The biggest safety investment in GA is...

On Jul 6, 1:34 pm, "Matt Barrow" wrote:
Yet, the GA crowd, which is overwhelmingly (?) non-IR, has the highest
accident rates. Nealy 3 1/2 times their nearest "competitors".

Accident Rate Comparisons (U.S. Fleet)
Accidents per 100,000 hours (For 2005)
Corporate aviation(1) 0.08
Fractional jets 0.14
Scheduled airlines 0.17
FAR 91 business jets(2) 0.32
FAR 135 business jets 0.47
Business aviation(3) 0.73
Non-scheduled airlines 0.94
FAR 91 & 135 business turboprops 1.61
All air taxis 2.0
Regional airlines (4) 2.01
General aviation 6.6

1. All aircraft types flown by salaried crews for business purposes.
2. Business jets professionally and non-professionally flown.
3. All aircraft types, owner flown.
4. Regional airlines were re-classified in 1997 by the FAA causing rate
increase.
Source: Robert E. Breiling Associates

--------------------------

Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but they
fly a LOT.

Business aviation and personal aviation make a very good comparison.
In both cases, we're talking about the same training, the same
equipment, the same reporting requirements, etc. In other words, even
if the hours are misrepresented, there is no reason to believe they
are misrepresented DIFFERENTLY in the two groups. Yet both this
source (which I have not previously seen) and the Nall report indicate
that business aviation (self-flown) is dramatically safer than
personal flying. The difference is less pronounced in the Nall
report, most likely because this set of stats includes turbine
equipment (which implies both better and more regular training AND
better and more capable equipment) but the difference is still
striking in the Nall report.

Note that here, where the turbine equipment is lumped in, the numbers
look a lot better than a lot of professionally flown categories. Even
the non-sched airlines, with professional crews and likely better
equipment (on the whole - there are probably a dozen Barons and
Saratogas for every Gulfstream in the business aviation segment) look
worse. Something to think about - being professional without the
support structure of a scheduled airline seems to matter little. So
what does matter? Why is personal flying so dangerous?

I would suggest that the instrument rating isn't the key difference.
I know plenty of people doing self-flown business flying without one.
I used to do it all the time. Most eventually break down and get the
instrument rating eventually - after flying more hours than the
average recreation-only pilot flies in a lifetime. I think the real
issue is risk management.

Anyone who has done any investing knows about the Laffer curve (or J-
curve) knows that maximum conservatism does not equal minimum risk.
Put all your money into the most conservative investments, and you get
minimum return - but not minimum risk. Minimum risk comes somewhere
at about an 80-20 mix - the best compromise between investment risk
and inflation risk. Many people operate on the less conservative side
of the minimum - more risk, but higher return. There is an argument
to be made for this. There is NO argument to be made for operating on
the more conservative side - you get lower return AND higher risk.
It's just dumb.

I suggest that something similar is at work in aviation. The problem
is not that most private pilots are not instrument rated - it is that
they are too conservative.

In aviation, you balance exposure risk with incompetence risk.
Competence comes less from training and more from flying a lot in a
variety of conditions. When you fly strictly for fun, there is a huge
tendency not to fly because there is some elevated risk (maybe not
much) due to conditions (weather, fatigue, airspace, etc.) and the
flight won't be great fun. When you fly on business, you don't cancel
unless there is an obvious and significantly elevated risk - fun
doesn't enter into it, as you need to go. This will, of necessity,
make you less conservative - and will make you run afoul of GA
'wisdom.'

Time to spare, go by air
Don't ever fly yourself someplace you HAVE TO be
Don't ever fly when you're not 100%
The blue card with a hole - when color of card matches color of sky,
go fly

I submit that the wisdom is not so wise. Competence is what you need
to handle the unexpected, and the unexpected will eventually happen no
matter how conservative you are.

I also submit that most of personal GA operates on the wrong side of
the optimum - more conservative, less risky. Those who fly themselves
on business are significantly less conservative about weather,
airspace, and fatigue than those who fly only for fun - they have to
be, or they would never get enough reliability to make it worthwhile.
They are also dramatically safer. That can ONLY happen if the
pleasure flyers are on the wrong side of the minimum.

Tomorrow, I'm going to fly myself on a business trip. I KNOW the
weather is going to be pretty crappy, and I will be going into a busy
primary Class B airport during the busy time. And I think I'll be
safer than the guy who is very careful and won't fly in bad weather.
And the statistics seem to agree with me.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 6, 1:34 pm, "Matt Barrow" wrote:
Yet, the GA crowd, which is overwhelmingly (?) non-IR, has the highest
accident rates. Nealy 3 1/2 times their nearest "competitors".

