A disturbing statistic

Gary Drescher wrote:
Yup. There've been many threads here on this topic, and (among people who do
the research and the arithmetic) the conclusions have been in line with
yours.

Because the conclusion is correct.

Moreover, according to the Nall Report, personal (as opposed to commercial)
GA flying has about twice the fatality rate of GA flying overall.

In fact, personal flying is the most dangerous segment of GA. Even
cropdusting is safer.

On the other hand, instructional flight (solo and dual) has about half the
fatality rate of GA overall (even though the most dangerous phases of
flight--takeoff, landing, and low-altitude maneuvering--are presumably
overrepresented in instructional flight).

The same is true of self-flown business travel.

What that suggests is that flying
simple planes, maintaining proficiency, and having conservative standards
regarding weather adds up to a fatality rate that is only slightly greater
than that of driving.

If that were truly the way to go, then self-flown business travel would
be far more dangerous than personal flying - the planes are generally
faster and more complex, and the pilots generally are under pressure to
be there on time and will push weather more. But the reality is very
different.

So I would suggest that while maintaining proficiency may well be
important (those who fly for business tend to fly much more than those
who only fly for personal reasons) simple planes and conservative
standards buy you little if anything.

Let's not kid ourselves - even corporate flying, which features pilots
who fly and train a lot more and much better equipment still won't come
within a factor of two of automobiles.

And here's the real kicker - automobile fatality rates are very
unevenly distributed. The teenage kids are way overrepresented, and
the middle aged, middle class types are way underrepresented. So what
does the typical pilot profile look like?

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gary Drescher wrote:
What that suggests is that flying
simple planes, maintaining proficiency, and having conservative standards
regarding weather adds up to a fatality rate that is only slightly
greater
than that of driving.

If that were truly the way to go, then self-flown business travel would
be far more dangerous than personal flying - the planes are generally
faster and more complex, and the pilots generally are under pressure to
be there on time and will push weather more. But the reality is very
different.

So I would suggest that while maintaining proficiency may well be
important (those who fly for business tend to fly much more than those
who only fly for personal reasons) simple planes and conservative
standards buy you little if anything.

If self-flown business travel is also relatively safe, then there seem to be
at least two distinct modes of flying that are safer than the GA
average--instructional flying (with novice pilots but with simple planes and
conservative standards) and business travel (with more advanced aircraft and
more-experienced pilots).

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
If self-flown business travel is also relatively safe, then there seem to be
at least two distinct modes of flying that are safer than the GA
average--instructional flying (with novice pilots but with simple planes and
conservative standards) and business travel (with more advanced aircraft and
more-experienced pilots).

I think that's sort of a backwards way of looking at it. It's not that
there are safer-than-average GA modes - it's that there is a
particularly dangerous mode that drags everything else down, and that
mode is personal flying. I think what we need to do is look at what
differentiates personal flying from all other forms of GA and figure
out what makes it more dangerous, rather than looking at every other
form (they're all safer) and figure out why.

I think (and of course now that we have departed from statistics into
causation this is purely opinion) the problem is twofold - most
personal flying is done by people who don't fly enough and don't have a
real reason to do it (they have no destination other than up and no
mission). In other words, poor proficiency coupled with the wrong
mindset.

Remember, most accidents are pilot error. Not being focused on what
you are doing is a great way to make mistakes - as is doing something
only rarely. Most insurance companies will give owners a discount for
flying over 100 hours a year, even though this dramatically increases
the exposure. They believe the additional proficiency more than
offsets the increased exposure, and they are in the business of being
right.

If we really wanted to improve the accident picture, we would simply
require one to fly 100 hours a year to keep the license valid, or take
another checkride. I don't favor this because it would kill personal
GA - there wouldn't be enough of us to support the infrastructure.

Michael

I think what we need to do is look at what
differentiates personal flying from all other forms of GA and figure
out what makes it more dangerous, rather than looking at every other
form (they're all safer) and figure out why.

I think the answer is fairly evident: Personal flying is not done often
enough by those who do it. This impacts proficiency. Personal flying
often involves decisions which are made independent of the weather,
making the weather a complicating factor rather than a deciding factor.
And since flying is expensive, it is harder to remain proficient.
Also, people who fly for personal transportation often fly on longer
trips, which are not taken all that often. Contrast this to driving,
where trips can be as short as a mile or two, and happen all the time.

So, anything that rasies the cost of flying, or makes it more difficult
to accomplish a mission by flying, or increases the impact of weather on
flying, or discourages flying, will have a component that adversely
affects safety.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
I think the answer is fairly evident: Personal flying is not done often
enough by those who do it. This impacts proficiency.

I buy that.

Personal flying
often involves decisions which are made independent of the weather,
making the weather a complicating factor rather than a deciding factor.

