How safe is it, really?

"Back_To_Flying" wrote:

He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport.
Driving is still the most dangerous activity we humans do.

Utter BS.

Ok, unlike you I have done some research on this then .

Evidently you haven't, or you'd know that the fatal accident rate of private
flying is 700% higher than that of driving in the U. S.

Driving is the
leading cause of death for American drivers between 15 - 20 years of age.
Here is my source http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/041018-3.htm

Yes. So? Are you saying kids fly as much as they drive?

I have also seen a few more reports concluding the same. So one could
conclude that driving is still much more dangerous than flying regardless
of
age group. Do you have proof of the opposite? Then show me your source.

You said: "He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the
airport.", indicating that you believe there is greater risk in one driving
trip than in one flying trip. Then you presented statistics about death
rates from a population that contains almost no pilots. In other words,
you've ignored the relative exposure of pilots vs. drivers. That old
chestnut you quoted about the drive to the airport may be true for traveling
by scheduled airlines, but it is not even close to true about private
flying.

As for my source, I get the Nall Report from the ASF every year:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/02nall.pdf -- you can get the GA fatal
accidents/hour from it and compare that to the rate for driving.

Just for fun, ask yourself these three questions: How many celebrities do
you know of that have died in GA accidents? How many in car crashes? How
much time do celebrities spend traveling in GA aircraft vs traveling in
cars?

As Richard Collins noted in a recent article in Flying Magazine, anyone who
has been heavily involved in aviation for decades will know more people that
have died in plane crashes than have died in car crashes, even though most
people they know don't fly.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote:
Just for fun, ask yourself these three questions: How many celebrities do
you know of that have died in GA accidents?

This isn't really an accurate way to judge *anything* (see below), but
just to play along, let's at least add the limitation "in the last 45
years":

As Pilot in Command (I'm sure there are more, but these are the only two
that come to mind):
1. John Denver
2. John Jr.

As a passenger (where they're hopping on board something that will
either get them home or on to the next destination to meet a schedule
.... how many pleasure pilots like the one the *original poster* wrote
about begin their flights with those time constraints?):
1. Rick Nelson
3. Stevie Ray Vaughan
4. Aliyah
5. Randy Rhoads (guitarist for Ozzy Osborne)
6. Buddy Holly

How many in car crashes?

1. Princess Grace
2. Princess Diana
3. Cliff Burton (Metallica)
4. Michael Hedges (guitarist)
5. Jayne Mansfield

How much time do celebrities spend traveling in GA aircraft vs traveling in
cars?

Probably a lot more in aircraft (GA or otherwise).
Designate any other *select group* of people who travel in conjunction
with work or for pleasure -- let's say, the top-5 executives of all
major corporations -- over the past 45 years, and I'm sure, if there
were a way to track it, you'd have a similar number that have had
plane/car crashes, we just haven't made mental note of those because
they simply aren't as noteworthy to us.

As Richard Collins noted in a recent article in Flying Magazine, anyone who
has been heavily involved in aviation for decades will know more people that
have died in plane crashes than have died in car crashes, even though most
people they know don't fly.

Yes, but again, that's not a fair representation of anything. While
pilots represent a small percentage of the total population, the flying
community of "anyone who has been heavily involved in aviation for
decades" stretches far and wide -- most people who fly either know or
know-of other pilots at their airport and at other airports at close AND
distant locations. It's not unusual, if you've been "heavily involved
for decades", to know, or know OF the pilot when an accident occurs. How
many people at your airport or at other airports have you met and BS'ed
with, even if just about how they burned your toast at the Hangar Café?
If something happens to them, you will remember them or their airplane.
But if you BS with someone at the grocery store or at a friend's party,
unless there was something particularly noteworthy about them, odds are
you wouldn't remember them 5 or 10 years later if they die in a car
crash.

That flying community that is built over "decades" encompasses a far
larger number of people than the total of your family and circle of
friends and co-workers, even though we often don't know more about them
than their name and the aircraft they fly. If we had that same kind of
link/connection to everyone and way to remember them that we do to other
pilots, I'm sure the number of car crash fatality victims we know or
know-of would be *at least* as great or greater.

