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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
I was including this kind of business flying as "personal flying". Do
the statistics separate it out? Yes - and it is MUCH safer. Does this "business flying" include bizjets? That would skew the statistics. I would include (as personal flying) only that business flying that is piloted by the person wanting to make the trip. I would be interested in a rule you would consider a net good. Well, it was not my stated position that they existed, merely that the potential for the other (rules that are not a net good) does. But ok, let me try to think: (I'm on Usenet; I'm out of practice!) 1: requirement for an instrument rating to fly IFR. 2: BFR/wings 3: (old?) requirement for minimum VFR hours before pursuing an instrument rating (learn how to look out before we teach you to look in) 4: More stringent requrements for a commercial or ATP rating. 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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
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 | |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
Michael wrote:
Sam Spade wrote: But, my observations over 50 years of being around this stuff tells me that experienced pilots seldom crash on good VFR daytime operations. True enough. However, my observation is that pilots who limit themselves to nothing but good VFR daytime operations never do become experienced (they quit after a few hundred hours because flying just isn't useful under those restrictions), so that doesn't help. Michael Depends whether the self-imposed limit is imposed going into the game or much later on after the cat has shed several lives. ;-) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
In article . com,
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote: Nothing beats walking for safety, yet my most serious accident occurred while I was walking and required surgery, a 14 day hospital stay, was out of work for more than to months, and I'm still recovering. Nothing is 100% safe. -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
"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 || | | |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
"Bill" wrote: Here's a thought exercise that will get you in touch with this data. 1) How many people do you personally know that have been wiped out in airplanes? (my answer--quite a few; way too many) 2) How many people do you personally know that have been wiped out in car accidents? (my answer--have to struggle to remember more than a couple, one of whom was ironically a pilot) 3) How many more people do you know who drive than fly? (personal answer: Many X) Might be more useful to compare flying to those who ride motorcycles. Or ask yourself: how many celebrities can you name who have been killed in plane crashes vs. the number kiled in car crashes? In the former, quite a few; in the latter, just a couple. Now ask yourself: how much time do celebrities spend travelling in airplanes vs. the time spent in cars? -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
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... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
Michael wrote:
Sam Spade wrote: But, my observations over 50 years of being around this stuff tells me that experienced pilots seldom crash on good VFR daytime operations. True enough. However, my observation is that pilots who limit themselves to nothing but good VFR daytime operations never do become experienced (they quit after a few hundred hours because flying just isn't useful under those restrictions), so that doesn't help. Michael The OP stated, ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I've had many non-pilot friends and co-workers ask, "Is flying a small plane more or less dangerous than driving a car?", to which my response has always been "It depends on who is piloting the plane." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Your observation is from the pilot perspective. A better answer to the OP would include both pilot experience and type of operation. I have always admonished my non-flying friends and relatives to only fly with an experienced pilot and only during solid Day VFR conditions. That will fit them into the safety slot I feel they deserve to be in. If the pilot who they fly with chooses to fly at other times during the night in IMC, dodging TRWs in the Rockies with his XM weather display, that risk is not imposed upon those I am advising. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
request for fighter pilot statistic | gatt | Piloting | 64 | December 21st 05 10:55 PM |
Very disturbing article about air safety | JJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | July 22nd 04 08:56 AM |