Many times I am reading a magazine related to flying and some aviation
related newsgroups and there are a fairly large number of people that
are dying, crashing, etc.
Even the post a bit below about OSH show, etc.

Since I would like to learn to fly I have one question:

Airplane is considered to be the most safe mode of transportation.
Looking at the airliners and their operation where they fly 24/7 all
over the world, seldom some crash happens. What is the root cause and
problem in general aviation regarding safety, crashing, etc? Shouldn't
the standards be the same and are they the same in terms of flying,
rules and equipment. Basically, I wonder, what is going on and most
importantly what to do to correct it? And why it hasn't been done yet?

Thanks :)

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Many times I am reading a magazine related to flying and some aviation
> related newsgroups and there are a fairly large number of people that
> are dying, crashing, etc.
> Even the post a bit below about OSH show, etc.
>
> Since I would like to learn to fly I have one question:
>
> Airplane is considered to be the most safe mode of transportation.
> Looking at the airliners and their operation where they fly 24/7 all
> over the world, seldom some crash happens. What is the root cause and
> problem in general aviation regarding safety, crashing, etc? Shouldn't
> the standards be the same and are they the same in terms of flying,
> rules and equipment. Basically, I wonder, what is going on and most
> importantly what to do to correct it? And why it hasn't been done yet?

There are lots of factors, not all of which even *could* be changed even if
someone wanted to.

They include (but are not limited to)

* pilot training (airline pilots have been through much more training
and have much more experience than most of the rest of the pilot
population),

* regulations governing what is allowed (airline pilots fly under very
strict guidelines, and have limited authority with respect to deviating from
these guidelines, whereas Part 91 pilots can *legally* do all sorts of
things that might be ill-advised 9 times out of 10)

* equipment capability (airline pilots fly powerful, fast airplanes that
spend very little time near the ground, in the weather, and which have
systems that make most icing a non-issue, and make it easy to avoid
dangerous weather)

Part 91 general aviation flying will always be statistically more dangerous
than airline flying. Frankly, I think a more interesting question is why
aren't other forms of public transportation subject to the same degree of
regulation and control that the airlines are? Airlines *are* the safest
mode of transportation, so why aren't the other modes being regulated enough
to meet airline standards?

Of course, the answer to both questions really just comes down to
practicality and public perception. Public perception means that people are
less forgiving of accidents in aviation, so aviation *has* to be better (at
least for airlines). Practicality means that there are things that aviation
is used for that simply could not be done when flying to airline standards.
Airlines are strictly in the business of Point A to Point B and strict
regulations still allow that to happen. But lots of other kinds of flying
would just disappear under those kinds of regulations. Better to allow each
individual to decide to participate or not according to their comfort with
the risk, than to play Nanny State and just kick everyone out of the pool,
isn't it?

Now, note that when you talk about "the root cause", what you're really
talking about is the pilot himself. Most accidents come down to a poor
decision (or more commonly, a series of poor decisions) on the part of the
pilot. For most of us, flying is optional. There's really no excuse for
getting involved in one of these dangerous situations in which an airliner
would have no trouble, or is prohibited from engaging in. Just because, for
example, you are *allowed* to depart (with an instrument rating) in zero
visibility with the ceiling down the ground, that doesn't mean it's wise or
safe.

As with any activity (including walking or driving a car), acknowledge the
risks and take reasonable steps to avoid those risks. But first and
foremost, do what you want to do. If you want to fly, then the risks are
just a fact of life, just as with anything else you do every day. Manage
them, and then don't let them detract from the enjoyment of flying.

Pete

If you want to see facts, go to the sources, NTSB, FAA,
AOPA-ASF, NASA and study the accident reports and safety
reviews.

Airlines are the safest mode of mass transport, but
corporate flying is even safer [last time I checked]. There
are strict rules for both FAR 121 [airlines] and FAR 91
corporations have even stricter in house rules. The
equipment used by corporations is equal to the airlines,
sometimes superior. The pilots know the boss is in the back
and they also have a operations that manual that can be
summed up as "Don't kill the boss."

General aviation includes every airplane that isn't an
airliner or military. Military is dangerous, not just
because they shoot at you, but the places they go and the
conditions they fly and train in are dangerous. General
aviation instructing and supervised students are very safe.
Patrol, agriculture, fire-fighting, these are inherently
dangerous yet have pretty good safety records. But just
like your car, some pilots will fly drunk, tired, stupid,
distracted and without planning. Not all have an accident
every time.

Bottom line, flying is as safe as you want it to be.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

> wrote in message
ups.com...
| Many times I am reading a magazine related to flying and
some aviation
| related newsgroups and there are a fairly large number of
people that
| are dying, crashing, etc.
| Even the post a bit below about OSH show, etc.
|
| Since I would like to learn to fly I have one question:
|
| Airplane is considered to be the most safe mode of
transportation.
| Looking at the airliners and their operation where they
fly 24/7 all
| over the world, seldom some crash happens. What is the
root cause and
| problem in general aviation regarding safety, crashing,
etc? Shouldn't
| the standards be the same and are they the same in terms
of flying,
| rules and equipment. Basically, I wonder, what is going on
and most
| importantly what to do to correct it? And why it hasn't
been done yet?
|
| Thanks :)
|

wrote:
> Many times I am reading a magazine related to flying and some aviation
> related newsgroups and there are a fairly large number of people that
> are dying, crashing, etc.
> Even the post a bit below about OSH show, etc.
>
> Since I would like to learn to fly I have one question:
>
> Airplane is considered to be the most safe mode of transportation.
> Looking at the airliners and their operation where they fly 24/7 all
> over the world, seldom some crash happens. What is the root cause and
> problem in general aviation regarding safety, crashing, etc? Shouldn't
> the standards be the same and are they the same in terms of flying,
> rules and equipment. Basically, I wonder, what is going on and most
> importantly what to do to correct it? And why it hasn't been done yet?

The standards are not the same, nor should they be. If they were, a
general aviation airplane would cost tens of millions of dollars and it
would take you six years to get a pilot license. You would only be
allowed to fly directly from one airport to another -- no deviations
for sightseeing or just going up for a joy ride, and you would have to
have another fully qualified pilot with you at all times. You would
have to fly at very high altitudes, out of the weather. You would have
strict operating rules and you would be regularly audited to make sure
you obey them. You could not fly in or out of most airports. You would
not be allowed to do any aerobatics. You would have to have a physical
checkup every six months instead of every two or three years and, if
you ever have any sort of problem with the checkup, you would be
grounded forever.

You choose your own level of risk when you fly an airplane. If you want
to fly at night, in bad weather, in mountainous terrain, in an airplane
that has known problems, etc., you increase your risk. If you want to
be stupid and fly into box canyons, buzz your girlfriend's house, do
low leverl aerobatics, or fly when when intoxicated, you can do that,
too. Lots of pilots do, and they are the pilots who are largely
responsible for general aviation's dismal accident record.

If you want to fly like a professional then you can have something
approaching the safety of a professional. But it is your choice. Just
remember that there are many pilots who choose poorly. And do not kid
yourself. There will be times when you make some very poor choices.
Everyone is human. Apparently, some pilots are more human than others.

wrote:

> Airplane is considered to be the most safe mode of transportation.
> Looking at the airliners and their operation where they fly 24/7 all
> over the world, seldom some crash happens.

Airplane crashes, professionally piloted or otherwise, make the news
because they are rare. Dog bites man - no news. Man Bites Dog - Big
News. Hazard a guess as to how many car accidents occurred in your
county yesterday? Or how many car fatalities in your county last month?
How many people died in plane crashes in your county in the past 10 years?


What is the root cause and problem in general aviation regarding safety,
crashing, etc?

By and large, pilot/human error, the same main factor in automobile crashes.


Shouldn't the standards be the same and are they the same in terms of
flying, rules and equipment.

Comparing airliners to private planes, and the rules involved is
actually like comparing commercial transportation to personal cars (and
their rules..).

Commercial aviation is more regulated, requires professional crews
(usually 2 very experienced pilots). Commercial trucks/busses are
likewise more regulated (Commercial drivers license, DOT inspections,
etc). Even with ground transportation, not everyone has the same
rulebook. But aviation still has the equivalent of a 16 year old novice
driver fresh out of driver's ed. We all have to start somewhere.

Basically, I wonder, what is going on and most importantly what to do to
correct it?
Go look in the mirror. You are then looking at the person who is
ultimately responsible for your safety and well being. The person most
likely to be injured or killed in a vehicle accident (air or ground)
operated by you, IS yourself.

Actually, general aviation is not the safest form of transportation.

Commercial aviation (airlines) are the safest, about 50 times safer
than the same amount of time in a car. In other words, you'd have to
fly 50 hours to have the same risk as riding in an automobile for one
hour.