IMO, that Richard Collins comment is simply NOT an indication of
anything other than what we've already established ... we know or
know-of many other pilots and airplanes in a more personal, identifiable
way than we can possibly know or know-of all other random cars and
drivers.

And again, bottom line, what difference does it make which mode of
transportation statistics say is more or less safe?...I don't think most
people look at the stats every morning as a way to gauge whether or not
to fly that day.

Driving is still the most dangerous activity we humans do.

Well, not for smokers... ;-)

"Back_To_Flying" wrote in message ...
I need some information from people 'in the field'. My husband has
his private license and is just starting to work on his IFR for
recreational flying. He wants to buy into a plane partnership, saying
he will be saving money rather than renting.

We have 2 little girls. I worry for his safety as it seems there is
another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news. I
think he should focus on this hobby when the kids are older, not when
he has such a young family.

Your opinions would be appreciated.
He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport.
Driving is still the most dangerous activity we humans do.

Richard

"June" wrote in message
om...
Actually, It would be more dangerous to call out someone else's name
while making love to your spouse. lol

Back_To_Flying wrote:

He is in more danger of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport.
Driving is still the most dangerous activity we humans do.

Nope, not even close.

"June" wrote:
I worry for his safety as it seems there is
another small plane crash every other time you turn on the news.

It is true that private aviation accidents are over-reported due to their
rarity. However, they are rare mostly due to the relative scarcity of
private pilots, not the low risk of private flying.

By any measure, private flying is more risky than driving. Individual
behavior has a large effect on the actual risk per flight, but even removing
the more egregious "pilot error" accidents from the statistics leaves the
flying risk/hour greater than that for driving -- and that's without
removing the "nut behind the wheel" accidents from the driving statistics.

You are right to be concerned for the safety of your children with respect
to your husband's flying, particularly in weather requiring the instrument
rating. In my opinion, the risk can be managed to an acceptable level if
your husband's airplane is proactively maintained to a high standard, your
husband regularly trains for high proficieny as a pilot, and your husband is
extremely conservative in his decisions about the kind of weather he will
tackle with the family aboard.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote:
You are right to be concerned for the safety of your children with respect
to your husband's flying, particularly in weather requiring the instrument
rating.

She is right to be concerned. But she said it was a hobby, and we don't
know what her husband's intentions are regarding the instrument rating.
Not everyone who pursues that rating gets it with the intention of
taking off routinely in weather "requiring an instrument rating" (except
for the purpose of staying current) ... many get it for the added
training, knowledge and precision as well as for the "just in case"
situation that *might* occur despite all the best laid plans, but not
one you'd actively seek out.

Someone else asked what she expected to hear -- I think she either
expected someone to tell her that she was right and that her husband
should give up flying until their two daughters are adults and no longer
dependants, or maybe she just wanted and needed to hear how others
weigh, justify, rationalize or prioritize the risk in our decision
whether or not to fly, and some assurance that her husband was going in
a sensible direction, not deeper into danger.

Of course it hits home when you turn on the news and see a small plane
crash, but no more or less than it does to see news of a head-on
collision on the local highway, a shooting at a local mini-mart, or a
home invasion.

Regardless of what anyone here thinks, feels or writes, that decision is
something they have to work out. The presence of aviation is a shared
passion in some marriages; in others, it's a continual source of
aggravation and turmoil ... but so are football, golf and truck shows.

wrote:
You are right to be concerned for the safety of your children with
respect
to your husband's flying, particularly in weather requiring the
instrument
rating.

She is right to be concerned. But she said it was a hobby, and we don't
know what her husband's intentions are regarding the instrument rating.
Not everyone who pursues that rating gets it with the intention of
taking off routinely in weather "requiring an instrument rating" (except
for the purpose of staying current) ... many get it for the added
training, knowledge and precision as well as for the "just in case"
situation that *might* occur despite all the best laid plans, but not
one you'd actively seek out.

IMO that's a dangerous attitude to have. An instrument rated pilot who does
not regularly use the rating cannot be proficient unless he is exceptionally
committed to regular training. I don't know any pilots who fit that
description. The ones I know who keep the rating "just to get through a
cloud deck" would be in real danger if unexpectedly forced to fly an
approach to minimums.

