Safety statistics

[F.L. Whiteley]

"JohnH" > wrote in message
et...
> Paul Lynch wrote:
> > Apples and oranges, supported by unsupportable numbers.
> >
> >
> > "Ephraim" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >>Can anyone tell me how safety statistics for soaring compares with
> >>statistics for driving automobiles?
> >>
> >>Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >>--Ephraim
> >
> >
> >
>
> I would like to know, you know, for the next time someone rolls their
> eyes upward when I tell them I'm taking soaring lessons :-)
>
> john
> orlando, fl
>
The only statistics that made any sense at all to me was that there is a
general statistical risk of accidental death of any type and that soaring is
safer than this general risk. Therefore, compared to other activities,
though it may seem higher than some that you participate in, liking driving
to
the glider field, it likely does not increase your overall risk much.

That being said, a quick visit to www.ntsb.gov is in order. Go to Aviation,
databases, and filter on gliders for this year.

So, a crash landing in the trees may be safer than trying to land in a
narrow patch
between trees? Crash landing in cold water is preferable to landing on
rocks?
(BTW, a young boy drowned due to hypothermia trying to swim across the same
reservoir the following week). Rock polishing may be very dangerous, as
there were at least two perfectly landable fields 800ft below the impact
point in Morgan City, Utah (I've seen a photo).

These are relative judgement issues and our collective experience set is too
small to say what the right or wrong decision might be in some cases. The
environmental implications cannot be ignored, but are only a factor in
making the decision to fly, press on, etc. We can always take the decision
to err on the side of caution and live to fly another day. Gaining the
wisdom to make that decision is highly individual...... Among the cross
country experienced soaring pilots, there's not a one that hasn't had a
chance to get wiser and older.

A factor I find more disturbing when combing through these records over the
years is that there is a much higher incidence of hardware failure or
compromise than I would have expected and have heard about in passing hangar
talk. This is beyond the rigging and latching errors.

The first large government agency that I worked for had a very strict rule
regarding moving accidents, and that is, that all are preventable. But you
must strive for this sort of perfection. Mentoring, cross-country camps,
task weeks, and lead and follow flying are all excellent ways to improve the
skills and judgement required to experience soaring safely beyond the local
area. In some soaring organizations, it's built into the process through a
tiered, value added process of inculcating members and promoting their
opportunities. In others, it's an add-on process. IMVHO, one is more
effective than the other, but both have their place.

Frank Whiteley

[Ephraim]

Can anyone tell me how safety statistics for soaring compares with
statistics for driving automobiles?

Thanks in advance,

--Ephraim

[Paul Lynch]

Apples and oranges, supported by unsupportable numbers.


"Ephraim" > wrote in message
om...
> Can anyone tell me how safety statistics for soaring compares with
> statistics for driving automobiles?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> --Ephraim

[JohnH]

Paul Lynch wrote:
> Apples and oranges, supported by unsupportable numbers.
>
>
> "Ephraim" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Can anyone tell me how safety statistics for soaring compares with
>>statistics for driving automobiles?
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>
>>--Ephraim
>
>
>

I would like to know, you know, for the next time someone rolls their
eyes upward when I tell them I'm taking soaring lessons :-)

john
orlando, fl

[Vaughn]

"JohnH" > wrote in message
et...
> Paul Lynch wrote:
> > Apples and oranges, supported by unsupportable numbers.
>
> I would like to know, you know, for the next time someone rolls their
> eyes upward when I tell them I'm taking soaring lessons :-)

Then try to find safety statistics that compare soaring to common
sports, such as baseball, skiing or scuba diving; then you will be talking
about a more "apples to apples" comparison. Even though a glider is a
vehicle of sorts, soaring is more of a sport than a mode of transportation.

Honestly, you are porbably safer sitting in your easy chair in front of
the boob tube than driving in your car, and you are probably safer driving
your car than flying in your glider; all different types of activities,
engaged in for totally different reasons.

Vaughn
Palm Beach, FL


>
> john
> orlando, fl
>

[JohnH]

Paul Lynch wrote:
> Apples and oranges, supported by unsupportable numbers.
>
>

I read the Bruno dissertation on safety, made sense but I still have no
idea how soaring rates relative, to say, my motorcycle touring...

