A disturbing statistic

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

Much of the risk is controllable. Weather is never a
surprise anymore. modern weather satellites and automated
observations are not perfect, but some caution and honest
self-evaluation of a pilot's actual skill level could
eliminate ,any accidents.

JFK Jr. died because he did not have the skill to make the
flight under the conditions which existed at the time he
actually made the flight. The airplane was just fine, the
weather was OK for an IFR rated pilot or a VFR pilot who had
be taught properly how to use the equipment available. He
had lots of instruction, maybe too much instruction and not
enough developed judgment. Perhaps the instructors he had
used did not have "real" experience and thus failed to teach
the procedures that could have saved his plane and the
passengers.

Lidle had a fast airplane and a CFI. But it appears they
simply flew into box without any proper planning. Slow
flight and steep turns, evaluation of the wind, knowing the
East River procedures would have saved his life. Using the
radio to get a clearance would have too. What will never be
known, were they looking at the GPS track or out the damn
windows at the river and shore line?

You can practice the East River turn anywhere, pick a road
or river and practice a 180° turn within the confines of the
allotted space. You can even learn when an airspace
violation is better than dying.



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






"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
| 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
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote
in message ...
| Much of the risk is controllable. Weather is never a
| surprise anymore. modern weather satellites and automated
| observations are not perfect, but some caution and honest
| self-evaluation of a pilot's actual skill level could
| eliminate many accidents.
|
| JFK Jr. died because he did not have the skill to make the
| flight under the conditions which existed at the time he
| actually made the flight. The airplane was just fine, the
| weather was OK for an IFR rated pilot or a VFR pilot who
had
| be taught properly how to use the equipment available. He
| had lots of instruction, maybe too much instruction and
not
| enough developed judgment. Perhaps the instructors he had
| used did not have "real" experience and thus failed to
teach
| the procedures that could have saved his plane and the
| passengers.
|
| Lidle had a fast airplane and a CFI. But it appears they
| simply flew into box without any proper planning. Slow
| flight and steep turns, evaluation of the wind, knowing
the
| East River procedures would have saved his life. Using
the
| radio to get a clearance would have too. What will never
be
| known, were they looking at the GPS track or out the damn
| windows at the river and shore line?
|
| You can practice the East River turn anywhere, pick a road
| or river and practice a 180° turn within the confines of
the
| allotted space. You can even learn when an airspace
| violation is better than dying.
|
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
|
ups.com...
|| 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
||
|
|

Jim Macklin wrote:

You can practice the East River turn anywhere, pick a road
or river and practice a 180° turn within the confines of the
allotted space.

Anybody remember "S-Turns" from the PP-ASEL PTS?


Linked 180's...

Jim Macklin wrote:


Lidle had a fast airplane and a CFI.



Not that fast, he had the SR20.

The point is that turn radius is directly related to speed.
It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower speed than
Lidle was flying his SR20 and thus make the turn. Putting
aside the fact that the NTSB investigation is barely begun,
certain facts are known. Airplanes have flown the East
River for many years. Basic flight skills should have
allowed the flight to be completed safely. It was pilot
error, the question is why did the pilots make the error?



"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
|
| Lidle had a fast airplane and a CFI.
|
|
|
| Not that fast, he had the SR20.

Jim Macklin wrote:
The point is that turn radius is directly related to speed.
It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower speed than
Lidle was flying his SR20



The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph. That's Cessna 150 territory.

It is still knots faster than he should have been to make
the turn. The true airspeed is what controls the radius,
along with the bank angle. He had a quartering headwind and
the turn was such that it was a nearly direct tailwind.
Being aware of the required turn and the speed and wind
[which should have been on display in the glass panel] both
pilots screwed up IMHO.



"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| The point is that turn radius is directly related to
speed.
| It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower speed
than
| Lidle was flying his SR20
|
|
|
| The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph. That's
Cessna 150 territory.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
It is still knots faster than he should have been to make
the turn.

Probably. But even at that airspeed (112 mph), if they'd turned with a
60-degree bank, they'd have had room to spare even if the crosswind
component had been as high as 30 knots (the turn diameter would have been
975', and the turn would have taken 10 seconds, adding 500' of drift; the
river is 2000' wide).

--Gary

The true airspeed is what controls the radius,
along with the bank angle. He had a quartering headwind and
the turn was such that it was a nearly direct tailwind.
Being aware of the required turn and the speed and wind
[which should have been on display in the glass panel] both
pilots screwed up IMHO.


"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| The point is that turn radius is directly related to
speed.
| It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower speed
than
| Lidle was flying his SR20
|
|
|
| The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph. That's
Cessna 150 territory.

Jim Macklin wrote:
It is still knots faster than he should have been to make
the turn.

No, it's not. The turn could be made at that speed at pretty much any
flyable crosswind.