If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. I've taken my kids hiking in the Grand Canyon (no hand rails!), swimming in the ocean (sharks!), spelunking in underground caverns (cave-ins), bike riding on trails (broken neck!), and motorcycling across the country (crazy drivers trying to kill us!). During each one of these activities, I've been acutely aware of the high risks involved. I've also taken them flying since before they could walk, and have never felt that I was needlessly endangering them. Were my kids safer in the ocean? Everything comes down to risk assessment. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hello
I'm a flight instructor, and I often get asked this question by prospective students, their family members, and interested people in general. Other people here have given you some numbers that pan out to about 1 accident per 2,200,000 miles flown and one fatal accident per 13,000,000 miles flown. These are based on a conservative 125 knots average cruise for the 'average GA' plane and 1.15 statute miles per nautical mile, which kind of 'normalizes' the data in relation to 'car miles'. (Please no flames from purists...these are ballpark numbers). As an in instructor, one thing I look for in evaluating the 'safety' of any given pilot is his or her personality. And this is relevant to the question you asked. Why? Because in general aviation, avout 80% of accidents are caused by 'pilot error', and of those about 2/3rds are attributable directly to one of 3 common mistakes: Low level maneuvering (buzzing), fuel mismanagement (running out of gas), and flying VFR into IFR conditions. These three errors cause a great many deaths, and are *entirely* preventable. This data is taken, by the way, from an annual report on general aviation safety called the 'Nall Report'. A person's approach to solving problems, managing risk, and dealing with situations is reflected (or contained, depending on how you look at it) in their personality. And the way a person approaches the problems and issues of flying determines how likely he or she is to find themselves in a position where one of these errors is likely. Let me give you an example. I know an airplane partnership at my local airport. It is odd, because the 2 partners are *entirely* different in their approach to flying. They are both well-educated, good men, with solid technical skills. Both are IFR rated, and both have several hundred hours of experience. But one is *very* conservative in his approach to flying. He never lands his plane with less than at least one full hour of fuel in his tanks, even if that means landing 10 minutes from his destination to refuel. He's IFR rated, but never flys in conditions that approach even marginal VFR. He never 'buzzes' or acts ostentatiously in any manner. He is as conservative a pilot as I have ever met. He's very skilled, and I think he's *very* unlikely to find himself in one of the situations I mentioned above...which accounts for a *very* large percentage of aircraft accidents. His partner (also a very skilled pilot), has run a tank dry (over water, at night) because he wasn't paying enough attention to his fuel situation. He has had to put 57 gallons into a 60-gallon-capacity plane more than once, flys *very* marginal VFR (i.e. 'pretend VFR'), and flew in solid instrument conditions before he had completed his instrument rating. He's buzzed lakes and fields and houses, and has a reputation around the airport as an 'accident waiting to happen'. The first parter's personality, training, habits, and discipline make him a very safe pilot. he is *very* unlikely to encounter the conditions that kill over 1/2 of all GA pilots who die each year. The other partner is *very* likely to encounter them at some point. I guess I am asking 'which is your husband'? Earning his instrument rating *will* make him a better pilot. Every pilot I have ever flown with has become a better and more skilled pilot during their instrument training. But his safety or lack thereof is *much* more heavily influenced by his decision making and his approach to flying than by any rating or certificate he has. If your husband is a conservative decision maker, with the discipline to stick to reasonable 'personal minimums' and firm guidelines about fuel, weather conditions, personal health, etc., then his flying is *very* safe. Probably at least as safe (per mile) as driving a car, and possibly safer. Even factoring in the 'idiot contingent' (as one of my fellow CFIs call them), flying is quite safe. If you are flying with a disciplined, thoughtful, and well-trained pilot is is much safer, and probably a safer means of getting distant places than driving (highway travel is significantly more dangerous than local travel). Talk to your husband and his CFI about your concerns. They are valid issues, and nobody will dismiss them trivially. But safety depends on many things. His IFR training will likely make him a safer pilot...and if he has the personal characteristics and the discipline to avoid the 'voluntary' situations that bring with them significant danger, I think his safety and that of those flying with him is probably well within almost everyone's 'comfort region'. Cheers, Cap (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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
This has been an interesting thread! My main interest has been watching
pilots take one set of statistics that show what they want to see, and then to rationalize that they are safer yet! We see people using the fatal accident rate for GA as a whole which is much safer than the flying that people actually are engaged in. Every other type of GA flying (training, crop dusting, business) has a lower fatal accident rate than personal flying, but that doesn't deter pilots from using the "better" numbers anyway! Then they rationalize that they are safer yet because they don't engage in certain behaviors. Here are the numbers: Total GA Number of hours: 25,800,000 Fatal accidents: 351 Fatal Accident Rate: 1.36/100,000 hrs Turbine Business GA Number of Hours 6,446,000 Fatal Accidents: 17 Fatal Accident Rate .26/100,000hrs Total GA less Turbine Business GA (light GA) Number of Hours 19,354,000 Fatal Accidents 334 Fatal Accident Rate: 1.73 "Peronal Flying" (from Nall Report) Hours 47% of light GA Fatal Accidents 72% of light GA Fatal Rate: 2.65/100,000hrs. So the bottom line here is that the accident rate for personal flying is about twice the figure that pilots like to start with! I admit to using a mix of 2002, 2003 and five year averages to reach these conclusions but the accident rates have been fairly consistant over the years. http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/safety/20041130.php http://www.ibac.org/Library/ElectF/s...riefissue2.pdf http://ntsb.gov/aviation/Table10.htm http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf Wake up guys! It is what it is! Mike MU-2 "Captain Wubba" wrote in message om... Hello I'm a flight instructor, and I often get asked this question by prospective students, their family members, and interested people in general. Other people here have given you some numbers that pan out to about 1 accident per 2,200,000 miles flown and one fatal accident per 13,000,000 miles flown. These are based on a conservative 125 knots average cruise for the 'average GA' plane and 1.15 statute miles per nautical mile, which kind of 'normalizes' the data in relation to 'car miles'. (Please no flames from purists...these are ballpark numbers). As an in instructor, one thing I look for in evaluating the 'safety' of any given pilot is his or her personality. And this is relevant to the question you asked. Why? Because in general aviation, avout 80% of accidents are caused by 'pilot error', and of those about 2/3rds are attributable directly to one of 3 common mistakes: Low level maneuvering (buzzing), fuel mismanagement (running out of gas), and flying VFR into IFR conditions. These three errors cause a great many deaths, and are *entirely* preventable. This data is taken, by the way, from an annual report on general aviation safety called the 'Nall Report'. A person's approach to solving problems, managing risk, and dealing with situations is reflected (or contained, depending on how you look at it) in their personality. And the way a person approaches the problems and issues of flying determines how likely he or she is to find themselves in a position where one of these errors is likely. Let me give you an example. I know an airplane partnership at my local airport. It is odd, because the 2 partners are *entirely* different in their approach to flying. They are both well-educated, good men, with solid technical skills. Both are IFR rated, and both have several hundred hours of experience. But one is *very* conservative in his approach to flying. He never lands his plane with less than at least one full hour of fuel in his tanks, even if that means landing 10 minutes from his destination to refuel. He's IFR rated, but never flys in conditions that approach even marginal VFR. He never 'buzzes' or acts ostentatiously in any manner. He is as conservative a pilot as I have ever met. He's very skilled, and I think he's *very* unlikely to find himself in one of the situations I mentioned above...which accounts for a *very* large percentage of aircraft accidents. His partner (also a very skilled pilot), has run a tank dry (over water, at night) because he wasn't paying enough attention to his fuel situation. He has had to put 57 gallons into a 60-gallon-capacity plane more than once, flys *very* marginal VFR (i.e. 'pretend VFR'), and flew in solid instrument conditions before he had completed his instrument rating. He's buzzed lakes and fields and houses, and has a reputation around the airport as an 'accident waiting to happen'. The first parter's personality, training, habits, and discipline make him a very safe pilot. he is *very* unlikely to encounter the conditions that kill over 1/2 of all GA pilots who die each year. The other partner is *very* likely to encounter them at some point. I guess I am asking 'which is your husband'? Earning his instrument rating *will* make him a better pilot. Every pilot I have ever flown with has become a better and more skilled pilot during their instrument training. But his safety or lack thereof is *much* more heavily influenced by his decision making and his