I'll keep on reading....


john
orlando fl

[Shawn Curry]

Ephraim wrote:
> Can anyone tell me how safety statistics for soaring compares with
> statistics for driving automobiles?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> --Ephraim

Easy question to answer...

No!

[Dave Martin]

Government statistics tell us that;

1. There are more than 40,000,000 vehicles registered
for road use in the UK. If only half are used each
day, many on multiple journeys, say 5 each, that means
over 100million vehicle journeys each day. On average
UK drivers slaughter 10 persons per day.

In the history of Uk gliding we have not done 100million
launches and have certainly killed more than 10 people.

2. More people die in a hospital bed than anywhere
else in the UK.

So if you crash your glider don't go to hospital!!!!!

One of my first instructors would rarely fly in a thermal
with another glider and made the point that every pilot
of every other aircraft airborne was flying blind and
was out to get him.

Eventually he died in a hospital bed, aged 86, which
I suppose proves the point.....whatever it is.





>Weeeell, that may depend on who your copilot is in
>the bed!
>
>:-)
>
>Ian
>
>'Al' wrote in message
...
>> Your gonna die no matter what....
>>
>> is staying in bed until that moment safer..?
>>
>> Probably....
>>
>> is it more exciting than soaring
>>
>> NO...
>>
>>
>> Al
>>
>>
>> 'Ephraim' wrote in message
>> om...
>> > Can anyone tell me how safety statistics for soaring
>>>compares with
>> > statistics for driving automobiles?
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance,
>> >
>> > --Ephraim
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Owain Walters]

Statistics are like a lamp-post to a drunk. More for
leaning on than illumination.

Why do you want them?

Owain





At 09:42 29 August 2003, Dave Martin wrote:
>Government statistics tell us that;
>
>1. There are more than 40,000,000 vehicles registered
>for road use in the UK. If only half are used each
>day, many on multiple journeys, say 5 each, that means
>over 100million vehicle journeys each day. On average
>UK drivers slaughter 10 persons per day.
>
>In the history of Uk gliding we have not done 100million
>launches and have certainly killed more than 10 people.
>
>2. More people die in a hospital bed than anywhere
>else in the UK.
>
>So if you crash your glider don't go to hospital!!!!!
>
>One of my first instructors would rarely fly in a thermal
>with another glider and made the point that every pilot
>of every other aircraft airborne was flying blind and
>was out to get him.
>
>Eventually he died in a hospital bed, aged 86, which
>I suppose proves the point.....whatever it is.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Weeeell, that may depend on who your copilot is in
>>the bed!
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>Ian
>>
>>'Al' wrote in message
...
>>> Your gonna die no matter what....
>>>
>>> is staying in bed until that moment safer..?
>>>
>>> Probably....
>>>
>>> is it more exciting than soaring
>>>
>>> NO...
>>>
>>>
>>> Al
>>>
>>>
>>> 'Ephraim' wrote in message
>>> om...
>>> > Can anyone tell me how safety statistics for soaring
>>>>compares with
>>> > statistics for driving automobiles?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks in advance,
>>> >
>>> > --Ephraim
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[D.A.L]

Shawn Curry > wrote in message et>...
> Ephraim wrote:
> > Can anyone tell me how safety statistics for soaring compares with
> > statistics for driving automobiles?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > --Ephraim
>
> Easy question to answer...
>
> No!

What I tell people is that 'gliding is safe, untill you forget
how dangerous it really is'. I forget who told me that but it made
perfect sense to me !

[Chris Nicholas]

There is no simple answer to comparative safety of gliding and driving,
and few statistics that I am aware of to make a numerical comparison.
Among the bases of comparison one might try are fatalities per event
(launch vs car journey), per unit of time spent doing it, and/or per
person doing it, but data for any two equivalents are hard to come by.

One very crude measure is say 24 million drivers ( a guess - use your
own figure if you think that's wrong) in the UK kill about 4000 people a
year (which includes passengers and other road users) - say 1 per 6,000
drivers.

Gliding has less than 10,000 pilots (an overstatement because not all
are P1 each year) and we have about 5 fatalities (nearly all being
participants) each year - say 1 per 2,000. So this method of counting
gets at least 3 times the risk. Increasing driver/passenger numbers and
reducing the number of active pilots would worsen the ratio.

