How safe is flying, really?

It's obviously more dangerous than driving a car. I've been flying for over forty years and the number of people I personally knew that perished in aircraft accidents far outweighs the number of people I personally knew that perished in automobile accidents - despite the fact that I personally know far more automobile drivers than pilots.

As far as currency and experience somehow shielding you from this risk, well Sparky Imeson and Scott Crossfield are a couple of names right off the top of my head.

If it's any consolation I think you have far more control over the risk factors with an airplane as the chances of getting creamed by a drunk aviator are pretty nil, even on a Friday night but never forget that you are in a machine flying a mile or two over often desolate and forbidding terrain. There just plain simply are more factors of risk than coasting down a populated stretch of pavement.
 
If we know anything at this point, it's that machinery, number of engines and horsepower combined represent no more than 10% of the problem.

Start with simple stuff like best practices. Does anybody know why crews utilizing them forego running check lists while the plane is in motion on the taxiway or runway prior to takeoff and/or after landing?



Henning said:
Yep, multiple engines, excess horsepower and train frequently and till you sweat.
Click to expand...
 
Silvaire said:
It's obviously more dangerous than driving a car. I've been flying for over forty years and the number of people I personally knew that perished in aircraft accidents far outweighs the number of people I personally knew that perished in automobile accidents - despite the fact that I personally know far more automobile drivers than pilots.

As far as currency and experience somehow shielding you from this risk, well Sparky Imeson and Scott Crossfield are a couple of names right off the top of my head.

If it's any consolation I think you have far more control over the risk factors with an airplane as the chances of getting creamed by a drunk aviator are pretty nil, even on a Friday night but never forget that you are in a machine flying a mile or two over often desolate and forbidding terrain. There just plain simply are more factors of risk than coasting down a populated stretch of pavement.
Click to expand...

What your suggesting is exactly why the airlines temper their very experienced pilots with tight operational guidelines.

Sparky Imeson and Scott Crossfield are examples of untempered experience making them believe they are invincible.

In GA we have to create our own set of conservative operational guidelines and not break them. That along with experience should give us much better odds than most.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Sparky Imeson and Scott Crossfield are examples of untempered experience making them believe they are invincible.
.
Click to expand...

That is a bold statement. Of course all pilot error(so most crashes) is due to inexperience or complacency. :lol:
 
ClimbnSink said:
What saves us is the lack of money/time to fly. Win the lottery and fly as much and whatever you want and your odds go in the toilet.
Click to expand...

From a certain point of view this makes sense, but I completely disagree. You need to stay proficient, if you don't you won't live long. Let's use an extreme example, if you can only afford one flight in ten years then your proficiency will be so low that it will be almost fatal to take off. Of course you can take off with an instructor but then you'll just be trusting the instructor with your life, and that's not a good idea.
If you stay proficient and know you're limits your chances of survival will increase.
Even excluding pilot error most mechanical problems can be fixed by the pilot, but the pilot needs to be ready to fix them.
 
Last edited:
It's not the machinery that needs the ongoing attention, it's the operator.

supernovae said:
How much does an average cost 100 hour cost for single engine, 2-4 place? what do they check in this vs annual? any place describe the differences? Anyone put their personal aircraft through regular 100hour checkups or doe you only fly so much that 100 hour checks would be your 2nd year annual? :)
Click to expand...
 
I don't think two crashes are even remotely similar. I was visiting with Sparky frequently about stuff that two old guys talk about after the kids have gone to bed, and know for a fact that something was going on with his physical/neuro whatever. It was private then and still is, but the 24 hours prior to the fatal flight provide some good insight.

Alexb2000 said:
What your suggesting is exactly why the airlines temper their very experienced pilots with tight operational guidelines.

Sparky Imeson and Scott Crossfield are examples of untempered experience making them believe they are invincible.

In GA we have to create our own set of conservative operational guidelines and not break them. That along with experience should give us much better odds than most.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I don't think two crashes are even remotely similar. I was visiting with Sparky frequently about stuff that two old guys talk about after the kids have gone to bed, and know for a fact that something was going on with his physical/neuro whatever. It was private then and still is, but the 24 hours prior to the fatal flight provide some good insight.
Click to expand...

That was a frequent topic at the hangars I frequented while living in Montana, I agree with you.
 
He thought his problems stemmed primarily from this scratch on the head when they crashed the Husky.

sparky's scratch.jpg

bartmc said:
That was a frequent topic at the hangars I frequented while living in Montana, I agree with you.
Click to expand...
 
tangopapa said:
My thought has been that GA is generally as safe as the pilot.
Click to expand...

GA is very safe... as long as you don't have fun doing it.



(A few of you will know what it is I'm referencing.)
 
wabower said:
I don't think two crashes are even remotely similar. I was visiting with Sparky frequently about stuff that two old guys talk about after the kids have gone to bed, and know for a fact that something was going on with his physical/neuro whatever. It was private then and still is, but the 24 hours prior to the fatal flight provide some good insight.
Click to expand...

Understood. Perhaps a bad example.

Let's me say it this way, not specific to any one person or situation, safety is enhanced when experience is coupled with some mechanism that avoids unnecessarily dangerous operations.
 
wabower said:
I don't think two crashes are even remotely similar. I was visiting with Sparky frequently....
Click to expand...

I wasn't inferring any similarity, I just picked Imeson and Crossfield off the top of my head as two highly experienced aviators that died in plane crashes - for whatever reason. Heck I could have picked Wiley Post for that matter.
 
Henning said:
Actually that is inverted, the weak link in the safety chain is in control of you.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I have a lot of control over my proficiency and continuing training to handle emergencies. I also have complete control over the amount of fuel I carry and reserves I enforce upon myself. I also control how low I fly and what weather I choose to fly into.

Just dealing with those few factors dramatically lowers my chances of becoming a statistic.
 
LDJones said:
I disagree. I have a lot of control over my proficiency and continuing training to handle emergencies. I also have complete control over the amount of fuel I carry and reserves I enforce upon myself. I also control how low I fly and what weather I choose to fly into.

Just dealing with those few factors dramatically lowers my chances of becoming a statistic.
Click to expand...

Your brain controls you and your brain is the main safety factor in a plane.... You are not in control of your brain, things can go physically haywire and you won't think the way you may today. Many of these things you have absolutely no control over. This is why having a person taking SSRIs saying "I'm just fine" is not an allowable evaluation of their condition or capability. Talk to a schizophrenic sometime about what it's like to lose control of your mind, not that that is the only way for it to happen.
 
I agree with that premise. In my case it's fear.
Alexb2000 said:
Understood. Perhaps a bad example.

Let's me say it this way, not specific to any one person or situation, safety is enhanced when experience is coupled with some mechanism that avoids unnecessarily dangerous operations.
Click to expand...
 
Alexb2000 said:
Let's me say it this way, not specific to any one person or situation, safety is enhanced when experience is coupled with some mechanism that avoids unnecessarily dangerous operations.
Click to expand...
Gee, I really like that one. You must be smart or something.

I believe rationalization has killed more pilots (and their passengers) than just about anything. Followed closely by ignorance and poor/shoddy maintenance. Safety is also enhanced through proper initial and recurrent training. Reference the effect on the accident rates that an SFAR has had on Robinson helicopters and Mitsubishi MU-2s. All those SFARs did was mandate a certain minimum amount of initial and recurrent training. I don't think the average pilot flies enough or trains enough. Fifty hours or so a year just isn't enough to do it without a careful plan including several flights with a CFI. A flight review every couple of years isn't enough. It might make you legal, it's not enough to make you safe.
 
Last edited:
Chance of dying while in a GA aircraft for one hour is 7 times greater than one hour in an automobile/truck/motorcycle (must combine them, there are no stats breaking them down further).

Pilots are the exact type of personality that will fight the above fact with all sorts of excuses, such as, "keep the tanks full", "don't fly into IMC", etc. But those can all be countered with, "don't drive drunk", "don't run red lights", "don't tailgate", etc.

It's dangerous. Plan accordingly and reduce your risk below the norm with all the known lifesaving tactics, i.e., make sure you NEVER run out of gas, do an IMSAFE religiously as part of every preflight, stay proficient, etc.
 
LDJones said:
I agree...that means I am in control of the weak link in the safety chain.
Click to expand...

Henning said:
Actually that is inverted, the weak link in the safety chain is in control of you.
Click to expand...

That's probably a good point. We would all like to think that our logical, rational, always safety-minded selves are in control of every every decision we make but I don't think that's always the case. Just recognizing that fact is a step in the right direction but I don't think it overcomes many of our impulses. If that was true we wouldn't have people who are addicted to smoking, gambling, alcohol or any number of other things. We would all be able to maintain the weight we want to be and never fall into too much debt.
 
Challenged said:
71% of accidents are pilot error; oddly enough, I somehow take comfort in that statistic.
Click to expand...

The fatal accident rate that I recall for pilot responsible accidents was some thing like 85% - 89%. Of the remaining 15%, engine stoppage was a big chunk, like 10%. And half or more of all engine stoppages were due to either fuel starvation or exhaustion.

There is a good book called "The Killing Zone" which argues that 200 -500 hours is the most dangerous time, once you get to 1000 hours the risk declines to a minimal level. Other observations from the book based on the accident statistics: night flying is many times more risky than day, night IMC is even worse. Thunderstorms and circle to land are very high risk.