approach to flying than by any rating or certificate he has. If your husband is a conservative decision maker, with the discipline to stick to reasonable 'personal minimums' and firm guidelines about fuel, weather conditions, personal health, etc., then his flying is *very* safe. Probably at least as safe (per mile) as driving a car, and possibly safer. Even factoring in the 'idiot contingent' (as one of my fellow CFIs call them), flying is quite safe. If you are flying with a disciplined, thoughtful, and well-trained pilot is is much safer, and probably a safer means of getting distant places than driving (highway travel is significantly more dangerous than local travel). Talk to your husband and his CFI about your concerns. They are valid issues, and nobody will dismiss them trivially. But safety depends on many things. His IFR training will likely make him a safer pilot...and if he has the personal characteristics and the discipline to avoid the 'voluntary' situations that bring with them significant danger, I think his safety and that of those flying with him is probably well within almost everyone's 'comfort region'. Cheers, Cap (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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rapoport wrote:
This has been an interesting thread! My main interest has been watching pilots take one set of statistics that show what they want to see, and then to rationalize that they are safer yet! We see people using the fatal accident rate for GA .... I think this whole statistics discussion is irrelevant, even dangerous. Imagine a young beginning student pilot. If all those experienced pilots keep telling him that this or that activity (insert your favorite) is more dangerous than flying, what attitude will he develop? Instead, keep hammering in his (and your!) head that flying is extremely dangerous (which it really is). The only way to survive flying is knowing the risks and being dead serious about it, each time, always, no exceptions. A side effect of this attitude will be that the statistics will go down and flying will *appear* to be less dangerous. Stefan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Stefan" wrote in message ... Mike Rapoport wrote: This has been an interesting thread! My main interest has been watching pilots take one set of statistics that show what they want to see, and then to rationalize that they are safer yet! We see people using the fatal accident rate for GA ... I think this whole statistics discussion is irrelevant, even dangerous. Imagine a young beginning student pilot. If all those experienced pilots keep telling him that this or that activity (insert your favorite) is more dangerous than flying, what attitude will he develop? Instead, keep hammering in his (and your!) head that flying is extremely dangerous (which it really is). The only way to survive flying is knowing the risks and being dead serious about it, each time, always, no exceptions. A side effect of this attitude will be that the statistics will go down and flying will *appear* to be less dangerous. Stefan I agree and have always tried to have a realistic assesment of risk in whatever I do so that I can make an informed descision about whether the activity is worth doing. I see no point in downplaying the risks and, frankly, I'd view anybody whom I could convince that flying with me was as safe as flying on an airliner to be a total idiot. I am considering some climbing in the Himalaya and the fatal rate is about 4-5% per trip. There is no point in thinking these stats don't apply to me because "I won't do anything stupid" since everyone else who perished thought the same thing. Last month, I invited a friend to fly to Moose Creek to go fishing. He asked if flying in the Helio was "safe". I said: "Not really, we will be flying a single engine airplane over mountains with nowhere to land if the engine quits. We would probably survive the crash since the airplane is so slow. Do you want to go or not?" He showed up at the hanger with camping gear for a week which was an appropriate thing to do. Mike MU-2 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote
Last month, I invited a friend to fly to Moose Creek to go fishing. He asked if flying in the Helio was "safe". I said: "Not really, we will be flying a single engine airplane over mountains with nowhere to land if the engine quits. We would probably survive the crash since the airplane is so slow. Do you want to go or not?" He showed up at the hanger with camping gear for a week which was an appropriate thing to do. And I would have done the same (especially if I could get a little stick time). You do what seems reasonable to reduce the risk, and if after that it still seems worth it, then you do it. I've been watching this thread with much the same reaction as you. In fact, pretty mcuh the only reason I haven't contributed much to the thread is that you've pretty much covered the ground I would have. I have only one thing to add, and now I'm going to add it. It seems to me like most pilots here are in denial about the true risks of what they are doing. I also believe this is the primary reason we have the product liability climate in GA that