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

[Palmpilot]

I don't doubt all this. First, I don't know how this could be compared to driving, which I think is more relevant to the original question.

But secondly, I don't see the validity of any argument based on averages with regard to aviation. I already mentioned the problem with the sample size. Then there's pilots of wildly varying skill and certification levels (IR being one of the most important IMO). That's not true for drivers, which are rather homogenous. Furthermore, these statistics generally include a wide variety of activities under the GA umbrella while car stats generally only include one kind of activity (non-commercial street passenger cars).

To me, the more relevant factor in these safety discussions comes down to the level of control I have over my own safety. In aviation, that level is almost 100%. On the highway, it's maybe 10%? That's scary.

-Felix

I think you're underestimating the value of defensive driving, but I think you're right that a pilot has a higher degree of control over his/her own safety.

I think the value of knowing the averages is that it can keep us from taking unnecessary risks. I feel that it helps me avoid such hazardous attitude as complacency and invulnerability, for example.

 

[Tim Cobb]

A little airplane, flown by a PPL, is about four times more dangerous than riding in a car. Flown by a Commercial pilot, that same airplane is about as safe as the car. That says that training has something to do with safety, but so does attitude. Commercial training has considerable human factors content, and it serves to highlight the more common ways to kill yourself. Sobers one, or at least it should.

In fact, I think attitude is key here. Many PPLS are totally unaware of how little they know and fancy themselves to be hotshot pilots, and they regularly break airplanes because of their inflated opinion of their skills and knowledge. And it's not just pilots; when it comes to the things we do, most of us don't know how much we don't know until we get some education on the subject, whatever it is. Incompetence tends to fail to recognize itself.

Car drivers, of course, are mostly unaware of the appalling hazards they face every day. Passing within six feet (or less) of another car going the other way at a combined speed of 120 mph. Being followed by a gasoline tanker driven by a guy who hasn't slept in 24 hours and has just had a scrap with his wife over the cellphone. Maybe he's still on that cellphone. Impaired drivers everywhere, especially late at night. Texting teenagers. Unsafe vehicles with bald tires and bad brakes tailgating you. It all starts to make GA look like a walk in the park. Car accidents are so common they don't make the news, but little airplanes are rather rare by comparison so an accident is something rare, too, and therefore newsworthy. Never mind that very often the injuries, if any, are minor.

If anything is hyped by the media, most will believe it. Critical thinking isn't taught anymore.

Dan

All very good points. Flying is just more unforgiving than other sports.

 

[Jeanie]

Folks are afraid to fly in small airplanes for lots of different reasons and I doubt seriously that any of the regular public has looked up stats in the NTSB data base or insurance stats for cars. So their reasons are probably not based on that kind of rationale. Could be just personal type reasons: plane is small therefore dangerous, bigger is safer..... TV hype doesn't help..... fear of falling..... helplessness because they don't understand anything about it...... lots of reasons. Some can be explained around and some just can't. If I am giving a pony ride to someone who really wants to fly but I know is nervous I spend a fair amount of time talking to them about why the plane moves thru the air like it does - bumps and burbles and how it can glide and I give them jobs to help me out yada yada yada and I make a point to warn them about the stall warning horn sound when we are landing so they don't freak out.
People are just people: rational, logical and informed aren't always part of the picture.

 

[wabower]

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.

A little airplane, flown by a PPL, is about four times more dangerous than riding in a car. Flown by a Commercial pilot, that same airplane is about as safe as the car. That says that training has something to do with safety, but so does attitude. Commercial training has considerable human factors content, and it serves to highlight the more common ways to kill yourself. Sobers one, or at least it should.

In fact, I think attitude is key here. Many PPLS are totally unaware of how little they know and fancy themselves to be hotshot pilots, and they regularly break airplanes because of their inflated opinion of their skills and knowledge. And it's not just pilots; when it comes to the things we do, most of us don't know how much we don't know until we get some education on the subject, whatever it is. Incompetence tends to fail to recognize itself.

Car drivers, of course, are mostly unaware of the appalling hazards they face every day. Passing within six feet (or less) of another car going the other way at a combined speed of 120 mph. Being followed by a gasoline tanker driven by a guy who hasn't slept in 24 hours and has just had a scrap with his wife over the cellphone. Maybe he's still on that cellphone. Impaired drivers everywhere, especially late at night. Texting teenagers. Unsafe vehicles with bald tires and bad brakes tailgating you. It all starts to make GA look like a walk in the park. Car accidents are so common they don't make the news, but little airplanes are rather rare by comparison so an accident is something rare, too, and therefore newsworthy. Never mind that very often the injuries, if any, are minor.

If anything is hyped by the media, most will believe it. Critical thinking isn't taught anymore.

Dan

 

[Dan Thomas]

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'll buy it and do that. If it makes little difference, it can only come back to attitude, right?

Dan

 

[wabower]

That's certainly part of the equation, but they have identified a number of contributing factors.

I'll buy it and do that. If it makes little difference, it can only come back to attitude, right?

Dan

 

[mantakos]

... I bet that you can almost double the reported accident rate for cars for smaller accidents that don't get reported to the police. I don't think you can do the same for planes...

There are lots of unreported fender benders in cars, just as there are lots of unreported minor accidents in planes (taxi accidents, hard landings, etc). How do we account for that? We don't, we don't need to, we don't care about those, what we care about are the accidents that lead to injury or fatality. Do you think that there are a lot of unreported fatal accidents in cars?

If we look just at the occurrence rate of fatal accidents we find that we have them much more frequently in GA planes than we do in cars, whether you measure it per hour or per mile:

http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html​

Anyways, it's virtually impossible to get comparable data for those two cases, and it's equally impossible to make such statements about them.

Why? They count fatal accidents, and we have decent estimates of hours flown and miles driven. There are some factors you gave to guess at to make comparisons, but the results just aren't even close, so it's not a question of being 25% off here or there, we're talking about fairly large multiples.
-harry

 

[Palmpilot]

It's fascinating to watch belief being substituted for knowledge in this thread.

For those who think the available data aren't good enough to be useful, why do you assume that the real safety levels favor general aviation? In the absense of data it's just as likely to be worse as better.

 

[weilke]

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.

A couple of things that come to mind:

- Avemcos data may not be representative as they accumulate the higher risks through their less stringent underwriting standards and irrational pricing structure.
- 'Can't fix attitude'.
- More ratings may correlate with more advanced flying, longer trips, higher odds of encountering weather.

 

[Tim Cobb]

So does it effect the statistics when a 747 crashes and 540 people die? I'm comparing GA vs Commercial now. Yes, the big planes crash less often but when they do the fatalaties are usually far greater.

 

[weilke]

So does it effect the statistics when a 747 crashes and 540 people die? I'm comparing GA vs Commercial now. Yes, the big planes crash less often but when they do the fatalaties are usually far greater.

You compare a standardized measure such as 'passenger * mile'.

 

[COFlyBoy]

Yes, the number of pax affects the stats. Usually, the calculation used is passenger miles = number of pax * miles flown.

 

[wabower]

Avemco insures only pistons, so their data is probably pretty good for the GA crowd.

With the limited number of aircraft, the insurors don't have sufficient actuarial data to fine-tune the premiums to the extent that they can be tweaked by life and auto companies. All of the premiums involve a degree of guesswork and irrationality. For example, some companies won't write MU-2's, some avoid 20-series Lears, others won't write tail-draggers.

Many pilot behaviorial traits are being evaluated. You may not make the cut.

Avemco isn't impressed with added ratings. I'm not either.

havelke;593921]A couple of things that come to mind:

- Avemcos data may not be representative as they accumulate the higher risks through their less stringent underwriting standards and irrational pricing structure.
- 'Can't fix attitude'.
- More ratings may correlate with more advanced flying, longer trips, higher odds of encountering weather.[/quote]

 

[Skip Miller]

and as a pax, I can do little when something goes wrong .

I think this is a big part of it. If you feel you have no control of your personal situation, there is reason for concern.... I think there is an innate fear of being out of control.

-Skip

 

[Jay Honeck]

I just don't see how these two modes of transportation can be compared in a useful way, especially since the sample size for GA is so tiny compared to that of cars. _One_ accident for GA can change the entire dynamic.

I think what we're seeing in this thread (and in the reality of the "fear of flying small planes" situation) is a phenomenon that has swept our culture from top to bottom: Risk mediation/aversion to the point of paranoia.

A few examples: Before the car, people rode horses. The accident rate, while impossible to pin down, was no doubt exponentially higher than that of the modern automobile. My own great-Uncle (according to newspaper articles from the time) was thrown from a horse and died a horrible, slow death from internal injuries (broken ribs) that today would be trivial.

Nowadays, people would absolutely go ballistic in the face of any mode of transportation that so routinely killed and maimed people -- yet back then, it was the norm. People accepted that life was a terminal situation, and took the risk of riding horses because, well, it beat walking.

Another example: Look at the incredibly restrictive smoking bans (and incessant complaints) that have swept the nation, all in the interest of "safety". Our great grandparents, who heated their homes with wood and coal, and rarely bathed, looked at tobacco smoke as an ENHANCEMENT to the odors in their homes. Nowadays, I get complaints at our motels if people smell smoke from smokers who are smoking OUTSIDE. Think about that a minute.

People clamor for cell phone bans. Laws dictate the location of drains in your swimming pool. Other laws restrict the size and type of signage in front of your business -- all in the interest of "safety".

By comparison to these other activities, flying in a small airplane is just wildly, insanely unsafe. Is it any wonder that so few partake?

 

[John Baker]

My brother is absolutely terrified of small GA type airplanes. He reminds me constantly how he will never fly in one. When I first bought my Warrior, he came out to look at it. It was chained down to the concrete, yet he refused to sit in it. I guess he figured I had a secret release system that would instantly have us flying, even without the engine on. Every time I tell him about my latest attempt at achieving a check ride, he goes on and on about how he will never fly with me.

At first it kinda pis*ed me off that he didn't trust my ability, or me. Then I got to thinking about it, and realized he would be downright dangerous to have in the right seat on a takeoff or landing. It would be stupid to fly with a terrified passenger who had the controls within their reach.

John

 

[dmccormack]

By comparison to these other activities, flying in a small airplane is just wildly, insanely unsafe. Is it any wonder that so few partake?

In the age of horse and buggy, airplanes were seen as "wildly dangerous."

And they were. Just ask Orville.

 

[weilke]

Avemco insures only pistons, so their data is probably pretty good for the GA crowd.

They insure lots of folks who are:
- new to aviation
or
- new to a type of aircraft (complex, twin)

Everyone else tends to find cheaper insurance on the open market.

 

[wabower]

That could be true, but I've counted them out on numerous occasions when they have surprised long-time owners with a very competitive quote.

They insure lots of folks who are:
- new to aviation
or
- new to a type of aircraft (complex, twin)

Everyone else tends to find cheaper insurance on the open market.

 

[gprellwitz]

We just had a couple of passengers who, while they had flown GA before, aren't regular fliers. They're from a rural area, and not used to a lot of automobile traffic. While one of them (who hasn't flown GA for I'd guess 25 years) tends to get a little "green around the gills", they commented that GA seemed safer than driving around cities because you have more control over what's going on. She did say that she usually drives (as opposed to being a passenger in an automobile) because the likes being in control. They actually said that it seemed safer than driving. We flew 276NM with them, and didn't even have a callout for other traffic on a gorgeous VFR day (even though we were IFR). It may have helped that they had two instrument rated pilots at the controls, but they seemed to appreciate both the utility and the potential safety of GA.

 

[COFlyBoy]

I think we need to start comparing the risk of GA to other fun things like skiing:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8824218

I've yet to meet someone who is afraid to ski, but I'm willing to bet the per passenger mile injury rate for skiing is much higher as long as you don't include cross-country skiing.

 

[Jack Spectre]

It doesn't matter to me anymore what people think about general aviation. I like to fly, people know I fly, and I tell people that if they want to fly with me, just ask. I don't beg anyone or try to convert people.

The ratio of people who are interested in flying with me vs. opposed to it is about 10 to 1.

Life is full of risks. It's also full of choices. All pilots have the choice to reduce their own risk. Some choose wisely, some choose poorly.

 

[Everskyward]

I've yet to meet someone who is afraid to ski,

I've met a lot of people who have no desire to ski, not so much because they think they are going to die, but because they they think they are too klutzy and probably would hurt themselves.

 

[wabower]

I just thought maybe he associated with a different bunch of people. I can list about 10 without hesitation.

I've met a lot of people who have no desire to ski, not so much because they think they are going to die, but because they they think they are too klutzy and probably would hurt themselves.

 

[mantakos]

So does it effect the statistics when a 747 crashes and 540 people die? I'm comparing GA vs Commercial now. Yes, the big planes crash less often but when they do the fatalaties are usually far greater.

Usually what we're interested in is "what's _MY_ risk", which is roughly represented by the odds of a fatal accident times the odds that I'll be one of the fatalities in that accident (i.e. the percentage of passengers that die in the average fatal accident). From that perspective it doesn't make any difference to my personal risk whether 2 people die with me or 200.

But when I ran through the numbers a few years back, what I came up with was that GA had about 50 times as many fatal accidents per flight hour, and about 3 times as many fatalities per flight hour. Those numbers just get worse (much worse) if we try to compare per mile, of course.
-harry

 

[Palmpilot]

9I've yet to meet someone who is afraid to ski, but I'm willing to bet the per passenger mile injury rate for skiing is much higher as long as you don't include cross-country skiing.

I'm afraid to ski!

 

[Anthony]

Part of this is driven by the direction of our society. Our society is obsessed with complete safety. People would rather sacrifice a large part of their quality of life to avoid any risk at all. Yet they are OK with texting while driving.

The feminization of our society, the media which propels this, and liabilty fears have all contributed to attitudes about doing anything that has perceived risk. Sad.

 

[dmccormack]

It's funny that pilots will readily quote statistics supporting the "safety" of GA, but will ignore statistics when offered an opportunity to jump from an airplane.

 

[Henning]

What is the big fear about flying in small airplanes? Seems like at least 1/2 the people I know won't even consider flying in one.

Mostly the fear is driven by the people flying them.

 

[Bob Noel]

It's funny that pilots will readily quote statistics supporting the "safety" of GA, but will ignore statistics when offered an opportunity to jump from an airplane.

I'll only jump from an airplane if

1) The plane is on fire

or

2) The plane is already on the ground.

I don't need that much of an adrenaline rush.

 

[Bob Noel]

Which is more hazardous, a car crash at 100mph or an airplane crash at 100mph?

Answer: they are equally hazardous.

Note: Our cars have features that mitigate some of the hazards of a car crash.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Mostly the fear is driven by the people flying them.

That, and pictures of aluminum littering the ground in the aftermath.

 

[dmccormack]

It's easy for people to dismiss flying -- it's not necessary.

Every driver has witnessed car wrecks, yet driving is perceived as necessary, so the risk gets suppressed.

Which is why STDs continue to be transmitted.

 

[Everskyward]

It's funny that pilots will readily quote statistics supporting the "safety" of GA, but will ignore statistics when offered an opportunity to jump from an airplane.

I jumped from an airplane and would do it again...

Truthfully I never thought much one way or another about the safety statistics when I learned how to fly. I don't think the general public does either. Mostly I think people who are reluctant to fly are uncomfortable with the idea of being up in the sky in some little contraption with someone whose skills they don't quite trust.

Really I don't care so much what other people think and don't try to convince them one way or the other. I would say a great majority of people have a favorable reaction when I say I'm a pilot. I've seen less favorable reactions when I have said that I ride a motorcycle (back in the days when I did).

 

[Tim Cobb]

I think this is a big part of it. If you feel you have no control of your personal situation, there is reason for concern.... I think there is an innate fear of being out of control.

-Skip

I feel a total loss of control when I'm in seat 43F on the way to Frankfurt. I can't see where the plane is headed or even the cockpit. I feel safer in a small aircraft.

 

[OffCenter]

I think there is more to it.
I've had several people say, "But there's nothing holding you up!"
A. To them it's "magic".
B. They are afraid of FALLING.
...and fear of falling is a deep seated basic fear.

 

[Trapper John]

Part of this is driven by the direction of our society. Our society is obsessed with complete safety. People would rather sacrifice a large part of their quality of life to avoid any risk at all. Yet they are OK with texting while driving.

The feminization of our society, the media which propels this, and liabilty fears have all contributed to attitudes about doing anything that has perceived risk. Sad.

That's completely off the mark. More people now have the leisure time to participate in non-work hazardous activities than ever before. If you lived 100 years ago, there were no weekend powersports activities, no mountain biking, no half-pipes, virtually no skiing, etc.

If the general public decides not to participate in GA because they consider it risky, they'd be correct, not somehow effeminate.

 

[wabower]

Meanwhile our crop of GA genius pilots continues to everything possible to validate these concerns.

I think there is more to it.
I've had several people say, "But there's nothing holding you up!"
A. To them it's "magic".
B. They are afraid of FALLING.
...and fear of falling is a deep seated basic fear.

 

[kevin7500]

I feel a total loss of control when I'm in seat 43F on the way to Frankfurt. I can't see where the plane is headed or even the cockpit. I feel safer in a small aircraft.

I think the "being able to see" is part of the problem with passengers in small planes. There is very little perceived motion in a commercial airliner. For a first time passenger in GA there is quite a bit of new data to process associated with being able to see.

Also, my 2009 Pontiac G8 has both active (seatbelt) and passive (front and side airbag) restraint systems, four wheel anti-lock disk brakes, engineered crumple zones, etc.... The 1970 something Warrior that I fly has a lap belt. I am very likely to survive most crashes in my G8. I am not likely to survive a fiery crash on take off or a base-to-final stall in the Warrior.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Everskyward]

Part of this is driven by the direction of our society. Our society is obsessed with complete safety. People would rather sacrifice a large part of their quality of life to avoid any risk at all. Yet they are OK with texting while driving.

The feminization of our society, the media which propels this, and liabilty fears have all contributed to attitudes about doing anything that has perceived risk. Sad.

I don't think the fear of flying is a recent phenomenon. I remember people when I was growing up who were afraid of airliners, let alone small airplanes. If anything people are a little more open to air travel now because it has become more common.