this is relevant to
the question you asked. Why? Because in general aviation, avout 80% of
accidents are caused by 'pilot error', and of those about 2/3rds are
attributable directly to one of 3 common mistakes: Low level
maneuvering (buzzing), fuel mismanagement (running out of gas), and
flying VFR into IFR conditions. These three errors cause a great many
deaths, and are *entirely* preventable. This data is taken, by the
way, from an annual report on general aviation safety called the 'Nall
Report'.

A person's approach to solving problems, managing risk, and dealing
with situations is reflected (or contained, depending on how you look
at it) in their personality. And the way a person approaches the
problems and issues of flying determines how likely he or she is to
find themselves in a position where one of these errors is likely.

Let me give you an example. I know an airplane partnership at my local
airport. It is odd, because the 2 partners are *entirely* different in
their approach to flying. They are both well-educated, good men, with
solid technical skills. Both are IFR rated, and both have several
hundred hours of experience. But one is *very* conservative in his
approach to flying. He never lands his plane with less than at least
one full hour of fuel in his tanks, even if that means landing 10
minutes from his destination to refuel. He's IFR rated, but never flys
in conditions that approach even marginal VFR. He never 'buzzes' or
acts ostentatiously in any manner. He is as conservative a pilot as I
have ever met. He's very skilled, and I think he's *very* unlikely to
find himself in one of the situations I mentioned above...which
accounts for a *very* large percentage of aircraft accidents.

His partner (also a very skilled pilot), has run a tank dry (over
water, at night) because he wasn't paying enough attention to his fuel
situation. He has had to put 57 gallons into a 60-gallon-capacity
plane more than once, flys *very* marginal VFR (i.e. 'pretend VFR'),
and flew in solid instrument conditions before he had completed his
instrument rating. He's buzzed lakes and fields and houses, and has a
reputation around the airport as an 'accident waiting to happen'.

The first parter's personality, training, habits, and discipline make
him a very safe pilot. he is *very* unlikely to encounter the
conditions that kill over 1/2 of all GA pilots who die each year. The
other partner is *very* likely to encounter them at some point.

I guess I am asking 'which is your husband'? Earning his instrument
rating *will* make him a better pilot. Every pilot I have ever flown
with has become a better and more skilled pilot during their
instrument training. But his safety or lack thereof is *much* more
heavily influenced by his decision making and his approach to flying
than by any rating or certificate he has.

If your husband is a conservative decision maker, with the discipline
to stick to reasonable 'personal minimums' and firm guidelines about
fuel, weather conditions, personal health, etc., then his flying is
*very* safe. Probably at least as safe (per mile) as driving a car,
and possibly safer. Even factoring in the 'idiot contingent' (as one
of my fellow CFIs call them), flying is quite safe. If you are flying
with a disciplined, thoughtful, and well-trained pilot is is much
safer, and probably a safer means of getting distant places than
driving (highway travel is significantly more dangerous than local
travel).

Talk to your husband and his CFI about your concerns. They are valid
issues, and nobody will dismiss them trivially. But safety depends on
many things. His IFR training will likely make him a safer pilot...and
if he has the personal characteristics and the discipline to avoid the
'voluntary' situations that bring with them significant danger, I
think his safety and that of those flying with him is probably well
within almost everyone's 'comfort region'.

Cheers,


Cap


(June) wrote in message >...
> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.

[Mike Rapoport]

This has been an interesting thread! My main interest has been watching
pilots take one set of statistics that show what they want to see, and then
to rationalize that they are safer yet! We see people using the fatal
accident rate for GA as a whole which is much safer than the flying that
people actually are engaged in. Every other type of GA flying (training,
crop dusting, business) has a lower fatal accident rate than personal
flying, but that doesn't deter pilots from using the "better" numbers
anyway! Then they rationalize that they are safer yet because they don't
engage in certain behaviors.

Here are the numbers:

Total GA
Number of hours: 25,800,000
Fatal accidents: 351
Fatal Accident Rate: 1.36/100,000 hrs

Turbine Business GA
Number of Hours 6,446,000
Fatal Accidents: 17
Fatal Accident Rate .26/100,000hrs

Total GA less Turbine Business GA (light GA)
Number of Hours 19,354,000
Fatal Accidents 334
Fatal Accident Rate: 1.73

"Peronal Flying" (from Nall Report)
Hours 47% of light GA
Fatal Accidents 72% of light GA
Fatal Rate: 2.65/100,000hrs.

So the bottom line here is that the accident rate for personal flying is
about twice the figure that pilots like to start with! I admit to using a
mix of 2002, 2003 and five year averages to reach these conclusions but the
accident rates have been fairly consistant over the years.

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/safety/20041130.php
http://www.ibac.org/Library/ElectF/saft/safetybriefissue2.pdf
http://ntsb.gov/aviation/Table10.htm
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf

Wake up guys! It is what it is!

Mike
MU-2


"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello :)
>
> I'm a flight instructor, and I often get asked this question by
> prospective students, their family members, and interested people in
> general.
>
> Other people here have given you some numbers that pan out to about 1
> accident per 2,200,000 miles flown and one fatal accident per
> 13,000,000 miles flown. These are based on a conservative 125 knots
> average cruise for the 'average GA' plane and 1.15 statute miles per
> nautical mile, which kind of 'normalizes' the data in relation to 'car
> miles'. (Please no flames from purists...these are ballpark numbers).
>
> As an in instructor, one thing I look for in evaluating the 'safety'
> of any given pilot is his or her personality. And this is relevant to
> the question you asked. Why? Because in general aviation, avout 80% of
> accidents are caused by 'pilot error', and of those about 2/3rds are
> attributable directly to one of 3 common mistakes: Low level
> maneuvering (buzzing), fuel mismanagement (running out of gas), and
> flying VFR into IFR conditions. These three errors cause a great many
> deaths, and are *entirely* preventable. This data is taken, by the
> way, from an annual report on general aviation safety called the 'Nall
> Report'.
>
> A person's approach to solving problems, managing risk, and dealing
> with situations is reflected (or contained, depending on how you look
> at it) in their personality. And the way a person approaches the
> problems and issues of flying determines how likely he or she is to
> find themselves in a position where one of these errors is likely.
>
> Let me give you an example. I know an airplane partnership at my local
> airport. It is odd, because the 2 partners are *entirely* different in
> their approach to flying. They are both well-educated, good men, with
> solid technical skills. Both are IFR rated, and both have several
> hundred hours of experience. But one is *very* conservative in his
> approach to flying. He never lands his plane with less than at least
> one full hour of fuel in his tanks, even if that means landing 10
> minutes from his destination to refuel. He's IFR rated, but never flys
> in conditions that approach even marginal VFR. He never 'buzzes' or
> acts ostentatiously in any manner. He is as conservative a pilot as I
> have ever met. He's very skilled, and I think he's *very* unlikely to
> find himself in one of the situations I mentioned above...which
> accounts for a *very* large percentage of aircraft accidents.
>
> His partner (also a very skilled pilot), has run a tank dry (over
> water, at night) because he wasn't paying enough attention to his fuel
> situation. He has had to put 57 gallons into a 60-gallon-capacity
> plane more than once, flys *very* marginal VFR (i.e. 'pretend VFR'),
> and flew in solid instrument conditions before he had completed his
> instrument rating. He's buzzed lakes and fields and houses, and has a
> reputation around the airport as an 'accident waiting to happen'.
>
> The first parter's personality, training, habits, and discipline make
> him a very safe pilot. he is *very* unlikely to encounter the
> conditions that kill over 1/2 of all GA pilots who die each year. The
> other partner is *very* likely to encounter them at some point.
>
> I guess I am asking 'which is your husband'? Earning his instrument
> rating *will* make him a better pilot. Every pilot I have ever flown
> with has become a better and more skilled pilot during their
> instrument training. But his safety or lack thereof is *much* more
> heavily influenced by his decision making and his approach to flying
> than by any rating or certificate he has.
>
> If your husband is a conservative decision maker, with the discipline
> to stick to reasonable 'personal minimums' and firm guidelines about
> fuel, weather conditions, personal health, etc., then his flying is
> *very* safe. Probably at least as safe (per mile) as driving a car,
> and possibly safer. Even factoring in the 'idiot contingent' (as one
> of my fellow CFIs call them), flying is quite safe. If you are flying
> with a disciplined, thoughtful, and well-trained pilot is is much
> safer, and probably a safer means of getting distant places than
> driving (highway travel is significantly more dangerous than local
> travel).
>
> Talk to your husband and his CFI about your concerns. They are valid
> issues, and nobody will dismiss them trivially. But safety depends on
> many things. His IFR training will likely make him a safer pilot...and
> if he has the personal characteristics and the discipline to avoid the
> 'voluntary' situations that bring with them significant danger, I
> think his safety and that of those flying with him is probably well
> within almost everyone's 'comfort region'.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Cap
>
>
> (June) wrote in message
> >...
>> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
>> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
>> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
>> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>>
>> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
>> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
>> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
>> he has such a young family.
>>
>> Your opinions would be appreciated.

[Jay Honeck]

> Not even close.

Are there really statistics that compute the dangers of flying if you
remove:

a) Running out of gas
b) Flying in crappy weather
c) Poor maintenance
d) Flying at night

As factors?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Stefan]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> This has been an interesting thread! My main interest has been watching
> pilots take one set of statistics that show what they want to see, and then
> to rationalize that they are safer yet! We see people using the fatal
> accident rate for GA
....

I think this whole statistics discussion is irrelevant, even dangerous.

Imagine a young beginning student pilot. If all those experienced pilots
keep telling him that this or that activity (insert your favorite) is
more dangerous than flying, what attitude will he develop?

Instead, keep hammering in his (and your!) head that flying is extremely
dangerous (which it really is). The only way to survive flying is
knowing the risks and being dead serious about it, each time, always, no
exceptions. A side effect of this attitude will be that the statistics
will go down and flying will *appear* to be less dangerous.

Stefan

[Nathan Young]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:01:51 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>
>"Peronal Flying" (from Nall Report)
>Hours 47% of light GA
>Fatal Accidents 72% of light GA
>Fatal Rate: 2.65/100,000hrs.

I was curious how this number matches with driving, and on a per miles
basis. I didn't see any statistics for automobile accidents on the
NTSB website, but I found a website that listed the deaths per
vehicle-km.
http://www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen/irtad/english/we2.html

Guesstimating that the average GA plane flies 140mph.
Fatal accident rate = 2.65 / 14M miles -or- 1 fatal accident per 5.3M
miles

The webpage above lists 9.4people killed per billion vehicle-kms.
Converting to miles yields: 9.4 per 625M miles -or- 1 per 41M miles.

Since the car statistics are 'people' killed per mile, and not fatal
accident numbers per mile, the car numbers are actually better than 1
fatal accident per 41M miles. Since most vehicles are operated solo,
the factor is probably < 2, but is obviously higher than 1.

-Nathan

[Chris Ehlbeck]

A plane crash is news. A car crash normally isn't.
--
Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
"It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."

"June" > wrote in message
om...
> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.

[Captain Wubba]

Actually Mike, I believe you are mistaken...or just looking at one
side of the equation. Let's take a look at some actual numbers,
gleaned from

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/02nall.pdf
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs00/pdf/in3.pdf
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

I'm using 2000 or 2001 numbers, depending upon the source, so they are
pretty comparable. Numbers are rounded for convenience...you can
calculate using the exact numbers from these sources. And I am making
a few 'reasonable' assumptions (i.e. average car use is 12,000 miles
per year, average GA aircraft flys at 125 knots, converted into
statute miles for comparison) and I also realize that the numbers are
not perfect...but they do give us 'some' real information upon which
to judge risk.




Automobiles
----------------
Miles traveled - 1,584,000,000,000
Deaths - 43,000
Injuries - 3,200,000
Accidents - 6,300,000
Total casualties (deaths+injuries) - 3,243,000

GA Fixed Wing Aircraft
-----------------
Miles traveled - 4,183,125,000
Deaths - 521
Injuries - 2400 (assuming a [high] 1.5 injuries per acident)
Accidents - 1600
Total casualties (deaths+injuries) - 2921


Let's look at the 'miles per incident' rates for various events:

Event Automobile Plane
--------------------------------------------------------
Deaths 36,837,209 8,029,030
Injuries 495,000 1,742,969
Accidents 251,429 2,614,453
Total Casualties 488,437 1,432,087




Now, from these statistics, it is pretty clear that your chances of
dying in a GA plane are significantly higher (per mile) than in an
automobile. But they are both quite low.

But, your chances of being a 'casualty' (being injured *or* killed) is
*much* greater in a car than in an airplane. There is one casualty for
every 488,000 miles in a car...only one for every 1,432,000 miles in a
GA plane. Additionally, you are *10 times* as likely to be in a car
wreck (again per mile) than in a plane wreck. But again, they are
still pretty low.

And this isn't even factoring in the 'what if' that the poster
commented on (i.e. about 2/3rds of GA accidents being pilot
error)...that would reduce the danger even more.

To a great extent, it depends on how you define 'dangerous'. If the
question is "If you were to travel 1000 miles in either a car or a GA
airplane, in which vehicle would you be more likely to be injured or
killed? The answer is "You're significantly more likely to be injured
or killed in the automobile."

If 'safety' means the probability of arriving at your destination
without a scratch, then you will be 'safer' in a GA airplane than an
automobile, and certainly than on a motorcycle.

If 'safety' means the probability that you won't be killed before
arriving at your destination, then you will be 'safer' in an
automobile.


Cheers,

Cap



"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message et>...
> You are fooling yourself. According to the Nall Report, the pilot was the
> "major cause" of 70% of fatal accidents. This leaves 30%. Even if you
> eliminate all the accidents from risky behavior or poor/rusty skills,
> personal flying is still more dangerous than other forms of transport.
> Pilots like to try to twist the stats to suit their beliefs. This makes no
> sense to me. The motorcycle stats have people acting irresponsibly too.
>
> The real question is "What is an acceptable level of risk?" That level
> varies by person. I have this discussion with my wife over mountain
> climbing all the time. My view is that you cannot perserve life, you have
> to live it.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (June) wrote in message
> > >...
> >> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> >> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> >> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> >> he will be saving money rather than renting.
> >>
> >> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> >> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> >> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> >> he has such a young family.
> >>
> >> Your opinions would be appreciated.
> >
> > The motorcycle comparison is not a good one. Really, the safety has
> > everything to do with the type of guy your husband is. If he's the
> > type of person that is going to want to do low level buzzing over his
> > friends houses or jump into weather he isn't trained to deal with, it
> > could be dangerous. Unlike a motorcycle, a pilot gets to choose his
> > level of risk. I've flown with pilots that worry me, and I've flown
> > with pilots that will have very long lives. It really depends on his
> > choices. I have two young boys myself.
> >
> > -Robert, Flight Instructor.

[Jay Honeck]

> How can you say that you "never put then in harms way" or that you "never
> fly in dangerous conditions". You have no idea of whether you are doing
> these things or not. I am not trying to say that you are crazy or
> ignorant, I just would like to know how you can rationalize those
> statements with reality.