Commuter aviation is the next safest, about 10 times safer than the
same amount of time in a car. Fly 10 hours for the same risk as one
hour in a car.

General aviation is not as safe as riding in a car. It is about 1/10 as
safe as a car. You could ride in an automobile for about 10 hours
before developing the same risk as flying for one hour in the typical
small airplane.

Flying in a small airplane has about the same risk is riding a
motorcycle.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Actually, general aviation is not the safest form of transportation.

Actually, no one wrote that general aviation is the safest form of
transportation. Not even the person to whom you replied.

Another part of the equation is the reliability of piston engines vs
turbines....

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Many times I am reading a magazine related to flying and some aviation
> related newsgroups and there are a fairly large number of people that
> are dying, crashing, etc.
> Even the post a bit below about OSH show, etc.
>
> Since I would like to learn to fly I have one question:
>
> Airplane is considered to be the most safe mode of transportation.
> Looking at the airliners and their operation where they fly 24/7 all
> over the world, seldom some crash happens. What is the root cause and
> problem in general aviation regarding safety, crashing, etc? Shouldn't
> the standards be the same and are they the same in terms of flying,
> rules and equipment. Basically, I wonder, what is going on and most
> importantly what to do to correct it? And why it hasn't been done yet?
>
> Thanks :)
>

wrote:

> Airplane is considered to be the most safe mode of transportation.
> Looking at the airliners and their operation where they fly 24/7 all
> over the world, seldom some crash happens. What is the root cause and
> problem in general aviation regarding safety, crashing, etc?

I'm not sure you can point to one root cause.

>A small airplane comes apart when you fly it into a thunderstorm.

This one should not be there. I mean, larger airplane larger parts
because of a larger force being extered on them. Smaller plane smaller
parts, but looking as a whole using some other method like percentages
that doesn't account to the actual sizing of some part but its relation
to others they should follow rules.
Someone made a relation between cars and trucks which are commercial.
Well, on the same road, car's wheel should not fall off (say, pot-hole)
and truck's would stay bolted on. Also comparison is not quite the same
- cars and trucks are using the same road mostly in traffic jams in
larger metro areas. And they have no other way to go but in the same
direction. If planes fly like that in one very small route where
distance between each piston aircraft is say 200 meters which would be
similar to a 10-20 meter distance on the highways between cars - then
comparison would probably be better. Further, standards for personal
cars and trucks do not have to be so strict, since if your engine dies
or you get a flat tire, etc, you can always stop at the shoulder and
wait for help or tow truck. If airplane engine dies, you do not have
that option pretty much.

You guys here know more so I am asking, don't consider this as some
"attack". I agree its mostly in pilot, just when we look at the
personal airplane as a mode of transportation from point A to point B
with all conveniences it offers, what can I do to keep safety to max
apart from the pilot human erorr (my error). Someone mentioned piston /
turbbine engines, etc. That would be nice to look into more.



> stall and spin when a pilot isn't paying attention during a buzz job.
> The only way to fix it is to provide a full time nanny for each private
> pilot.
> --
> Gene Seibel
> Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
> Because we fly, we envy no one.
>
>
> wrote:
> > Many times I am reading a magazine related to flying and some aviation
> > related newsgroups and there are a fairly large number of people that
> > are dying, crashing, etc.
> > Even the post a bit below about OSH show, etc.
> >
> > Since I would like to learn to fly I have one question:
> >
> > Airplane is considered to be the most safe mode of transportation.
> > Looking at the airliners and their operation where they fly 24/7 all
> > over the world, seldom some crash happens. What is the root cause and
> > problem in general aviation regarding safety, crashing, etc? Shouldn't
> > the standards be the same and are they the same in terms of flying,
> > rules and equipment. Basically, I wonder, what is going on and most
> > importantly what to do to correct it? And why it hasn't been done yet?
> >
> > Thanks :)

wrote:
> You guys here know more so I am asking, don't consider this as some
> "attack". I agree its mostly in pilot, just when we look at the
> personal airplane as a mode of transportation from point A to point B
> with all conveniences it offers, what can I do to keep safety to max
> apart from the pilot human erorr (my error). Someone mentioned piston /
> turbbine engines, etc. That would be nice to look into more.
>

Peter D answered your question quite eloquently already when he wrote
about the decision making process. It starts and ends with the pilot.
Safety is an attitude - know your limits (and the airplane's limits)
and never exceed either. Example: JFK Jr was killed by his own poor
decision to fly at night over water in reduced visibility conditions.
There is rarely just one cause behind an accident, normally it is a
chain of events.

GA aircraft are very convenient when it comes to getting you places on
your own schedule. They are not always up to the task when weather is
involved (#1 killer), and sometimes you just have to bag the trip if
the risk involved exceeds your personal limit. The more capable the
aircraft the more options you have. I fly a Pilatus turboprop part time
for a charter company. Last Saturday I flew from NJ up to Maine through
some pretty snotty weather. If not for the onboard radar and Nexrad
satellite weather downlink we wouldn't have been able to pick our way
through the worst of it. Radar and satellite capability is not limited
to turbine powered aircraft, but their performance often allows them to
climb quickly on top of the nasty weather rather than have to slog
through it.

Barney,

> Another part of the equation is the reliability of piston engines vs
> turbines....
>

Is it? How many piston accidents are due to engine failure? Is that a
major factor in accidents? In fatal accidents?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

> Is it? How many piston accidents are due to engine failure?

In Germany alone at least one each month (often more), according to the
BFU Bulletins.

Stefan

Stefan,

> In Germany alone at least one each month (often more), according to the
> BFU Bulletins.
>

Accidents? Incidents? Fatal? That's what percentage of all accidents?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

> Accidents? Incidents? Fatal? That's what percentage of all accidents?

I pointed you to the source, now you can do the required research to
answer your question yourself.

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
> Thomas Borchert schrieb:
>
>> Accidents? Incidents? Fatal? That's what percentage of all accidents?
>
> I pointed you to the source, now you can do the required research to
> answer your question yourself.
>
> Stefan
Heheh, which means you don't have the facts to back up your claim.

Stefan,

> I pointed you to the source, now you can do the required research to
> answer your question yourself.
>

One might also say you posted a meaningless number and I asked you to
put meaning to it. ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Emily schrieb:

> Heheh, which means you don't have the facts to back up your claim.

No, which means I'm not going to spend hours to research numbers I'm not
interested in. I know what I've claimed, I'm not interested in exacter
numbers, and certainly not in pecentages. But for those who are, I'll
even post the link with the rough material:

http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_003/nn_41434/DE/Publikationen/Bulletins/bulletins__node.html__nnn=true

Stefan

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

> One might also say you posted a meaningless number and I asked you to
> put meaning to it. ;-)

One might. On the other hand, one might also say that you asked a
rhetorical question and are not even interested in the answer, otherwise
you would jump on the source and look for the answer yourself.

Stefan

Stefan,

> one might also say that you asked a
> rhetorical question
>

What I really did was ask Mr. Rubble to explain how much of a "part of
the equation the reliability of piston engines" really is - after he
stated it was.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

> What I really did was ask Mr. Rubble to explain how much of a "part of
> the equation the reliability of piston engines" really is - after he
> stated it was.

I've read this very question over and over from you. At some point, I
said to myself why doesn't this guy just look up the answer?

BTW: According to the BFU Bulletin, in January 2006 it was 75% of the
reported accidents/incidents/whatever in Germany (counting only the
light SEPs).

Oh, and BTW(2): I had one incident when the tug lost its power just
after being airborne while I was in the glider behind. Believe me or
not, at that moment, I wasn't interested the least bit in statistics. I
survived and so did the glider I flew, but it was, well, a moment to
remember.

Stefan

Yes it is, if you go back to the original question posed by the OP, he was
asking about the root cause of accidents. It is a fact (links at the end)
that Jet/turbine and piston engines have different MTFB's Of course it is
not the only factor in an accident, but engine failure is a fairly serious
matter and not normally something a pilot can do much about (assuming he is
operating the equipment by the book).

http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309069831/html/60.html
To paraphrase the report:-
The in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate, a measure of reliability, for gas
turbine engines in large commercial aircraft is 0.5 shutdowns for every 105
hours of flight. For single-engine military jet aircraft, the IFSD rate is 2
for every 105 hours. The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is
considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours.

Bye bye

- Barney

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Barney,
>
>> Another part of the equation is the reliability of piston engines vs
>> turbines....
>>
>
> Is it? How many piston accidents are due to engine failure? Is that a
> major factor in accidents? In fatal accidents?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

> The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is [i]
> considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours.

That's one shutdown for every ten or twenty hours. I have not
experienced that rate, and I've flown piston singles for nearly a
thousand hours.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> shutdowns for every 105
> hours of flight

Going back to the original link, I believe you meant "for every 10^5
hours... that is, for every 100,000 hours...

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

FYI,

It shows that accident rate per 100,000 hours going up slightly. I would
prefer it go down, but plan to keep flying in any event. I am too addicted
to it.

Here is some info I pulled from the FAA.gov site.

Executive Summary: A total of 1,727 general aviation accidents occurred
during calendar year 2001, involving 1,749 aircraft. The total number of
general aviation accidents in 2001 was lower than in 2000, with a 6%
decrease of 110 accidents. Of the total number of accidents, 325 were fatal,
resulting in a total of 562 fatalities. The number of fatal general aviation
accidents in 2001 decreased 6% from calendar year 2000, and the total number
of fatalities that resulted also decreased by 6%. The circumstances of these
accidents and details related to the aircraft, pilots, and locations are
presented throughout this review.


Also, on the following site is the text below:
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2006/060317.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 17, 2006 SB-06-14
NTSB REPORTS INCREASE IN AVIATION ACCIDENTS IN 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Washington, D.C. - The National Transportation Safety Board today released
preliminary statistics for 2005 showing an overall increase in civil
aviation accidents for both scheduled airline and general aviation
operations.

U.S. civil aviation accidents increased from 1,717 in 2004 to 1,779 in 2005.
However, total fatalities decreased from 636 to 600, and most of these
occurred in general aviation and air taxi operations.

"The increase in accidents is disappointing," said NTSB Acting Chairman Mark
Rosenker, "but the decrease in total fatalities is a hopeful sign. Overall,
it is clear that we need to maintain a strong focus on safety in all
segments of the aviation community," he said.

General aviation accidents increased from 1,617 in 2004 to 1,669 in 2005.
Of these, 321 were fatal accidents, up from 314 in 2004. The general
aviation accident rate increased from 6.49 per 100,000 flight hours in 2004
to 6.83 in 2005. The fatal accident rate increased from 1.26 to 1.31. The
number of fatalities rose slightly from 558 to 562.

In 2005, 32 accidents were recorded for Part 121 scheduled airline
operations, including three that resulted in 22 fatalities. In June, the
driver of a mobile belt baggage loader at Washington Reagan National Airport
was fatally injured when the vehicle struck a US Airways Express EMB-170
being prepared for flight. In December, a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737
slid off the runway at Chicago's Midway Airport, went through a barrier
fence and onto a roadway, killing a passenger in a passing automobile. Also
in December, a Chalk's Ocean Airways Grumman G73T experienced an in-flight
breakup shortly after takeoff in Miami, resulting in 20 fatalities.

Air taxi operations reported 66 accidents in 2005, the same number as
reported in 2004. The accident rate for this category showed a slight
decrease from 2.04 per 100,000 flight hours in 2004 to 2.02 in 2005, with
fatalities dropping markedly from 64 in 2004 to 18 in 2005.

Tables 1-12 providing additional statistics are available at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm.


NTSB Media Contact:
Paul Schlamm
(202) 314-6100




NTSB Home | News & Events

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert schrieb:
>
>> What I really did was ask Mr. Rubble to explain how much of a "part of
>> the equation the reliability of piston engines" really is - after he
>> stated it was.
>
> I've read this very question over and over from you. At some point, I said
> to myself why doesn't this guy just look up the answer?
>
> BTW: According to the BFU Bulletin, in January 2006 it was 75% of the
> reported accidents/incidents/whatever in Germany (counting only the light
> SEPs).
>
> Oh, and BTW(2): I had one incident when the tug lost its power just after
> being airborne while I was in the glider behind. Believe me or not, at
> that moment, I wasn't interested the least bit in statistics. I survived
> and so did the glider I flew, but it was, well, a moment to remember.
>
> Stefan

Barney,

> The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is
> considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours.
>

Wow! That kind-of sounds unlikely, doesn't it? If that was valid, most
of the people here would have experienced an in-flight shutdown.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Stefan,

> BTW: According to the BFU Bulletin, in January 2006 it was 75% of the
> reported accidents/incidents/whatever in Germany (counting only the
> light SEPs).
>

Hmm. That seems unusually high.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jose,

> Going back to the original link, I believe you meant "for every 10^5
> hours... that is, for every 100,000 hours...
>

