Accident statistics

"PPL-A" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thus, all ground accidents, such as those where people walk into moving
propellers, and taxiing accidents, are included here.

There are a considerable number of fatal accidents involving small AC
on the ground,

The Nall Report lists US ground fatalities (taxi or preflight) separately
from other fatal accidents. In 2004, there were no taxi/preflight deaths. In
2003, there was one. In 2002, there were none. These years are typical.
Taxi/preflight fatalities are rare, and do not noticeably change the GA
fatality statistics.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html

--Gary

On 18 Sep 2006 21:05:37 -0700, "Dan" wrote:

So, based on these numbers, I have a 1.3% chance of a fatal accident
before I reach 1000 hours. Wow, that is a bit high....

My mother recently died in a motorcycle accident, and that brings the
risk of such things a bit closer to home if you know what I mean...

--Dan


Dan Luke wrote:
"Marc Adler" wrote:


As you have probably guessed, this information is for calming a wife's
worry about her husband's burgeoning interest in flying...

If that's what you're after, you probably won't like what you find.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

This thread seems to have been hijacked by problems with vehicles on
the road but to reply to the original question. My way of thinking is
as follows:

As has been already said, the vast majority of accidents are pilot
error. The more cautious you are the safer you're likely to be.

When it comes to aircraft failures they are minimal but if you do
loose an engine hopefully it will not be a serious problem. All
aircraft are gliders, they only need power to take-off!

Small aircraft will still fly (just) at around 50mph so any
unscheduled landing (crash) should be safer than say hitting another
car coming in the opposite direction at the same speed (100mph head
on?).

For non-flyers I usually mention the space shuttle is a glider and
lands without an engine! Ok if flies like a brick but it can still be
controlled to a safe landing.

Maybe you and your wife could be persuaded to take an introductory
flight with an instructor who maybe able to reduce her fears.

My wife gave me an introductory lesson in about 1987 as a way of
"getitng it out of my system". Wrong!!! In 1991 I got my PPL and now
have nearly 500 hours and fortunately my wife will fly with me.

Good luck!

DAvid

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Well ... they may need to exit at the next exit ramp - that normally
requires changing into the slow lane.

The question isn't whether they ever do. The question is whether
enough cars can pull in front of a given driver so as to force him to
go backwards (or even, giving the poster the benefit of the doubt,
making him stop).

Just to be clear - I expected my "going backward" comment to be
sufficiently over-the-top silly that it would be recognized as hyperbolic
humor. However, considering the incredible absurdities that other people
sincerely believe and post to Usenet, I should have made my attempt at
humor more explicit. My oversight. I agree with much of what you wrote in
reply and I don't think it would serve any useful purpose for either of us
to discuss the things I don't agree with.

"Bob Noel" wrote:

Boston, NYC, DC, LA, SF, Chicago, Phoenix, to name a few, I've driven
bumper-to-bumper all over the country.

Yet you've never seen people switching lanes? That's hard to believe.

The physics work the same
everywhere,

There are no laws of physics that apply to common sense.


and I've never seen enough drivers so dumb as to switch from a
faster-moving lane to a slower-moving one as to make following at a safe
distance impossible or even impractical, even when the average speed is
5mph
or slower.

Are we confusing bumper-to-bumper with stop-and-go?

Driving bumper-to-bumper at anything above a crawl is nuts--and unnecessary.
In the heaviest *moving* traffic in LA and Houston, generally regarded as
the worst in the nation, I have no trouble maintaining a safe interval. Do
cars cut in front of me sometimes? Yes. Does this cause me a big problem?
Not since I stopped regarding driving as a contest.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
Tailgating and efficient traffic flow are mutually exclusive.

Only if you blink...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
Boston, NYC, DC, LA, SF, Chicago, Phoenix, to name a few, I've driven
bumper-to-bumper all over the country. The physics work the same
everywhere, and I've never seen enough drivers so dumb as to switch from a
faster-moving lane to a slower-moving one as to make following at a safe
distance impossible or even impractical, even when the average speed is
5mph
or slower.

When you have to move into certain lanes for an exit onto another highway,
that can in fact happen...

One side note here though... If you're moving at 5mph, the 3-second rule
gives 22 ft between your car and the one in front of you and as such,
probably doesn't leave enough room for most cars to actually squeeze in
anyway... That's not to say that they won't try though...

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
Boston, NYC, DC, LA, SF, Chicago, Phoenix, to name a few, I've driven
bumper-to-bumper all over the country. The physics work the same
everywhere, and I've never seen enough drivers so dumb as to switch from
a
faster-moving lane to a slower-moving one as to make following at a safe
distance impossible or even impractical, even when the average speed is
5mph
or slower.

When you have to move into certain lanes for an exit onto another highway,
that can in fact happen...

What can in fact happen?

One side note here though... If you're moving at 5mph, the 3-second rule
gives 22 ft between your car and the one in front of you and as such,
probably doesn't leave enough room for most cars to actually squeeze in
anyway... That's not to say that they won't try though...

The n-second rules are just rules of thumb. They are not absolutes, and
in particular they are the *minimum* safe distance one should be striving
for. If other conditions require more following distance than the rule
would suggest, then obviously one increases following distance as
appropriate.

One relevant example is that, at very low speeds, an n-second rule isn't
the limiting factor. You still need to leave enough room to allow for
smooth flow of traffic, including lane changes.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:


Your life was only in the fellow's hands because you failed to maintain a
safe following distance. That was your choice, not his.

To believe that a safe following distance will protect you from all
harm is dangerously naive. There are plenty of situations which require
quick thinking and fast reaction. I survived the incident because
luckily the matresses slid off peacefully and rather slowly and I had
time to react.

I was at a safe following distance from the truck, but what would have
happened if the wind had caught the matress and flipped it over?

Please let me know what the safe following distance is from airborne
matresses on the freeway.

Marc

"Marc Adler" wrote in message
ups.com...
To believe that a safe following distance will protect you from all
harm is dangerously naive.

I never said it would. But it's a LOT safer than tailgating.

There are plenty of situations which require
quick thinking and fast reaction. I survived the incident because
luckily the matresses slid off peacefully and rather slowly and I had
time to react.

Had you been following at a safe distance, you would have had time to react
regardless of how quickly the mattress had fallen off.

I was at a safe following distance from the truck,

By definition, you were not. By definition, a safe distance would have
ensured enough time to react without the heroics.

but what would have
happened if the wind had caught the matress and flipped it over?

Please let me know what the safe following distance is from airborne
matresses on the freeway.

At highway speeds, a couple hundred feet should be sufficient.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

I never said it would. But it's a LOT safer than tailgating.

spit-take

By definition, you were not. By definition, a safe distance would have
ensured enough time to react without the heroics.

What heroics? I went into the next lane, and watched the matress as it
slid down the freeway alongside me in the lane I had previously
occupied.

Where did you get the idea that I was so close to the truck?

At highway speeds, a couple hundred feet should be sufficient.

Okay! Get that everyone?

Safe following distance for motorcycles is "a couple hundred feet."

Marc