How safe is it, really?

"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.

"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 a

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

"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

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.

"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

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

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

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.

"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

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)?