I've taken my kids hiking in the Grand Canyon (no hand rails!), swimming in
the ocean (sharks!), spelunking in underground caverns (cave-ins), bike
riding on trails (broken neck!), and motorcycling across the country (crazy
drivers trying to kill us!).

During each one of these activities, I've been acutely aware of the high
risks involved.

I've also taken them flying since before they could walk, and have never
felt that I was needlessly endangering them.

Were my kids safer in the ocean? Everything comes down to risk assessment.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Stadt]

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
. com...
> I've read the Nall report.
>
> You're missing my point. My point is, the way *I* fly, in *my* plane, is
> safer than *my* drive to *my* airport, which is my main concern and the
only
> thing I can directly influence.
>
> Isn't it possible I could be right? Do you agree that some kinds of GA
> flying are safer than some kinds of automobile driving?

You are kidding yourself and have painted a safety picture of yourself that
is not true.
If you fly personal GA you are much more likely to die in the airplane than
the drive to the airport.

[Dave Stadt]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > How much time do celebrities spend traveling in GA aircraft vs
traveling
> in
> > > cars?
> >
> > Probably a lot more in aircraft (GA or otherwise).
>
> Now I think you're just pulling my leg. You can't be serious.
> --
> Dan
> C-172RG at BFM


My thoughts exactly.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>...Take a 182, fly day VFR only, don't buzz anybody and your
>>>chance of dying is the same as driving...
>
>
> Gosh, do we *really* need to quantify that statement?
>
> Let's see.... Hmmm.. If we remove needless risk taking, do you think flying
> might be safer?
>
> I believe the answer can only be "yes."
>
> Heck, if we remove "running out of gas" and "flying planes that haven't been
> maintained properly", personal flying might actually be SAFER than driving.

But most VFR only pilots fly this way. Don't buzz anybody, don't fly at
night and stay out of the clouds is a recipe for staying alive. Does
that not describe your flying?

[Happy Dog]

"Jay Honeck" >

> We watch the weather closely, and carefully pick our times to fly. We
> ALWAYS refuel after every flight, so that we always have full tanks.
> Since we can fly non-stop for over 5 hours, this pretty much eliminates
> the "running out of gas" scenario.

I don't know why more pilots don't do this. I've been in a few tricky
situations and it's always been a comforting feeling not to have to even
*think* about fuel. In marginal or potentially challenging weather, my
reserve is more like two hours than the required. But I often see pilots
flying with "just enough" when they don't have to.
>
> We don't "buzz" anyone, we don't overload the aircraft, and we don't fly
> when the weather sucks. Our one concession to safety (we also have two
> kids, both of whom have flown since they were tots) is that we no longer
> fly at night.

Time for that turbine twin...

moo

[Bob Fry]

"Mike Rapoport" > writes:

> Even if you eliminate weather, hostile terrain and "stupid pilot tricks" you
> don't eliminate over 99% of light GA fatal accidents.

Huh? You mean the above factors account for less than 1% of GA fatal
accidents?? Not a chance. What's causing all the fatalities then?

[Bob Fry]

"Mike Rapoport" > writes:

> So the bottom line here is that the accident rate for personal flying is
> about twice the figure that pilots like to start with!

OK, let's say that's true.

You still don't address our basic premise, which is that

1. A large fraction of the total Personal Flying accident rate is
composed of pilot-controllable causes: flying into marginal weather,
buzzing, etc.

2. The poster's hubby, if he's a careful fellow, can reduce that
fraction of accidents and thus be pretty safe--perhaps approaching
ground vehicle safety, perhaps not, but certainly reducing his
personal accident rate below the average rate, whatever it is.

I still would say that one's personal flying accident rate is probably
going to be higher than one's personal driving accident rate, but it
need not conform to average statistical rates, because flying
accidents are more preventable than driving accidents.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> This has been an interesting thread! My main interest has been watching
>> pilots take one set of statistics that show what they want to see, and
>> then to rationalize that they are safer yet! We see people using the
>> fatal accident rate for GA
> ...
>
> I think this whole statistics discussion is irrelevant, even dangerous.
>
> Imagine a young beginning student pilot. If all those experienced pilots
> keep telling him that this or that activity (insert your favorite) is more
> dangerous than flying, what attitude will he develop?
>
> Instead, keep hammering in his (and your!) head that flying is extremely
> dangerous (which it really is). The only way to survive flying is knowing
> the risks and being dead serious about it, each time, always, no
> exceptions. A side effect of this attitude will be that the statistics
> will go down and flying will *appear* to be less dangerous.
>
> Stefan

I agree and have always tried to have a realistic assesment of risk in
whatever I do so that I can make an informed descision about whether the
activity is worth doing. I see no point in downplaying the risks and,
frankly, I'd view anybody whom I could convince that flying with me was as
safe as flying on an airliner to be a total idiot. I am considering some
climbing in the Himalaya and the fatal rate is about 4-5% per trip. There
is no point in thinking these stats don't apply to me because "I won't do
anything stupid" since everyone else who perished thought the same thing.

Last month, I invited a friend to fly to Moose Creek to go fishing. He
asked if flying in the Helio was "safe". I said: "Not really, we will be
flying a single engine airplane over mountains with nowhere to land if the
engine quits. We would probably survive the crash since the airplane is so
slow. Do you want to go or not?" He showed up at the hanger with camping
gear for a week which was an appropriate thing to do.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:01:51 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peronal Flying" (from Nall Report)
>>Hours 47% of light GA
>>Fatal Accidents 72% of light GA
>>Fatal Rate: 2.65/100,000hrs.
>
> I was curious how this number matches with driving, and on a per miles
> basis. I didn't see any statistics for automobile accidents on the
> NTSB website, but I found a website that listed the deaths per
> vehicle-km.
> http://www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen/irtad/english/we2.html
>
> Guesstimating that the average GA plane flies 140mph.
> Fatal accident rate = 2.65 / 14M miles -or- 1 fatal accident per 5.3M
> miles
>
> The webpage above lists 9.4people killed per billion vehicle-kms.
> Converting to miles yields: 9.4 per 625M miles -or- 1 per 41M miles.
>
> Since the car statistics are 'people' killed per mile, and not fatal
> accident numbers per mile, the car numbers are actually better than 1
> fatal accident per 41M miles. Since most vehicles are operated solo,
> the factor is probably < 2, but is obviously higher than 1.
>
> -Nathan
>

This seems about right. If it is about 5x on a distance basis it is about
15x on a time basis. The numbers could be off by quite a bit and personal
flying would still be significantly more dangerous than driving and vastly
more dangerous than airline flying.

Mike
MU-2

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...

>
> You are kidding yourself and have painted a safety picture of yourself
that
> is not true.
> If you fly personal GA you are much more likely to die in the airplane
than
> the drive to the airport.

That does it!!! I'm turning in my license and buying a VW Microbus!!
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Mike Rapoport]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" > writes:
>
>> So the bottom line here is that the accident rate for personal flying is
>> about twice the figure that pilots like to start with!
>
> OK, let's say that's true.
>
> You still don't address our basic premise, which is that
>
> 1. A large fraction of the total Personal Flying accident rate is
> composed of pilot-controllable causes: flying into marginal weather,
> buzzing, etc.
>
> 2. The poster's hubby, if he's a careful fellow, can reduce that
> fraction of accidents and thus be pretty safe--perhaps approaching
> ground vehicle safety, perhaps not, but certainly reducing his
> personal accident rate below the average rate, whatever it is.
>
> I still would say that one's personal flying accident rate is probably
> going to be higher than one's personal driving accident rate, but it
> need not conform to average statistical rates, because flying
> accidents are more preventable than driving accidents.


OK thats fair, I never objected that pilots don't have some control over the
risk. I object to the notion that they can reduce their accident risk by
90% or so and I object to the practice of using numbers that have much safer
flying included. The reality is that a *lot* of fatal personal flying
accidents are not marginal weather or stupid pilot tricks. Only 13% of
fatal accidents are attributed to weather and presumably VFR into IMC is
only a portion of this. Mechanical/maitenance is 14% and we an not talking
about lack of maitenance we are talking about maitenance errors. Only 6% of
the 70% pilot related accidents are attributed to fuel mis-management.
There are a *lot* of accidents that aren't avoided by prudence. We might as
well accept that.

Mike
MU-2

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> >
> > You are kidding yourself and have painted a safety picture of yourself
> that
> > is not true.
> > If you fly personal GA you are much more likely to die in the airplane
> than
> > the drive to the airport.
>
> That does it!!! I'm turning in my license and buying a VW Microbus!!
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO

Buy a Corvair, they are much more fun to drive.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
> Actually Mike, I believe you are mistaken...or just looking at one
> side of the equation. Let's take a look at some actual numbers,
> gleaned from
>
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/02nall.pdf
> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs00/pdf/in3.pdf
> http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html
>
> I'm using 2000 or 2001 numbers, depending upon the source, so they are
> pretty comparable. Numbers are rounded for convenience...you can
> calculate using the exact numbers from these sources. And I am making
> a few 'reasonable' assumptions (i.e. average car use is 12,000 miles
> per year, average GA aircraft flys at 125 knots, converted into
> statute miles for comparison) and I also realize that the numbers are
> not perfect...but they do give us 'some' real information upon which
> to judge risk.
>
>
>
>
> Automobiles
> ----------------
> Miles traveled - 1,584,000,000,000
> Deaths - 43,000
> Injuries - 3,200,000
> Accidents - 6,300,000
> Total casualties (deaths+injuries) - 3,243,000
>
> GA Fixed Wing Aircraft
> -----------------
> Miles traveled - 4,183,125,000
> Deaths - 521
> Injuries - 2400 (assuming a [high] 1.5 injuries per acident)
> Accidents - 1600
> Total casualties (deaths+injuries) - 2921
>
>
> Let's look at the 'miles per incident' rates for various events:
>
> Event Automobile Plane
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Deaths 36,837,209 8,029,030
> Injuries 495,000 1,742,969
> Accidents 251,429 2,614,453
> Total Casualties 488,437 1,432,087
>
>
>
>
> Now, from these statistics, it is pretty clear that your chances of
> dying in a GA plane are significantly higher (per mile) than in an
> automobile. But they are both quite low.
>
> But, your chances of being a 'casualty' (being injured *or* killed) is
> *much* greater in a car than in an airplane. There is one casualty for
> every 488,000 miles in a car...only one for every 1,432,000 miles in a
> GA plane. Additionally, you are *10 times* as likely to be in a car
> wreck (again per mile) than in a plane wreck. But again, they are
> still pretty low.
>
> And this isn't even factoring in the 'what if' that the poster
> commented on (i.e. about 2/3rds of GA accidents being pilot
> error)...that would reduce the danger even more.
>
> To a great extent, it depends on how you define 'dangerous'. If the
> question is "If you were to travel 1000 miles in either a car or a GA
> airplane, in which vehicle would you be more likely to be injured or
> killed? The answer is "You're significantly more likely to be injured
> or killed in the automobile."
>
> If 'safety' means the probability of arriving at your destination
> without a scratch, then you will be 'safer' in a GA airplane than an
> automobile, and certainly than on a motorcycle.
>
> If 'safety' means the probability that you won't be killed before
> arriving at your destination, then you will be 'safer' in an
> automobile.

Why are you using the composite light GA numbers when personal flying has an
accident rate 50% higher?

Mike
MU-2

[Slip'er]

> You started out arguing against this premise but in your last sentence
> supported it.

Yes and No. (how's that for bipolar disorder)

I saw the preceeding discussion as having two premises that were being
comingled:

(1) Pilots get to choose their level of risk while motorcycle riders do not.

(2) Motorcycle riding is more dangerous than flying due to external factors
related to other vehicles.

I disagree with 1 and support 2.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" > writes:
>
>> Even if you eliminate weather, hostile terrain and "stupid pilot tricks"
>> you
>> don't eliminate over 99% of light GA fatal accidents.
>
> Huh? You mean the above factors account for less than 1% of GA fatal
> accidents?? Not a chance. What's causing all the fatalities then?

I phrased it poorly. I was trying to say that if you eliminate weather,
terrain and stupid pilot tricks you still have a large number of accidents
and you won't approach the airline safety rate which is less than 1% of the
light GA rate. Posters were saying that, if they were careful, they could
be as safe as the airlines.

Mike
MU-2

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:27:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>> "Mike Rapoport" > writes:
>>
>>> Even if you eliminate weather, hostile terrain and "stupid pilot tricks"
>>> you
>>> don't eliminate over 99% of light GA fatal accidents.
>>
>> Huh? You mean the above factors account for less than 1% of GA fatal
>> accidents?? Not a chance. What's causing all the fatalities then?
>
>I phrased it poorly. I was trying to say that if you eliminate weather,
>terrain and stupid pilot tricks you still have a large number of accidents
>and you won't approach the airline safety rate which is less than 1% of the
>light GA rate. Posters were saying that, if they were careful, they could
>be as safe as the airlines.


I haven't been following this thread very closely, so please excuse me
if this point has already been raised. But when you say, "the airline
safety rate which is less than 1% of the light GA rate" are you
referring to the 'per mile,' 'per person,' 'per operation,' or 'per
hour' accident of fatality rate?

[Mike Rapoport]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:27:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote in
> et>::
>
>>
>>"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Mike Rapoport" > writes:
>>>
>>>> Even if you eliminate weather, hostile terrain and "stupid pilot
>>>> tricks"
>>>> you
>>>> don't eliminate over 99% of light GA fatal accidents.
>>>
>>> Huh? You mean the above factors account for less than 1% of GA fatal
>>> accidents?? Not a chance. What's causing all the fatalities then?
>>
>>I phrased it poorly. I was trying to say that if you eliminate weather,
>>terrain and stupid pilot tricks you still have a large number of accidents
>>and you won't approach the airline safety rate which is less than 1% of
>>the
>>light GA rate. Posters were saying that, if they were careful, they could
>>be as safe as the airlines.
>
>
> I haven't been following this thread very closely, so please excuse me
> if this point has already been raised. But when you say, "the airline
> safety rate which is less than 1% of the light GA rate" are you
> referring to the 'per mile,' 'per person,' 'per operation,' or 'per
> hour' accident of fatality rate?
>
Per accident, but the rate for most of the others is less than 1% too.

Mike
MU-2
Helio Courier

[Foster]

But Pintos are a blast.