Accident Rate Comparisons (U.S. Fleet)
Accidents per 100,000 hours (For 2005)
Corporate aviation(1) 0.08
Fractional jets 0.14
Scheduled airlines 0.17
FAR 91 business jets(2) 0.32
FAR 135 business jets 0.47
Business aviation(3) 0.73
Non-scheduled airlines 0.94
FAR 91 & 135 business turboprops 1.61
All air taxis 2.0
Regional airlines (4) 2.01
General aviation 6.6

1. All aircraft types flown by salaried crews for business purposes.
2. Business jets professionally and non-professionally flown.
3. All aircraft types, owner flown.
4. Regional airlines were re-classified in 1997 by the FAA causing rate
increase.
Source: Robert E. Breiling Associates

--------------------------

Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but
they
fly a LOT.

Business aviation and personal aviation make a very good comparison.
In both cases, we're talking about the same training, the same
equipment, the same reporting requirements, etc.

Not really; see below.

In other words, even
if the hours are misrepresented, there is no reason to believe they
are misrepresented DIFFERENTLY in the two groups. Yet both this
source (which I have not previously seen) and the Nall report indicate
that business aviation (self-flown) is dramatically safer than
personal flying. The difference is less pronounced in the Nall
report, most likely because this set of stats includes turbine
equipment (which implies both better and more regular training AND
better and more capable equipment) but the difference is still
striking in the Nall report.

I agree with you in kind,, but perhaps not in detail. IBME, that those who
use aircraft for business generally are better equiped, have gotten more
training, put more $$ into better and more frequent maintenance, are much
more likely (not exclusively, though) have IR's and Commercial tickets.

Also, not the category includes all levels, and that would include SP
Citations and other bizjets that are single pilot/owner flown.

I would like to know how they manage to distinguish business trips from
personal flights.


Note that here, where the turbine equipment is lumped in, the numbers
look a lot better than a lot of professionally flown categories. Even
the non-sched airlines, with professional crews and likely better
equipment (on the whole - there are probably a dozen Barons and
Saratogas for every Gulfstream in the business aviation segment) look
worse. Something to think about - being professional without the
support structure of a scheduled airline seems to matter little. So
what does matter? Why is personal flying so dangerous?

I would suggest that the instrument rating isn't the key difference.

Perhaps not, but it is significant.

I know plenty of people doing self-flown business flying without one.
I used to do it all the time. Most eventually break down and get the
instrument rating eventually - after flying more hours than the
average recreation-only pilot flies in a lifetime.

How many folks flew for years as pleasure pilots before using aircraft for
business. I'd sat quite a few.

I think the real issue is risk management.

Wholeheartedly agree. Under any conditions of weather, equipment, anything,
better pilots handle risks better. As most business pilots are _probably_
entrepreneaurs, might they have a better grasp of RM?

Anyone who has done any investing knows about the Laffer curve (or J-
curve) knows that maximum conservatism does not equal minimum risk.
Put all your money into the most conservative investments, and you get
minimum return - but not minimum risk. Minimum risk comes somewhere
at about an 80-20 mix - the best compromise between investment risk
and inflation risk. Many people operate on the less conservative side
of the minimum - more risk, but higher return. There is an argument
to be made for this. There is NO argument to be made for operating on
the more conservative side - you get lower return AND higher risk.
It's just dumb.

Not sure, but I think you're misstating risk/gain assessment, but otherwise,
I think you're pretty much dead on.


I suggest that something similar is at work in aviation. The problem
is not that most private pilots are not instrument rated - it is that
they are too conservative.

Ummm...no? I think they take risks not understanding all the potential
factors involved.

If they're as conservative as you imply, they'd (pretty much) never fly,
PERIOD.


In aviation, you balance exposure risk with incompetence risk.
Competence comes less from training and more from flying a lot in a
variety of conditions.

Conditional (contextual) "Agree".

When you fly strictly for fun, there is a huge
tendency not to fly because there is some elevated risk (maybe not
much) due to conditions (weather, fatigue, airspace, etc.) and the
flight won't be great fun. When you fly on business, you don't cancel
unless there is an obvious and significantly elevated risk - fun
doesn't enter into it, as you need to go. This will, of necessity,
make you less conservative - and will make you run afoul of GA
'wisdom.'
Time to spare, go by air
Don't ever fly yourself someplace you HAVE TO be
Don't ever fly when you're not 100%
The blue card with a hole - when color of card matches color of sky,
go fly

I submit that the wisdom is not so wise. Competence is what you need
to handle the unexpected, and the unexpected will eventually happen no
matter how conservative you are.

On the other hand, knowing there's an elevated risk for that flight, proper
precautions are taken. I also tend to think that business people (of the fly
yourself variety) have a better grasp of this than the average Joe/Betty.


