How safe is it, really?

Mike
MU-2

Do you know Sandy McAusland?
VL

"Back_To_Flying" wrote:

He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport.
Driving is still the most dangerous activity we humans do.

Utter BS.

Ok, unlike you I have done some research on this then .

Evidently you haven't, or you'd know that the fatal accident rate of private
flying is 700% higher than that of driving in the U. S.

Driving is the
leading cause of death for American drivers between 15 - 20 years of age.
Here is my source http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/041018-3.htm

Yes. So? Are you saying kids fly as much as they drive?

I have also seen a few more reports concluding the same. So one could
conclude that driving is still much more dangerous than flying regardless
of
age group. Do you have proof of the opposite? Then show me your source.

You said: "He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the
airport.", indicating that you believe there is greater risk in one driving
trip than in one flying trip. Then you presented statistics about death
rates from a population that contains almost no pilots. In other words,
you've ignored the relative exposure of pilots vs. drivers. That old
chestnut you quoted about the drive to the airport may be true for traveling
by scheduled airlines, but it is not even close to true about private
flying.

As for my source, I get the Nall Report from the ASF every year:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/02nall.pdf -- you can get the GA fatal
accidents/hour from it and compare that to the rate for driving.

Just for fun, ask yourself these three questions: How many celebrities do
you know of that have died in GA accidents? How many in car crashes? How
much time do celebrities spend traveling in GA aircraft vs traveling in
cars?

As Richard Collins noted in a recent article in Flying Magazine, anyone who
has been heavily involved in aviation for decades will know more people that
have died in plane crashes than have died in car crashes, even though most
people they know don't fly.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

wrote:
You are right to be concerned for the safety of your children with
respect
to your husband's flying, particularly in weather requiring the
instrument
rating.

She is right to be concerned. But she said it was a hobby, and we don't
know what her husband's intentions are regarding the instrument rating.
Not everyone who pursues that rating gets it with the intention of
taking off routinely in weather "requiring an instrument rating" (except
for the purpose of staying current) ... many get it for the added
training, knowledge and precision as well as for the "just in case"
situation that *might* occur despite all the best laid plans, but not
one you'd actively seek out.

IMO that's a dangerous attitude to have. An instrument rated pilot who does
not regularly use the rating cannot be proficient unless he is exceptionally
committed to regular training. I don't know any pilots who fit that
description. The ones I know who keep the rating "just to get through a
cloud deck" would be in real danger if unexpectedly forced to fly an
approach to minimums.

Someone else asked what she expected to hear -- I think she either
expected someone to tell her that she was right and that her husband
should give up flying until their two daughters are adults and no longer
dependants, or maybe she just wanted and needed to hear how others
weigh, justify, rationalize or prioritize the risk in our decision
whether or not to fly, and some assurance that her husband was going in
a sensible direction, not deeper into danger.

I think she is justifiably worried. Look at it from her side: she knows
zip-all about flying aside from what she sees on TV, which is nearly 100%
bad. How would you feel? I think it shows some good sense that she is at
least willing to research the subject. We don't know her husband; she does.
She doesn't know flying; we do (well, some of us do). So she has to weigh
what she reads here against what she thinks about her husband's judgement.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
It is important to remember than airline pilots flying an airliner is
different from an airline pilot flying a small GA aircraft.

Yes. For one thing, he most likely has better recurrent training. For
another, he has more rigorous procedures he must follow, which are monitored
by voice and data recorders. And last, but not least, he has help from
another pilot.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

...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"

I've read the Nall report.

You're missing my point. My point is, the way *I* fly, in *my* plane, is
safer than *my* drive to *my* airport, which is my main concern and the only
thing I can directly influence.

Isn't it possible I could be right? Do you agree that some kinds of GA
flying are safer than some kinds of automobile driving?



"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
. com...
I think you also have to focus on the safety risks of different kinds of
"driving." A Sunday morning drive on a deserted country lane is quite
safe.
Anywhere close to a high school at 4 pm on a school day is like Russian
roulette.

Big city freeways, when not at a standstill, are congested, high speed,
tailgating, free-for-alls. I am sure my flying in my plane is safer than
my
driving on my city freeways. I have to drive about 20 miles on those
freeways to get to my airport, and always breathe a sigh of relief that
the
dangerous part is over when I pull onto the airport ramp. Statistics are
relevant to me only if the sample is of people very close to people like
me
taking risks like mine. It is quite possible that for many of us, our
driving is more dangerous than our flying.

You will not find any supporting evidence for your assumptions. Any way
you
want to look at it GA flying is more likely to result in your death than
driving many times over. What you would find is that two lane country
roads
are among the most dangerous. Two way undivided traffic allows for very
little error and even single car accidents are spectacular. Divided
multilane traffic is among the safest.

The Nall report is available on the AOPA WEB site. It makes for
interesting
reading.

"Dan Luke" wrote:
Just for fun, ask yourself these three questions: How many celebrities do
you know of that have died in GA accidents?

This isn't really an accurate way to judge *anything* (see below), but
just to play along, let's at least add the limitation "in the last 45
years":

As Pilot in Command (I'm sure there are more, but these are the only two
that come to mind):
1. John Denver
2. John Jr.

As a passenger (where they're hopping on board something that will
either get them home or on to the next destination to meet a schedule
.... how many pleasure pilots like the one the *original poster* wrote
about begin their flights with those time constraints?):
1. Rick Nelson
3. Stevie Ray Vaughan
4. Aliyah
5. Randy Rhoads (guitarist for Ozzy Osborne)
6. Buddy Holly

How many in car crashes?

1. Princess Grace
2. Princess Diana
3. Cliff Burton (Metallica)
4. Michael Hedges (guitarist)
5. Jayne Mansfield

How much time do celebrities spend traveling in GA aircraft vs traveling in
cars?

Probably a lot more in aircraft (GA or otherwise).
Designate any other *select group* of people who travel in conjunction
with work or for pleasure -- let's say, the top-5 executives of all
major corporations -- over the past 45 years, and I'm sure, if there
were a way to track it, you'd have a similar number that have had
plane/car crashes, we just haven't made mental note of those because
they simply aren't as noteworthy to us.

As Richard Collins noted in a recent article in Flying Magazine, anyone who
has been heavily involved in aviation for decades will know more people that
have died in plane crashes than have died in car crashes, even though most
people they know don't fly.

Yes, but again, that's not a fair representation of anything. While
pilots represent a small percentage of the total population, the flying
community of "anyone who has been heavily involved in aviation for
decades" stretches far and wide -- most people who fly either know or
know-of other pilots at their airport and at other airports at close AND
distant locations. It's not unusual, if you've been "heavily involved
for decades", to know, or know OF the pilot when an accident occurs. How
many people at your airport or at other airports have you met and BS'ed
with, even if just about how they burned your toast at the Hangar Café?
If something happens to them, you will remember them or their airplane.
But if you BS with someone at the grocery store or at a friend's party,
unless there was something particularly noteworthy about them, odds are
you wouldn't remember them 5 or 10 years later if they die in a car
crash.

That flying community that is built over "decades" encompasses a far
larger number of people than the total of your family and circle of
friends and co-workers, even though we often don't know more about them
than their name and the aircraft they fly. If we had that same kind of
link/connection to everyone and way to remember them that we do to other
pilots, I'm sure the number of car crash fatality victims we know or
know-of would be *at least* as great or greater.

IMO, that Richard Collins comment is simply NOT an indication of
anything other than what we've already established ... we know or
know-of many other pilots and airplanes in a more personal, identifiable
way than we can possibly know or know-of all other random cars and
drivers.

And again, bottom line, what difference does it make which mode of
transportation statistics say is more or less safe?...I don't think most
people look at the stats every morning as a way to gauge whether or not
to fly that day.

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?

The types of experiences you have described are so far beyond the realm of
anything I've experienced, that I feel the need to reassure the original
poster that this is NOT typical of most pilots who fly light planes. If it
were, this poor lady should drag her husband out of the cockpit, kicking and
screaming, right NOW.

I've been flying for ten years. I've got over 900 hours as PIC, and another
400 hours of right seat time (my wife is a pilot, too.). In that time I
have NEVER experienced an in-flight emergency or come close to death.