Someone else asked what she expected to hear -- I think she either
expected someone to tell her that she was right and that her husband
should give up flying until their two daughters are adults and no longer
dependants, or maybe she just wanted and needed to hear how others
weigh, justify, rationalize or prioritize the risk in our decision
whether or not to fly, and some assurance that her husband was going in
a sensible direction, not deeper into danger.

I think she is justifiably worried. Look at it from her side: she knows
zip-all about flying aside from what she sees on TV, which is nearly 100%
bad. How would you feel? I think it shows some good sense that she is at
least willing to research the subject. We don't know her husband; she does.
She doesn't know flying; we do (well, some of us do). So she has to weigh
what she reads here against what she thinks about her husband's judgement.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

unicate wrote:
She is right to be concerned. But she said it was a hobby, and we don't
know what her husband's intentions are regarding the instrument rating.
Not everyone who pursues that rating gets it with the intention of
taking off routinely in weather "requiring an instrument rating" (except
for the purpose of staying current) ... many get it for the added
training, knowledge and precision as well as for the "just in case"
situation that *might* occur despite all the best laid plans, but not
one you'd actively seek out.

"Dan Luke" wrote:
IMO that's a dangerous attitude to have. An instrument rated pilot who does
not regularly use the rating cannot be proficient unless he is exceptionally
committed to regular training. I don't know any pilots who fit that
description. The ones I know who keep the rating "just to get through a
cloud deck" would be in real danger if unexpectedly forced to fly an
approach to minimums.

Agreed. Obviously a person has to practice regularly to keep the skills
sharp. Most of the IA pilots I know of do this, I'm surprised to hear
you say you don't know of any who do. Point I was trying to make is that
people who are not familiar (the original poster) often mistakenly
think, when they hear that someone wants an instrument rating, that it
means they are then going to then take off in *any* weather because they
"know how to fly in the clouds". Hopefully, that's not the case. And
while I agree that a person needs to use the rating to stay proficient,
even going through the training, ground work and testing to get it will
make him/her more competent unless they forget everything once they're
done with the checkride.

I think she is justifiably worried. Look at it from her side: she knows
zip-all about flying aside from what she sees on TV, which is nearly 100%
bad. How would you feel? I think it shows some good sense that she is at
least willing to research the subject. We don't know her husband; she does.
She doesn't know flying; we do (well, some of us do). So she has to weigh
what she reads here against what she thinks about her husband's judgement.

I concurred in all of my comments that she had justifiable concern. And
yes, it shows good sense *and* an open mind that she was willing to get
and weigh more info. Where did you get the idea I was saying anything
else?

wrote:
IMO that's a dangerous attitude to have. An instrument rated pilot who
does
not regularly use the rating cannot be proficient unless he is
exceptionally
committed to regular training. I don't know any pilots who fit that
description. The ones I know who keep the rating "just to get through a
cloud deck" would be in real danger if unexpectedly forced to fly an
approach to minimums.

Agreed. Obviously a person has to practice regularly to keep the skills
sharp. Most of the IA pilots I know of do this, I'm surprised to hear
you say you don't know of any who do.

I was trying to say, perhaps clumsily, that I don't know any i-rated pilots
who seldom use the rating yet at the same time are exceptionally committed
to regular training.

[snip]
while I agree that a person needs to use the rating to stay proficient,
even going through the training, ground work and testing to get it will
make him/her more competent unless they forget everything once they're
done with the checkride.

Which they often do, in my experience. On the occasions when I've flown in
the right seat with a couple of these guys, it's been obvious to me they
were not proficient, even though they were current by the reg's.

I think she is justifiably worried. Look at it from her side: she knows
zip-all about flying aside from what she sees on TV, which is nearly
100%
bad. How would you feel? I think it shows some good sense that she is
at
least willing to research the subject. We don't know her husband; she
does.
She doesn't know flying; we do (well, some of us do). So she has to
weigh
what she reads here against what she thinks about her husband's
judgement.

I concurred in all of my comments that she had justifiable concern. And
yes, it shows good sense *and* an open mind that she was willing to get
and weigh more info. Where did you get the idea I was saying anything
else?

I didn't mean to imply that you did. Not everything I post is an argument!
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM