A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A disturbing statistic



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 1st 06, 02:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default 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.
  #22  
Old November 1st 06, 04:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
RK Henry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default A disturbing statistic

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
  #23  
Old November 1st 06, 06:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Andrew Sarangan[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 187
Default 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  
Old November 1st 06, 11:28 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Jim Macklin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,070
Default 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  
Old November 1st 06, 11:33 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default 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  
Old November 1st 06, 12:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default 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  
Old November 1st 06, 01:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Jim Macklin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,070
Default 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  
Old November 1st 06, 01:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 678
Default 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  
Old November 1st 06, 01:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
B A R R Y[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default 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  
Old November 1st 06, 03:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
request for fighter pilot statistic gatt Piloting 64 December 21st 05 11:55 PM
Very disturbing article about air safety JJ Instrument Flight Rules 10 July 22nd 04 08:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.