We have flown from coast to coast, in all seasons, first in poorly
maintained rental planes, and -- since '98 -- in our own well-maintained
aircraft.

In the rental planes I experienced a couple of failures:

1. Electrical system. The lights went out in two rental planes, resulting
in little more than inconvenience.
2. Water in the fuel. I once sumped over a QUART of water from a rental
plane. That's why we do pre-flight inspections.
3. Broken throttle cable. This happened on the ground, luckily, during
run-up.

In planes I have owned, we have experienced no mechanical failures of any
kind, mostly because I insist on maintaining our aircraft to perfection.

We watch the weather closely, and carefully pick our times to fly. We
ALWAYS refuel after every flight, so that we always have full tanks. Since
we can fly non-stop for over 5 hours, this pretty much eliminates the
"running out of gas" scenario.

We don't "buzz" anyone, we don't overload the aircraft, and we don't fly
when the weather sucks. Our one concession to safety (we also have two
kids, both of whom have flown since they were tots) is that we no longer fly
at night.

We also ride motorcycles, BTW, although less and less as time goes by.

Life is a terminal condition, and there ain't no one getting off this planet
alive. There are so many people in this world who are simply waiting to
die -- I hope the original poster lets her husband live his dream.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

unicate wrote:
She is right to be concerned. But she said it was a hobby, and we don't
know what her husband's intentions are regarding the instrument rating.
Not everyone who pursues that rating gets it with the intention of
taking off routinely in weather "requiring an instrument rating" (except
for the purpose of staying current) ... many get it for the added
training, knowledge and precision as well as for the "just in case"
situation that *might* occur despite all the best laid plans, but not
one you'd actively seek out.

"Dan Luke" wrote:
IMO that's a dangerous attitude to have. An instrument rated pilot who does
not regularly use the rating cannot be proficient unless he is exceptionally
committed to regular training. I don't know any pilots who fit that
description. The ones I know who keep the rating "just to get through a
cloud deck" would be in real danger if unexpectedly forced to fly an
approach to minimums.

Agreed. Obviously a person has to practice regularly to keep the skills
sharp. Most of the IA pilots I know of do this, I'm surprised to hear
you say you don't know of any who do. Point I was trying to make is that
people who are not familiar (the original poster) often mistakenly
think, when they hear that someone wants an instrument rating, that it
means they are then going to then take off in *any* weather because they
"know how to fly in the clouds". Hopefully, that's not the case. And
while I agree that a person needs to use the rating to stay proficient,
even going through the training, ground work and testing to get it will
make him/her more competent unless they forget everything once they're
done with the checkride.

I think she is justifiably worried. Look at it from her side: she knows
zip-all about flying aside from what she sees on TV, which is nearly 100%
bad. How would you feel? I think it shows some good sense that she is at
least willing to research the subject. We don't know her husband; she does.
She doesn't know flying; we do (well, some of us do). So she has to weigh
what she reads here against what she thinks about her husband's judgement.

I concurred in all of my comments that she had justifiable concern. And
yes, it shows good sense *and* an open mind that she was willing to get
and weigh more info. Where did you get the idea I was saying anything
else?

"Dan Thompson" wrote:
I've read the Nall report.

You're missing my point. My point is, the way *I* fly, in *my* plane, is
safer than *my* drive to *my* airport, which is my main concern and the
only
thing I can directly influence.

Isn't it possible I could be right?

It's possible, if each activity were conducted at the opposite extremes of
behavior and circumstances with respect to risk, but how realistic is that?

Do you agree that some kinds of GA
flying are safer than some kinds of automobile driving?

I have seen no evidence for it, but I would bet that a proficient pilot
making a 50-mile trip in a 172 on a nice day is at less risk than a drunk
redneck speeding down a two-lane mountain road at night in the rain. So
what?

Look at it this way: you fit somewhere on the bell curve of drivers WRT
judgement and ability, probably on the good slope, in your opinion. Don't
you think you occupy about the same spot on the private pilot bell curve?
But the risk/hour for all private pilots is *much* greater than the
risk/hour for all drivers, so, even though compared to others you're as good
a pilot as you are a driver -- better than most --, your risk while flying
is still greater than your risk while driving.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM