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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
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." However, in order to get a firmer answer from a statistical standpoint on this question, I decided to do a little homework: 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. Thus, based on the above, it appears that the GA fatality rate is somewhere around 7 times that of automobiles. Now I realize that one could fudge the average GA aircraft velocity velocity up or down, but I'm farily confident that it's not above 200 mph, nor below 100 mph, which brakets the aviation fatality rate between 5 and 10 times that of driving. A sobering thought... Comments? -- Dane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
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. Bill Hale Still ducking the bullet Dane Spearing wrote: 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." However, in order to get a firmer answer from a statistical standpoint on this question, I decided to do a little homework: 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. Thus, based on the above, it appears that the GA fatality rate is somewhere around 7 times that of automobiles. Now I realize that one could fudge the average GA aircraft velocity velocity up or down, but I'm farily confident that it's not above 200 mph, nor below 100 mph, which brakets the aviation fatality rate between 5 and 10 times that of driving. A sobering thought... Comments? -- Dane |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
"Dane Spearing" wrote in message
... Thus, based on the above, it appears that the GA fatality rate is somewhere around 7 times that of automobiles. Now I realize that one could fudge the average GA aircraft velocity velocity up or down, but I'm farily confident that it's not above 200 mph, nor below 100 mph, which brakets the aviation fatality rate between 5 and 10 times that of driving. A sobering thought... Yup. There've been many threads here on this topic, and (among people who do the research and the arithmetic) the conclusions have been in line with yours. Moreover, according to the Nall Report, personal (as opposed to commercial) GA flying has about twice the fatality rate of GA flying overall. On the other hand, instructional flight (solo and dual) has about half the fatality rate of GA overall (even though the most dangerous phases of flight--takeoff, landing, and low-altitude maneuvering--are presumably overrepresented in instructional flight). What that suggests is that flying simple planes, maintaining proficiency, and having conservative standards regarding weather adds up to a fatality rate that is only slightly greater than that of driving. --Gary |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
"Dane Spearing" wrote in message
... 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." However, in order to get a firmer answer from a statistical standpoint on this question, I decided to do a little homework: 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. Thus, based on the above, it appears that the GA fatality rate is somewhere around 7 times that of automobiles. Now I realize that one could fudge the average GA aircraft velocity velocity up or down, but I'm farily confident that it's not above 200 mph, nor below 100 mph, which brakets the aviation fatality rate between 5 and 10 times that of driving. A sobering thought... Comments? I did the calculation too, and came up with roughly the same numbers. Someone said the fatality rate for motorcycles is roughly the same per mile as for small planes. But your observation that "It depends on who is piloting the plane" doesn't fold into this pessimistic ratio. Avoiding "buzzing", VFR into IMC, and remembering to fill the tanks sufficiently and accident rates start to come down. "Pilot error" is responsible for 75% of all GA accidents (from the Nalls report you site), so find a "perfect pilot" and its only twice as dangerous ;-) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
On 30 Oct 2006 16:34:15 -0800, "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) A few. I can only think of two that I knew personally. 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) A bunch. I'd have to stretch my memory, but I can think of about 10 right now and about half of them were in the last 15 years. 3) How many more people do you know who drive than fly? (personal answer: Many X) Personally I know about 30 pilots. I know of about 70 locally. We have about 50,000 drivers in the immediate area. Might be more useful to compare flying to those who ride motorcycles. When I got to the point I thought I knew what I was doing I sold mine. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
Dane Spearing wrote:
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." However, in order to get a firmer answer from a statistical standpoint on this question, I decided to do a little homework: It has so much to do both with pilot experience level and type of operation. Day VFR, Night VFR, Day IFR, and night IFR. Only Day VFR has the potential for being *very* safe in small, single-engine aircraft. No, I cannot pin down what "ver" means exactly in this context. But, my observations over 50 years of being around this stuff tells me that experienced pilots seldom crash on good VFR daytime operations. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
Gary Drescher wrote:
Yup. There've been many threads here on this topic, and (among people who do the research and the arithmetic) the conclusions have been in line with yours. Because the conclusion is correct. Moreover, according to the Nall Report, personal (as opposed to commercial) GA flying has about twice the fatality rate of GA flying overall. In fact, personal flying is the most dangerous segment of GA. Even cropdusting is safer. On the other hand, instructional flight (solo and dual) has about half the fatality rate of GA overall (even though the most dangerous phases of flight--takeoff, landing, and low-altitude maneuvering--are presumably overrepresented in instructional flight). The same is true of self-flown business travel. What that suggests is that flying simple planes, maintaining proficiency, and having conservative standards regarding weather adds up to a fatality rate that is only slightly greater than that of driving. If that were truly the way to go, then self-flown business travel would be far more dangerous than personal flying - the planes are generally faster and more complex, and the pilots generally are under pressure to be there on time and will push weather more. But the reality is very different. So I would suggest that while maintaining proficiency may well be important (those who fly for business tend to fly much more than those who only fly for personal reasons) simple planes and conservative standards buy you little if anything. Let's not kid ourselves - even corporate flying, which features pilots who fly and train a lot more and much better equipment still won't come within a factor of two of automobiles. And here's the real kicker - automobile fatality rates are very unevenly distributed. The teenage kids are way overrepresented, and the middle aged, middle class types are way underrepresented. So what does the typical pilot profile look like? Michael |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A disturbing statistic
Only Day VFR has the potential for being *very* safe in small, single-engine aircraft. I got my Instrument rating when a couple of Day VFR flights turned really wormy because of weather. I've had far less stress and no bad situations flying conservative IFR compared with the vagaries of trying to stay VFR in the midwest. |
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 |