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
>>
>>
>>>You are kidding yourself and have painted a safety picture of yourself
>>
>>that
>>
>>>is not true.
>>>If you fly personal GA you are much more likely to die in the airplane
>>
>>than
>>
>>>the drive to the airport.
>>
>>That does it!!! I'm turning in my license and buying a VW Microbus!!
>>--
>>Matt
>>---------------------
>>Matthew W. Barrow
>>Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
>>Montrose, CO
>
>
> Buy a Corvair, they are much more fun to drive.
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:33:04 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in
. net>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:27:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
>> > wrote in
>> et>::
>>
>>>
>>>"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>>>> "Mike Rapoport" > writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Even if you eliminate weather, hostile terrain and "stupid pilot
>>>>> tricks"
>>>>> you
>>>>> don't eliminate over 99% of light GA fatal accidents.
>>>>
>>>> Huh? You mean the above factors account for less than 1% of GA fatal
>>>> accidents?? Not a chance. What's causing all the fatalities then?
>>>
>>>I phrased it poorly. I was trying to say that if you eliminate weather,
>>>terrain and stupid pilot tricks you still have a large number of accidents
>>>and you won't approach the airline safety rate which is less than 1% of
>>>the
>>>light GA rate. Posters were saying that, if they were careful, they could
>>>be as safe as the airlines.
>>
>>
>> I haven't been following this thread very closely, so please excuse me
>> if this point has already been raised. But when you say, "the airline
>> safety rate which is less than 1% of the light GA rate" are you
>> referring to the 'per mile,' 'per person,' 'per operation,' or 'per
>> hour' accident of [that should have been 'or'] fatality rate?
>>


>Per accident, but the rate for most of the others is less than 1% too.
>

The point I was trying to make was, that comparing an aircraft that
carries hundreds of passengers thousands of miles with a single
landing per trip against one that carries an average of two passengers
a hundred miles or so per trip unreasonably skews the 'per passenger
mile' accident rate to the point of irrelevance.

[Michael]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote
> Last month, I invited a friend to fly to Moose Creek to go fishing. He
> asked if flying in the Helio was "safe". I said: "Not really, we will be
> flying a single engine airplane over mountains with nowhere to land if the
> engine quits. We would probably survive the crash since the airplane is so
> slow. Do you want to go or not?" He showed up at the hanger with camping
> gear for a week which was an appropriate thing to do.

And I would have done the same (especially if I could get a little
stick time). You do what seems reasonable to reduce the risk, and if
after that it still seems worth it, then you do it.

I've been watching this thread with much the same reaction as you. In
fact, pretty mcuh the only reason I haven't contributed much to the
thread is that you've pretty much covered the ground I would have. I
have only one thing to add, and now I'm going to add it.

It seems to me like most pilots here are in denial about the true
risks of what they are doing. I also believe this is the primary
reason we have the product liability climate in GA that we do.

There have been lots of lawsuits against aircraft and component
manufacturers by grieving widows and orphans. A few have even been
successful. I'm not going to claim that the lawsuits were wholly
without basis. By modern standards, many of the aircraft and
components are poorly desinged, built, and maintained. There are all
sorts of reasons for this, but it's an undeniable fact. The GA
fatality rate due to mechanical problems alone is about the same as
the automobile fatality rate as a whole. This doesn't include all the
accidents that the NTSB categorizes as pure pilot error but which have
a lot to do with the sad reality that the aircraft are, in certain
circumstances, so difficult to operate that even the best of us can't
hope to get it right 100% of the time.

But here is the reality - the design flaws are no secret to anyone.
Anyone who flies a taildragger from the back seat knows you can't see
crap from there - but there are controls there anyway. Anyone who
flies a slippery complex airplane in IMC knows that flying it without
an AI can be difficult, and experienced pilots have screwed it up
fatally before, and AI's and vacuum pumps are failure prone - but
backup AI's with independent power sources are not required and are
mostly not present. We all know that engines fail. We all know that
weather forecasts are horoscopes with numbers. We know that our fuel
tanks and carburetors can leak, that our leaning procedures are not
terribly repeatable, and that our fuel gauges are largely inaccurate.
None of this is news.

So why do so many pilots minimize these risks, focus on relatively
small segments of the accident picture, and in general pretend that
private flying is safer than it is? I think it's because if they told
the truth, their wives would certainly never fly with them or allow
their kids to fly, and maybe stop them from flying entirely.

The problem happens when some of these pilots inevitably crash and
die. The thought process their families go through must be something
like this:

He was a very careful and safe pilot. Flying is safe. Therefore
someone else must have been at fault in his accident. Let's punish
that someone else so this never happens again.

Michael

[C Kingsbury]

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:59:51 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
> > wrote:
>
> mean it that way. I don't think that women are inherently worse
> drivers than men, but the one's that fit that description are deadly.

Actually on the whole women have a better record than men by a non-trivial
amount, primarily because they are less likely to drive recklessly. Though I
would still stay far away from that minivan.

> Point is, I don't feel like I'm in anywhere near that level of danger
> when I fly. The reason is that I don't have to deal with all of those
> people that are trying to kill me.

It's basically true- on a bike death is rarely more than a few seconds away.
In a plane this is only true during certain phases of takeoff or landing. If
you're alert you have a better chance of stopping an accident sequence
before it runs its course.

-cwk.

[Captain Wubba]

Why am I using the composite automobile numbers when highway numbers
are much higher (more dangerous)? Why am I using *any* set of numbers?
If we can pick and chose the numbers we want, we can 'prove' virtually
anything. It made the most sense to me, when comparing 'travel by car'
to 'travel by GA plane' to use the figures for *all* cars vs. *all* GA
planes.

Please feel free to break out 'self-piloted' GA numbers from the total
number of hours, the total number of deaths and the total number of
injuries if you so wish...but when you analyse the question 'Will you
be safer on a 1000 mile trip if you travel by car or by GA airplane?'
*Even if* you use the '50% higher' figures you want to use, you will
STILL find that

If 'safety' = 'probability of arriving at your destination without
injury or death', then travel by GA plane (personal flying), is
*still* safer than travel by car.

If 'safety' = 'probability of not getting killed before reaching your
destination', then travel by car is safer than travel by GA (personal
flying).

It depends on which definition you want to use. What is 'safe'? Just
for giggles, I asked that question ("Which of these two definitions
would you personally use in determeing if something was safe or not?")
to 8 non-aviator co-workers today. 6 of them said 'Injured or killed'
(which favors GA) and 2 of them said 'killed' (which favors cars).

The numbers don't lie tho...to say that aviation is 'less safe' than
car travel, one has to use a particular definition of 'safe'. You may
feel it is the 'better' definition. I don't.

Cheers,

Cap


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message et>...
> > Let's look at the 'miles per incident' rates for various events:
> >
> > Event Automobile Plane
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > Deaths 36,837,209 8,029,030
> > Injuries 495,000 1,742,969
> > Accidents 251,429 2,614,453
> > Total Casualties 488,437 1,432,087
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, from these statistics, it is pretty clear that your chances of
> > dying in a GA plane are significantly higher (per mile) than in an
> > automobile. But they are both quite low.
> >
> > But, your chances of being a 'casualty' (being injured *or* killed) is
> > *much* greater in a car than in an airplane. There is one casualty for
> > every 488,000 miles in a car...only one for every 1,432,000 miles in a
> > GA plane. Additionally, you are *10 times* as likely to be in a car
> > wreck (again per mile) than in a plane wreck. But again, they are
> > still pretty low.


> Why are you using the composite light GA numbers when personal flying has an
> accident rate 50% higher?
>
> Mike
> MU-2

[C Kingsbury]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote

> It seems to me like most pilots here are in denial about the true
> risks of what they are doing. I also believe this is the primary
> reason we have the product liability climate in GA that we do.
>
> There have been lots of lawsuits against aircraft and component
> manufacturers by grieving widows and orphans.

As there have been against companies which do bungee-jumping, parachuting,
hang gliding, mountain climbing, deep-sea fishing, and a million other
activities which any logical person can see require taking risks which can
cause death. "Well, we're going to tie a rubber band around your ankles and
throw you off a bridge."

What it comes down to is acceptance of responsibility. Not a century ago it
was a rare family that hadn't lost one or more young children to disease by
the age of ten and if you survived that there were wars, workplace
accidents, railroad crashes, ships sinking, and a long list of now-routine
illnesses that meant certain death. Today when someone dies in their sixties
we say "so young" and the loss of a child is an agony beyond conception.

We understand everything. We dig tunnels thirty miles long under oceans and
dam rivers to make lakes the size of small countries. We cut peoples' chests
open, stop their hearts to replace a valve or four as if it were just
another engine, and administer a shock to start it all running again.
Satellites a hundred miles above the Earth send images which have turned the
most devastating storms into mere incoveniences. The temperature of the
polar ice cap is three degrees higher than normal? Clearly we are burning
too much fossil fuel!

When an airliner crashes, we suck up five million little bits off the ocean
floor and put it all back together. It takes a year or two, but then a man
in glasses gets up before a screen, and shows a film which explains exactly
what happened. "Here, you see, these indents the size of a dime show where a
cross-member hit, consistent with our theory that a spark in the tank caused
an explosion."

And none of this progress is illusory. The tunnels do not collapse and fill
with water. The patient gets out of bed and three weeks later resumes
hosting his late-night talk show and likely watches his grandchildren
graduate from high school. Airline travel has become safer than driving a
car. Hurricanes in the US regularly cause tens of billions in damage yet
kill hardly any. Men fly, the sick are healed, and oracles predict the
future from their perch in the sky. Have we not become the gods of our own
existence?

The only thing we don't believe in is the unpreventable accident. When
someone dies of cancer, the family sues the doctor for not finding it
sooner. When someone dies in a car crash, the automaker is sued because a
properly-designed car should allow the driver to survive rolling off the
road at sixty miles an hour. Every accident happens for a reason, and since
we know airplanes run out of gas, shouldn't we design ones that can't?

Believe me, the problem runs far deeper than a misplaced belief in the
safety of small planes.

-cwk.

[C Kingsbury]

Carnivorous, eh?

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> C Kingsbury wrote:
>
> > I'm with Mike on this. Flying is higher risk than gardening.
>
> You've not seen the weeds in my garden.
>
> - Andrew
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
>
"Well, we're going to tie a rubber band around your ankles and
> throw you off a bridge."
>

You make is sound like a crazy thing to do!

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

I would say safety is a function of surviving the trip! Your last numbers
showed a fatal accident rate for aircraft 4.6 time greater than for autos on
a per mile basis. Looking at another set of numbers for autos, the NTSB
shows a rate of 1.48 fatal accidents/100 million miles. Converting the NTSB
data for GA to miles (assuming 125kts and 1.15 sm/nm) we get 9.46 fatals/100
million miles and as I pointed out earlier, this number understates the risk
for light GA personal flying by a factor of two. The overwhelming majority
of auto injuries are minor, some are not even noticed before the ambulance
chaser suggest them. If you rephrased the question including the fact that
the flying is 12 times as likely to result in death but the auto has a
higher chance of minor injury, I doubt if anyone would consider flying to be
safer.

Mike
MU-2




"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
> Why am I using the composite automobile numbers when highway numbers
> are much higher (more dangerous)? Why am I using *any* set of numbers?
> If we can pick and chose the numbers we want, we can 'prove' virtually
> anything. It made the most sense to me, when comparing 'travel by car'
> to 'travel by GA plane' to use the figures for *all* cars vs. *all* GA
> planes.
>
> Please feel free to break out 'self-piloted' GA numbers from the total
> number of hours, the total number of deaths and the total number of
> injuries if you so wish...but when you analyse the question 'Will you
> be safer on a 1000 mile trip if you travel by car or by GA airplane?'
> *Even if* you use the '50% higher' figures you want to use, you will
> STILL find that
>
> If 'safety' = 'probability of arriving at your destination without
> injury or death', then travel by GA plane (personal flying), is
> *still* safer than travel by car.
>
> If 'safety' = 'probability of not getting killed before reaching your
> destination', then travel by car is safer than travel by GA (personal
> flying).
>
> It depends on which definition you want to use. What is 'safe'? Just
> for giggles, I asked that question ("Which of these two definitions
> would you personally use in determeing if something was safe or not?")
> to 8 non-aviator co-workers today. 6 of them said 'Injured or killed'
> (which favors GA) and 2 of them said 'killed' (which favors cars).
>
> The numbers don't lie tho...to say that aviation is 'less safe' than
> car travel, one has to use a particular definition of 'safe'. You may
> feel it is the 'better' definition. I don't.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cap
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> et>...
>> > Let's look at the 'miles per incident' rates for various events:
>> >
>> > Event Automobile Plane
>> > --------------------------------------------------------
>> > Deaths 36,837,209 8,029,030
>> > Injuries 495,000 1,742,969
>> > Accidents 251,429 2,614,453
>> > Total Casualties 488,437 1,432,087
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Now, from these statistics, it is pretty clear that your chances of
>> > dying in a GA plane are significantly higher (per mile) than in an
>> > automobile. But they are both quite low.
>> >
>> > But, your chances of being a 'casualty' (being injured *or* killed) is
>> > *much* greater in a car than in an airplane. There is one casualty for
>> > every 488,000 miles in a car...only one for every 1,432,000 miles in a
>> > GA plane. Additionally, you are *10 times* as likely to be in a car
>> > wreck (again per mile) than in a plane wreck. But again, they are
>> > still pretty low.
>
>
>> Why are you using the composite light GA numbers when personal flying has
>> an
>> accident rate 50% higher?
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2

[C Kingsbury]

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...

> It made the most sense to me, when comparing 'travel by car'
> to 'travel by GA plane' to use the figures for *all* cars vs. *all* GA
> planes.

Except that it doesn't, really. A 500-hour pilot flying an Arrow and two
ATPs cuing the FMS on a Gulfstream V are about as different as a wheelbarrow
and a submarine. Even owner-flown jets and turboprops rarely match the
safety record of profesionally-crewed flights in the same equipment. The
data are unambiguous on this point.

> It depends on which definition you want to use. What is 'safe'? Just
> for giggles, I asked that question ("Which of these two definitions
> would you personally use in determeing if something was safe or not?")
> to 8 non-aviator co-workers today. 6 of them said 'Injured or killed'
> (which favors GA) and 2 of them said 'killed' (which favors cars).

As any exit pollster will tell you, how people answer the question is
largely determined by how you ask it.

Try asking the question this way: "Activity A is three times more likely to
cause you an injury than Activity B. Activity B is four and a half times
more likely to kill you than Activity A. Which sounds like the safer
activity?"

Another problem is that you're not weighting for the severity of injury.
Breaking an arm and being paralyzed from the neck down are thus being
counted the same. Without knowing this breakdown we can only guess at what's
going on.

> The numbers don't lie tho...to say that aviation is 'less safe' than
> car travel, one has to use a particular definition of 'safe'. You may
> feel it is the 'better' definition. I don't.

By your own tortured numbers you are 4.5 times as likely to die in a plane
crash as a car crash. QED.

-cwk.

[CV]

Morgans wrote:
> "Back_To_Flying" > wrote
>>Ok, unlike you I have done some research on this then . Driving is the
>>leading cause of death for American drivers between 15 - 20 years of age.
> Stating an argument like that, shows you have little to no grasp of
> statistics.
>
> Everyone (nearly) drives. Everyone does not fly.

Well over 90% of all deaths occur in bed. Seems to be the single
most dangerous place to be.

