Why are so many people afraid to fly in small airplanes?

[dmccormack]

Wrong chip. Wrong guys. That one has been recalled.

Really? News to me.... it's worked for --(oh my goodness ) thirty years so far.... (did I really do Basic in 1980???)

 

[Trapper John]

The lead editorial in this month's Flying Magazine quotes Avemco's research that shows additional ratings (commercial, ATP, even IR) have little impact on accident rates. You might want to read it.

I read that last night. Very interesting, thanks for the tip.

 

[Jeanie]

It's that "modern" composite construction that makes it heavy,......

Dan[/quote]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I thought composite material made things lighter not heavier?

 

[dmccormack]

I thought composite material made things lighter not heavier?

Not compared to tube and fabric!!!!

 

[Trapper John]

Not compared to tube and fabric!!!!

I don't think it's at all incorrect to call tube and fabric, or wood and fabric composite construction.

 

[dmccormack]

I don't think it's at all incorrect to call tube and fabric, or wood and fabric composite construction.

True, but the marketing gurus have co-opted the term.

 

[Jeanie]

I meant that composite would be lighter, I thought, than the metal of the 172s.

 

[SkyHog]

Please note:

No one keeps track of accidents/incidents in which there was no damage or injuries. Car accidents, on the other hand, involve any collision between two vehicles.

Accident numbers are skewed. If you included every single engine failure where the airplane landed safely at an airport, or every off airport landing even for that matter, you'd see that dying in a plane incident/accident is even more rare than automobile accidents.

But at the moment, there's no method of capturing that data.

 

[mantakos]

No one keeps track of accidents/incidents in which there was no damage or injuries. Car accidents, on the other hand, involve any collision between two vehicles.

Car accident statistics only count accidents for which the police filed a report. In many cases where there are no injuries, the police are not involved at all. I know I've been involved in several car accidents, some fairly severe, where the police made no report.

But, as mentioned before, we generally don't care about these minor accidents, and if we look solely at fatal accidents, then we can be pretty confident that we're seeing nearly all the stats there are to count.

... If you included every single engine failure where the airplane landed safely at an airport, or every off airport landing even for that matter, you'd see that dying in a plane incident/accident is even more rare than automobile accidents.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. If we compare collected statistics for fatal car and GA accidents, we see that GA has a significant _multiple_ of the auto fatality rate.

But at the moment, there's no method of capturing that data.

Yes, there is. We can be confident that fatal accidents are reported, and we have several means by which to estimate activity.
-harry

 

[SkyHog]

Car accident statistics only count accidents for which the police filed a report. In many cases where there are no injuries, the police are not involved at all. I know I've been involved in several car accidents, some fairly severe, where the police made no report.

But, as mentioned before, we generally don't care about these minor accidents, and if we look solely at fatal accidents, then we can be pretty confident that we're seeing nearly all the stats there are to count.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. If we compare collected statistics for fatal car and GA accidents, we see that GA has a significant _multiple_ of the auto fatality rate.

Yes, there is. We can be confident that fatal accidents are reported, and we have several means by which to estimate activity.
-harry

Every car accident, damage or not, fatal or not != A small number of aviation accidents, excluding those without a requirement to report.

Incidents, for example, are probably not included in those statistics, are they?

 

[Jack Spectre]

Another thing to consider is the fact that if you make a mistake in a car, you might end up with scratched paint. Make the same mistake in a plane and you could die. The margin of error when flying a small airplane is razor thin and that's why it will always be fundamentally more dangerous to fly.

 

[mantakos]

Every car accident, damage or not, fatal or not != A small number of aviation accidents, excluding those without a requirement to report.

Incidents, for example, are probably not included in those statistics, are they?

The equation we're looking for is:

"how many fatal accidents" / "how much did we do"​

That's it, that's all we need to know. We need to know how many fatal car and plane accidents there were, and how much driving and flying was done. Divide the first by the second and you have a fatal accident rate.

We just don't care about what percentage of minor incidents were reported vs not reported.
-harry

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The margin of error when flying a small airplane is razor thin and that's why it will always be fundamentally more dangerous to fly.

Not if you're doing it right. A good pilot will have outs for as many situations as possible, making that margin for error much larger. The trick is to recognize and stop the accident chain before you're out of that margin that you've built in.

 

[SkyHog]

The equation we're looking for is:

"how many fatal accidents" / "how much did we do"​

That's it, that's all we need to know. We need to know how many fatal car and plane accidents there were, and how much driving and flying was done. Divide the first by the second and you have a fatal accident rate.

We just don't care about what percentage of minor incidents were reported vs not reported.
-harry

I disagree. Knowing the number of non-fatal accidents helps give a clue to the danger that is present in an activity. That is to say, mishaps happen. How likely is that mishap to be a deathly mistake?

That is much more important to me (and, I would think, most people) than how many fatal accidents there are per amount of activity done.

Fatal Accidents / Total Accidents
vs.
Fatal Accidents / Total Use

There is no way to get the first number, because it is not checked. As to the second, cars are going to lose that one simply because there is much more driving done than flying. The ratio may favor driving, but the sheer number of deaths alone is scary.

And to whomever said that the dangerline is razor thin in an airplane is wrong, if you are flying competently. Mishaps happen. How often do they end lives? That's what we don't know.

 

[wabower]

Nick, one more time. If the numbers support your assertions, why can't somebody produce one credible pro-GA source with research to support the case?

I disagree. Knowing the number of non-fatal accidents helps give a clue to the danger that is present in an activity. That is to say, mishaps happen. How likely is that mishap to be a deathly mistake?

That is much more important to me (and, I would think, most people) than how many fatal accidents there are per amount of activity done.

Fatal Accidents / Total Accidents
vs.
Fatal Accidents / Total Use

There is no way to get the first number, because it is not checked. As to the second, cars are going to lose that one simply because there is much more driving done than flying. The ratio may favor driving, but the sheer number of deaths alone is scary.

And to whomever said that the dangerline is razor thin in an airplane is wrong, if you are flying competently. Mishaps happen. How often do they end lives? That's what we don't know.

 

[dmccormack]

Another thing to consider is the fact that if you make a mistake in a car, you might end up with scratched paint. Make the same mistake in a plane and you could die. The margin of error when flying a small airplane is razor thin and that's why it will always be fundamentally more dangerous to fly.

Nah -- I know enough now to avoid cutting margins that thin.

Check fuel
Check weather
Check the airplane
Fly within the known flight envelope

Not exactly the ragged edge.

 

[mantakos]

... That is much more important to me (and, I would think, most people) than how many fatal accidents there are per amount of activity done.

I think most people want to know the answer to the question "what's my chance of dying?" That's answered via the fatal accident rate, the number of fatal accidents divided by how much driving or flying is done.

Fatal Accidents / Total Accidents

This is next to useless information. Imagine if these "back up cameras" catch on in cars, and now people can see what's behind them. The rate at which car drivers back into cars behind them while parallel parking or pulling out of a shopping mall parking spot will drop. This will reduce the number of total accidents in your equation above, with the net result being that your "quotient" will declare car driving as more dangerous than it was before.

Does that make sense?

As to the second, cars are going to lose that one simply because there is much more driving done than flying.

No, the rate of "fatal accidents / total use", which is a sensible measure of risk, show that GA flying is much more likely to result in a fatal accident than car driving.

Mishaps happen. How often do they end lives? That's what we don't know.

In 2008 there were 251 fixed-wing GA fatal accidents with 464 fatalities.
-harry

 

[MadseasoN]

My .02 about why people are scared to fly in small planes (and planes in general):

Because everytime you hear about airplanes in the news it's negative. They only report crashes, deaths, and gear-up landings (gee, that's a real news story there!). They don't report fun trips with the family or the smile on a kids face the first time he sits in a Cessna. They're programmed to believe that planes and motorcycles are inheritly dangerous when the operator in fact is the key variable.

Just recently a plane landed on a golf course here in Houston. Half the people in Houston posted comments [on the local newspaper site] saying that we should ban small planes. Why? Because one landed on a golf course? Let's get real. One guy even remarked "that plane should never have been allowed to get that close to Hobby Airport"! LOL. A friend of mine's sister was hit by a car while waiting at a bus stop. Should we ban bus stops?

 

[gprellwitz]

My .02 about why people are scared to fly in small planes (and planes in general):

Because everytime you hear about airplanes in the news it's negative. They only report crashes, deaths, and gear-up landings (gee, that's a real news story there!). They don't report fun trips with the family or the smile on a kids face the first time he sits in a Cessna. They're programmed to believe that planes and motorcycles are inheritly dangerous when the operator in fact is the key variable.

Just recently a plane landed on a golf course here in Houston. Half the people in Houston posted comments [on the local newspaper site] saying that we should ban small planes. Why? Because one landed on a golf course? Let's get real. One guy even remarked "that plane should never have been allowed to get that close to Hobby Airport"! LOL. A friend of mine's sister was hit by a car while waiting at a bus stop. Should we ban bus stops?

Good points. Did you post them as comments?

 

[Dan Thomas]

There's much that can be done in the cockpit that can make crashes more survivable. There's also much that can be done to reduce the incidence of pilot errors. Just a simple thing like accurate fuel gauges and a low fuel warning would be a major boon. Weather info in the cockpit can be a major advantage, too, as can autopilots.

Accurate gauges wouldn't change much, I think. There's always the chance that those accurate gauges get screwed up, and you won't know it unless you dip the tanks and compare your dip with the gauges. So we'd still need to dip, and we'd still need to calculate fuel needed for the intended flight. People who run out of gas usually try to go too far on the fuel they knew they had, or didn't dip the tanks and assumed they had a certain amount, and they still press on even when the gauges are on "E." That's why people run out of fuel, not because the gauges are wonky. Lack of airmanship, nothing more.

Dan

 

[mantakos]

Accurate gauges wouldn't change much, I think....

People run out of gas because they have only a vague notion of how much they've got, how quickly they're burning, and how much farther they have to go. Dipping the tanks would certainly tell them how much they had at the beginning of the flight, but that might have been hours ago.

Give pilots an accurate depiction of how much fuel they have right now, the rate at which they're burning it, how much farther they have to go, how much fuel that's going to take, and low-fuel annunciations, and pilots are going to end up with far fewer instances of airborne quiet.

The problem is that we have this notion that only dummies run out of fuel, and that a real pilot shouldn't need any fancy instrumentation, but we do prove that to be a fallacy on a fairly consistent basis.
-harry

 

[hindsight2020]

People run out of gas because they have only a vague notion of how much they've got, how quickly they're burning, and how much farther they have to go. Dipping the tanks would certainly tell them how much they had at the beginning of the flight, but that might have been hours ago.

Give pilots an accurate depiction of how much fuel they have right now, the rate at which they're burning it, how much farther they have to go, how much fuel that's going to take, and low-fuel annunciations, and pilots are going to end up with far fewer instances of airborne quiet.

The problem is that we have this notion that only dummies run out of fuel, and that a real pilot shouldn't need any fancy instrumentation, but we do prove that to be a fallacy on a fairly consistent basis.
-harry

Exactly. I have to work with the presumption that my C-150 has de facto half tanks unusable fuel by looking at the fuel gage. That thing is never even close to right. The process of including better technology into the system is expensive and bureaucratic, thence disincentivizing. Why should this be the norm? I didn't pay a premium for an accurate fuel gage in my jeep, why should the more task-intensive activity have to befall on worse technology? Weight? Gimme a break. That's part of the technology piece. We could do better. The problem is of course economies of scale. And the catch-22. We need more 'idiots' in the field to cheapen the acquisition and implementation cost of technology we take for granted in our cars, while car driving is marginally less benefited by said technology than flying would. But having more idiots also increases the likelihood of mishaps by absolute increase in the sample size. About the only way you can break that catch-22 is by reforming tort law to effectively not place such a punitive price on the implementation of technology in an otherwise economies-of-scale non-benefited industry.

Just like a car, my ability of accessing newer technology like solid state gyros, fuel injection, weather-depicting and integrated 21st century laptop technology avionics, newer and fuel-friendly materials and engines, better electrics and modernized system designs, without paying an activity-prohibiting premium for it would objectively make my flying activity safer. Can you imagine what the lay person's reaction would be if the addition of systems in their vehicles such as ESP, ABS, fuel injection, electronic sensors et al came with acquisition premiums of over 50% of the vehicle's price without said systems?! Indignation would ensue. And this is to trot in 2 dimensions to the mall. But add such system sophistication to an activity that already admittedly less people would be outright capable of performing safely, and said premium is all of a sudden par for the course and of no value-adding to the safe conduct of said activity?!?! YGBSM
I disagree, I think it would help me be safer not having to reinvent the wheel every time I decide to break contact with the ground.

