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

dmccormack said:
Most human activity is not driven by statistics (Thank God!) -- what a ridiculously barren, dry, boring, and tedious species we'd be.
Click to expand...
The argument isn't that statistics are driving our actions, it's that statistics are revealing our tendencies.
-harry
 
BFD--I want a starter anyway.

dmccormack said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Buy a better airplane.

gismo said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Aviation insurance companies are forced into that same process. They lack sufficient actuarial data necessary for rate-setting.

ote=mantakos;594999]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[/quote]
 
Funny Story..I went for my first small airplane ride about 9 years ago in a 182. I dreaded going I tossed and turned the night before afraid for some reason to get in the plane. I twice called my friends to tell them I would drive and meet them at the location we were going to. They kept on me telling me the drive was about 4 hours but if I got in the plane it would be 50 minutes. Well I got in the plane after much persuading and secretly loved it once airborne. Two weeks after that I took my first flight lesson and within 2 years got my single and multi engine commercial ratings with instrument ratings. Go figure. :smile:
 
bcso48 said:
Funny Story..I went for my first small airplane ride about 9 years ago in a 182. I dreaded going I tossed and turned the night before afraid for some reason to get in the plane. I twice called my friends to tell them I would drive and meet them at the location we were going to. They kept on me telling me the drive was about 4 hours but if I got in the plane it would be 50 minutes. Well I got in the plane after much persuading and secretly loved it once airborne. Two weeks after that I took my first flight lesson and within 2 years got my single and multi engine commercial ratings with instrument ratings. Go figure. :smile:
Click to expand...

Welcome to the board and well done ignoring the statistics!!!

:D
 
gismo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not a sky-diver, but if the assertion is that 1 jump carries about the same fatality risk as 1 hr of GA flight, the next question to ask is "how many jumps does a typical jumper do in a year?"

I wouldn't be surprised if jumpers do more jumps per year than most GA pilots fly hours.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
I think most people want to know the answer to the question "what's my chance of dying?" ....
Click to expand...

I'd add "chances of serious injury" into the mix, but these statistics are very well documented for planes, trains, and things that move.

Regardless, the ultimate equation remains the same, as does the overall point - when it comes to fears, rational or irrational, nobody cares about fender-benders.
 
wabower said:
Buy a better airplane.
Click to expand...

Not an option, this one's a family heirloom. If you had an original Wright flyer or Curtis Jenny, would you sell it and buy something with a starter or just add an electrical system?:D
 
Nope. But I've had a '43 model for 32 years without a starter. It has one now.

gismo said:
Not an option, this one's a family heirloom. If you had an original Wright flyer or Curtis Jenny, would you sell it and buy something with a starter or just add an electrical system?:D
Click to expand...
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I'd add "chances of serious injury" into the mix, but these statistics are very well documented for planes, trains, and things that move.

Regardless, the ultimate equation remains the same, as does the overall point - when it comes to fears, rational or irrational, nobody cares about fender-benders.
Click to expand...

I'll bet that most folks unfamiliar with GA assume that any accident in a small airplane is likely to kill all onboard (plus any school children in the area). While I agree that by itself the ratio of GA fatalities to accidents is somewhat useless, it could be used to dispel the notion that the slightest issue in the air means "we're all gonna die".

And IMO, fear of the unknown is a big factor. A significant number of the people I've encountered who were totally afraid to fly in a "tiny airplane" managed to overcome that fear when properly introduced to the reality of light plane flying. One fairly persuasive argument (once you get beyond the basics like the plane will continue to fly if the engine quits) is that unlike driving where another driver is as likely to be to blame for a collision, in flying your safety is almost entirely in the hands of the pilot flying the airplane you're in. This is a particularly strong argument with the oft used comparison between motorcycle riding and flying given that AFaIK, the majority of serious bike crashes involve a car/truck driver failing to see a motorcycle and subsequently interfering with the bike's path. Of course that particular line of reasoning won't work well if the recipient doesn't trust your ability to fly and/or is also deathly afraid of motorcycles.
 
Sure, big-mitts, that all sounds great, but I read the papers and watch TV, and am a bit sharper than the average bear. What if it "stalls"? Or the engine "sputters"? Then we all die like they show on the evening news.

gismo said:
I'll bet that most folks unfamiliar with GA assume that any accident in a small airplane is likely to kill all onboard (plus any school children in the area). While I agree that by itself the ratio of GA fatalities to accidents is somewhat useless, it could be used to dispel the notion that the slightest issue in the air means "we're all gonna die".

And IMO, fear of the unknown is a big factor. A significant number of the people I've encountered who were totally afraid to fly in a "tiny airplane" managed to overcome that fear when properly introduced to the reality of light plane flying. One fairly persuasive argument (once you get beyond the basics like the plane will continue to fly if the engine quits) is that unlike driving where another driver is as likely to be to blame for a collision, in flying your safety is almost entirely in the hands of the pilot flying the airplane you're in. This is a particularly strong argument with the oft used comparison between motorcycle riding and flying given that AFaIK, the majority of serious bike crashes involve a car/truck driver failing to see a motorcycle and subsequently interfering with the bike's path. Of course that particular line of reasoning won't work well if the recipient doesn't trust your ability to fly and/or is also deathly afraid of motorcycles.
Click to expand...
 
dmccormack said:
Welcome to the board and well done ignoring the statistics!!!

:D
Click to expand...

I will admit to ignoring the statistics enough to continue flying, but I pay enough attention to them to know that I need to keep my aeronautical decision making conservative.

I'm not sure if it's a rationalization, or just a way of trying to minimize the effects of an addiction!
 
dmccormack said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your premise that a smart pilot can do many things to reduce risk. But let me give an example to illustrate the point I was trying to make.

Situation: Unseen defect in engine component causes the engine to fail.

Car: You stop moving forward, but you have enough speed to pull over to the side of the road, regardless of where you are geographically. Chance of injury or death in almost all situations: very low.

Plane: You are flying over a heavily wooded terrain. You run the emergency checklist perfectly and set up for an off-field landing in the woods. Chance of injury or death: high.

I'm just saying that in a car, you are already on the ground. In a plane, you have to get down on the ground, and sometimes the ground you're over doesn't make a good runway.

Maybe I'm smoking crack or something, who knows. But the fact that I know it's riskier doesn't make me want to stop. It's too much fun.
 
BTW, Henning says that heavily wooded terrain isn't that bad for a forced landing. (Since I like flying over places like that, I hope he's right!)
 
Along the lines of trying to get people interested in flying, I like to tell them that the difference between flying and heroin is that flying doesn't rot your mind!
 
I think there are two issues here. For a potential passenger who doesn't know anything about flying it's all about perception. Passengers may have a visceral fear of flying, they may be afraid of the unknown or they may be the type who are afraid of new things. Something else that may come into play is that they look at you, the pilot, their friend and peer, as having generally the same abilities as they do. Since they can't imagine themselves being able to fly an airplane they don't quite understand how you are able to do it successfully. Besides, they may have seen you drive. :rofl:

As a pilot I don't think you can ignore the statistics. As someone else said, they are only a reflection of how we are doing as a group. Of course there are ways you can make your own odds better, but there is a danger in thinking that you are any better than average... because everyone thinks that! There is also a danger in thinking that you can control all factors and that you are sure you will react correctly in any situation because that has been proven time and again to be false, even with experienced pilots.
 
One of the data-gathering organizations published their findings about smaller airplanes that are flown with big-airplane disciplines by crews that are professionally trained and experienced in those disciplines. This definition does not include some putz who managed to fly a decent lazy-eight and obtain a commercial rating.

They concluded that the accident rate among those planes isn't significantly different than big-iron corporate jets flown by similarly-trained pilots. Bruce C. quickly comes to mind as a guy who fits that pattern, and there are probably many more like him.

The problem in achieving a low accident rate is that most GA pilots have no clue about professional pilot airplane training or disciplines. Where would they have learned them? How many pilots have spent significant time observing a more-experienced and professionally trained pilot (which specifically excludes most of the snot-nose CFI's who haven't flown anything other than the plane in which they are instructing) fly their airplane in real-life situations? What part of their training included watching someone else? They start their training in the left seat, think that's where they are supposed to sit, and never know anything different.

I suspect that flying skills of many pilots peak on the day of their private pilot check ride, and are never that good again. Instead of considering the PPL as a license to learn, they mimic the reaction of a recent poster on some thread who said he hated training and was glad it was behind him.

The subject of the length of flight reviews recently triggered bitter debate on the red board (can you imagine that?). Many pilots are adamant that an hour of flight training every two years is sufficient to maintain their skills, and don't want to hear that a longer time might be necessary. I see these yokels from time to time when I have to fly with them for some reason, and many are downright scary. Our current system meets the classic definition of insanity, and I find it surprising that somebody thinks we can keep doing it the same way and obtain different results.

Everskyward said:
I think there are two issues here. For a potential passenger who doesn't know anything about flying it's all about perception. Passengers may have a visceral fear of flying, they may be afraid of the unknown or they may be the type who are afraid of new things. Something else that may come into play is that they look at you, the pilot, their friend and peer, as having generally the same abilities as they do. Since they can't imagine themselves being able to fly an airplane they don't quite understand how you are able to do it successfully. Besides, they may have seen you drive. :rofl:

As a pilot I don't think you can ignore the statistics. As someone else said, they are only a reflection of how we are doing as a group. Of course there are ways you can make your own odds better, but there is a danger in thinking that you are any better than average... because everyone thinks that! There is also a danger in thinking that you can control all factors and that you are sure you will react correctly in any situation because that has been proven time and again to be false, even with experienced pilots.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
One of the data-gathering organizations published their findings about smaller airplanes that are flown with big-airplane disciplines by crews that are professionally trained and experienced in those disciplines. This definition does not include some putz who managed to fly a decent lazy-eight and obtain a commercial rating.

They concluded that the accident rate among those planes isn't significantly different than big-iron corporate jets flown by similarly-trained pilots. Bruce C. quickly comes to mind as a guy who fits that pattern, and there are probably many more like him.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't think an annual trip to SimCom is required to be a careful, conscientious, capable pilot.

:nono:
 
wabower said:
Ok, fine. What do you think is necessary?
Click to expand...

Attitude, attitude, attitude. And I'm not talking about what the little blue and brown gauge tells you. :no:

I'd love a trip to SimCom - Never been there. Doubt they do a 182 course. ;)

But, I think the most important thing is to keep learning. I love to learn. I do have a CFII who really kicks my ass, and that's why I keep going back to him. I don't need someone to pencil-whip another BFR or IPC, I need someone who will challenge me. I also seek out new opportunities to learn - Just finished my tailwheel endorsement (and lots of learning left to go there!), I've flown many types and several categories/classes, did a mountain flying course, etc... But I also do enough flying in my favorite bird to develop those skills to a much greater degree.

Also important is to keep flying - Wish it weren't so expensive. After flying 570 hours from 2005-2008, I only managed 42 hours in 2009 and I felt it. It sucked. And your average GA pilot doesn't even do that much. Gotta keep the skills sharp somehow!

I think most of the folks on this board are people who like to learn more about flying - That's why they're here. That also may be why we argue that GA is safer than the stats say it is, because we may well be safer pilots thanks to not only what we learn here but also the attitude of learning that comes along with it. Unfortunately, I've seen the other side enough to know that on average, we do suck. One example that comes to mind: When I was working as a lineman, a guy I had never seen before drove up and opened a hangar. I had to fill the tires of his dirty old Bonanza as well as the tires of the car sitting in front of the Bo in the hangar so that he could move them. Then I topped off his fuel tanks and he hopped in with his family and flew away, even after admitting he hadn't flown in 6 months or so because it was cold. (Er, are you passenger current sir? :no: :nono:) Those are the people that become statistics.
 
wabower said:
Ok, fine. What do you think is necessary?
Click to expand...

Frequent flights, a self-grade after every flight, discussions and/or flights with mentors and students/peers, study, exposure to new equipment, techniques, locations, and a constant attempt to be slightly better than last time.
 
When you self-grade, is it based on the curve?
dmccormack said:
Frequent flights, a self-grade after every flight, discussions and/or flights with mentors and students/peers, study, exposure to new equipment, techniques, locations, and a constant attempt to be slightly better than last time.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Spectre said:
I don't disagree with your premise that a smart pilot can do many things to reduce risk. But let me give an example to illustrate the point I was trying to make.

Situation: Unseen defect in engine component causes the engine to fail.

Car: You stop moving forward, but you have enough speed to pull over to the side of the road, regardless of where you are geographically. Chance of injury or death in almost all situations: very low.
Click to expand...
Car: You were making a left turn onto a major highway from a crossing street with adequate time to avoid a semi going the opposite direction from your right when the car stalls leaving you in front of the truck. Boom, the truck smacks the driver's door at 50 mph. Chances of death or serious injury very high.

Airplane: Although you were over a forest, you fly the plane into the tree tops above stall speed destroying the plane but you are able to limp away. Or (much more likely over 95% of the country) there was an open field nearby and you were able to land the plane without any damage.
 
Jack Spectre said:
Plane: You are flying over a heavily wooded terrain. You run the emergency checklist perfectly and set up for an off-field landing in the woods. Chance of injury or death: high.
Click to expand...

Then flight plan to minimize time aloft over unsuitable terrain (I am not kidding).

When I fly the Chief -- VFR only -- I'm looking for suitable landing spots the whole flight.