But that's even more true of self-flown business flying. There are
lots of pilots who only fly for personal reasons that will only fly
when the weather is nice - making weather a deciding factor. Those who
fly on business rarely do this.

And since flying is expensive, it is harder to remain proficient.

True.

Also, people who fly for personal transportation often fly on longer
trips, which are not taken all that often.

But wouldn't that be just as true for self-flown business travel?

So, anything that rasies the cost of flying, or makes it more difficult
to accomplish a mission by flying, or increases the impact of weather on
flying, or discourages flying, will have a component that adversely
affects safety.

I agree. Thus all safety rules are bad - they do all the above.

Michael

Personal flying
often involves decisions which are made independent of the weather,
making the weather a complicating factor rather than a deciding factor.
But that's even more true of self-flown business flying. There are
lots of pilots who only fly for personal reasons that will only fly
when the weather is nice - making weather a deciding factor. Those who
fly on business rarely do this.

I was including this kind of business flying as "personal flying". Do
the statistics separate it out?

Also, people who fly for personal transportation often fly on longer
trips, which are not taken all that often.
But wouldn't that be just as true for self-flown business travel?

Ditto above.

So, anything that rasies the cost of flying, or makes it more difficult
to accomplish a mission by flying, or increases the impact of weather on
flying, or discourages flying, will have a component that adversely
affects safety.
I agree. Thus all safety rules are bad - they do all the above.

Not quite. All (such)safety rules =contain= a bad component. Some of
them contain sufficient good component as to outweigh that. However (my
point), some safety rules, though they do contain =some= good component,
contain more bad component and are a net bad.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
Personal flying
often involves decisions which are made independent of the weather,
making the weather a complicating factor rather than a deciding factor.
But that's even more true of self-flown business flying. There are
lots of pilots who only fly for personal reasons that will only fly
when the weather is nice - making weather a deciding factor. Those who
fly on business rarely do this.

I was including this kind of business flying as "personal flying". Do
the statistics separate it out?

Yes - and it is MUCH safer.

So, anything that rasies the cost of flying, or makes it more difficult
to accomplish a mission by flying, or increases the impact of weather on
flying, or discourages flying, will have a component that adversely
affects safety.
I agree. Thus all safety rules are bad - they do all the above.

Not quite. All (such)safety rules =contain= a bad component. Some of
them contain sufficient good component as to outweigh that.

I'm not convinced that this is ever true. There are two things that
you have to assume about a safety rule to believe the good component
outweighs the bad:

(1) A significant number of people will comply with the rule only
because it is a rule, and not because it is a good idea. Make it
merely advisory, and significant numbers of people will not comply.

(2) The benefit from the above is sufficiently great that the negative
impact on cost, utility, etc. of flying, and the consequent reduction
in proficiency, is offset.

This can really only happen if the people writing the rules are a lot
smarter and/or more knowledgeable about aviation than the people being
forced to comply. I've met a lot of airplane owners, and I've met a
lot of FAA employees. I'm pretty confident that the opposite is true.

However (my
point), some safety rules, though they do contain =some= good component,
contain more bad component and are a net bad.

I can think of plenty of those. I would be interested in a rule you
would consider a net good. Please limit to private aviation only (no
commercial ops) since that's clearly where the worst safety problems
exist.

Michael

In article ,
Jose wrote:

I think what we need to do is look at what
differentiates personal flying from all other forms of GA and figure
out what makes it more dangerous, rather than looking at every other
form (they're all safer) and figure out why.

I think the answer is fairly evident: Personal flying is not done often
enough by those who do it.

another viewpoint is: Pilots are not managing the risks.

It doesn't matter how often you fly. The pilot that flies within
his abilities is going to have less risk than the pilot that
flies beyond his abilities.

bottomline: it's not about total hours, it's about risk management.

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

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Jose wrote:


I think what we need to do is look at what
differentiates personal flying from all other forms of GA and figure
out what makes it more dangerous, rather than looking at every other
form (they're all safer) and figure out why.

I think the answer is fairly evident: Personal flying is not done often
enough by those who do it.


another viewpoint is: Pilots are not managing the risks.

It doesn't matter how often you fly. The pilot that flies within
his abilities is going to have less risk than the pilot that
flies beyond his abilities.

bottomline: it's not about total hours, it's about risk management.


The capabilities of the aircraft have a lot to do with the risk
management equation.

I was far more capable when I was flying an L-1011 IMC than I was flying
a Comanche 250 IMC.

Miscalcuations about ice, etc, are very unforgiving in a Comanche 250.
Not so in an L-1011 (or Citation X).

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

another viewpoint is: Pilots are not managing the risks.

It doesn't matter how often you fly. The pilot that flies within
his abilities is going to have less risk than the pilot that
flies beyond his abilities.

bottomline: it's not about total hours, it's about risk management.

To wit: Scott Crossfield