I also submit that most of personal GA operates on the wrong side of
the optimum - more conservative, less risky. Those who fly themselves
on business are significantly less conservative about weather,
airspace, and fatigue than those who fly only for fun - they have to
be, or they would never get enough reliability to make it worthwhile.
They are also dramatically safer. That can ONLY happen if the
pleasure flyers are on the wrong side of the minimum.

Hmmm???

How about this: the point of Risk Management is managing risk BEFORE the
fact, not after the stuff has hit the fan.

Tomorrow, I'm going to fly myself on a business trip. I KNOW the
weather is going to be pretty crappy, and I will be going into a busy
primary Class B airport during the busy time. And I think I'll be
safer than the guy who is very careful and won't fly in bad weather.
And the statistics seem to agree with me.

Most likely, you're going to do a sh&tl*!d of planning before hand, as as
things unfold, not just go barrel off into the wild blue yonder.

Good flight to you!

(Before someone jumps in with anecdotal examples, know that these are wide
generalizations and not 100% empirical)
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

On Jul 11, 12:00 pm, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
Also, not the category includes all levels, and that would include SP
Citations and other bizjets that are single pilot/owner flown.

Yes, which is why the difference is so dramatic here. But in the Nall
report those Citations are excluded, and the difference is still
huge. Self-flown business flyers are still safer than recreational
flyers even when flying pistons.

I would like to know how they manage to distinguish business trips from
personal flights.

Self-reporting, I assume. There is no incentive to misreport, as
there is nothing illegal or insurance-affecting about it.

I know plenty of people doing self-flown business flying without one.
I used to do it all the time. Most eventually break down and get the
instrument rating eventually - after flying more hours than the
average recreation-only pilot flies in a lifetime.

How many folks flew for years as pleasure pilots before using aircraft for
business. I'd sat quite a few.

In my experience, none. Those willing to use a personal aircraft for
business usually start right away - because they can.

I think the real issue is risk management.
Wholeheartedly agree. Under any conditions of weather, equipment, anything,
better pilots handle risks better. As most business pilots are _probably_
entrepreneaurs, might they have a better grasp of RM?

Less than half of the ones I know are entrepreneurs. Most are
professional employees. But your larger point - that the business
flyers have a better grasp of RM - is true in my experience.

I suggest that something similar is at work in aviation. The problem
is not that most private pilots are not instrument rated - it is that
they are too conservative.

Ummm...no? I think they take risks not understanding all the potential
factors involved.

Well, sort of. They don't realize that they are being too
conservative, are failing to develop their skills, and are thus adding
more risk through failure to develop their skills then they avoid by
reducing exposure.

If they're as conservative as you imply, they'd (pretty much) never fly,
PERIOD.

Most private pilots fly less than 25 hours a year.

On the other hand, knowing there's an elevated risk for that flight, proper
precautions are taken. I also tend to think that business people (of the fly
yourself variety) have a better grasp of this than the average Joe/Betty.

Agree. But there is a difference between proper prior planning (which
allows you to experience the difficult conditions, learn, and survive
the experience) and not going (which merely allows you to survive, but
not learn anything)

I also submit that most of personal GA operates on the wrong side of
the optimum - more conservative, less risky. Those who fly themselves

I meant more conservative but more risky. Sorry.

How about this: the point of Risk Management is managing risk BEFORE the
fact, not after the stuff has hit the fan.

But really, it's both. It is said that the superior pilot uses his
superior judgment to avoid situations that will require the use of his
superior skills, and this is true MOST of the time. But eventually,
the **** will hit the fan no matter how careful you are - and then, if
you have not developed the skill, you are done. If you avoid all
exposure to risky situations, you never develop the skill.

Tomorrow, I'm going to fly myself on a business trip. I KNOW the
weather is going to be pretty crappy, and I will be going into a busy
primary Class B airport during the busy time. And I think I'll be
safer than the guy who is very careful and won't fly in bad weather.
And the statistics seem to agree with me.

Most likely, you're going to do a sh&tl*!d of planning before hand, as as
things unfold, not just go barrel off into the wild blue yonder.

I will do (actually, did - the trip was yesterday) relatively little
planning. I fly in crappy weather, and into busy airports,
routinely. I've been doing it for years, and I don't get many
surprises anymore. But when I started, I did a whole lot of
planning. I never managed to cover EVERY eventuality, but I covered
enough to survive and learn. The point is not to launch unprepared -
don't go looking for adventure, it will find you soon enough. And I'm
not against instrument ratings - that would be silly, given that I'm
an ATP and CFII. I just don't think it's the important factor - I
think that willingness to fly more often in a broader range of
conditions is much more important.

Michael