Stay away from them ! ;o)

Cheers CV

[Neil Gould]

Recently, C Kingsbury > posted:
(largely snipped for brevity)
>
> The only thing we don't believe in is the unpreventable accident. When
> someone dies of cancer, the family sues the doctor for not finding it
> sooner. When someone dies in a car crash, the automaker is sued
> because a properly-designed car should allow the driver to survive
> rolling off the road at sixty miles an hour. Every accident happens
> for a reason, and since we know airplanes run out of gas, shouldn't
> we design ones that can't?
>
> Believe me, the problem runs far deeper than a misplaced belief in the
> safety of small planes.
>
A most excellent summary of the "modern human's" state of mind. Thanks for
posting this!

Neil

[Captain Wubba]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message et>...
> "Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > It made the most sense to me, when comparing 'travel by car'
> > to 'travel by GA plane' to use the figures for *all* cars vs. *all* GA
> > planes.
>
> Except that it doesn't, really. A 500-hour pilot flying an Arrow and two
> ATPs cuing the FMS on a Gulfstream V are about as different as a wheelbarrow
> and a submarine. Even owner-flown jets and turboprops rarely match the
> safety record of profesionally-crewed flights in the same equipment. The
> data are unambiguous on this point.

Indeed. And since we are comparing 'autos' to 'GA Airplanes', then if
you are going to start teasing out certain components from one side to
make the data appear a certain way, then we need to tease the data out
from the other side as well. Highway travel, for instance, is
significantly more deadly than local driving. So...do you want to
tease out 'car trips over 200 miles' and compare them to 'plane trips
over 200 miles'? How about 'Plane trips over 200 miles flown by pilots
over 25 years of age' versus 'car trips over 200 miles made by....'
You want to talk 'wheelbarrows' and 'submarines'? Then it is equally
unfair to use auto statistics that include 100 drivers driving 2 miles
to the video store each way and back and comparing that to a Mooney
driver flying a 400 mile XC in hard IFR at night. And when you start
teasing out all the possible permutations, the data really becomes
meaningless. Is it *really* useful to know that travelling 300 miles
at night in the Southwest US during October, you are 3.16 times more
likely to be injured in a car than in an airplane?

I'm not arguing that professionally flown aircraft are safer.
Professionally driven cars are safer too. But even increasing the
accident, injury, and death per hour rates by 50%, you *still* find
that by using GA (even owner-flown) you are *still* more likely to
arrive at your destination without a scratch (i.e. without being
injured or killed) than if you take that same trip by car.

>
> > It depends on which definition you want to use. What is 'safe'? Just
> > for giggles, I asked that question ("Which of these two definitions
> > would you personally use in determeing if something was safe or not?")
> > to 8 non-aviator co-workers today. 6 of them said 'Injured or killed'
> > (which favors GA) and 2 of them said 'killed' (which favors cars).
>
> As any exit pollster will tell you, how people answer the question is
> largely determined by how you ask it.
>
> Try asking the question this way: "Activity A is three times more likely to
> cause you an injury than Activity B. Activity B is four and a half times
> more likely to kill you than Activity A. Which sounds like the safer
> activity?"

Indeed. And I can ask the exact same question a different way and get
a different response. I understand what and agree with what you are
saying.

>
> Another problem is that you're not weighting for the severity of injury.
> Breaking an arm and being paralyzed from the neck down are thus being
> counted the same. Without knowing this breakdown we can only guess at what's
> going on.
>
> > The numbers don't lie tho...to say that aviation is 'less safe' than
> > car travel, one has to use a particular definition of 'safe'. You may
> > feel it is the 'better' definition. I don't.
>
> By your own tortured numbers you are 4.5 times as likely to die in a plane
> crash as a car crash. QED.

Well, that isn't quite 'true' The liklihood of dying in any event is
proportional to the time spend performing it. But basically you are
right...and you are 4 times more likely to be injured per mile while
driving a car than flying. But to have a 'serious' (i.e. 10%)
probability of dying in *either*, one would have to spent several
*years* doing either as a full time job. And in aviation, it's been
very clearly shown that low-time pilots (under 350 hours) have a
*vastly* higher accident and death rate than more experienced pilots
(See "The Killing Zone", by Paul A. Craig), then the more you fly, the
lower your odds per mile traveled of dying becomes. I doubt that is
the case withd riving, but I don't know.

This issue is harder to get a hold of than some people seem to think.
It is *not* as simple as just saying 'GA aviation is more dangerous
than driving' It is *provable* that if you define 'more dangerous' as
'more likely to experience injury or death', then GA is actually
clearly *safer* than driving. if you define 'more dangerous' as 'more
likely to experience death', then GA travel is clearly *more
dangerous*.

Cheers,

Cap




>
> -cwk.

[Michael]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote
> Believe me, the problem runs far deeper than a misplaced belief in the
> safety of small planes.

So do you know how many successful lawsuits there have been against
parachute manufacturers? The answer is zero. The last attempt I
heard about was against Relative Workshop. It was eventually settled
by the PLAINTIFF (the woman who got hurt) paying the DEFENDANT (the
manufacturer of the parachute system) for legal expenses.

So what's the difference? Why do parachute manufacturers win all the
lawsuits against them, but the aircraft manufacturers don't?

The answer, my friend, is HONESTY. First of all, skydivers are honest
about the risks they take (mostly, anyway). There's a real "Blue
Skies, Black Death" attitude that is prevalent. Second, the
manufacturers are honest. They tell you that this **** could fail and
kill you - up front and in big letters, not in the fine print. And
you sign a waiver.

Personally, I would love to see a similar approach to little
airplanes.

Michael

[Captain Wubba]

Sure. We can rephrase the question to get any answer you are looking
for. Let me know which answer you want to hear...I'll give you the
'right' question to ask. The question I 'choose' to look at is "Which
mode of travel is more likely to get me from point A 100 miles to
point B without injury or death?" Well, the answer to *that specific*
question is PROVABLY 'general aviation flying' over 'automobile'. Even
'owner flown GA' over automobile. You want to ask a different
question? Only considering deaths? Fine...you'll get the answer that
GA travel is less safe.

And by the way, the Nall Report only covers Fixed Wing GA aircraft
weighing under 12,500 lbs. So that takes out many of the profesionally
driven G-IVs, Lears, Citations, Challengers, etc.

You want to break out the numbers to prove various things? Great.
Multiengine flying is *much* more dangerous than single engine flying,
at least in GA, per the Nall Report. Multiengine aircraft flew
something along the lines of 8% of GA hours, but were responsible for
almost 22% of fatalities. Should we tell people that, statistically,
if they only fly in single engine planes they will be much safer than
if they fly in multiengine GA planes? Lets look at hours. According
to the Nall Report, almost 80% of accidents involved pilots with less
than 500 hours in type. So should we break it out and tell the
original poster 'Well, once your husband reaches 500 hours in type, he
becomes *much* safer, statistically?'. Almost 40% of accidents
involved pilots with less than 500 hours total. Should we tell her
that once he hits 500 hours, he's safe to fly with?

So what numbers should we use? I chose to use 'all' GA versus 'all'
auto travel. Which definition of 'safe' should we use?

Either way, there is not much chance of dying in either. In a GA
airplane, I'd have to fly almost 8000 hours before I even had a 10%
chance of dying in a plane. But by then, of course, my risk per hour
would be much lower since high-time pilots are clearly much safer than
low-time pilots. I don't think that would apply to driving.

But either way, I'm not worrying much about it. For that 10%
probability of dying in an airplane to happen I'd have to fly *very*
actively...10 hours per week, every week, month-in and month-out for
over 15 years.

And one of the other issues was about how much pilot 'personality' and
decision making affects safety. Let's just look at single-engine
fixed-wing travel for the moment...that accounted for 412 deaths in
2001. Maneuvering flight accidents are almost *always* avoidable.
Actually pretty easy to avoid...don't buzz, always watch your
airspeed, coordinate your turns...the basic stuff I drill into primary
students all the time. Maneuvering accidents accounted for 38% of
fixed-wing single-engine fatal accidents. Weather-related incidents
accounted for another 10% of fatal accidents.

OK. This isn't rocket science. If a pilot is suffucuently well trained
and disciplined to *never* buzz, to *always* go around when an landing
looks shaky [so they don't have to do erratic maneuvering to get back
to the centerline], *never* go below the sector safe altitue, unless
you know precisely where every obstacle is, and *never* fly unless you
know that the weather is well above marginal VFR conditions, then that
pilot has removed himself from the conditions that cause nearly 50% of
all fatal accidents.

If you fly with/as a pilot who is able to avoid those conditions that
lead to those deaths (actually pretty easy to fix, with sufficient
training and discipline), then you are left with an accident
probability of 1/2 of what it is for all GA pilots taken as a whole.

If you remove those, do you know how many fatal accidents would have
occurred in 2001, in single-engine fixed-wing planes? 65. Total.

Take these numbers with some 'reasonable' assumptions, and now you are
up near one fatality for every 15 million miles, with a pilot
'disciplined' and well-trained enough to not out himself in
circumstances where a manevuvering or weather incident is likely.

So basically, if you fly with a pilot in a fixed-wing single, who is
proficient, who is well trained, and who is disciplined enough to
avoid the almost-entirely avoidable accidents involving weather and
maneuvering, then you are in a situation where, before you would have
even an 0.1 probability of dying in an aircraft accident, you'd have
to fly with him 10 hours per week, every week of every month, for *30
years*. Is that safe enough for you?

As I said before, there are lots of ways to look at the numbers...and
depending on how you want to slice and dice them, and which questions
you choose to ask, you can find anything. But in the end, as a CFI and
as a pilot, I feel *very* comfortable telling people (truthfully) that
general aviation is quite safe. And I believe I have the evidence to
back that up.


Cheers,

Chris



"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message et>...
> I would say safety is a function of surviving the trip! Your last numbers
> showed a fatal accident rate for aircraft 4.6 time greater than for autos on
> a per mile basis. Looking at another set of numbers for autos, the NTSB
> shows a rate of 1.48 fatal accidents/100 million miles. Converting the NTSB
> data for GA to miles (assuming 125kts and 1.15 sm/nm) we get 9.46 fatals/100
> million miles and as I pointed out earlier, this number understates the risk
> for light GA personal flying by a factor of two. The overwhelming majority
> of auto injuries are minor, some are not even noticed before the ambulance
> chaser suggest them. If you rephrased the question including the fact that
> the flying is 12 times as likely to result in death but the auto has a
> higher chance of minor injury, I doubt if anyone would consider flying to be
> safer.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>
>

[Michael]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote
> "Well, we're going to tie a rubber band around your ankles and
> > throw you off a bridge."
>
> You make is sound like a crazy thing to do!

It is.

Also sort of fun.

But going off a bridge with a parachute is more fun.

BTDT

Michael

[Dan Luke]

"Happy Dog" wrote:
> > We watch the weather closely, and carefully pick our times to fly. We
> > ALWAYS refuel after every flight, so that we always have full tanks.
> > Since we can fly non-stop for over 5 hours, this pretty much eliminates
> > the "running out of gas" scenario.
>
> I don't know why more pilots don't do this.

Well, sometimes it doesn't make sense.

I'll give you an example: I got back from Houston last Friday with tanks
half full; thirty+ gallons. Yesterday I flew to Dothan, about a 1.1-hour
trip. Why would I tank up and lug 30 more gallons up to cruise altitude when
I already had 3 hours fuel aboard? On top of that, fuel is 20c/gal. cheaper
at Dothan, so I saved $6 by filling up there.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Brian Case]

"Just fun I took a detailed look at a random sample of accidents from
the NTSB Web Site.

Admittedly this is just a small random sample and may or probably not
be representative of the overall statistics. Also some interpretation
as to what happened each of these accidents is involved.

I Selected the Month of May 2004 as being a likely month of slightly
above average General aviation Activity. Currently I have only looked
at May 1 thru May 15th.

I included only Single engine General Aviation activities.

Here is a summary of these dates:

54 total accidents or incidents

5 accidents had Fatalities. Fatal accident rate = 9.2%
I read this to mean if involved in an accident there is a 9.2%
chance of a fatality occurring or a 91.8% chance it will not be fatal.
Fatal Causes were: IMC Weather, Unknown loss of control, flying low,
Off airport landing, Pilot skill issue.

16 Mechanical related accidents, at least 3 should have been
preventable with better pilot skill or judgment.
INTERESTING: NONE OF THE MECHNICALS WERE FATAL

13 Pilot Skill related accident where better pilot skills or judgement
would likely have prevented. Only one of these was FATAL.

7 Fuel Related accidents (Ran out, Contaminated, or did not manage
properly)

3 due to flying to low

5 due to Instructor Skill/Judgment ie. The instructor should have
prevented it.

2 due to off airport landings

2 Turbulance

1 Other – Backhoe backed into a taxing airplane

1 IMC conditions

1 Unknown – Loss of control for unknown reasons


Note this does not say anything about how safe flying is, since it
does not reference at all how much total flight time or was flown
during this time period. All it does say is the "Crashing is
dangerous" and if you crash here are the statistics as to how you will
most likely do it in the 1st part of May.