And what's scarier is that there's a segment of the flying populace that shuns such technological implementation. Look at the taildragger crowd. Can't convince them that the insurance adjusters command a premium for a reason. But they wouldn't have it any other way. They collectively recognize it takes a higher level of pilot monitoring and task-intensive flying in order to land and take off these things consistently. Effectively they've agreed to stay behind on the technology front because conventional gears can effectively screen people out of said activity. Is that the kind of leadership one would like to represent one's flying interest? People who prosletyze safety by pushing forth an elitist litmus test and agenda? The same parallel could be drawn by the "you want technology then pay an ear for it" crowd. I find both quite self-defeating. Watering down the 'experience' by having automation and technology simplify the tasks of conducting flight does not bruise my ego. I don't yield pleasure out of complicating my decision-making matrix by always hacking at this flying thing proverbially 'partial-panel'. That's why there are mini-vans and formula one racers. "Let's not allow the industry afford mini-vans because some folks believe only indycar racers should be bestowed the 'priviledge' of operating ANY vehicle, and minivans shouldn't exist for that matter...." that's not helpful. Archaic fuel gages is but one simple example of this reinventing of the wheel that shouldn't have to be.

 

[Palmpilot]

Has it never occurred to you that taildraggers might be fun?

 

[Henning]

I meant that composite would be lighter, I thought, than the metal of the 172s.

It's a tricky thing. Your strength per weight may be higher with laminates, but your minimum weight for the structure may be higher as well. The engineering for a monocoque aluminium structure and a laminate composite are completely different.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Has it never occurred to you that taildraggers might be fun?

Not to mention, taildraggers are much better suited for backcountry flying and unimproved strips. Oh, and they're more efficient too - A C180 and a C182 are pretty much otherwise the same, but the C180 will (theoretically, at least, I don't have enough time in similar nose/tailwheel birds to know the difference in practice) be faster because there's not a huge honkin' drag-producin' nose gear right in the middle of the propwash.

AND they're fun.

It has NOTHING to do with being anti-technology.

 

[dmccormack]

Just like a car, my ability of accessing newer technology like solid state gyros, fuel injection, weather-depicting and integrated 21st century laptop technology avionics, newer and fuel-friendly materials and engines, better electrics and modernized system designs, without paying an activity-prohibiting premium for it would objectively make my flying activity safer.

No it wouldn't.

If your statement were true there would be no fatals in all the new G1000, XM- equipped birds.

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/Safetylessonslearned.aspx

All those safety "enhancements" further insulates the pilot from reality, those expanding his/her "comfortable operating range."


That said, next topic...

RE: Taildraggers

Some of us may enjoy flying old, antiquated technology because it frees us from slavish devotion to screens, dials, gauges and gadgets. It also forces us to be better pilots, and doesn't tempt is to fly in conditions the thing can't handle.

Suggestion? Go get some TW time in the oldest, hand-prop-required airplane you can find.

 

[wabower]

I've been flying taildraggers since 1957, and have concluded that having a starter button on the panel does nothing to diminish my enjoyment of the plane.

RE: Taildraggers

Some of us may enjoy flying old, antiquated technology because it frees us from slavish devotion to screens, dials, gauges and gadgets. It also forces us to be better pilots, and doesn't tempt is to fly in conditions the thing can't handle.

Suggestion? Go get some TW time in the oldest, hand-prop-required airplane you can find.

 

[dmccormack]

I've been flying taildraggers since 1957, and have concluded that having a starter button on the panel does nothing to diminish my enjoyment of the plane.

Agreed -- but my post was in response to the "Technology = safety!" tirade.

BTW -- a starter adds weight, complexity, and more maintenance costs, and on some of these old taildraggers, 20 lbs is a big hit on MGW.

 

[mantakos]

If your statement were true there would be no fatals in all the new G1000, XM- equipped birds.

No. If technology can improve safety, then we should expect that G1000-equipped Cirrus pilots should have a better safety record than those same pilots, flying the same kind of missions, with their heads screwed on the same way, while flying with less technology.

Our first tendency would be to compare the TAA safety record to the overall safety record, but we have to consider whether the types of pilots who fly those planes are typical pilots flying typical missions. It's not too hard to imagine that this might not be true.

All those safety "enhancements" further insulates the pilot from reality, those expanding his/her "comfortable operating range."