If you want the safety of the airlines, fly with two pilots, do an IPC with an emphasis on emergencies every 6 months, only fly with two engine, turbine equipment.

Alan
 
JohnAJohnson said:
Pilots are the exact type of personality that will fight the above fact with all sorts of excuses, such as, "keep the tanks full", "don't fly into IMC", etc. But those can all be countered with, "don't drive drunk", "don't run red lights", "don't tailgate", etc.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, sometimes it's just impractical to not flying in IMC or to keep the tanks full. Regarding driving I can't think of a single good reason why you would consciously choose to drink while driving, run every red light, or tailgate.
 
MachFly said:
Not exactly, sometimes it's just impractical to not flying in IMC or to keep the tanks full. Regarding driving I can't think of a single good reason why you would consciously choose to drink while driving, run every red light, or tailgate.
Click to expand...

Good points. I should have qualified with "VFR (or rusty IFR) pilot into IMC", or "not paying attention to fuel", etc. To your second point, while I also can't think of a good reason why people tailgate, etc., there are drivers who probably cannot fathom why a pilot would takeoff without first checking his fuel quantity. Point is, the conscientious driver can go a lifetime without a crash, and the conscientious pilot can do the same. There are things we can do to place ourselves on the positive side of the 7x factor but in order to do that, we should accept that what we do, in the aggregate, is a lot more dangerous than driving (in the aggregate). Too many of us deny that and I think it gives us a false sense of security, especially to an impressionable new pilot.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
Good points. I should have qualified with "VFR (or rusty IFR) pilot into IMC", or "not paying attention to fuel", etc. To your second point, while I also can't think of a good reason why people tailgate, etc., there are drivers who probably cannot fathom why a pilot would takeoff without first checking his fuel quantity. Point is, the conscientious driver can go a lifetime without a crash, and the conscientious pilot can do the same. There are things we can do to place ourselves on the positive side of the 7x factor but in order to do that, we should accept that what we do, in the aggregate, is a lot more dangerous than driving (in the aggregate). Too many of us deny that and I think it gives us a false sense of security, especially to an impressionable new pilot.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
Geico266 said:
I "grew up" flying ultra lights. Had 3 engine outs flying 2 cycle engines. It was part of the deal. Sounds dangerous, but when you figure all of Nebraska is a runway save a few center pivots and cows, life is good. Also figure all I needed to land was 100' of clear. I'm not bragging or boasting, it is just the way it was.

When I started flying "big" airplanes, I was glad I had the experiences of engine outs and off field landings. Hell, we used to land on sand bars on the Platte River for fun! ... but I digress. That experience taught me a lot about flying. I certainly hope if it happens again, "disbelief" ( like Henning said) doesn't set in.

"When all else fails..... fly the damn airplane."...... was my UL instructor's motto. It has served me well.
Click to expand...

Seems like your big plane might need a bit more than 100' and you might not always be over Kansas. Also the clearing might need to be reasonably smooth for your 70mph+ landing.:eek:
 
Dead Stick said:
I don't think the average pilot flies enough or trains enough. Fifty hours or so a year just isn't enough to do it without a careful plan including several flights with a CFI. A flight review every couple of years isn't enough. It might make you legal, it's not enough to make you safe.
Click to expand...

Since we like to compare flying to driving so much around here, I have to ask, if you stopped driving for say 3 years and then had a need to drive across the country, would you seek out driving instruction first, or just go for it? Same question for flying. No flying for 3 years, then hop in the plane and fly cross country, with or without instruction?

Put it another way, if you hadn't driven, or flown in 3 years and it was after the zombie apocalypse and there is not a single other airplane in the sky, or car on the road, which one would you feel safer operating?

Stripping it down to just mechanical failure, nobody in the air or on the ground, which is more likely to kill you if there is a mechanical failure, an airplane, or motorcycle?

Yeah, flying is more dangerous. Period. How dangerous just depends.
 
How safe is safe? Accident rates per hour are similar for GA and automobiles. Fatalities are a much smaller percentage of accidents in autos, maybe 0.05-0.1 per 100,000 hr. Is 7 aviation accidents and 1 fatal per 100,000 hours unacceptable? And that's an average, including those who don't try to be safe. If you are paying attention, you should be able to reduce that to 20% of the average.

Fly safe, and don't obsess about the numbers.
 
chemgeek said:
How safe is safe? Accident rates per hour are similar for GA and automobiles. Fatalities are a much smaller percentage of accidents in autos, maybe 0.05-0.1 per 100,000 hr. Is 7 aviation accidents and 1 fatal per 100,000 hours unacceptable? And that's an average, including those who don't try to be safe. If you are paying attention, you should be able to reduce that to 20% of the average.