Here is the data I used

Factual Philadelphia, MS Sawyer Skybolt
N32DS Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Low
Preliminary Elberta, AL Cessna 182A
N5099D Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Fuel parachute
Probable Cause 7/29/2004 Harrisonville, MO Cessna 172K
N7448G Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
dual
Factual Cambridge, OH Krotje VM-1 Esqual
N626EA Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
mech experimental
Probable Cause 7/29/2004 Phoenix, AZ Cessna 182K
N2493Q Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Skill
Preliminary Riverside, CA Cessna 195
N195AF Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Skill
Probable Cause 9/29/2004 Laurel, MT Piper PA-18-105
N5483H Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Low
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Probable Cause 7/29/2004 Lake Dallas, TX Cessna 150J
N60539 Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Mech/Skill
Monday, May 03, 2004
Probable Cause 9/1/2004 Winder, GA Beech BE-65 (LF-23F)
N870KS Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Skill/Fuel
Preliminary Cary, NC Mooney M20M
N91514 Fatal(2) Part 91: General Aviation
Fatal Weather IFR
Probable Cause 7/29/2004 Goldthwaite, TX Cessna 150E
N3050J Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Fuel
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Probable Cause 9/1/2004 Odessa, FL Cessna 172N
N737HW Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Skill
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Preliminary Cumming, GA Gary Bergmann RANS
S-12XL N8KD Fatal(1) Part 91: General Aviation
Fatal Low experimental
Probable Cause 6/30/2004 Schaumburg, IL Cessna 172P
N65752 Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation

Probable Cause 7/29/2004 Falcon, CO Ercoupe (Eng & Research
Corp.) N94405 Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Turbulance
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Factual Kasilof, AK Piper PA-18
N2521S Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Off airport
Probable Cause 9/29/2004 Blounts Creek, NC Riggs Skyraider 1
N321TR Fatal(1) Part 91: General Aviation
Fatal Fuel/Contamination experimental
Probable Cause 7/29/2004 Fort Pierce, FL Beech H35
N87AD Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Skill
Probable Cause 9/1/2004 Pottstown, PA Cessna 152
N94577 Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Dual
Friday, May 07, 2004
Probable Cause 9/29/2004 Paragonah, UT Branham Vans RV-6
N29KB Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Fuel experimental
Probable Cause 9/29/2004 Natrona, WY Crimmins Smyth
Sidewinder N92AC Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
fuel/contamination experimental
Probable Cause 9/29/2004 Many, LA Piper PA-28-181
N21131 Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Skill
Preliminary Tipton, CA Rocket Flyers LLC
N724TL Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Mech experimental
Factual Sharon, MA Cessna T-50
N45P Fatal(1) Part 91: General Aviation
Fatal Off airport
Saturday, May 08, 2004
Probable Cause 7/29/2004 Mayetta, KS Villeneuve RV-3
N12JV Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Skill/Wind experimental
Probable Cause 7/29/2004 DeKalb, IL Piper PA-28RT-201
N81898 Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
dual
Probable Cause 10/28/2004 Englewood, CO Cessna A185E
N185K Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Fuel
Probable Cause 9/29/2004 Fort Stockton, TX Aeronca 7AC
N3708E Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Mech/Skill
Factual Cumberland, MD Taylorcraft BC
N26644 Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Turbulance
Probable Cause 7/29/2004 Crystal River, FL Beech A23A
N3659Q Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Mech/Skill
Probable Cause 9/1/2004 Shirley, NY Cessna 170B
N1754D Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Mech
Sunday, May 09, 2004
Probable Cause 7/29/2004 Hartford, WI Piper PA-12
N2368M Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Mech
Probable Cause 9/29/2004 Georgetown, TX Diamond Aircraft
Industries DA N89SE Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Midair
Probable Cause 9/29/2004 Georgetown, TX Giles 202
N202XS Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Midair
Factual Broadview, MT 2003 Nash Kitfox II
N308KF Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Mech expermental
Monday, May 10, 2004
Probable Cause 9/1/2004 Oil City, LA Piper PA-38-112
N24007 Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Mech/Skill
Factual Daytona Beach, FL Beech A36
N3670S Incident Part 91: General Aviation
Mech
Probable Cause 9/1/2004 Battle Ground, WA Cessna 172P
N54477 Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Dual/Wind
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Preliminary Chamblee, GA Cessna 172RG
N6562V Incident Part 91: General Aviation
Mech
Preliminary Cortland, AL Piper PA-28-140
N7123R Fatal(1) Part 91: General Aviation
Fatal Skill
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Preliminary Lake Worth, FL Beech K35
N551PK Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Mech
Probable Cause 9/1/2004 Halifax, MA Aviat A-1B
N17MR Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Skill
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Probable Cause 9/1/2004 Grantham, NC Loehle Ent. 2/3
Earlybird Jenn N112PE Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Mech Experimental
Probable Cause 7/29/2004 Tucson, AZ Piper PA-28-161
N84245 Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Other
Preliminary Carson City, NV Piper PA-28-180
N7584W Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Skill
Probable Cause 9/1/2004 Wauseon, OH Fraker Mustang II
N78K Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Mech Experimental
Factual Shelton, WA Piper PA-22-20
N1829P Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Mech
Friday, May 14, 2004
Preliminary New Bern, NC Piper PA-32-260
N3260W Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Mech
Probable Cause 9/1/2004 Kingman, AZ Cessna 180
N6430X Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Dual/Skill
Factual Lancaster, CA Downer Bellanca 14-19-2
N7658B Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Fuel/Skill
Factual Paulden, AZ Cessna T182T
N5341G Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Skill
Probable Cause 9/1/2004 Sacramento, KY Cessna 150
N7795E Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Skill/wind
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Probable Cause 7/29/2004 Fort Leavenwort, KS Cessna 172C
N1806Y Nonfatal Part 91: General Aviation
Skill
Preliminary Supai, AZ Bachman Lancair IV P
N299SD Fatal(4) Part 91: General Aviation
Fatal Unknown

[Happy Dog]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> "Happy Dog" wrote:
>> > We watch the weather closely, and carefully pick our times to fly. We
>> > ALWAYS refuel after every flight, so that we always have full tanks.
>> > Since we can fly non-stop for over 5 hours, this pretty much eliminates
>> > the "running out of gas" scenario.
>>
>> I don't know why more pilots don't do this.
>
> Well, sometimes it doesn't make sense.
> I'll give you an example: I got back from Houston last Friday with tanks
> half full; thirty+ gallons. Yesterday I flew to Dothan, about a 1.1-hour
> trip. Why would I tank up and lug 30 more gallons up to cruise altitude
> when
> I already had 3 hours fuel aboard?

If there's *no* chance of weather being a factor, then that's more than
reasonable.

> On top of that, fuel is 20c/gal. cheaper
> at Dothan, so I saved $6 by filling up there.

I assume this is a joke...

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Michael" > wrote in message
> So what's the difference? Why do parachute manufacturers win all the
> lawsuits against them, but the aircraft manufacturers don't?
>
> The answer, my friend, is HONESTY. First of all, skydivers are honest
> about the risks they take (mostly, anyway).

I really doubt this. It's lawyers and the silly litagous legal system that
make obscene reward settlements a fact of life. I don't believe for a
second that almost all families of dead jumpers would refuse a chance for a
big settlement. And, the fact that parachute manufacturers do get sued
suggests something else is going on. Maybe judges recognize that only an
insane person would jump out of a perfectly good airplane.

> There's a real "Blue
> Skies, Black Death" attitude that is prevalent. Second, the
> manufacturers are honest. They tell you that this **** could fail and
> kill you - up front and in big letters, not in the fine print. And
> you sign a waiver.

Does the waiver relate to the jump facility AND the manufacturer?

moo

[C Kingsbury]

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...

>
> This issue is harder to get a hold of than some people seem to think.
> It is *not* as simple as just saying 'GA aviation is more dangerous
> than driving' It is *provable* that if you define 'more dangerous' as
> 'more likely to experience injury or death', then GA is actually
> clearly *safer* than driving. if you define 'more dangerous' as 'more
> likely to experience death', then GA travel is clearly *more
> dangerous*.

One of my statistics profs in college was fond of saying, "If you torture
the data long enough, eventually it will confess to anything."

It might be that for an IFR pilot to go up and putter around in a 172 for an
hour or two on a nice VFR day is safer than the proverbial drive to the
airport. If he invites a friend to come along, he could reasonably answer
the "how safe is it" question, "safer than the drive to the airport." It is,
on that flight.

But the OP's question was basically, "is my husbnad going to kill himself in
an airplane one of these days." If he does, odds are it isn't going to be on
a sunny Saturday morning. But if his flying contains a mix of conditions,
we'd need to take into account all the types of flying he does. And then you
get into the game of whether a pilot who flies regular IFR is safer because
he's more skilled and able to handle bad conditions, or more likely to get
killed because he "tempts fate" by flying approaches in minimums and such
more often. Guys who fly the bush in Alaska are tremendous airmen but
they're still far more likely to get killed flying a plane than a weekend
hamburger-fetcher in Connecticut.

So rather than falling down the rabbit hole, you look at the gross average,
which by its nature weights for all the possibilities. Imperfectly, to be
sure, as all statistical measures are. But it is by far more valid for
forecasting purposes than picking-and-choosing at every level.

-cwk.

[Matt Barrow]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Carnivorous, eh?

A veritable "Litle Shop of Horrors".

(Next summer or so, when my wife shoots the annual "rattlesnake in the
garden", I'll post the picture.)

>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
> > C Kingsbury wrote:
> >
> > > I'm with Mike on this. Flying is higher risk than gardening.
> >
> > You've not seen the weeds in my garden.
> >

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I would say safety is a function of surviving the trip! Your last numbers
> showed a fatal accident rate for aircraft 4.6 time greater than for autos
on
> a per mile basis. Looking at another set of numbers for autos, the NTSB
> shows a rate of 1.48 fatal accidents/100 million miles. Converting the
NTSB
> data for GA to miles (assuming 125kts and 1.15 sm/nm) we get 9.46
fatals/100
> million miles and as I pointed out earlier, this number understates the
risk
> for light GA personal flying by a factor of two. The overwhelming
majority
> of auto injuries are minor, some are not even noticed before the ambulance
> chaser suggest them. If you rephrased the question including the fact
that
> the flying is 12 times as likely to result in death but the auto has a
> higher chance of minor injury, I doubt if anyone would consider flying to
be
> safer.
>

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater
degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness,
incapacity, or neglect." -- Unknown

[Mike Rapoport]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael" > wrote in message
>> So what's the difference? Why do parachute manufacturers win all the
>> lawsuits against them, but the aircraft manufacturers don't?
>>
>> The answer, my friend, is HONESTY. First of all, skydivers are honest
>> about the risks they take (mostly, anyway).
>
> I really doubt this. It's lawyers and the silly litagous legal system
> that make obscene reward settlements a fact of life. I don't believe for
> a second that almost all families of dead jumpers would refuse a chance
> for a big settlement. And, the fact that parachute manufacturers do get
> sued suggests something else is going on. Maybe judges recognize that
> only an insane person would jump out of a perfectly good airplane.
>
>> There's a real "Blue
>> Skies, Black Death" attitude that is prevalent. Second, the
>> manufacturers are honest. They tell you that this **** could fail and
>> kill you - up front and in big letters, not in the fine print. And
>> you sign a waiver.
>
> Does the waiver relate to the jump facility AND the manufacturer?
>
> moo


I think that Michael's point is that virtually everybody recognizes that
there is risk in skydiving but prefers to think that flying is as safe as
driving. Nobody takes their two year old skydiving.

Mike
MU-2

[aluckyguess]

"CV" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>> "Back_To_Flying" > wrote
>>>Ok, unlike you I have done some research on this then . Driving is the
>>>leading cause of death for American drivers between 15 - 20 years of age.
>> Stating an argument like that, shows you have little to no grasp of
>> statistics.
>>
>> Everyone (nearly) drives. Everyone does not fly.
>
> Well over 90% of all deaths occur in bed. Seems to be the single
> most dangerous place to be.
>
I person once told me you can sleep when you die.
> Stay away from them ! ;o)
>
> Cheers CV

[Happy Dog]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in

> I think that Michael's point is that virtually everybody recognizes that
> there is risk in skydiving but prefers to think that flying is as safe as
> driving. Nobody takes their two year old skydiving.

I'd like to see some stats on accidents vs. lawsuits before I believe that
dead skydivers' families are that different from dead pilots' families.

moo

[Dan Luke]

"Happy Dog" wrote:
>> I already had 3 hours fuel aboard
>
> If there's *no* chance of weather being a factor, then that's more
> than reasonable.

I might add 10 gallons if my alternate required it, but three hours'
fuel is normally plenty of IFR reserve for a one hour trip. No way I'd
top off.

>> On top of that, fuel is 20c/gal. cheaper
>> at Dothan, so I saved $6 by filling up there.
>
> I assume this is a joke...

Of course not. Why would you think so?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Captain Wubba]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message et>...

>
> But the OP's question was basically, "is my husbnad going to kill himself in
> an airplane one of these days."
>
> So rather than falling down the rabbit hole, you look at the gross average,
> which by its nature weights for all the possibilities. Imperfectly, to be
> sure, as all statistical measures are. But it is by far more valid for
> forecasting purposes than picking-and-choosing at every level.
>
> -cwk.

Exactly. Which is precisely why I chose to use *all* auto statistics
versus *all* GA Fixed-wing data. The Nall Report doesn't cover the
G-IVs and Citations of the world..it covers planes below 12,500
lbs...which is the kind of plane her husband will be flying.

And without trying to bend the data one way ot the other, taking *all*
of the data for light fixed-wing aircraft, we come to the conclusion
that her husband is more likely to arrive at his destination *without
a scratch* if he flys GA, but more likely to arrive *alive* of he
travels in an auto.

And either way, he is *very* likely to be fine. To have even a 10%
probability of dying in an aircraft accident, one would have to fky 10
hours every week, of every month, of every year for over 15
years...we're not talking about the danger of explosive ordnance
disposal versus sitting in a rocking chair knitting. Both are 'safe',
and their relative safety (as borne out by the statistical data)
depends on whoch question you ask.

Cheers,

Cap

[Happy Dog]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>> If there's *no* chance of weather being a factor, then that's more than
>> reasonable.
>
> I might add 10 gallons if my alternate required it, but three hours' fuel
> is normally plenty of IFR reserve for a one hour trip. No way I'd top
> off.

Hell yes.
>
>>> On top of that, fuel is 20c/gal. cheaper
>>> at Dothan, so I saved $6 by filling up there.
>>
>> I assume this is a joke...
>
> Of course not. Why would you think so?

6$ in the aviation business is like a QM effect in the world of Newtonian
Mechanics. And, it sounds like a bad reason to take a risk. But, anyone
who plans reserves in hours is not in the fuel exhaustion risk category
should be entitled to *anything* that six dollars might buy. Cheers etc.

Moo

[Cub Driver]

On 2 Dec 2004 11:29:59 -0800,
(Michael) wrote:

>Anyone who flies a taildragger from the back seat knows you can't see
>crap from there - but there are controls there anyway.

In the case of the J-3 Cub, the controls are there for a very good
reason: the airplane is or ought to be placarded "Solo From Rear Seat
Only".

As a matter of fact, I've never flown a J-3 from the front seat, but
I'm told that the viz up there is actually worse. (The big problem
flying from the rear seat is not what you see of the airfield or the
sky; it's what you don't see of the instruments with a passenger in
the front seat.)

I have flown a PA-18 Super Cub from the front, but the seat is higher,
since that is the expected pilot's location.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Cub Driver]

On 3 Dec 2004 07:30:05 -0800,
(Michael) wrote:

>The last attempt I
>heard about was against Relative Workshop. It was eventually settled
>by the PLAINTIFF (the woman who got hurt) paying the DEFENDANT (the
>manufacturer of the parachute system) for legal expenses.

Not in the U.S., I reckon?

This sounds like the British rule, where the loser pays the winner's
legal expenses. Very sensible.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Neil Gould]

Hi Captain Wubba,

I've read your contributions to this thread, and appreciate your usage of
logic and statistical analysis. I'm pleased that some people can integrate
the two into a sensible understanding of risk!

Recently, Captain Wubba > posted:
(mostly snipped for brevity)
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
>>
>> But the OP's question was basically, "is my husbnad going to kill
>> himself in an airplane one of these days."
>>
[...]
>
> And without trying to bend the data one way ot the other, taking *all*
> of the data for light fixed-wing aircraft, we come to the conclusion
> that her husband is more likely to arrive at his destination *without
> a scratch* if he flys GA, but more likely to arrive *alive* of he
> travels in an auto.
>
The above appears to be a mutually exclusive statement. I'd state this a
little differently, taking into account your earlier analysis: "...her
husband is more likely to arrive at his destination *without a scratch* if
he flys GA, but [*if involved in an accident* he'd be] more likely to
arrive *alive* of (SIC) he travels in an auto.

> And either way, he is *very* likely to be fine.
>
This is the salient point. The chances of being involved in an accident in
either mode of transportation is quite low.

Regards,

Neil

[Dan Luke]

"Happy Dog" wrote:
>> I might add 10 gallons if my alternate required it, but three hours'
fuel
>> is normally plenty of IFR reserve for a one hour trip. No way I'd
>> top off.
>
> Hell yes.