On the other hand, people exposed to gliding risk each year could
include all 30,000 temporary members (most having one or two air
experience trial lessons), just as car fatalities include passengers.
Redo the sums accordingly if that helps.

People at risk from gliding include those on the ground. Although such
fatalities are very rare, they are not unknown - I knew one person who
was killed by a cable snapping back when released from a tow truck, and
I know of one woman killed on a public footpath by a glider landing next
to it. One could add in the friends, families and hangers on at gliding
sites to increase the base and so reduce the incidence rate.

These latter refinements bring in more people "at risk" but at a much
lower real level of risk than somebody who is in the cockpit many times
in a year. But then, the car fatalities include people who are drivers,
and also those who are front seat passengers and rear seat passengers -
the latter generally being at much lower risk if they are strapped in.
Once you start trying to refine the risk levels, there is no end -
competition and aerobatic pilots are probably generally more at risk
than careful local-only pilots, but stupid local-only pilots who
mishandle cable breaks are very much at risk.

The two risks I know of where you cannot personally reduce the level to
zero by your own efforts - airframe integrity, and collision from the
blind spots - are among the lowest of all incident levels. So we are
left with most of the risk being in our own hands - the nut behind the
stick is the biggest risk factor.

Chris N.

[Owain Walters]

How many of those people killed due to accidents in
cars are due to drunk drivers, drugged up drivers,
p1ssed off drivers etc etc etc.

There is NO COMPARISON between gliding and an everyday
chore.

If you are asking to determine whether gliding is safe
then yes. Gliding is safe. It is as safe as you would
like it to be. It can also be as dangerous as you would
like it to be. But it is a sport in which YOU DETERMINE
how risky it is.

Owain



At 15:00 29 August 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>Ephraim,
>Soaring is not the safest sport around. If I were to
>hazard a guess, it would
>be on a par with skydiving. Most of us in the sport
>enjoy the danger aspect up
>to a point. That point for me is when my actions could
>result in a landing in
>anything other than a farmers field or a dry lake.
>I draw the line there and
>hold back to get more altitude before committing my
>tender body and sturdy
>craft to any situation that could result in me sitting
>in a pile of fiberglass
>ruble.
>
>For the most part, the sport is just as safe as you
>want to make it. Oh, there
>is the rope brake on takeoff or the unseen mid-air,
>but these are rare and part
>of the reason we want a sport with a little unknown
>factor to deal with every
>time we *Slip the surly bonds of earth*
>
>The best advice I can give you is; Don't do anything
>that you are not
>comfortable with. Having said that, you must press
>the edges of your comfort
>zone, or you will never grow in the sport. For the
>new pilot, the edge of
>comfort will usually be slope soaring. Ease into it
>by staying out 200 feet
>from the rocks, always turn away from the rocks. Always
>keep your speed up,
>until you have checked out the area for squirrely air.
>
>Come join us, we are a band of brothers, doing something
>that not every Tom,
>Dick and Harry is doing and we like it that way.
>JJ Sinclair
>

[Mike Borgelt]

On 28 Aug 2003 16:53:36 -0700, (Ephraim)
wrote:

>Can anyone tell me how safety statistics for soaring compares with
>statistics for driving automobiles?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>--Ephraim


For the reasons given by other posters that may not be the best
comparison.
In Australia flying gliders is about as dangerous as crop dusting.
Towing gliders with power planes is 10 times as dangerous per flying
hour as cropdusting for the towplane pilot.

Mike Borgelt

[Martin Hellman]

(Ephraim) wrote in message >...
> Can anyone tell me how safety statistics for soaring compares with
> statistics for driving automobiles?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> --Ephraim

When I got back into soaring in 1994 I had a similar concern and
concluded that, within about a factor of two, soaring and driving had
about the same risk of dying on an annual basis. That estimate is
consistent with the UK poster who came up with 6000:1 for driving and
2000:1 for soaring in the UK, since my estimate was rough. (It's hard
to know how many glider pilots are active.) Also, it could be that the
crowded skies in Europe produce a higher fatality rate.

On an hourly basis, that makes soaring much more dangerous for the
typical pilot who flies about 100 hours a year, vs drives about 500.
But, I suspect that if pilots flew 500 hours a year the fatality rate
might actually drop since infrequent flying is much more dangerous.

