Why are the airlines so much safer than GA?

RyanB

RyanB

Super Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
16,209
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan
A repetitious question I'm sure, but what actually makes the airlines so much safer than GA? IMC seems to be a big deal for GA but for the airlines it seems to be no big deal. Is it automation on the aircraft that plays a big role in safety? Are the jet engines much more reliable than a piston? I know the pilots are trained but many GA pilots are too, so what is it that makes the airlines a 180 from GA?
 
Same pilots making the same flights in the same types of aircraft every day basically.

They have it down to a very exact science.
 
Better equipment certified to tougher standards.
Jet engines far more reliable than pistons.
Mandatory and difficult recurring training and checkrides for crew members.
Two-person crew.
To name a few. It's really no surprise.
 
No free will is the reason. We could do the same with GA but nobody would like it. I'll take the freedom and the gore that goes along.
 
In addition to what others have said, airlines have specific operating specifications that guide every move a pilot makes. There are few questions or situations for which there is not an answer in "the book."

Also, their physicals are not only more frequent than Part 91 exams, but the standards are much higher.

Lastly, training, training, training. A GA pilot can get certificated and rated and then, except for BFRs and instrument competency checks, not have his/her abilities checked on a regular basis. Not so with Part 121.

Bob Gardner
 
Training,specific procedures and better automation. The ga pilot,determines there own level of training,and what is acceptable risk.
 
It is worth noting that GA is a very inclusive term, with GA flights ranging from the scud-running VFR pilot in the marginally maintained 150 all the way up to Fortune 50 flight departments that choose to operate to standards similar to those of air carriers.

So long as the former outnumbers the latter, GA will have a worse record than airlines that have spent decades developing strategies to mitigate risk.
 
RussR said:
Better equipment certified to tougher standards.
Jet engines far more reliable than pistons.
Mandatory and difficult recurring training and checkrides for crew members.
Two-person crew.
To name a few. It's really no surprise.
Click to expand...

Jet engines provided the additional benefit of eliminating a lot of weather related crashes. On-board weather radar helped with that, too.
 
Airlines have multi-engines that truly add safety in every phase of flight. Unlike the light weight twins in GA that can be more trouble then a single engine aircraft in certain failure situations, the FAA requires the airbuses to be able to takeoff and climb with one engine. Added to this is the continuos emergency procedure training the airline pilots receive in state of the art simulators and you can see how their operations end up being much safer.
 
This is funny. It is not equipment that makes the airlines safer. It is the operating limits put on Crews to eliminate universal human stupidity. You and I are more dangerous flying around because we are free to be stupid. Note I do not refer to IQ type stupidity but the kind of stupid that lurks in all of us.
 
Other factors: airlines don't run out of fuel, engage in maneuvering shenanigans like low-altitude buzzing, flying without a certificate, or flying drunk (except a few rare cases). Those are all big killers for GA.

They land at the safest airports.

They have good ice protection and a climb rate that gets them out of icing.
 
Money. Lots and lots of money.
 
  • Two-man crews and Ground Support
  • Professional Attitudes vs Cowboy Cockpits
  • More Consistent and Focused Training and Flying
  • Being Able to fly above/around weather
Probably the most important part is the cross-checking of the 2 person crew starting in the 1970's. It's harder to get 2 trained people to go along and be responsible for the same stupidity & it's easier to have one pilot fly while the other one works any tweaks or problems.
 
docmirror said:
Money. Lots and lots of money.
Click to expand...

Lots and lots of money

Spent on

Equipment
Training
Maintenance
Safety Management Systems (Quality)

Airliners and corporate jets are designed and maintained so far beyond GA junk it's not funny. Yes stuff fails, engines, flight displays, hydraulic pumps, you name it, there's usually way to work around it or fly with it to an uneventful landing.

Like CRJish type aircraft have 120 month inspection on the landing gear where it's completely removed disassembled, inspected via eddy current, florescent dye penetrant, magnetic particle, (don't believe any X-ray requirements) and overhauled. Just an example.
 
Pretty simple: vastly superior equipment. Pilots are more experienced and receive far more training.
 
Why are the airlines so much safer than GA?

1. Better equipment certified and maintained to higher standards.
2. Better training to higher standards
3. Multiple crew members trained in CRM
4. Layers of responsibility such as dispatchers, chief pilots, ops specs
5. Financial responsibility and insurance requirements.
6. Multiple layers of oversight
7. Desire to avoid the rug dance
 
Last edited:
The certification and operating standards are very different for commercial activities than for the weekend flyer. The flying public demands a higher level of safety than what is needed for GA.

Therefore...the airlines are certified under part 25 vs. 23 and CAR 3 for GA and are operated under part 121 for aircarrier and part 91 for GA. Part 25 standards in many cases require redundancies to achieve the required safety & reliability levels.

GA could have the same levels of safety as the airlines....but, it would come with a much higher cost and greater system complexities....with at least a two man crew.
 
Last edited:
I really hate these types of questions. No offense to the op but these are the kinds of questions that just perpetuate the stigma that GA is unsafe. If you count up the thousands of GA flights that take off and land safely each and everyday accorss the United States their really is no way anyone can say that GA is unsafe.

.... But no one ever hears about the flights that land safely. They just hear of the ones that don't, and therefore, because many of the everyday people know nothing about the world beyond what they are told about it, people conclude, " I hear about a small plane crash every so often, those things are not safe.":mad2:
 
Last edited:
Some of the above responses are funny....

Better equipment?
Your average SR22 (or equivalent) is light years beyond what most airliner cockpits have in them. I have my radar which gives me a picture ahead. I cannot pull up a synoptic view and see the overall picture once airborne. I do have the ability to read updates via data link of general areas but I have to get out a chart and plot the coordinates. Most steam gauge GA planes are flying around now with Foreflight or something like it. That gives the pilot a LOT of information in an extremely handy format.

Automation?
Yes, I have two A/P's, two Flight Management computers and a world wide database. I fly long haul flights. Leaving Friday night on an around the world flight. 12 days and 6 landings (to be split between 3 pilots). The manufacturers and the FAA wanted to get the pilots out of the equation as to flying....until something goes wrong and then due to a lack of basic flying skills are critiqued that we didn't do a better job in the most critical phases of flight (takeoff and landing). The automation (read the reports from Air France in the Atlantic and you will see what automation did for them).

Jet Engines....Undoubtedly an major advantage. Performance requirements far exceed anything that any GA aircraft can do (well maybe a Gulfstream etc.) We have on board performance computers, procedures etc. in the extremely unlikely event of double engine failures...but it still comes down to flying the airplane at that point. When I flew fully loaded Navajo's, my briefing was the good engine will help us find a crash site....now it's "We lost an engine.....ok, well I guess we had better do something...tell them we are going to be late for dinner".

Procedures....out the wazoo:yikes:
You will put the flaps down now, you will put the gear down now...you will recite these lines...verbatim...
Case in point. Landing DFW, my F/O made the 500 foot call...on speed, sink 700. We were getting a company line check. He was debriefed on an improper callout. The book says, according to the checkpilot...500 feet, on speed, sink 7...NOT 700!
Well isn't that special...do I feel safer now:hairraise:

GA can have the same professionalism and in fact some of the most professional pilots I have flown with are GA pilots...it is your ATTITUDE
 
Last edited:
jspilot said:
these are the kinds of questions that just perpetuate the stigma that GA is unsafe. If you count up the thousands of GA flights that take off and land safely each and everyday accorss the United States their really is no way anyone can say that GA is unsafe.

.... But no one ever hears about the flights that land safely. They just hear of the ones that don't...
Click to expand...

