How safe is it, really?

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...

...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"

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"

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?

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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,

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