How safe is it, really?

"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

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 link.net...
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

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" 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.

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

"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.

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

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.

"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.

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