Ah, now that makes sense. That is obviously higher than with turbines,
however, what I was getting at was how much of a role engine failures
play in the "overall danger" of piston flying.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Barney Rubble wrote:
> Yes it is, if you go back to the original question posed by the OP, he was
> asking about the root cause of accidents. It is a fact (links at the end)
> that Jet/turbine and piston engines have different MTFB's Of course it is
> not the only factor in an accident, but engine failure is a fairly serious
> matter and not normally something a pilot can do much about (assuming he is
> operating the equipment by the book).
>
> http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309069831/html/60.html
> To paraphrase the report:-
> The in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate, a measure of reliability, for gas
> turbine engines in large commercial aircraft is 0.5 shutdowns for every 105
> hours of flight. For single-engine military jet aircraft, the IFSD rate is 2
> for every 105 hours. The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is
> considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours.

These "statistics" are obviously bogus and simply pulled out of thin
air.

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Barney Rubble wrote:
>> Yes it is, if you go back to the original question posed by the OP, he
>> was
>> asking about the root cause of accidents. It is a fact (links at the end)
>> that Jet/turbine and piston engines have different MTFB's Of course it is
>> not the only factor in an accident, but engine failure is a fairly
>> serious
>> matter and not normally something a pilot can do much about (assuming he
>> is
>> operating the equipment by the book).
>>
>> http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309069831/html/60.html
>> To paraphrase the report:-
>> The in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate, a measure of reliability, for gas
>> turbine engines in large commercial aircraft is 0.5 shutdowns for every
>> 105
>> hours of flight. For single-engine military jet aircraft, the IFSD rate
>> is 2
>> for every 105 hours. The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is
>> considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours.
>
> These "statistics" are obviously bogus and simply pulled out of thin
> air.
>

No he just doesn't know how to read numbers it wasn't 105 hours it was 10^5
hours or 100,000 hours. I have no desire to read the whole report but it is
a 2000 report titled, "Uninhabited Air Vehicles: Enabling Science for
Military Systems."

I can read numbers, the ^ was somehow missed from the copy/paste process, my
guess is that this is because it was superscripted in the original article.
Appologies for the mistake...

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Barney Rubble wrote:
>>> Yes it is, if you go back to the original question posed by the OP, he
>>> was
>>> asking about the root cause of accidents. It is a fact (links at the
>>> end)
>>> that Jet/turbine and piston engines have different MTFB's Of course it
>>> is
>>> not the only factor in an accident, but engine failure is a fairly
>>> serious
>>> matter and not normally something a pilot can do much about (assuming he
>>> is
>>> operating the equipment by the book).
>>>
>>> http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309069831/html/60.html
>>> To paraphrase the report:-
>>> The in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate, a measure of reliability, for gas
>>> turbine engines in large commercial aircraft is 0.5 shutdowns for every
>>> 105
>>> hours of flight. For single-engine military jet aircraft, the IFSD rate
>>> is 2
>>> for every 105 hours. The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is
>>> considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours.
>>
>> These "statistics" are obviously bogus and simply pulled out of thin
>> air.
>>
>
> No he just doesn't know how to read numbers it wasn't 105 hours it was
> 10^5 hours or 100,000 hours. I have no desire to read the whole report but
> it is a 2000 report titled, "Uninhabited Air Vehicles: Enabling Science
> for Military Systems."
>
>
>

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

>> BTW: According to the BFU Bulletin, in January 2006 it was 75% of the
>> reported accidents/incidents/whatever in Germany (counting only the
>> light SEPs).

> Hmm. That seems unusually high.

But unluckily it is very usual that once more you haven't grasped my
sense of humour. I thought you knew how to read a one-sample-statistic.
And I thought you'd find out that I chose the example carefully.

(Nonetheless, read those Bulletins, you'll be surprized how common
engine failures are.)

Stefan

cjcampbell wrote:
>
> These "statistics" are obviously bogus and simply pulled out of thin
> air.

I concur. One obvious pointer to bogus stats is when the presenter
gives you a figure that could vary by 100%. Such as :

"The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is
> considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours. "

About 5 to 10? Which is it? Apparently it doesn't have to be
limited between 5 and 10, it's just "about" those numbers. Trying to
pass off a statment like that as a usable fact is ludicrous.