I don't know about "insulating from reality", but we can certainly imagine the possibility that the technology emboldens pilots to take greater risks, though I don't think we have much data to rely on to raise that above the level of hunch.
-harry

 

[dmccormack]

I don't know about "insulating from reality", but we can certainly imagine the possibility that the technology emboldens pilots to take greater risks, though I don't think we have much data to rely on to raise that above the level of hunch.
-harry

More than a hunch -- reams of anecdotal evidence, which is sufficient to toss somebody in jail.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Agreed -- but my post was in response to the "Technology = safety!" tirade.

BTW -- a starter adds weight, complexity, and more maintenance costs, and on some of these old taildraggers, 20 lbs is a big hit on MGW.

Which costs more - your car insurance or your airplane insurance?

The insurance company knows which you are more likely to crash.

 

[dmccormack]

Which costs more - your car insurance or your airplane insurance?

The insurance company knows which you are more likely to crash.

Airplane == $400 /year
Car = $1200/ year

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Airplane == $400 /year
Car = $1200/ year

Q.E.D.

 

[dmccormack]

Q.E.D.

Only if both insurance markets were equal in every other variable.

They ain't.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Only if both insurance markets were equal in every other variable.

They ain't.

Yea, the auto insurance is pretty competitive and you would expect to be able to get a better rate.

Bottom line, the insurance company is going to collect enough to cover their losses plus whatever extra they can squeeze without losing customers. If they were paying out more for wrecked Chief's compared to whatever you drive they would be charging more.

 

[gismo]

Agreed -- but my post was in response to the "Technology = safety!" tirade.

BTW -- a starter adds weight, complexity, and more maintenance costs, and on some of these old taildraggers, 20 lbs is a big hit on MGW.

My thoughts exactly. My useful load is 400 lbs. Subtract 50 lbs for a tolerable fuel load (2+ hrs) and it barely allows two 20th century standard adults (170lb each) and a flight manual. Adding a starter and battery would reduce that fuel to about one hours worth including reserves. I think I'll stick to hand propping which only costs me about half a pound for the rope I carry along to tie the plane to a nearby fixed object when starting.

 

[mantakos]

More than a hunch -- reams of anecdotal evidence, which is sufficient to toss somebody in jail.

Not really, no. We're trying to make a statistical argument here, and we don't have the data to do it. We're selling hunches, hunches chosen because they appeal to our sense of aesthetics. We're embracing them as true because we like the idea that they are true. Maybe they're true, maybe not.
-harry

 

[mantakos]

Which costs more - your car insurance or your airplane insurance?

The insurance company knows which you are more likely to crash.

What should cost more to insure?

- driving 20,000 miles in a year
- flying 50 hours in a year
- sky-diving once in a year
- the possibility that I might go nuts some time in the next year and try my hand at Russian Roulette​

The cost to insure depends on both the risk of the activity and how much of it I am likely to do. Russian Roulette is obviously the most dangerous activity on that list, but should be the cheapest to insure, because policy-holders aren't likely to take that risk very often.

But if we're comparing the risk of being a typical GA pilot to that of being a typical car driver, sort of a "lifestyle risk", then the comparison is reasonable. Problem is, of course, that the insurance cost depends on things like "cost to repair body damage from a fender bender", and not just personal injury/death risk.
-harry

 

[dmccormack]

Not really, no. We're trying to make a statistical argument here, and we don't have the data to do it. We're selling hunches, hunches chosen because they appeal to our sense of aesthetics. We're embracing them as true because we like the idea that they are true. Maybe they're true, maybe not.
-harry

IF I accepted your conclusion that ONLY statistical arguments are valid, then ..... yeah, OK.

I don't.

Most human activity is not driven by statistics (Thank God!) -- what a ridiculously barren, dry, boring, and tedious species we'd be.

 

[gismo]

I've never seen anybody offer up such statistics. Doing a little digging, though, it seems that the risk of death from 1 jump is comparable to the risk of death in 1 hr of GA flying. There's certainly nothing in those statistics that would dissuade me from jumping.
-harry

I wouldn't want to dissuade anyone from skydiving but my own personal perspective relates to the fact that the jumper club at the airport where I used to fly sailplanes averaged about 1 fatality per year out of about 250 active members. I'm willing to believe that the national multi year average is much better than that but when it's in your own backyard it's harder to ignore.