Fly safe, and don't obsess about the numbers.
Click to expand...

That's part of the issue that caused my statement that started this thread. Just how bloody safe do you expect hurdling yourself through the air at speeds most people will not achieve on the highway to be? Even on the highways in a car if you screw it up at 120mph, you're dead.
 
Dav8or said:
Seems like your big plane might need a bit more than 100' and you might not always be over Kansas. Also the clearing might need to be reasonably smooth for your 70mph+ landing.:eek:
Click to expand...

That's why I fly RV's stalls are in the 30's for my -12 and 50's for the -10.

I agree on the distance, but I'm usually higher than tree top now. ;)
 
Back to the original question, flying is a different risk than driving, so safety is relevant to a lot of things. While flying with my instructor once, he was telling me why I would enjoy flying. He was looking down at car traffic and he said- a lot of pilots will tell you you are safer up here than down in that traffic, but you are probably not. Run out of fuel or encounter bad weather and your odds are better down there. But, he said, life is risk management. Are you going to sit in your house in the lazyboy in the corner every day to feel safe? Almost every fun thing you do in life, scuba diving, zip lining, or whatever, you measure the risk, try to be safety oriented and you take your chances at what life expects from you.
 
dcmoser said:
Back to the original question, flying is a different risk than driving, so safety is relevant to a lot of things. While flying with my instructor once, he was telling me why I would enjoy flying. He was looking down at car traffic and he said- a lot of pilots will tell you you are safer up here than down in that traffic, but you are probably not. Run out of fuel or encounter bad weather and your odds are better down there. But, he said, life is risk management. Are you going to sit in your house in the lazyboy in the corner every day to feel safe? Almost every fun thing you do in life, scuba diving, zip lining, or whatever, you measure the risk, try to be safety oriented and you take your chances at what life expects from you.
Click to expand...

So where does the statement, "It's more dangerous to drive to the airport than to fly an airplane", comes from? Do you think that the statement is actually referencing flying as a passenger in an airliner, rather than learning to fly or flying a GA airplane?
 
From the airlines. And probably true.

N918KT said:
So where does the statement, "It's more dangerous to drive to the airport than to fly an airplane", comes from? Do you think that the statement is actually referencing flying as a passenger in an airliner, rather than learning to fly or flying a GA airplane?
Click to expand...
 
N918KT said:
So where does the statement, "It's more dangerous to drive to the airport than to fly an airplane", comes from? Do you think that the statement is actually referencing flying as a passenger in an airliner, rather than learning to fly or flying a GA airplane?
Click to expand...

Delusional people lying to themselves and others. Airline scores about even on the Nall Report IIRC.
 
Henning said:
Delusional people lying to themselves and others. Airline scores about even on the Nall Report IIRC.
Click to expand...

I remember someone breaking it down to something like this before:

Driving: 1.3 fatal accidents and 1.5 fatalities per 100 million miles
Airlines: .05 fatal accidents and 1.5 fatalities per 100 million miles
GA: 7.5 fatal accidents and 13.1 fatalities per 100 million miles

What really messed up the numbers though is that there is no distinction in commercial vs public driving miles and the fact that accidents statistically increase closer to home you MAY actually be less likely to crash in an airplane than crash on your way to an airport but only if your airport meets the statistically higher odds of people rushing/not paying attention for local / closer drives..

either way, I hope we continue to improve the safety of GA
 
Last edited:
As with driving, many airplane accidents are our own fault. I just try not to be one of those "bad decision" guys who are there own worst enemy. But we are all capable of that 1 or 2 second lapse which may cost us dearly. I try to make my flying as safe as I can as I'm certain most of you do. Can't ever be a 100% risk free activity but we can attempt to make it that way. My instructor told me, the first couple hundred hours may be the safest. After that it is easy to become ho-hum complacent. That thought has always scared me enough to try to take every single flight very seriuosly. Now let's go out and fly safely!!
 
dcmoser said:
As with driving, many airplane accidents are our own fault. I just try not to be one of those "bad decision" guys who are there own worst enemy. But we are all capable of that 1 or 2 second lapse which may cost us dearly. I try to make my flying as safe as I can as I'm certain most of you do. Can't ever be a 100% risk free activity but we can attempt to make it that way. My instructor told me, the first couple hundred hours may be the safest. After that it is easy to become ho-hum complacent. That thought has always scared me enough to try to take every single flight very seriuosly. Now let's go out and fly safely!!
Click to expand...


According to a VERY informative book entitled "The Killing Zone" which I HIGHLY reccommend, the hours AFTER the checkride up until 350 are statistically the most dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top