Seeing as most light aircraft piston engines are flying part 91 in
the GA fleet, and there is no requirement to report an "IFSD" to
anyone, I can see why the number given is so vague. It likely has no
basis in reality.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

wrote in news:1153808195.234376.92160
@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:

> Many times I am reading a magazine related to flying and some aviation
> related newsgroups and there are a fairly large number of people that
> are dying, crashing, etc.
> Even the post a bit below about OSH show, etc.
>
> Since I would like to learn to fly I have one question:
>
> Airplane is considered to be the most safe mode of transportation.
> Looking at the airliners and their operation where they fly 24/7 all
> over the world, seldom some crash happens. What is the root cause and
> problem in general aviation regarding safety, crashing, etc? Shouldn't
> the standards be the same and are they the same in terms of flying,
> rules and equipment. Basically, I wonder, what is going on and most
> importantly what to do to correct it? And why it hasn't been done yet?
>
> Thanks :)
>

Think of it this way...

There are many vehicles available for ground transportation. Which is
safer? A car, a bus, a motorcycle? Perhaps you'll find similar results as
comparing Airlines, GA, and Ultralights...

Airliners aren't just flying a plane. The airliners typically follow
specific policies for dealing with numerous situations that a single pilot
may not think of. They have crews with thousands of hours, and the crews
are professionals - they fly almost every day. Much like bus and truck
drivers have additional ratings on their drivers licenses, and typically
have more training and experience, resulting in safer operations. And they
drive 8 hours a day for a living, instead of commuting an hour back and
forth to work each day.

GA encounters a much wider variety of experience, judgement, and training
levels Sure there are some GA pilots that fly as frequently as airline
pilots (possibly "building hours" - working their way up to the experience
levels required to fly with an airline). But you also have pilots that fly
their planes a couple of hours a day commuting back and forth to work. You
have GA pilots that fly 100 hours a year or so for fun and/or business.
And you have "sunday pilots" that fly a few hours on the weekends in the
summers and that's it, perhaps not reaching 100 hours their whole life.

I am sometimes surprised by the fact that none of the statistics represent
this information in any way. At a minimum, the total experience level of
the pilots is available in most NTSB reports - both in terms of number of
hours logged and year of certification and active medical status. Sure it
won't give you a completely accurate representation (especially on older
pilots), but I bet it would be an interesting statistic to see...

wrote in news:1153875024.715167.114800
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

<snip>
> cars and trucks do not have to be so strict, since if your engine dies
> or you get a flat tire, etc, you can always stop at the shoulder and
> wait for help or tow truck. If airplane engine dies, you do not have
> that option pretty much.

Actually, your analogy is pretty close. If I get a blowout on the highway, I
can coast off onto the shoulder to safety. There is a chance that I won't get
all the way over, and get killed by an oncoming vehicle that can't stop in
time. In fact, even if I make it over to the shoulder there are risks.

In an airplane, if the engine fails, it doesn't automatically become a rock
and drop out of the sky. As long as your airplane continues to have wings
attached, you can glide to safety. In fact, this is a significant portion of
training for your pilot's license. In a small plane, you can land on a golf
course or in a field safely. In many parts of the US you would be hard
pressed to not be in gliding distance of an airport. Sure there risks, and
there is a possibility you won't make it. But essentially, you pull over, get
yourself some help, and get back off the ground...

> You guys here know more so I am asking, don't consider this as some
> "attack". I agree its mostly in pilot, just when we look at the
> personal airplane as a mode of transportation from point A to point B
> with all conveniences it offers, what can I do to keep safety to max
> apart from the pilot human erorr (my error). Someone mentioned piston /
> turbbine engines, etc. That would be nice to look into more.

Training, experience, and judgement..

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

hi
i am a uk ppl and i was interested in your stats on safety. I think it
would be fair add to your statement for the sake of anyone considering
taking up flying that (and this i believe is certainly true for the UK)
the annual number of accidents and deaths on roads is a hundred fold
more than those in GA. We all know the risk is high (our insurance
companies tell us so !!) but i think the outcome of the activity is as
important in deciding on taking it up. I did read somewhere when i was
learning to fly, that statistically most accidents happen when pilots
reach 200, 500. 1000, 2000 and so on hours logged, this would mean that
if you average 20 hrs a year be careful after 10 yrs 25yrs and so on !!


