No matter how you present the statistics, GA flying has a higher
fatality rate than driving. But one has to look at all the factors when
evaluating a mode of transportation. Nothing beats walking for safety,
plus it is good for your health too. Yet many people take the car for
even short distances. While GA flying is more convenient, faster and
flexible compared to driving, and even compared to airline travel, they
come at a certain amount of risk. Some people choose to accept that
risk, and some won't. It is better to be aware of the risks in flying
rather than pretend they don't exist, or assume they don't apply to
you.


RK Henry wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:14:52 +0000 (UTC),
(Dane Spearing) wrote:

According to the DOT, the 2005 automobile fatality accident rate is:
1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled
(see http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/)

According to the 2005 Nall Report, the general aviation fatality accident rate
is: 1.2 fatalities per 100,000 flight hours
(see http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html)

In order to compare these two statistics, we obviously need to assume an
average velocity for either automobiles or GA aircraft. If we assume an
average GA aircraft velocity of 150 mph, then the aviation accident statistic
becomes 1.2 fatalities per 15 million miles.

The 2005 Nall report shows a total 1413 GA accidents, fatal and
non-fatal, or 6.22 accidents/100,000 flight hours. Applying the
assumed average cruising speed of 150, the 6.22 accidents becomes
41.47 accidents per 100 million miles.

According to NHTSA, there were an estimated 6,159,000 police-reported
motor vehicle accidents in 2005, of which there were 43,443
fatalities. Dividing the 43,443 by the 2,965 billion miles traveled is
where they got the figure of 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles.
Dividing the 6,159,000 accidents by the same 2,965 billion miles gives
an accident rate of 207.72 accidents per 100 million miles traveled.

It appears that if you drive a car, you're 5 times more likely to be
involved in an accident than if you fly, even in a General Aviation
aircraft. Since you have to have had some kind of accident in order
for it to be fatal, this is somewhat encouraging.

The problem is that airplanes go so much faster. If you do have an
accident at 150 mph, you're more likely to die as a result, whether
you're in a car or an airplane, and airplanes are much less
crashworthy than automobiles. One might speculate what the fatality
rate for automobiles could be if cars routinely cruised at 150 mph,
even if such speeds didn't bring with it an even higher accident rate.
Examining automotive fatality and accident rates in places like
Germany, where in some parts high speed driving is commonplace, might
be instructive. Only 0.7% of those automobile accidents were fatal
while 20% of the aircraft accidents were fatal. Airplanes don't crash
as often, but when they do, it's bad.

Perhaps one conclusion is that more attention should be paid to making
aircraft accidents survivable. Some work has already been done in this
area, but it looks like there's much room for improvement.

RK Henry