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