How safe is it, really?

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net...
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

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
link.net...
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

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

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
. com...
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.

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.

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
. com...
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.

"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.

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

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

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 link.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
. com...
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.