In larger, newer airplanes, when flying night I'll route over airports rather than direct Richmond, for example (which would put me right over some pretty barren and rough country in Eastern WV).
 
Ignore the statistics and go fly yourself. Data can be tortured to say whatever the presenter wants to show.
After all, you don't get out of life alive.
Everything is a risk. The other night, some moron deliberately crossed the centerline to give me a highspeed pass in his oh so freaking cool mustang. An inch either way and we both would have been toast.
You mitigate risk by training. You tell your wouldbe passengers how you train. You let them know the work you put into being the best damned pilot you can be. If they go with you, great. If not, it is their loss. A person told me they were afraid to go on a boat ride but would be happy to fly with me any time.
Go figure.
 
silver-eagle said:
Data can be tortured to say whatever the presenter wants to show.
Click to expand...

Can you provide an example? For example, using data from reputable sources, can you show how the statement "flying is safer than driving" can be justified regarding GA, in a manner that will stand up to close scrutiny?

The alternative to data is believing that the truth is whatever you want it to be.
 
Palmpilot said:
Can you provide an example? For example, using data from reputable sources, can you show how the statement "flying is safer than driving" can be justified regarding GA, in a manner that will stand up to close scrutiny?
Click to expand...
The insurance companies (based on 70+ years of experience in paying claims on aircraft and cars) say that they don't need as much money to cover their expected claims for a 1946 Chief as compared to a recent model automobile.

And, since it isn't any less expensive to repair an aircraft, obviously they expect fewer accidents per vehicle per year from an aircraft.

How does "fewer accidents" translate into "less safe"? :D
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
The insurance companies (based on 70+ years of experience in paying claims on aircraft and cars) say that they don't need as much money to cover their expected claims for a 1946 Chief as compared to a recent model automobile....
Click to expand...
That '49 Chief will see far less action per year than a recent model automobile, and its accidents are far more likely to result in fatality or injury, whereas the recent model automobile's accidents are more likely to just result in expensive trips to the body shop.
-harry
p.s. Just checked my numbers, and only 1 in 160 reported auto accidents resulted in fatalities. For aviation, 1 in 5 reported accidents involved fatality. This is why the insurance premium argument doesn't translate well into safety, because auto insurance is largely about paying to fix-up a smushed-up car from which the occupants walked away.
 
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
How does "fewer accidents" translate into "less safe"? :D
Click to expand...

This has already been covered in this thread. The data shows that the smaller number of fatal accidents is a result of the fact that less time and miles are spent in GA airplanes than in cars.

Spending less time in a more hazardous activity does not make it a less hazardous activity. (If you disagree, then you should have no qualms about spending one hour per year playing Russian Roulette!)

So that argument does not stand up to even cursory scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
mantakos said:
That '49 Chief will see far less action per year than a recent model automobile, and its accidents are far more likely to result in fatality or injury, whereas the recent model automobile's accidents are more likely to just result in expensive trips to the body shop.
-harry.
Click to expand...

Check your Chief numbers again - the vast majority of AR11 NTSB reports are minor or no injuries. Fatalities are predominately low-level impromptu aerobatics.
 
dmccormack said:
Check your Chief numbers again - the vast majority of AR11 NTSB reports are minor or no injuries. Fatalities are predominately low-level impromptu aerobatics.
Click to expand...

The fact remains that unless the exposure to a risk is taken into account by dividing accident numbers by the number of hours, number of miles, or something like that, it's not a valid indicator of the level of risk. What you're actually measuring is a combination of risk level with how much of the activity is being done.

Very few people die from Russian Roulette, but I still wouldn't spend even five minutes playing it.

And I'm NOT saying GA flying is comparable in risk level to Russian Roulette. The point of that example is that considering risk data without factoring in the exposure level that led to that data is meaningless.

Refusing to consider the exposure level is tantamount to deliberately ignoring some of the data because you don't like its implications. If you're willing to do that, then of course you can "prove" anything you like.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
Check your Chief numbers again...
Click to expand...
I don't have any "Chief numbers", I'm not talking about any specific model, I'm talking about GA fixed-wing overall.

If we're looking for a way to try to cheat the stats, a good way is by characterizing ourselves as part of so small a subset of the whole that we've eliminated the "bad" statistics, carving out a data set that's too small to have any meaning, and then trying to draw meaning from it.

In other words, in the past 5 years there have been 0 GA accidents in which the pilot was a half-greek, half-bald, computer-geek, Orioles fan, CP-ASEL with between between 600 and 700 hours in his logbook. We have therefore proven statistically that there is 0% chance of me crashing.
-harry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top