And, as noted by earlier replies, there are things one can do to
minimize the danger. I, for example, do not fly close in ridge or do
high-speed low passes. While I am passing up some of the thrills of
soaring by doing so, I believe I am reducing the danger factor as
well. A week ago, a thermal hit one wing so hard that it turned me
almost upside down. Fortunately, I was 2,000 feet AGL and had time to
recover. If I had been skimming the treetops on a ridge, I might now
be dead. (An article in Soaring about 20 years ago speculated that the
seemingly inexplicable deaths of some very experienced S Calif pilots
on ridge soaring may have been caused by such an event.)

The above are my personal decisions and I do not wish to impose them
on anyone else. So, if you ridge soar or do low passes, that's fine.
I'm just trying to lay out for Ephriam (who asked) some of the
possibilities for him to consider.

Martin

[Tom Seim]

> Can anyone tell me how safety statistics for soaring compares with
> statistics for driving automobiles?

If you are wondering if flying is more dangerous than driving the
answer is an unequivicable yes. How much more dangerous is hard to
determine (do you drive drunk?). Most of us have to drive, whereas
flying for most is recreational. If you want to reduce your requests
find the toughest, most demanding instructor you can (I assume you are
a student). Demand extra instruction, not just the minimum required
for the ticket.

It is informative to read the accident reports at the NTSB web site.
Most glider accidents are pilot error, and most fatal accidents are
stall-spin. You can train for this (see above). It is absolutely
imperative that you take the correct action for each and every
emergency. I recommend getting some power instruction even if you have
no intention on getting a power license. You can get alot of landing
practice this way and you will appreciate the issues faced by your tow
pilot.

[DonDLHMN]

I have had people I know ask me about the "soaring thing"....What do you do
when the wind stops?......etc. I tell them that glider flying is something like
crossing a stream jumping from stone to stone. Then I ask them if they have
ever done that...you know, jumped from stone to stone as they crossed a
stream. Certainly, most people say "yes". Then I ask them if they ever just
jumped up in the air and then looked to see if there was a stone to land upon.
Naturally, everyone looks at me with a strange look and says..."Of course
not!!" Then I explain that in soaring we go "from stone to stone" only the
"stones" are safe landing places...in other words, you never jump off from one
safe landing place without the altitude in hand to either make it back or then
proceed on to the next safe landing place ( the next "stone").

Most people, when they see that glider flying (soaring, as I prefer to call it)
is not some sort on unreasoning, suicidal passtime, understand that it CAN be
safe. And, like many things from mowing your lawn to skydiving, your personal
judgement is quite important in determining the risk level involved.

So, I guess that is my point....develop good judgement and the risk level is
manageable....fail to develop good judgement in any endeavor and the risk lever
goes way up.

Don Johnson, Reno,. NV

[F.L. Whiteley]

"DonDLHMN" > wrote in message
...
> I have had people I know ask me about the "soaring thing"....What do you
do
> when the wind stops?......etc. I tell them that glider flying is something
like
> crossing a stream jumping from stone to stone. Then I ask them if they
have
> ever done that...you know, jumped from stone to stone as they crossed a
> stream. Certainly, most people say "yes". Then I ask them if they ever
just
> jumped up in the air and then looked to see if there was a stone to land
upon.
> Naturally, everyone looks at me with a strange look and says..."Of course
> not!!" Then I explain that in soaring we go "from stone to stone" only the
> "stones" are safe landing places...in other words, you never jump off from
one
> safe landing place without the altitude in hand to either make it back or
then
> proceed on to the next safe landing place ( the next "stone").
>
> Most people, when they see that glider flying (soaring, as I prefer to
call it)
> is not some sort on unreasoning, suicidal passtime, understand that it CAN
be
> safe. And, like many things from mowing your lawn to skydiving, your
personal
> judgement is quite important in determining the risk level involved.
>
> So, I guess that is my point....develop good judgement and the risk level
is
> manageable....fail to develop good judgement in any endeavor and the risk
lever
> goes way up.
>
> Don Johnson, Reno,. NV
Don,

Very good analogy.

