![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[apologies if this is a double-post - the first one didn't seem to go
through] On Oct 31, 4:04 pm, jeplane wrote: On Oct 30, 6:50 pm, Ramy wrote: " No matter how safe you think you are, the risk is still significantly higher than most normal activities (such as driving)" You sure? How many times have you seen a traffic accident on your way to the gliderport?... That question reflects a very typical, but not very productive approach to the issue at hand. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Data such as that in this PDF is why I personally feel fairly certain when I say that flying gliders is considerably riskier than most of what you'd call "normal activities": http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2007/ARG0701.pdf See page 15, which shows (for year 2003) bar graphs for both the raw total and fatal accident numbers per general aviation sector, and the total and fatal accidents per hours flown for each sector. Observe that the numbers for gliders are 19.45 accidents per 100,000 hours flown, with 5.07 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours. That's second only to amateur-built aircraft, with 21.6 and 5.5 respectively. Contrast that with the numbers for single-engine piston-powered airplanes with 7.91 accidents and 1.41 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours. In 2003 at least, gliders had 245% more accidents and 360% more fatal accidents per hour than the puddle-jumpers that comprise the majority of the US general aviation fleet. There's no breakdown for poor saps like me who combine the two worst categories by dabbling in amateur-built gliders, but my bet is that the numbers would be somewhere between the two. As concerns comparisons between the accident rates of flying and driving, I defer to this analysis by Harry Mantakos: http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flyin...vsdriving.html Given those numbers, I normally feel fairly confident when I say that soaring is much more dangerous than driving, and is perhaps comparable to riding a motorcycle. But I do tend to get odd looks when I go on to say that I gave up riding on the street and took up Formula IV roadracing (125cc anything-goes full-fairing 2-stroke bikes with top speed of about 100 mph) because I thought it was safer as well as more fun. Bottom line: I don't recommend flying or soaring to just everybody. Based on what I know about their methods, means, and risk aversion, for some folks I recommend knitting or photography. Thanks, Bob K. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics | Kingfish | Piloting | 192 | June 19th 06 07:06 PM |
Okay, so maybe flying *is* dangerous... | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 51 | August 31st 05 03:02 AM |
Dangerous Stuff | [email protected] | Rotorcraft | 21 | July 16th 05 05:55 PM |
New news Soaring is dangerous ? | R Barry | Soaring | 29 | October 3rd 04 03:40 AM |
small airplanes are dangerous | JimTheBoatMan | Piloting | 31 | April 29th 04 10:44 PM |