If as you say flying is as risky a riding a motorcycle the only thing I
would add is "its far more fun than riding one so get up there and
enjoy!!"
wrote:
> Actually, general aviation is not the safest form of transportation.
>
> Commercial aviation (airlines) are the safest, about 50 times safer
> than the same amount of time in a car. In other words, you'd have to
> fly 50 hours to have the same risk as riding in an automobile for one
> hour.
>
> Commuter aviation is the next safest, about 10 times safer than the
> same amount of time in a car. Fly 10 hours for the same risk as one
> hour in a car.
>
> General aviation is not as safe as riding in a car. It is about 1/10 as
> safe as a car. You could ride in an automobile for about 10 hours
> before developing the same risk as flying for one hour in the typical
> small airplane.
>
> Flying in a small airplane has about the same risk is riding a
> motorcycle.

"phil" > wrote

> i am a uk ppl and i was interested in your stats on safety. I think it
> would be fair add to your statement for the sake of anyone considering
> taking up flying that (and this i believe is certainly true for the UK)
> the annual number of accidents and deaths on roads is a hundred fold
> more than those in GA. We all know the risk is high (our insurance
> companies tell us so !!) but i think the outcome of the activity is as
> important in deciding on taking it up. I did read somewhere when i was
> learning to fly, that statistically most accidents happen when pilots
> reach 200, 500. 1000, 2000 and so on hours logged, this would mean that
> if you average 20 hrs a year be careful after 10 yrs 25yrs and so on !!

If you only flew 20 hours per year, the chances are that the 200 hour would
not be a danger point, but every hour getting to that point. It would be
difficult for most to be a safe flyer at those types of hours per year.
--
Jim in NC

>the annual number of accidents and deaths on roads is a hundred fold
>more than those in GA.

But there are a thousand-fold more cars and drivers on the road than
GA planes and pilots in the air.

Statistics show that GA is more dangerous than driving. But those
stats include the idiots who do all kinds of stupid things in order to
kill themselves and achieve immortality as one of those statistics.

>If as you say flying is as risky a riding a motorcycle....

Doubtful. An insurance actuary wrote in Flying mag some years ago
that "the only more dangerous way to get from point A to point B than
riding a motorcycle is to be shot from a canon."

vince norris

In article >,
vincent p. norris > wrote:

> Statistics show that GA is more dangerous than driving.

No. Statistics show a higher frequency of injury or death per
hour with flying than driving. That isn't the same thing as
showing anything wrt danger.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Judah wrote:
>
> There are many vehicles available for ground transportation. Which is
> safer? A car, a bus, a motorcycle? Perhaps you'll find similar results as
> comparing Airlines, GA, and Ultralights...
>
> Airliners aren't just flying a plane. The airliners typically follow
> specific policies for dealing with numerous situations that a single pilot
> may not think of. They have crews with thousands of hours, and the crews
> are professionals - they fly almost every day. Much like bus and truck
> drivers have additional ratings on their drivers licenses, and typically
> have more training and experience, resulting in safer operations. And they
> drive 8 hours a day for a living, instead of commuting an hour back and
> forth to work each day.
>


I've seen lots of stats comparing GA to the Airlines and GA to cars,
but I'm curious (for comparison's sake) to see the accident rates for
private vehicles to commercial. I would think that there would be a
corresponding difference.

Mike

>> Statistics show that GA is more dangerous than driving.
>
>No. Statistics show a higher frequency of injury or death per
>hour with flying than driving. That isn't the same thing as
>showing anything wrt danger.

OK, change it to "Statistics show that GA is less safe than driving."

vince norris

In article >,
vincent p. norris > wrote:

> >> Statistics show that GA is more dangerous than driving.
> >
> >No. Statistics show a higher frequency of injury or death per
> >hour with flying than driving. That isn't the same thing as
> >showing anything wrt danger.
>
> OK, change it to "Statistics show that GA is less safe than driving."

same problem.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

>> OK, change it to "Statistics show that GA is less safe than driving."
>
>same problem.

I believe the problem exists in your head. Why don't you let it out?

In article >,
vincent p. norris > wrote:

> >> OK, change it to "Statistics show that GA is less safe than driving."
> >
> >same problem.
>
> I believe the problem exists in your head. Why don't you let it out?

It's too bad you don't understand the limitations of statistics.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"cwby-flyer" > wrote in news:1155913355.395709.310640
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> I've seen lots of stats comparing GA to the Airlines and GA to cars,
> but I'm curious (for comparison's sake) to see the accident rates for
> private vehicles to commercial. I would think that there would be a
> corresponding difference.

As would I...

>It's too bad you don't understand the limitations of statistics.

So far, you have not posted a single item of information on this
topic. Instead of resorting to ad hominems, why don't you explain the
limitations of statistics to the rest of us?

vince norris