Is that hell yes, you would or hell yes, you wouldn't?

>>>> On top of that, fuel is 20c/gal. cheaper
>>>> at Dothan, so I saved $6 by filling up there.
>>>
>>> I assume this is a joke...
>>
>> Of course not. Why would you think so?
>
> 6$ in the aviation business is like a QM effect in the world of
> Newtonian Mechanics.

Hee-hee! That's a beauty! :) Request permission to use it on another
ng. I'll trade you "In the big picture, it's a few pixels."

> And, it sounds like a bad reason to take a risk. But, anyone who
> plans reserves in hours is not in the fuel exhaustion risk category
> should be entitled to *anything* that six dollars might buy.

Lunch at Burger King?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Happy Dog]

"Dan Luke" >
> >> I might add 10 gallons if my alternate required it, but three hours'
> fuel is normally plenty of IFR reserve for a one hour trip. No way I'd
>>> top off.
>>
>> Hell yes.
>
> Is that hell yes, you would or hell yes, you wouldn't?

Three hours is good almost anywhere.

>> 6$ in the aviation business is like a QM effect in the world of Newtonian
>> Mechanics.
>
> Hee-hee! That's a beauty! :) Request permission to use it on another
> ng. I'll trade you "In the big picture, it's a few pixels."

As you will. Study physics when you're done your ATP.

moo

[Stefan]

Happy Dog wrote:

>> ALWAYS refuel after every flight, so that we always have full tanks.

> I don't know why more pilots don't do this.

I don't know what you are flying, but with the planes I fly, full tanks
aren't an option unless I want to fly alone.

Stefan

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Happy Dog asks;

> Does the waiver relate to the jump facility AND the manufacturer?

I jumped once, just to see what it was like. The first thing that they
do when you get to the jump facility (at least the one that I went to in
Maine), was tell you that it's real dangerous, and that you could get
killed. Then, they sat us down and showed us a 1/2 hour long movie of
parachuting accidents (real ones), with folks falling out of the sky,
hitting the ground, and dying. After that, they asked us to sign
waivers that said that no matter what happened, EVEN IF THE PILOT OF THE
JUMP PLANE CRASHED ON PURPOSE (and similar wording for just about every
other possibility) that we wouldn't sue anyone, and that we were
completely aware of all the dangers.

Obviously, we couldn't sign away anyone ELSE's right to sue, so I'm sure
that if I had been killed my wife would have approached a lawyer, but
the fact that I signed a document that showed that I understood ALL the
risks, even the absurdly remote ones (like the pilot crashing on
purpose) means that she'd never win.

Anyway, the waivers I signed applied to everyone and anyone that had
ever been born, much less the facility and MFG.

It was an interesting experience :-).

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

[C Kingsbury]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in
>
> > I think that Michael's point is that virtually everybody recognizes that
> > there is risk in skydiving but prefers to think that flying is as safe
as
> > driving. Nobody takes their two year old skydiving.
>
> I'd like to see some stats on accidents vs. lawsuits before I believe that
> dead skydivers' families are that different from dead pilots' families.

I doubt they are. It's just a question of likelihood of winning the suit,
which I suppose gets back to Michael's point. But I maintain that the
general culture of lawyers versus responsibility remains the real problem.

A funny story. Back in the late 80s my father was in a car accident when an
old woman crossed the double yellow on a blind turn. He walked away from it,
but after a few weeks his back started to hurt terribly and he eventually
had to have an operation for a herniated disk. A colleague referred him to a
very successful and well-known personal injury lawyer, who at first
suspected that his case would be worth between 250 and 500 thousand dollars
for suffering and lost wages, etc. But when they kicked the old woman's
insurance company they found she had only the minimum $30k coverage.
Moreover, she had quite literally no assets whatsoever. As the senior lawyer
was relating this to my father, one of the younger associates walked in and
said, "hey, Chevy's been having a lot of problems with seat belts in that
year's trucks, we could probably get them for two hundred." My father said,
"but I wasn't wearing my seatbelt." The associate said, "Don't tell me that!
A lot of times people forget things when they've been in an accident." My
father refused to go ahead with the case, but it provided a very revealing
look into how the system works, and this was fifteen years ago.

-cwk.

[Slip'er]

> As you will. Study physics when you're done your ATP.

Physics was one of my favorite classes. It was also one of my worst.
Hamiltonian Operators among other things did me in!

Carl

[Slip'er]

> This sounds like the British rule, where the loser pays the winner's
> legal expenses. Very sensible.

Initially I thought so but there are several reasons why this may not always
be a good idea.

Think of this hypothetical case where Joe CFI gets hit by OJ and needs to
sue. Joe CFI shows up with his ACME attorney charging $300/ hr; which he
really cannot afford. But he truely was hit by OJ who was drunk and fleeing
a murder scene. Now OJ, guilty as can be, shows up with 6 attorneys all
charging $850/hr plus expenses.

Joe loses because the opposing council baffles the crap of of 12 unemployed
postal workers. Now Joe is injured and loses everything and must file
bankrupsy and he was only guilty of being on his way to church.

;-)

Of course it isn't working the way it is now either.

Carl

[Happy Dog]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>>> ALWAYS refuel after every flight, so that we always have full tanks.
>
>> I don't know why more pilots don't do this.
>
> I don't know what you are flying, but with the planes I fly, full tanks
> aren't an option unless I want to fly alone.

It should be obvious that I wasn't suggesting that anyone overload their
aircraft.

m

[Happy Dog]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
> Obviously, we couldn't sign away anyone ELSE's right to sue, so I'm sure
> that if I had been killed my wife would have approached a lawyer, but
> the fact that I signed a document that showed that I understood ALL the
> risks, even the absurdly remote ones (like the pilot crashing on
> purpose) means that she'd never win.

Wrong.

moo

[Brian Burger]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater
> degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness,
> incapacity, or neglect." -- Unknown

"Captain A. G. Lamplugh, British Aviation Insurance Group, London. Circa
early 1930's..." (http://www.skygod.com/quotes/safety.html - 2nd quote
from the top)

I've also seen it elsewhere with the same author credited, so it seems
legit.

I've got it set up as one of my wallpaper images on my PC... One of these
days I'll have to stick some of my aviation wallpaper things up on my
website...

Brian
PP-ASEL/Night
http://www.warbard.ca/avgas/index.html

[Stefan]

Happy Dog wrote:

>>>> ALWAYS refuel after every flight, so that we always have full tanks.

> It should be obvious that I wasn't suggesting that anyone overload their
> aircraft.

If you refuel after each flight to *full* tanks, as suggested, chances
are you will be overload on the next flight unless you drain some fuel.
Maybe not if you're the only pilot who flyes the plane and you have a
certain loading pattern, but certainly in a club (or FBO) environment.

In our club, we *forbid* people to fill the tanks after a flight to more
than two thirds.

(I know it wasn't you who suggested it, but you confirmed the suggestion.)

Stefan

[Dan Luke]

"Happy Dog" wrote:
>>>> ALWAYS refuel after every flight, so that we always have full
>>>> tanks.
>>
>>> I don't know why more pilots don't do this.
>>
>> I don't know what you are flying, but with the planes I fly, full
>> tanks aren't an option unless I want to fly alone.
>
> It should be obvious that I wasn't suggesting that anyone overload
> their aircraft.

No, but you were wondering why more pilots don't "ALWAYS refuel after
every flight, so that [they] always have full tanks," which is a silly
practice unless one ALWAYS knows the next flight will require full
tanks. At my old club, members were asked NOT to fill the tanks after
using the airplanes, so that the next pilot could add fuel appropriate
to his flight.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 06:42:51 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>::

>... so that [they] always have full tanks," which is a silly
>practice unless one ALWAYS knows the next flight will require full
>tanks.

The practice of topping the fuel tanks after each flight rests on the
notion that air contains a certain amount of moisture, and that the
water will condense out of the air contained in partially emptied
tanks and contaminate the aircraft's fuel system.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 20:03:56 -0800, Brian Burger >
wrote in .ca>::

>On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater
>> degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness,
>> incapacity, or neglect." -- Unknown
>
>"Captain A. G. Lamplugh, British Aviation Insurance Group, London. Circa
>early 1930's..." (http://www.skygod.com/quotes/safety.html - 2nd quote
>from the top)

Thank you very much for that link. The quotations there are
remarkable for their original insights and aptly articulated truths.
David English's choice of which to include adds immeasurably the
content. Bravo!

[Dan Luke]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 06:42:51 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>... so that [they] always have full tanks," which is a silly
>>practice unless one ALWAYS knows the next flight will require full
>>tanks.
>
> The practice of topping the fuel tanks after each flight rests on the
> notion that air contains a certain amount of moisture, and that the
> water will condense out of the air contained in partially emptied
> tanks and contaminate the aircraft's fuel system.
>
Which is an old wives tale. The amount of water contained in 20-30
gallons of air is insignificant.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 07:40:00 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 06:42:51 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>>>... so that [they] always have full tanks," which is a silly
>>>practice unless one ALWAYS knows the next flight will require full
>>>tanks.
>>
>> The practice of topping the fuel tanks after each flight rests on the
>> notion that air contains a certain amount of moisture, and that the
>> water will condense out of the air contained in partially emptied
>> tanks and contaminate the aircraft's fuel system.
>>
>Which is an old wives tale. The amount of water contained in 20-30
>gallons of air is insignificant.

A Piper PA28-235 can have 84 gallons of fuel in 4 tanks, so leaving
them half empty, for instance in a humid maritime environment,
overnight where the temperature drops sufficiently to cause the
moisture to condense out of the 40 gallons of air contained in them,
will result in enough water in the fuel system to interfere with
operation of the aircraft's power plant.

However, PA28-235 can carry its empty weight (~1,400 lbs) in useful
load, so weight management through fuel offloading is seldom
necessary.

Personally, I prefer that water never be present in the aircraft fuel
system, especially in aircraft with fuel tank bladders....

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> A Piper PA28-235 can have 84 gallons of fuel in 4 tanks, so leaving
> them half empty, for instance in a humid maritime environment,
> overnight where the temperature drops sufficiently to cause the
> moisture to condense out of the 40 gallons of air contained in them,
> will result in enough water in the fuel system to interfere with
> operation of the aircraft's power plant.

At 40 degrees Celsius, 1 cubic meter of saturated air contains roughly
40 grams of water. (I leave it to you to convert this to US units.)
Hardly significant.

Stefan

[AJW]

>
>> A Piper PA28-235 can have 84 gallons of fuel in 4 tanks, so leaving
>> them half empty, for instance in a humid maritime environment,
>> overnight where the temperature drops sufficiently to cause the
>> moisture to condense out of the 40 gallons of air contained in them,
>> will result in enough water in the fuel system to interfere with
>> operation of the aircraft's power plant.
>
>At 40 degrees Celsius, 1 cubic meter of saturated air contains roughly
>40 grams

That's about one and a third ounces. Remember, if all of the water comes out
of the air, it settles to the bottom, and is either drained or used by the
engine. It would take a lot of such cycles before enough water would be in the
tank to matter. As someone else already said, full tanks to prevent dangerous
condensation is another aviation myth.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 15:29:44 +0100, Stefan >
wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> A Piper PA28-235 can have 84 gallons of fuel in 4 tanks, so leaving
>> them half empty, for instance in a humid maritime environment,
>> overnight where the temperature drops sufficiently to cause the
>> moisture to condense out of the 40 gallons of air contained in them,
>> will result in enough water in the fuel system to interfere with
>> operation of the aircraft's power plant.
>
>At 40 degrees Celsius, 1 cubic meter of saturated air contains roughly
>40 grams of water. (I leave it to you to convert this to US units.)
>Hardly significant.

While the amount of water in the fuel system may be small, so is the
diameter of the fuel lines. In the cool environs at altitude, what is
to prevent the water from forming a frozen 'cork' blocking fuel flow?

Aircraft with fuel bladders that have become deformed or otherwise
lack a smooth bottom surface are capable of trapping significant
amounts of water and preventing it from reaching the fuel sumps for
removal without tipping the wings and other effort. The later model
Cessna 172s now have 10 wing drains as a result.

I submit, that water in an aircraft fuel system has the potential for
disaster. To argue otherwise seems absurd.

[Larry Dighera]

On 05 Dec 2004 15:35:02 GMT, (AJW) wrote
in >::

>Remember, if all of the water comes out of the air, it settles to the bottom,

Even if only some of the water condenses out, that happens.

>and is either drained or used by the engine.

If the water is trapped by an irregular surface at the bottom of the
fuel tank thus preventing it from reaching the sump, it will not be
drained; it will be retained within the tank.

>It would take a lot of such cycles before enough water would be in the
>tank to matter.

While the engine may be able to continue running after ingesting some
water, with an ambient temperature low enough, it wouldn't get fuel if
water in the fuel lines froze. What volume of water is enough to
cause such a frozen plug?

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> I submit, that water in an aircraft fuel system has the potential for
> disaster. To argue otherwise seems absurd.

Nobody argues otherwise. But claiming that condensation caused by
halfways empty tanks is a noteworthy source for that water is equally
absurd. If there is water in your tanks, chances are you buyed it at
fuel price. Another important source is a leaking seal while the plane
is parked in the rain.

But you're correct in one way: If you always fill the tanks after each
flight, there won't be water in the tanks. No, not because there is no
condensation, but because you will have to drain a couple of gallons
before the each flight.

Stefan

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:28:38 +0100, Stefan >
wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> I submit, that water in an aircraft fuel system has the potential for
>> disaster. To argue otherwise seems absurd.
>
>Nobody argues otherwise.

Those who dismiss condensation as a source for water in an aircraft
fuel system have done so.

>But claiming that condensation caused by
>halfways empty tanks is a noteworthy source for that water is equally
>absurd.

How much water does it take to clog an aircraft fuel line when it
freezes? Take a guess?

>If there is water in your tanks, chances are you buyed it at
>fuel price. Another important source is a leaking seal while the plane
>is parked in the rain.

That is borne out by:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X08676&key=1

>But you're correct in one way: If you always fill the tanks after each
>flight, there won't be water in the tanks. No, not because there is no
>condensation, but because you will have to drain a couple of gallons
>before the each flight.

Unfortunately, just draining the tanks without making an effort to
position the aircraft so that water trapped in the folds of a rubber
fuel bladder is able to reach the sump will not remove it.

Water in an aircraft fuel system has the potential for disaster.

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> rests on the
> notion that air contains a certain amount of moisture, and that the
> water will condense out of the air contained in partially emptied
> tanks and contaminate the aircraft's fuel system.
>

which has never been proven, AFAIK.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> moisture to condense out of the 40 gallons of air contained in them,
> will result in enough water in the fuel system to interfere with
> operation of the aircraft's power plant.
>

Says who? Please elaborate your calculation, which I cannot at all
follow.

AFAIK, Cessna once tried real hard in a climate chamber to produce a
noticable amount of water in an aircraft tank. Didn't happen.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> I submit, that water in an aircraft fuel system has the potential for
> disaster. To argue otherwise seems absurd.
>

Yes, but isn't introduced by condensation. It is either already in the
fuel at the time of refueling, or it comes in during rain through leaky
fuel caps.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> Those who dismiss condensation as a source for water in an aircraft
> fuel system have done so.
>

Huh? How so?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Duniho]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>> The practice of topping the fuel tanks after each flight rests on the
>> notion that air contains a certain amount of moisture, and that the
>> water will condense out of the air contained in partially emptied
>> tanks and contaminate the aircraft's fuel system.
>>
> Which is an old wives tale. The amount of water contained in 20-30
> gallons of air is insignificant.

I would agree that condensation is practically never an issue, but like
Larry I would not say that it could NEVER be an issue. Most of the time,
even when the air is very humid, the likelihood of the temperature changing
enough to cause any significant amount of the water vapor to condense is
incredibly small, and the total amount of water is also small. But to say
that it simply cannot ever be a source of water in a fuel tank seems
short-sighted to me. A tiny amount of water, in the wrong place at the
wrong time, can cause all sorts of trouble.

That said, there's another reason to try to keep the tanks topped off if you
can, when the airplane is equipped with rubber fuel bladders. My
understanding is that having the rubber "wetted" by the fuel helps extend
their lifetime. In my plane, I'm "fortunate" enough to have just one fuel
tank with a rubber bladder, with the other four being sealed aluminum
structures. So I always top of the one rubber bladder tank, and leave the
others partially or entirely empty.

Pete

[Dan Luke]

"Larry Dighera" wrote:
> A Piper PA28-235 can have 84 gallons of fuel in 4 tanks, so leaving
> them half empty, for instance in a humid maritime environment,
> overnight where the temperature drops sufficiently to cause the
> moisture to condense out of the 40 gallons of air contained in them,
> will result in enough water in the fuel system to interfere with
> operation of the aircraft's power plant.

How much water is there in 40 gallons of air, Larry? Assume that when
the airplane was parked, the temperature was 20 C and the air was
saturated (which would be extremely wet conditions, BTW).
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
> That said, there's another reason to try to keep the tanks topped off if you
> can, when the airplane is equipped with rubber fuel bladders. My
> understanding is that having the rubber "wetted" by the fuel helps extend
> their lifetime. In my plane, I'm "fortunate" enough to have just one fuel
> tank with a rubber bladder, with the other four being sealed aluminum
> structures. So I always top of the one rubber bladder tank, and leave the
> others partially or entirely empty.

Where you live and where you keep your plane are major factors. I have
bladders in my 182 and never have them full except the night before a
long trip. I normally keep mine at approx half full. My plane is
hangared and our climate is moderate. Worst case is to leave your plane
outside in the baking sun and constantly changing temps. In the winter
my hangar stays in a realtively narrow 10 degree temperature band.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Dan Luke" > writes:

> How much water is there in 40 gallons of air, Larry? Assume that when
> the airplane was parked, the temperature was 20 C and the air was
> saturated (which would be extremely wet conditions, BTW).

An opportunity to disturb high school chemistry knowledge cobwebs!
Water has a 20mb vapour pressure at 20degC, so water would form 2% of
the sea level atmosphere at full saturation. The ideal gas law
indicates there would be about 0.12mol in there, which has a mass of
around 2.2g, which could condense to around 2mL. Not much, but if it
decides to freeze and get sucked in and collected, could it plug up a
fuel line?

- FChE

[Dan Luke]

"Frank Ch. Eigler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" > writes:
>
>> How much water is there in 40 gallons of air, Larry? Assume that
>> when
>> the airplane was parked, the temperature was 20 C and the air was
>> saturated (which would be extremely wet conditions, BTW).
>
> An opportunity to disturb high school chemistry knowledge cobwebs!
> Water has a 20mb vapour pressure at 20degC, so water would form 2% of
> the sea level atmosphere at full saturation. The ideal gas law
> indicates there would be about 0.12mol in there, which has a mass of
> around 2.2g, which could condense to around 2mL. Not much, but if it
> decides to freeze and get sucked in and collected, could it plug up a
> fuel line?

Remember that in Larry's example the water is distributed among four
tanks. 2mL split four ways ain't enough to worry about.

If it freezes will it float in avgas or stay on the bottom?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Happy Dog]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Happy Dog" wrote:
>>>>> ALWAYS refuel after every flight, so that we always have full tanks.
>>>
>>>> I don't know why more pilots don't do this.
>>>
>>> I don't know what you are flying, but with the planes I fly, full tanks
>>> aren't an option unless I want to fly alone.
>>
>> It should be obvious that I wasn't suggesting that anyone overload their
>> aircraft.
>
> No, but you were wondering why more pilots don't "ALWAYS refuel after
> every flight, so that [they] always have full tanks," which is a silly
> practice unless one ALWAYS knows the next flight will require full tanks.
> At my old club, members were asked NOT to fill the tanks after using the
> airplanes, so that the next pilot could add fuel appropriate to his
> flight.

To be specific, my concern is that I see many pilots who don't carry more
fuel when they could and within reason. OK?

le moo

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote:
>
> Not much, but if it
> decides to freeze and get sucked in and collected, could it plug up a
> fuel line?

No. Fuel lines have a strainer around them inside the tank. The iceball would
hang on the strainer and would not be big enough to block very much of it.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> While the amount of water in the fuel system may be small, so is the
> diameter of the fuel lines. In the cool environs at altitude, what is
> to prevent the water from forming a frozen 'cork' blocking fuel flow?

The fuel strainer inside the tank.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> While the engine may be able to continue running after ingesting some
> water, with an ambient temperature low enough, it wouldn't get fuel if
> water in the fuel lines froze. What volume of water is enough to
> cause such a frozen plug?

This is just about impossible in the air. Moving water stays liquid at a much
lower temperature than standing water. You are postulating a situation in which
the water in the gas tank is above freezing and the temperature in the fuel
lines is about 0 degrees Fahrenheit. Of course, it's possible for water to get
into the lines on the ground and freeze when the temperature gets below
freezing, but then the aircraft would never start.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Dan Luke]

"Happy Dog" wrote:
> To be specific, my concern is that I see many pilots who don't carry
> more fuel when they could and within reason. OK?

Now that the goalposts are in a new location, I declare that you have
scored a touchdown.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> This is just about impossible in the air. Moving water stays liquid at a
> much
> lower temperature than standing water. You are postulating a situation in
> which
> the water in the gas tank is above freezing and the temperature in the
> fuel
> lines is about 0 degrees Fahrenheit. Of course, it's possible for water to
> get
> into the lines on the ground and freeze when the temperature gets below
> freezing, but then the aircraft would never start.

Actually, ice in the fuel can freeze in the tanks, forming crystals small
enough to pass into the fuel lines, and then form an aggregate large enough
to restrict (or even block entirely) that fuel line.

An alternative possibility is that the water may freeze in a larger form in
the tank, but not block the fuel intake port from the fuel tank until
something during flight jostles it enough to block the port.

Of course, there is always the standard issue of liquid water in the fuel
tank, possibly shifting and/or coalescing enough during flight to create a
problem just after takeoff or well into the flight.

IMHO, the only real question is how much water you might accumulate due to
condensation. That water in the tanks can cause a problem, whether due to
freezing or otherwise, is simply not a question. It can. As I've said in a
different post, I agree that the chances of condensate accumulating in large
enough quantity to cause a real problem is extremely low. But I don't think
it's reasonable to claim that it could never happen.

Pete

[Happy Dog]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Happy Dog" wrote:
>> To be specific, my concern is that I see many pilots who don't carry more
>> fuel when they could and within reason. OK?
>
> Now that the goalposts are in a new location, I declare that you have
> scored a touchdown.

How so? It's irritating to have comments nitpicked by the dedicatedly
pugnacious. Why didn't anyone go after the original poster and accuse him
of overloading his plane? After all, he said he *always* tops up. That
obvious things have to be made boringly clear is, well, Usenet.

le moo

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> My
> understanding is that having the rubber "wetted" by the fuel helps extend
> their lifetime.
>

"Ah, but my fuel bladders will look pristine to the NTSB guys" , said the
pilot as he crashed into the trees at the end of the runway.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Dan Luke" > writes:

> Remember that in Larry's example the water is distributed among four
> tanks. 2mL split four ways ain't enough to worry about.

Perhaps (though others' tanks are much bigger). But as to how such
freezing could happen, consider (not) topping off on such a warm day,
and climbing to 10000 ft for cruise. That temperature drop might be
all you need to freeze out the water. It's not only during winter
that this may be a consideration.

Can someone imagine a scenario where over several heat/cool fill/fly
cycles such ice could accumulate? Perhaps failing to sample the fuel
bowl/drains over several consecutive flights?

> If it freezes will it float in avgas or stay on the bottom?

The density of avgas is around 0.7 g/mL, water 1.0 g/mL, ice 0.9 g/mL.
Ice would still drop to the bottom.

- FChE

[skycaptain]

You are (statistically speaking) more likely to get stuck by lightning,
and win the lottery than get injured in a small plane crash. The only
reason you hear about plane crashes on the news is that they happen so
rarely that each time it is considered newsworthy. Imagine if there
were a front page news report everytime there was an auto crash...

June wrote:
> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.

[Dave Stadt]

"skycaptain" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You are (statistically speaking) more likely to get stuck by lightning,
> and win the lottery than get injured in a small plane crash. The only
> reason you hear about plane crashes on the news is that they happen so
> rarely that each time it is considered newsworthy. Imagine if there
> were a front page news report everytime there was an auto crash...

References?

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 07:40:00 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>>Which is an old wives tale. The amount of water contained in 20-30
>>gallons of air is insignificant.
>
> A Piper PA28-235 can have 84 gallons of fuel in 4 tanks, so leaving
> them half empty, for instance in a humid maritime environment,
> overnight where the temperature drops sufficiently to cause the
> moisture to condense out of the 40 gallons of air contained in them,
> will result in enough water in the fuel system to interfere with
> operation of the aircraft's power plant.

I have lived my entire life in humid maritime environments. I have never
lived more than 50 miles from open sal****er despite having lived on two
continents. Where I currently live, it is impossible to be more than 7.5
miles from open water.

However, I have never discovered water condensing in half-full fuel
tanks. It is my practise to make both a visual inspection through the
the filler neck and to sump the tanks before flying whether the plane's
been refuelled or not. In over 1000 hours of light plane flying, the
only time I've found water in the fuel is through leaky fuel caps (the
Beech Musketeer being the worst for this, but also in a Grumman Cheetah)
after a night of rain.

So I'd agree the condensation thing is an OWT, certainly with the fuel
capacities of our planes (the biggest capacity wise that I've regularly
flown are an S-35 Bonanza (74 gal usable) and the Geronimo-mod Apache
(which carried 7 hours of fuel - I don't remember the exact figure in
gallons, but it was a little over 100 gallons capacity in 4 tanks).
With the Geronimo, because it only has 160 hp a side, it's quite
important not to lug around excess fuel.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Michael]

Cub Driver wrote:
> >The last attempt I
> >heard about was against Relative Workshop. It was eventually
settled
> >by the PLAINTIFF (the woman who got hurt) paying the DEFENDANT (the
> >manufacturer of the parachute system) for legal expenses.
>
> Not in the U.S., I reckon?

You reckon wrong.

> This sounds like the British rule, where the loser pays the winner's
> legal expenses. Very sensible.

Nope. It was one of the terms of the waiver - that if you sue, or
anyone sues on your behalf, you agree to pay the costs of the defense.
Michael

[Dan Luke]

"Happy Dog" wrote:
> > Now that the goalposts are in a new location, I declare that you have
> > scored a touchdown.
>
> How so?

You snipped it before, but here goes again:

>>>>> ALWAYS refuel after every flight, so that we always have full tanks.
>>>
>>>> I don't know why more pilots don't do this.

Then:

> To be specific, my concern is that I see many pilots who
> don't carry more fuel when they could and within reason. OK?
> It's irritating to have comments nitpicked by the dedicatedly
> pugnacious.

"...when they could and within reason" is quite different from
"ALWAYS...after every flight," wouldn't you say? You substantially changed
your position when challenged; where's the nitpicking?

> Why didn't anyone go after the original poster and accuse him
> of overloading his plane? After all, he said he *always* tops up.

I quoted both you and the OP in my first response.

> That obvious things have to be made boringly clear is, well, Usenet.

Ain't it the truth.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Gary Drescher]

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> et>...
>
> And without trying to bend the data one way ot the other, taking *all*
> of the data for light fixed-wing aircraft, we come to the conclusion
> that her husband is more likely to arrive at his destination *without
> a scratch* if he flys GA,

That only follows if you use the same definition of injury in assessing both
the automobile and GA accident rates. But that's not the case, is it? The
Nall Report statistics for GA are derived from the NTSB accident database.
But if you have a plane crash in which you and all your passengers break
your noses, fingers, and toes, burn 5% of your skin surface, and spend two
days in the hospital, the NTSB doesn't even consider that serious enough to
be a reportable accident! In contrast, an automobile accident that inflicted
such injuries would certainly be reportable.

--Gary

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Peter,
>
>> My
>> understanding is that having the rubber "wetted" by the fuel helps extend
>> their lifetime.
>
> "Ah, but my fuel bladders will look pristine to the NTSB guys" , said the
> pilot as he crashed into the trees at the end of the runway.

I'm not sure what your point is, but your post seems pretty dumb to me,
especially as a response to my own post. Maybe you'd like to explain
yourself?

[Edward Todd]

In article >,
(June) wrote:

> I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
> his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
> recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
> he will be saving money rather than renting.
>
> We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
> another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
> think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
> he has such a young family.
>
> Your opinions would be appreciated.


Bad subject to bring up ... but a lot of 'new' pilots assume their life
insurance covers them while flying. Most will NOT. Check on this,
especially since you have small kids. His insurance carrier can provide
coverage with an addition to the policy.


Edward

[Roger]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:21:10 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>In article >, Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 07:40:00 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>>>Which is an old wives tale. The amount of water contained in 20-30
>>>gallons of air is insignificant.

Just let those tanks inhale and exhale a few times. They do that
every morning and night so there is a *lot* more than 20-30 gallons
involved.

>>
<snip>
>
>So I'd agree the condensation thing is an OWT, certainly with the fuel


It all depends.


>capacities of our planes (the biggest capacity wise that I've regularly
>flown are an S-35 Bonanza (74 gal usable) and the Geronimo-mod Apache

I fly a Deb with about the same fuel capacity (not counting the tip
tanks). With half tanks and the plane hangered for two weeks in the
Spring, I drained over two full samplers of water out of one tank and
a half out of the other. None out of the auxiliaries as they were
full.

>(which carried 7 hours of fuel - I don't remember the exact figure in
>gallons, but it was a little over 100 gallons capacity in 4 tanks).

The Deb will carry 100 when the tip tanks are full.

>With the Geronimo, because it only has 160 hp a side, it's quite
>important not to lug around excess fuel.

I'm paranoid about fuel, particularly with Michigan weathers tendency
to change rapidly. I might go for a 50 mile jaunt, get a late start
back and end up in Wisconsin, or Kentucky.

I rarely go any where without full tanks, with the exception of the
tip tanks.

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

[Dan Luke]

"Roger" wrote:
>>>>Which is an old wives tale. The amount of water contained in 20-30
>>>>gallons of air is insignificant.
>
> Just let those tanks inhale and exhale a few times. They do that
> every morning and night so there is a *lot* more than 20-30 gallons
> involved.

Another OWT, I'm afraid. Can you produce calculations to show how many
air exchanges/week occur in a half-full 40-gal. tank given a daily
temperature swing of 20 deg. F?

[snip]

> I fly a Deb with about the same fuel capacity (not counting the tip
> tanks). With half tanks and the plane hangered for two weeks in the
> Spring, I drained over two full samplers of water out of one tank and
> a half out of the other. None out of the auxiliaries as they were
> full.

Since you bring up anecdotal evidence, I'll chip in: I've been parking
my airplane under a shelter within a mile of Mobile Bay for five years.
I never top up the tanks after a flight. In that time, I don't recall
ever sumping a drop of water out of any of the drains. My tanks hold 32
gal. usable each.

[snip]
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:21:10 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>::

>I have never discovered water condensing in half-full fuel
>tanks.

Perhaps the laws of physics have been repealed on the Isle of Man. :-)

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 06:26:57 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

> I've been parking
>my airplane under a shelter within a mile of Mobile Bay for five years.
>I never top up the tanks after a flight. In that time, I don't recall
>ever sumping a drop of water out of any of the drains. My tanks hold 32
>gal. usable each.

That would be Mobile Bay Alabama, right? How much change in
temperature occurs overnight during the summers there? Here in New
England, we can, and often do, see a 30 to 40 degree swing from the
cold of night to the warmest part of the day.

Corky Scott

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 06:26:57 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>::

>I've been parking
>my airplane under a shelter within a mile of Mobile Bay for five years.
>I never top up the tanks after a flight. In that time, I don't recall
>ever sumping a drop of water out of any of the drains.

That doesn't mean there is no water in your C-172RG's fuel system.
Are there rubber bladders in its fuel tanks?

As in the accident to which I included a link earlier in this message
thread, an uncoordinated bank on approach could be enough to cause
water trapped by the tanks folds to reach the carburetor (if so
equipped) at an altitude insufficient to facilitate a recovery.

[Dave Stadt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:21:10 -0000, Dylan Smith
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >I have never discovered water condensing in half-full fuel
> >tanks.
>
> Perhaps the laws of physics have been repealed on the Isle of Man. :-)


I guess that goes for Illinois also. Never a drop of water even with
partial tanks sitting in all seasons. Why don't other types of vehicles
have this supposed problem? Automobiles, boats, construction equipment?

[Dan Luke]

"Larry Dighera" wrote:
> >I've been parking
> >my airplane under a shelter within a mile of Mobile Bay for five years.
> >I never top up the tanks after a flight. In that time, I don't recall
> >ever sumping a drop of water out of any of the drains.
>
> That doesn't mean there is no water in your C-172RG's fuel system.

If there has been, I haven't seen--or felt--any evidence of it. While small
amounts might get stuck behind the fuel tank baffles, at least a *little*
should have shown up in the samples in all that time, don't you think? After
all, the airplane is parked in one of the most persistently humid locations
in the U. S. Day after day, warm, wet afternoons are followed by mornings
where the OAT falls to the dewpoint; you literally could wash my airplane
many mornings without using a hose. Those are perfect conditions for the
respiration/condensation scenario you fear, but they just don't seem to put
any detectable amount of water in my tanks. Why is that?

> Are there rubber bladders in its fuel tanks?

No.

Now, how about some calculations showing that fuel tank respiration caused by
daily temperature fluctuations can cause enough air changes to produce
significant added condensation?

[snip]
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Mike Rapoport]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger" wrote:
>>>>>Which is an old wives tale. The amount of water contained in 20-30
>>>>>gallons of air is insignificant.
>>
>> Just let those tanks inhale and exhale a few times. They do that
>> every morning and night so there is a *lot* more than 20-30 gallons
>> involved.
>
> Another OWT, I'm afraid. Can you produce calculations to show how many
> air exchanges/week occur in a half-full 40-gal. tank given a daily
> temperature swing of 20 deg. F?
>
> [snip]
>
>> I fly a Deb with about the same fuel capacity (not counting the tip
>> tanks). With half tanks and the plane hangered for two weeks in the
>> Spring, I drained over two full samplers of water out of one tank and
>> a half out of the other. None out of the auxiliaries as they were
>> full.
>
> Since you bring up anecdotal evidence, I'll chip in: I've been parking my
> airplane under a shelter within a mile of Mobile Bay for five years. I
> never top up the tanks after a flight. In that time, I don't recall ever
> sumping a drop of water out of any of the drains. My tanks hold 32 gal.
> usable each.
>
> [snip]
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM


To add another data point, when I had a Turbo Lance parked outside at Santa
Monica I never sumped a drop of water either. Same thing at Minden NV when
it was outside there. Never a drop.

Mike
MU-2

[Dan Luke]

"Corky Scott" wrote:
> > I've been parking
> >my airplane under a shelter within a mile of Mobile Bay for five years.
> >I never top up the tanks after a flight. In that time, I don't recall
> >ever sumping a drop of water out of any of the drains. My tanks hold 32
> >gal. usable each.
>
> That would be Mobile Bay Alabama, right? How much change in
> temperature occurs overnight during the summers there?

16-20 deg. F. It falls to the dewpoint most mornings in summer.

> Here in New
> England, we can, and often do, see a 30 to 40 degree swing from the
> cold of night to the warmest part of the day.

Overnight dry bulb temperatures, assuming no weather change, typically do not
fall below the dewpoint because of the heat of condensation. Therefore, if
there is that much swing, the dewpoint is mighty low; there is damned little
moisture in the air to begin with. Fuel tank respiration/condensation would
still not be a problem.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Corky Scott wrote:

> ...... How much change in
> temperature occurs overnight during the summers there? Here in New
> England, we can, and often do, see a 30 to 40 degree swing from the
> cold of night to the warmest part of the day.

Another data point, as long as we're throwing them out - I park my COZY
MKIV outside at KFIT in MA. It lives outside throughout the whole year,
and sees large temperature swings (daily, usually). The fuel tanks are
integral with the strakes and made from fiberglass/epoxy - no bladders
or "wrinkles" in the bottom to trap water. The drains are at the lowest
point of the tanks. I rarely top up after a flight, and regularly leave
the tanks 1/10 - 1/2 full. I always sump the tanks first thing when
approaching the plane, before I move it or top it off. I have seen
water in the tanks exactly once, and that was after a very heavy rain.
I tightened the O-ring seal on the gas cap, and have never seen water
again in over 1.5 years.

The fiberglass is a good insulator, and as the temperature changes, I
see lots of condensation on the OUTSIDE - if it was going to condense on
the inside to any appreciable degree, it's got it's chance with the
materials at hand. It doesn't do so.

Personally, I think this condensation thing is a crock - if you've got
water in your tanks, it's because your caps leak in the rain.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote:
>
> Another data point, as long as we're throwing them out - I park my COZY
> MKIV outside at KFIT in MA.

One more. My Maule has been parked outside since I bought it in 1995. Since the
venting system has no anti-syphon devices, it has a tendency to dump fuel if I
park it with the tanks near full, so I have not done so since shortly after I
bought it. I check the tanks during preflight, and, if they're down around 3/8,
I fill it back up before flying. I'm based now at Lakewood, which is a few miles
from an inlet of the Atlantic. I've never seen any water in the fuel.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Dan Luke]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote:
> Personally, I think this condensation thing is a crock...

Couldn't have said it better, myself.
--
Dan
non-condensing C-172RG at BFM

[zatatime]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:31:27 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>I'm based now at Lakewood


Do you know if a mechanic named Bob Hayes is still down there?

Just curious,
z

[Michael]

>> the fact that I signed a document that showed that I understood ALL
the
>> risks, even the absurdly remote ones (like the pilot crashing on
>> purpose) means that she'd never win.
>Wrong.

Close enough. Nobody ever has won.

Michael

[Michael]

>> the fact that I signed a document that showed that I understood ALL
the
>> risks, even the absurdly remote ones (like the pilot crashing on
>> purpose) means that she'd never win.
>Wrong.

Close enough. Nobody ever has won.

Michael

[Michael]

>> I'd like to see some stats on accidents vs. lawsuits before I
believe that
>> dead skydivers' families are that different from dead pilots'
families.

>I doubt they are. It's just a question of likelihood of winning the
suit,
>which I suppose gets back to Michael's point. But I maintain that the
>general culture of lawyers versus responsibility remains the real
problem.

First off, I think they are different. Skydiving has a very different
demographic than flying. While it is not any more likely to kill you
than flying (statistically, the annual per-participant fatality rate is
actually slightly lower) it is perceived as more dangerous. It is also
more physically demanding, and much cheaper. Thus you typically get a
much younger participant, and one who is far more honest about the
risks. It's not as extreme as it once was, when getting married meant
ceremonially burning your gear, but a skydiver with a family to support
and a non-jumping spouse is still more the exception than the rule. A
spouse who is a jumper is highly unlikely to sue, and one who is
childless and young is far less likely to need to sue.

The likelihood of winning the suit is also a lot lower. Waivers are
the norm rather than the exception, and they are GOOD waivers. They
have been upheld as valid many times (Hulsey v. Elsinore was a landmark
case - in California of all places) and more importantly, they have
been upheld as a matter of law - meaning the judge has not allowed the
case to go to the jury. That makes winning much cheaper and far more
certain. Hulsey v. Elsinore was actually appealed, and the directed
ruling was upheld on appeal as well.

It's certainly the case that we have a litigious culture, but the fact
is that the tort system is really the only realistic means of redress
for corporate malfeasance (the Pinto comes to mind). I fully support
our current system in its present form (it being the best of a very bad
lot) when it comes to normal consumer products - the necessities of
life. Caveat emptor is just not realistic when it comes to basics such
as housing, transportation, medical care, food, or employment.
However, I believe a different standard is reasonable for elective
high-risk activities.

As long as you present the case that small private airplanes are safe
and practical transportation, don't be surprised if the industry is
held to the same standards as airliners, trains, and automobiles. Once
you accept that they are simply dangerous toys, you can hope for some
relief. I am hoping that light sport aircraft, which will not be
authorized for any commercial use, will enjoy a status similar to
parachutes. That certainly seems to be the case with the certification
process for the aircraft (if not the airmen).

Of course in reality some of us DO use the planes as practical business
transportation, and paradoxically that seems to be much safer than
using the airplanes as toys (so much for the paradigm that never flying
when you really need to be there must be safer) but even then, we are
aware that the increased speed and convenience comes with a price not
only in cash but in safety.

Michael

[Michael]

>> I'd like to see some stats on accidents vs. lawsuits before I
believe that
>> dead skydivers' families are that different from dead pilots'
families.

>I doubt they are. It's just a question of likelihood of winning the
suit,
>which I suppose gets back to Michael's point. But I maintain that the
>general culture of lawyers versus responsibility remains the real
problem.

First off, I think they are different. Skydiving has a very different
demographic than flying. While it is not any more likely to kill you
than flying (statistically, the annual per-participant fatality rate is
actually slightly lower) it is perceived as more dangerous. It is also
more physically demanding, and much cheaper. Thus you typically get a
much younger participant, and one who is far more honest about the
risks. It's not as extreme as it once was, when getting married meant
ceremonially burning your gear, but a skydiver with a family to support
and a non-jumping spouse is still more the exception than the rule. A
spouse who is a jumper is highly unlikely to sue, and one who is
childless and young is far less likely to need to sue.

The likelihood of winning the suit is also a lot lower. Waivers are
the norm rather than the exception, and they are GOOD waivers. They
have been upheld as valid many times (Hulsey v. Elsinore was a landmark
case - in California of all places) and more importantly, they have
been upheld as a matter of law - meaning the judge has not allowed the
case to go to the jury. That makes winning much cheaper and far more
certain. Hulsey v. Elsinore was actually appealed, and the directed
ruling was upheld on appeal as well.

It's certainly the case that we have a litigious culture, but the fact
is that the tort system is really the only realistic means of redress
for corporate malfeasance (the Pinto comes to mind). I fully support
our current system in its present form (it being the best of a very bad
lot) when it comes to normal consumer products - the necessities of
life. Caveat emptor is just not realistic when it comes to basics such
as housing, transportation, medical care, food, or employment.
However, I believe a different standard is reasonable for elective
high-risk activities.

As long as you present the case that small private airplanes are safe
and practical transportation, don't be surprised if the industry is
held to the same standards as airliners, trains, and automobiles. Once
you accept that they are simply dangerous toys, you can hope for some
relief. I am hoping that light sport aircraft, which will not be
authorized for any commercial use, will enjoy a status similar to
parachutes. That certainly seems to be the case with the certification
process for the aircraft (if not the airmen).

Of course in reality some of us DO use the planes as practical business
transportation, and paradoxically that seems to be much safer than
using the airplanes as toys (so much for the paradigm that never flying
when you really need to be there must be safer) but even then, we are
aware that the increased speed and convenience comes with a price not
only in cash but in safety.

Michael

[G.R. Patterson III]

zatatime wrote:
>
> Do you know if a mechanic named Bob Hayes is still down there?

Don't know.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Dylan Smith]

In article . com>, Michael
wrote:
> Nope. It was one of the terms of the waiver - that if you sue, or
> anyone sues on your behalf, you agree to pay the costs of the defense.

Ah, that does work then. I keep hearing people say "But you can't sign
away the rights of your relatives to sue" - sure you can't - but if the
waiver says "I hold harmless AND INDEMNIFY..." - that means if your
relatives do sue, your estate gets to pay anyway because you agreed to
indemnify.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Michael]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> Ah, that does work then. I keep hearing people say "But you can't
sign
> away the rights of your relatives to sue" - sure you can't - but if
the
> waiver says "I hold harmless AND INDEMNIFY..." - that means if your
> relatives do sue, your estate gets to pay anyway because you agreed
to
> indemnify.

Well, it CAN work. If you just say "and indemnify" then it very likely
may not, because the judge is likely to assume that the average person
doesn't know what this means. But if you spell it out in plain english
(american, really) as well, then the judge is likely to see it
differently.

This is one of the points discussed in Hulsey v. Elsinore. Really
worth reading - it gives great insight into how judges think, and the
decision is quite comprehensible to the layman.

Michael

[Jay Honeck]

> If you refuel after each flight to *full* tanks, as suggested, chances are
> you will be overload on the next flight unless you drain some fuel. Maybe
> not if you're the only pilot who flyes the plane and you have a certain
> loading pattern, but certainly in a club (or FBO) environment.

Your club needs to get a Pathfinder or Dakota.

Full tanks (84 gallons), four 200 pound guys, plus luggage -- no problemo!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"