Frank Whiteley
Colorado

[Robert John]

Average speed 80kmh? (50mph) I wish!
I drive about 12000 miles a year and much of it is
70-80mph motorway, but when you look at the overall
average mph (my car computer tells me) it's about 35mph.
It's the bits around home (trips to the shops, the
office etc) that kill the average speed and, statistically,
are most likely to kill the driver too.
I live in a village 30 miles outside London, BTW
The average speed against distance suggests I spend
about an hour a day in the car - sounds about right
and probably typical for a highish mileage driver.

At 09:36 02 September 2003, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>In article ,
> (Martin Hellman) wrote:
>
>> When I got back into soaring in 1994 I had a similar
>>concern and
>> concluded that, within about a factor of two, soaring
>>and driving had
>> about the same risk of dying on an annual basis. That
>>estimate is
>> consistent with the UK poster who came up with 6000:1
>>for driving and
>> 2000:1 for soaring in the UK, since my estimate was
>>rough. (It's hard
>> to know how many glider pilots are active.) Also,
>>it could be that the
>> crowded skies in Europe produce a higher fatality
>>rate.
>>
>> On an hourly basis, that makes soaring much more dangerous
>>for the
>> typical pilot who flies about 100 hours a year, vs
>>drives about 500.
>
>Who the heck (other than a professional driver) drives
>500 hours a year??
>
>The average car here in New Zealand does around 15,000
>km/year, and we
>drive a *lot*. If you assume an average speed of 80
>km/h (which is
>probably a bit low) then you're talking about something
>like 200 hours.
>
>I suppose there may be a lot of people in other parts
>of the world who
>spend a lot of time waiting at traffic lights, or in
>traffic jams. But
>that's not *driving*, and it's surely less likely to
>kill you than is
>driving at 100+ km/h. If you're going to count that
>time towards
>'driving' then I think to be fair you've got to also
>count the whole day
>I spend at the glider field, not just the hour of that
>I spend flying.
>
>-- Bruce
>

[Bert Willing]

I'm doing 40'000km per year (and I don't have the impression that I'm that
exceptional), half of it between the place I live and the airfield. That's
about 500 hours, or 3 times my annual flight time :-(

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Bruce Hoult" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> In article >,
> (Martin Hellman) wrote:
>
> > When I got back into soaring in 1994 I had a similar concern and
> > concluded that, within about a factor of two, soaring and driving had
> > about the same risk of dying on an annual basis. That estimate is
> > consistent with the UK poster who came up with 6000:1 for driving and
> > 2000:1 for soaring in the UK, since my estimate was rough. (It's hard
> > to know how many glider pilots are active.) Also, it could be that the
> > crowded skies in Europe produce a higher fatality rate.
> >
> > On an hourly basis, that makes soaring much more dangerous for the
> > typical pilot who flies about 100 hours a year, vs drives about 500.
>
> Who the heck (other than a professional driver) drives 500 hours a year??
>
> The average car here in New Zealand does around 15,000 km/year, and we
> drive a *lot*. If you assume an average speed of 80 km/h (which is
> probably a bit low) then you're talking about something like 200 hours.
>
> I suppose there may be a lot of people in other parts of the world who
> spend a lot of time waiting at traffic lights, or in traffic jams. But
> that's not *driving*, and it's surely less likely to kill you than is
> driving at 100+ km/h. If you're going to count that time towards
> "driving" then I think to be fair you've got to also count the whole day
> I spend at the glider field, not just the hour of that I spend flying.
>
> -- Bruce

[Jim Vincent]

>I'd be interested in your reasons for saying that "the bits around home"
>are more likely to kill the driver.

Did you hear the one about the Blonde that heard most accidents happen within
three miles of home? She moved.
Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[JohnH]

Robert John wrote:


> Probably right Bruce, though I can get quite quick
> on the windy roads from home to gliding club (15 mins
> - I chose the house to be near the club - looks like
> Bert Willing should do the same! 20,000km per annum
> to and from airfield?! that's extreme dedication or
> extreme something else which I am far too gentlemanly
> to suggest!)
> Rob

Since it is being discussed, here in Florida I put around 20,000 miles
per year on my motorcycle (touring), and probably 12-15,000 on my auto.
I work from my home. Sometimes it's a distance 'scale' situation.
Doing an 80 mile round trip here is nothing to buy something because
everything is so spread out, but in rural S. Illinois that would be
considered a 'vacation journey' :)

john
orlando fl