we do. There have been lots of lawsuits against aircraft and component manufacturers by grieving widows and orphans. A few have even been successful. I'm not going to claim that the lawsuits were wholly without basis. By modern standards, many of the aircraft and components are poorly desinged, built, and maintained. There are all sorts of reasons for this, but it's an undeniable fact. The GA fatality rate due to mechanical problems alone is about the same as the automobile fatality rate as a whole. This doesn't include all the accidents that the NTSB categorizes as pure pilot error but which have a lot to do with the sad reality that the aircraft are, in certain circumstances, so difficult to operate that even the best of us can't hope to get it right 100% of the time. But here is the reality - the design flaws are no secret to anyone. Anyone who flies a taildragger from the back seat knows you can't see crap from there - but there are controls there anyway. Anyone who flies a slippery complex airplane in IMC knows that flying it without an AI can be difficult, and experienced pilots have screwed it up fatally before, and AI's and vacuum pumps are failure prone - but backup AI's with independent power sources are not required and are mostly not present. We all know that engines fail. We all know that weather forecasts are horoscopes with numbers. We know that our fuel tanks and carburetors can leak, that our leaning procedures are not terribly repeatable, and that our fuel gauges are largely inaccurate. None of this is news. So why do so many pilots minimize these risks, focus on relatively small segments of the accident picture, and in general pretend that private flying is safer than it is? I think it's because if they told the truth, their wives would certainly never fly with them or allow their kids to fly, and maybe stop them from flying entirely. The problem happens when some of these pilots inevitably crash and die. The thought process their families go through must be something like this: He was a very careful and safe pilot. Flying is safe. Therefore someone else must have been at fault in his accident. Let's punish that someone else so this never happens again. Michael |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:01:51 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote: "Peronal Flying" (from Nall Report) Hours 47% of light GA Fatal Accidents 72% of light GA Fatal Rate: 2.65/100,000hrs. I was curious how this number matches with driving, and on a per miles basis. I didn't see any statistics for automobile accidents on the NTSB website, but I found a website that listed the deaths per vehicle-km. http://www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen...glish/we2.html Guesstimating that the average GA plane flies 140mph. Fatal accident rate = 2.65 / 14M miles -or- 1 fatal accident per 5.3M miles The webpage above lists 9.4people killed per billion vehicle-kms. Converting to miles yields: 9.4 per 625M miles -or- 1 per 41M miles. Since the car statistics are 'people' killed per mile, and not fatal accident numbers per mile, the car numbers are actually better than 1 fatal accident per 41M miles. Since most vehicles are operated solo, the factor is probably 2, but is obviously higher than 1. -Nathan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Nathan Young" wrote in message ... On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:01:51 GMT, "Mike Rapoport" wrote: "Peronal Flying" (from Nall Report) Hours 47% of light GA Fatal Accidents 72% of light GA Fatal Rate: 2.65/100,000hrs. I was curious how this number matches with driving, and on a per miles basis. I didn't see any statistics for automobile accidents on the NTSB website, but I found a website that listed the deaths per vehicle-km. http://www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen...glish/we2.html Guesstimating that the average GA plane flies 140mph. Fatal accident rate = 2.65 / 14M miles -or- 1 fatal accident per 5.3M miles The webpage above lists 9.4people killed per billion vehicle-kms. Converting to miles yields: 9.4 per 625M miles -or- 1 per 41M miles. Since the car statistics are 'people' killed per mile, and not fatal accident numbers per mile, the car numbers are actually better than 1 fatal accident per 41M miles. Since most vehicles are operated solo, the factor is probably 2, but is obviously higher than 1. -Nathan This seems about right. If it is about 5x on a distance basis it is about 15x on a time basis. The numbers could be off by quite a bit and personal flying would still be significantly more dangerous than driving and vastly more dangerous than airline flying. Mike MU-2 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's minimum safe O2 level? | PaulH | Piloting | 29 | November 9th 04 07:35 PM |
Baghdad airport safe to fly ?? | Nemo l'ancien | Military Aviation | 17 | April 9th 04 11:58 PM |
An Algorithm for Defeating CAPS, or how the TSA will make us less safe | Aviv Hod | Piloting | 0 | January 14th 04 01:55 PM |
Fast Safe Plane | Charles Talleyrand | Piloting | 6 | December 30th 03 10:23 PM |
Four Nimitz Aviators Safe after | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | July 28th 03 10:31 PM |