How about motorcycling? My newspaper omits all mentions of successfully completed motorcycle rides. I ride, but I do not consider it a safe activity. Fatalities per 100k miles on motorcycles are much higher than for driving a car, which in turn are much higher than flying airlines.

Small GA planes flown recreationally also have much higher fatality rates than cars, which again are much higher than airlines.

There is nothing wrong with the OP's question.
 
"Note I do not refer to IQ type stupidity but the kind of stupid that lurks in all of us."

Wait, I am insulted. What do you mean stupid. I am just plain good. I'm the best there is, The best there ever was. I'll tell you what, here, hold my beer and I'll show you."
 
I don't want to offensive either. Your response is typical of some that say that everything is OK with GA safety. It isn't. There is no question that airline travel is safer than GA. That rate is closely followed by corporate aviation when flown with a professional crew. GA lags.

Instead of ignoring the reality, let's take something away from the discussion.

GA will never have the performance capability of an airliner.

Professional crews are better trained than GA pilots. We are more current. What can the GA pilot take from this. Training matters. It is not something that costs a huge amount of money, yet can achieve great safety dividends. Figure a BFR costs what, $100 for the CFI. So go get one each year. Don't wait for a federal mandate. I spend three days of ground school and 12 hours in a level D simulator each year as a captain. What do you spend to be proficient and current?

Being professional also means how one conducts themselves each time you fly. Are you using a checklist? Do you pre flight your plane each time? Do you check the fuel every time? Do you keep abreast of the latest regulations, best practices, and issues with the plane you fly?

None of this will help you if the crankshaft breaks just after takeoff. Most accidents however are caused by pilots flying perfectly good airplanes into the ground.


jspilot said:
I really hate these types of questions. No offense to the op but these are the kinds of questions that just perpetuate the stigma that GA is unsafe. If you count up the thousands of GA flights that take off and land safely each and everyday accorss the United States their really is no way anyone can say that GA is unsafe.

.... But no one ever hears about the flights that land safely. They just hear of the ones that don't, and therefore, because many of the everyday people know nothing about the world beyond what they are told about it, people conclude, " I hear about a small plane crash every so often, those things are not safe.":mad2:
Click to expand...
 
NoHeat said:
How about motorcycling? My newspaper omits all mentions of successfully completed motorcycle rides. I ride, but I do not consider it a safe activity. Fatalities per 100k miles on motorcycles are much higher than for driving a car, which in turn are much higher than flying airlines.

Small GA planes flown recreationally also have much higher fatality rates than cars, which again are much higher than airlines.

There is nothing wrong with the OP's question.
Click to expand...

I dealt with the same issues when I started riding, also. The first thing most people say when I tell them I ride: "Oh, my [cousin/brother/uncle/postman/wookie/jedi knight] [was in/died in] a motorcycle accident. That's dangerous!" Well, that's because of the sensationalism cause by a motorcycle accident and because a relatively small percentage of the population engages in the activity. Sure, accident and fatality rates are likely higher, but there's more to the stats than the numbers themselves.

I'd posit both GA and motorcycle accident rates share some common causes. Ex.: There are plenty of riders who like to zip up and down busy highways wearing shorts and flip-flips....
 
NickC99 said:
I dealt with the same issues when I started riding, also. The first thing most people say when I tell them I ride: "Oh, my [cousin/brother/uncle/postman/wookie/jedi knight] [was in/died in] a motorcycle accident. That's dangerous!" Well, that's because of the sensationalism cause by a motorcycle accident and because a relatively small percentage of the population engages in the activity. Sure, accident and fatality rates are likely higher, but there's more to the stats than the numbers themselves.

I'd posit both GA and motorcycle accident rates share some common causes. Ex.: There are plenty of riders who like to zip up and down busy highways wearing shorts and flip-flips....
Click to expand...
Dude you are in denial. Motorcycles and GA are hazardous. Hazardous for me, hazardous for you. No matter how slick or safe you think you are, you and I are just dumb meatbags and without an airline's worth of SOPs for every detail we are a dice roll from the graveyard.
Speaking of motorcycles, there has been a recent uptick in motorcycle fatalities, the motorcycling population responsible? Middle aged newbie riders. The conservative, think they are safe population.
 
It's all relative. Is GA dangerous compared to sitting on your couch? You bet! Compared to base jumping? No.

The fact is that the chances of any individual pilot perishing in a GA accident are very small. That makes it "safe" on an absolute, statistical basis personally. But the chances of it happening are much greater than for some activities, so as a result we can call it "unsafe" on a relative basis.

You can't beat the physics of all the potential energy of flying a small vehicle at great height, in an unpredictable atmosphere. We *can* attempt to minimize the danger by not flying in dangerous conditions, keeping training and proficiency up, maintaining our aircraft responsibly (including keeping fuel in it when flying!), and avoiding becoming complacent about the dangers of flying.

I think if we do these things then our chances of personally ending up in an NTSB report go down dramatically.
 
Regulations. Ted and I were having this conversation the other day. It seems the more people you are likely to kill, the more regulated it is 121 is very strict, 135 gives you a longer leash, and 91 almost anything goes. The equipment necessary for certification gives you better situational awareness as well. Another thing is that there are 2 people making sure things go as they should. The call-outs are like a script in 121. When I went from 135 to 121, one of the hardest things was getting the call-outs verbatim. It was something I just wasn't used to. After a while, it becomes part of your rhythm. A good part of the importance behind the script is that in 121, you may fly with someone for one trip. You have to be on the same page. If things go wrong, you both know what you and the other person are supposed to do. But one of the biggest influences on safety in 121 is accidents. 121 aviation is much safer than it was before because of things put in place to prevent recurring problems. Case in point Comair 5191. The pilots took the wrong runway which was too short and tried to abort after V1. everyone but the FO was killed. Now we have runway naming conventions confirming it's the correct runway. Why? Because some people died. Another example is the Asiana crash in SFO. My airline urges us to fly less raw data and do more hand flying. The last fatal crash of a US operated airliner on US soil was Colgan. We're now at the point where we're able to be proactive rather than reactive.
 
Last edited:
ClimbnSink said:
Dude you are in denial. Motorcycles and GA are hazardous. Hazardous for me, hazardous for you. No matter how slick or safe you think you are, you and I are just dumb meatbags and without an airline's worth of SOPs for every detail we are a dice roll from the graveyard.
Speaking of motorcycles, there has been a recent uptick in motorcycle fatalities, the motorcycling population responsible? Middle aged newbie riders. The conservative, think they are safe population.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm? :dunno:
I never made a claim against hazard... Everything has risk. I claim that perceptions are greatly skewed. No one has ever said I shouldn't drive a car, but most people say I shouldn't ride a motorcycle. The same goes for flying... "Oh, that's dangerous! Don't do that!!" ::sigh::

Yes, the chances of something happening on 121 compared to GA are lower because of the exhaustive procedures, requirements and layers of protection. The same goes for cars vs motorcycles.
 
Same reason busses are safer than cars. Because driving them is preplanned and all the fun is sapped out of it.

I will take the ability to fly when/where I want any day.

Note: when the bus in the sky crashes, a lot more people die at once.
 
I believe one word explains why airline pilots operating under Parts 121 and 135 are statistically safer than GA pilots operating under Part 91: proficiency.

For almost a year I commuted between Dallas and Austin every week in my Diamond DA40. I would depart Dallas on the same day each week at the same time in the morning each of those trips and I would do the same on the return except in the late afternoon. In winter the departures would be in night conditions. I filed and received the same IFR clearance each way on every trip. I know all the ATC hand-off points between sectors and all the radio frequencies from clearance delivery to taxi in and learned to recognize the voices of most of the controllers. I became more proficient than I had ever been or since. I learned quirks and nuances of my airplane's behavior that I never would have noticed if not for the sheer repetition. I've never flown that far ahead of my airplane since. Now imagine two pilots tuned up like that on almost every trip. Even when equipment goes sideways in those cockpits, there are rarely any surprises. Almost everything has been drilled in sweat drenched training. Proficiency.

The time and effort required to maintain proficiency is also why I choose to plod along in my very forgiving DA40 instead of a higher performance (energy) aircraft that I can certainly afford.
 
If one goes over the faa accident reports for a length of time, it becomes clear why commercial pilots have a decided edge. Not always, but for the most part airlines and large corporate have better training, better equipment, better screening.
 
See -- this is what makes GA so much fun. Every flight you get to wonder:

Is my engine going to swallow a valve and I get to land in a bean field?

Am I going to rudder around on base to final and stall/spin into the ground?

Should I try to thread the needle between those two big cells?

Gas is 12 cents cheaper over there, and it's only 30NM, Can I stretch it?

:D:D:D
 
DrMack said:
I believe one word explains why airline pilots operating under Parts 121 and 135 are statistically safer than GA pilots operating under Part 91: proficiency.

For almost a year I commuted between Dallas and Austin every week in my Diamond DA40. I would depart Dallas on the same day each week at the same time in the morning each of those trips and I would do the same on the return except in the late afternoon. In winter the departures would be in night conditions. I filed and received the same IFR clearance each way on every trip. I know all the ATC hand-off points between sectors and all the radio frequencies from clearance delivery to taxi in and learned to recognize the voices of most of the controllers. I became more proficient than I had ever been or since. I learned quirks and nuances of my airplane's behavior that I never would have noticed if not for the sheer repetition. I've never flown that far ahead of my airplane since. Now imagine two pilots tuned up like that on almost every trip. Even when equipment goes sideways in those cockpits, there are rarely any surprises. Almost everything has been drilled in sweat drenched training. Proficiency.

The time and effort required to maintain proficiency is also why I choose to plod along in my very forgiving DA40 instead of a higher performance (energy) aircraft that I can certainly afford.
Click to expand...

I argree with you that proficiency is huge, but repetition can be the enemy. It can breed some serious complacency. There was a really good video on rituals and complacency floating around that I can't seem to find now. Basically, this military pilot had a way of confirming that the gear lever was down. It was his own little thing that he did. The airplane did everything to tell him that it wasn't down, but he ignored them going as far as pulling the gear horn breaker. He almost landed gear up but the tower told him that they were retracted. So he made it all the way to almost flaring before he put it all together.
 
Last edited:
DrMack said:
I believe one word explains why airline pilots operating under Parts 121 and 135 are statistically safer than GA pilots operating under Part 91: proficiency.

For almost a year I commuted between Dallas and Austin every week in my Diamond DA40. I would depart Dallas on the same day each week at the same time in the morning each of those trips and I would do the same on the return except in the late afternoon. In winter the departures would be in night conditions. I filed and received the same IFR clearance each way on every trip. I know all the ATC hand-off points between sectors and all the radio frequencies from clearance delivery to taxi in and learned to recognize the voices of most of the controllers. I became more proficient than I had ever been or since. I learned quirks and nuances of my airplane's behavior that I never would have noticed if not for the sheer repetition. I've never flown that far ahead of my airplane since. Now imagine two pilots tuned up like that on almost every trip. Even when equipment goes sideways in those cockpits, there are rarely any surprises. Almost everything has been drilled in sweat drenched training. Proficiency.

The time and effort required to maintain proficiency is also why I choose to plod along in my very forgiving DA40 instead of a higher performance (energy) aircraft that I can certainly afford.
Click to expand...
Similar to this is the recurrent training these pilots have to go through and the high standards that need to meet. I've been in sim sessions with my dad who is pilot for Delta and also when he was a check airman for Northwest and they cover a lot of stuff and their sessions take a long time.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
I don't want to offensive either. Your response is typical of some that say that everything is OK with GA safety. It isn't. There is no question that airline travel is safer than GA. That rate is closely followed by corporate aviation when flown with a professional crew. GA lags.

Instead of ignoring the reality, let's take something away from the discussion.

GA will never have the performance capability of an airliner.

Professional crews are better trained than GA pilots. We are more current. What can the GA pilot take from this. Training matters. It is not something that costs a huge amount of money, yet can achieve great safety dividends. Figure a BFR costs what, $100 for the CFI. So go get one each year. Don't wait for a federal mandate. I spend three days of ground school and 12 hours in a level D simulator each year as a captain. What do you spend to be proficient and current?

Being professional also means how one conducts themselves each time you fly. Are you using a checklist? Do you pre flight your plane each time? Do you check the fuel every time? Do you keep abreast of the latest regulations, best practices, and issues with the plane you fly?

None of this will help you if the crankshaft breaks just after takeoff. Most accidents however are caused by pilots flying perfectly good airplanes into the ground.
Click to expand...


To answer your questions, yes I do. I do everything you asked each flight... And that's why I get ticked off each time I read questions lumping all GA pilots into the same category with the statement unsafe. I take my role as a pilot seriously. Just this past weekend I flew to a very popular airport by me for 100 hamburgers( 44n) and actually commented to myself how shocked I was by how few people follow pre-flight or do runups. Time and time again, pilots with their passengers just hoped into their plane after lunch, taxied and took off without checking anything or doing a runup. Presumably they already did a runup when they left their original airport but who knows. It's reckless to not pre-flight each time, terrible practice if you ask me. So yeah, I agree it's far from a safe activity, especially if done poorly.

I just always take notice of the alarmist society we are now living in. It's only getting worse. A few people crash planes and suddenly an entire activity, is rendered dangerous. I just don't like that line of thinking.

Of course airline pilots are safer. That's their job. They fly often and most GA pilots don't. Proficiency is the key to safety. Airlines train their pilots repeatedly through the year because their financial success is built around safety-- the motivation for training is looped together with the potential for increased earnings. Simply put, their is no motivation for GA to become safer. The pilot must be motivated himself. An interesting question is, how many of those same airline pilots would go to these trainings if they were only motivated by being "safer?" Without some reward beyond a perceived increase in ones ability to perform a task, few people will voluntarily do anything.
 
Last edited:
jspilot said:
Airlines train their pilots repeatedly through the year because their financial success is built around safety-- the motivation for training is looped together with the potential for increased earnings. Simply put, their is no motivation for GA to become safer.
Click to expand...

True. Most airlines are an accident away from going out of business so they press the issue. As for GA. I'd imagine that going home alive is motivation enough for safety.
 
The reason airlines are safer is because of two things. 1. Professional pilots, not doctors, dentists, lawyers, farmers, plumbers, actors, etc.

2. Training.
 
kgruber said:
The reason airlines are safer is because of two things. 1. Professional pilots, not doctors, dentists, lawyers, farmers, plumbers, actors, etc.

2. Training.
Click to expand...

Professional airline pilots die at the same rate as everyone else when they go hobby flying. It is the procedures at work limiting free will and knee capping(most of the time) stupid human pilot tricks that gives them the great safety record.
 
Danos said:
I argree with you that proficiency is huge, but repetition can be the enemy. It can breed some serious complacency. There was a really good video on rituals and complacency floating around that I can't seem to find now. Basically, this military pilot had a way of confirming that the gear lever was down. It was his own little thing that he did. The airplane did everything to tell him that it wasn't down, but he ignored them going as far as pulling the gear horn breaker. He almost landed gear up but the tower told him that they were retracted. So he made it all the way to almost flaring before he put it all together.
Click to expand...



That was an article by John Deakin on Avweb a few years back. http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/188536-1.html?redirected=1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top