Safety of GA flying

I can read numbers, the ^ was somehow missed from the copy/paste process, my
guess is that this is because it was superscripted in the original article.
Appologies for the mistake...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...

Barney Rubble wrote:
Yes it is, if you go back to the original question posed by the OP, he
was
asking about the root cause of accidents. It is a fact (links at the
end)
that Jet/turbine and piston engines have different MTFB's Of course it
is
not the only factor in an accident, but engine failure is a fairly
serious
matter and not normally something a pilot can do much about (assuming he
is
operating the equipment by the book).

http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309069831/html/60.html
To paraphrase the report:-
The in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate, a measure of reliability, for gas
turbine engines in large commercial aircraft is 0.5 shutdowns for every
105
hours of flight. For single-engine military jet aircraft, the IFSD rate
is 2
for every 105 hours. The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is
considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours.

These "statistics" are obviously bogus and simply pulled out of thin
air.


No he just doesn't know how to read numbers it wasn't 105 hours it was
10^5 hours or 100,000 hours. I have no desire to read the whole report but
it is a 2000 report titled, "Uninhabited Air Vehicles: Enabling Science
for Military Systems."

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

BTW: According to the BFU Bulletin, in January 2006 it was 75% of the
reported accidents/incidents/whatever in Germany (counting only the
light SEPs).

Hmm. That seems unusually high.

But unluckily it is very usual that once more you haven't grasped my
sense of humour. I thought you knew how to read a one-sample-statistic.
And I thought you'd find out that I chose the example carefully.

(Nonetheless, read those Bulletins, you'll be surprized how common
engine failures are.)

Stefan

cjcampbell wrote:

These "statistics" are obviously bogus and simply pulled out of thin
air.

I concur. One obvious pointer to bogus stats is when the presenter
gives you a figure that could vary by 100%. Such as :

"The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is
considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours. "

About 5 to 10? Which is it? Apparently it doesn't have to be
limited between 5 and 10, it's just "about" those numbers. Trying to
pass off a statment like that as a usable fact is ludicrous.

Seeing as most light aircraft piston engines are flying part 91 in
the GA fleet, and there is no requirement to report an "IFSD" to
anyone, I can see why the number given is so vague. It likely has no
basis in reality.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

wrote in news:1153808195.234376.92160
@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:

Many times I am reading a magazine related to flying and some aviation
related newsgroups and there are a fairly large number of people that
are dying, crashing, etc.
Even the post a bit below about OSH show, etc.

Since I would like to learn to fly I have one question:

Airplane is considered to be the most safe mode of transportation.
Looking at the airliners and their operation where they fly 24/7 all
over the world, seldom some crash happens. What is the root cause and
problem in general aviation regarding safety, crashing, etc? Shouldn't
the standards be the same and are they the same in terms of flying,
rules and equipment. Basically, I wonder, what is going on and most
importantly what to do to correct it? And why it hasn't been done yet?

Thanks


Think of it this way...

There are many vehicles available for ground transportation. Which is
safer? A car, a bus, a motorcycle? Perhaps you'll find similar results as
comparing Airlines, GA, and Ultralights...

Airliners aren't just flying a plane. The airliners typically follow
specific policies for dealing with numerous situations that a single pilot
may not think of. They have crews with thousands of hours, and the crews
are professionals - they fly almost every day. Much like bus and truck
drivers have additional ratings on their drivers licenses, and typically
have more training and experience, resulting in safer operations. And they
drive 8 hours a day for a living, instead of commuting an hour back and
forth to work each day.

GA encounters a much wider variety of experience, judgement, and training
levels Sure there are some GA pilots that fly as frequently as airline
pilots (possibly "building hours" - working their way up to the experience
levels required to fly with an airline). But you also have pilots that fly
their planes a couple of hours a day commuting back and forth to work. You
have GA pilots that fly 100 hours a year or so for fun and/or business.
And you have "sunday pilots" that fly a few hours on the weekends in the
summers and that's it, perhaps not reaching 100 hours their whole life.

I am sometimes surprised by the fact that none of the statistics represent
this information in any way. At a minimum, the total experience level of
the pilots is available in most NTSB reports - both in terms of number of
hours logged and year of certification and active medical status. Sure it
won't give you a completely accurate representation (especially on older
pilots), but I bet it would be an interesting statistic to see...

wrote in news:1153875024.715167.114800
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

snip
cars and trucks do not have to be so strict, since if your engine dies
or you get a flat tire, etc, you can always stop at the shoulder and
wait for help or tow truck. If airplane engine dies, you do not have
that option pretty much.

Actually, your analogy is pretty close. If I get a blowout on the highway, I
can coast off onto the shoulder to safety. There is a chance that I won't get
all the way over, and get killed by an oncoming vehicle that can't stop in
time. In fact, even if I make it over to the shoulder there are risks.

In an airplane, if the engine fails, it doesn't automatically become a rock
and drop out of the sky. As long as your airplane continues to have wings
attached, you can glide to safety. In fact, this is a significant portion of
training for your pilot's license. In a small plane, you can land on a golf
course or in a field safely. In many parts of the US you would be hard
pressed to not be in gliding distance of an airport. Sure there risks, and
there is a possibility you won't make it. But essentially, you pull over, get
yourself some help, and get back off the ground...

You guys here know more so I am asking, don't consider this as some
"attack". I agree its mostly in pilot, just when we look at the
personal airplane as a mode of transportation from point A to point B
with all conveniences it offers, what can I do to keep safety to max
apart from the pilot human erorr (my error). Someone mentioned piston /
turbbine engines, etc. That would be nice to look into more.

Training, experience, and judgement..

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

hi
i am a uk ppl and i was interested in your stats on safety. I think it
would be fair add to your statement for the sake of anyone considering
taking up flying that (and this i believe is certainly true for the UK)
the annual number of accidents and deaths on roads is a hundred fold
more than those in GA. We all know the risk is high (our insurance
companies tell us so !!) but i think the outcome of the activity is as
important in deciding on taking it up. I did read somewhere when i was
learning to fly, that statistically most accidents happen when pilots
reach 200, 500. 1000, 2000 and so on hours logged, this would mean that
if you average 20 hrs a year be careful after 10 yrs 25yrs and so on !!


If as you say flying is as risky a riding a motorcycle the only thing I
would add is "its far more fun than riding one so get up there and
enjoy!!"
wrote:
Actually, general aviation is not the safest form of transportation.

Commercial aviation (airlines) are the safest, about 50 times safer
than the same amount of time in a car. In other words, you'd have to
fly 50 hours to have the same risk as riding in an automobile for one
hour.

Commuter aviation is the next safest, about 10 times safer than the
same amount of time in a car. Fly 10 hours for the same risk as one
hour in a car.

General aviation is not as safe as riding in a car. It is about 1/10 as
safe as a car. You could ride in an automobile for about 10 hours
before developing the same risk as flying for one hour in the typical
small airplane.

Flying in a small airplane has about the same risk is riding a
motorcycle.

"phil" wrote

i am a uk ppl and i was interested in your stats on safety. I think it
would be fair add to your statement for the sake of anyone considering
taking up flying that (and this i believe is certainly true for the UK)
the annual number of accidents and deaths on roads is a hundred fold
more than those in GA. We all know the risk is high (our insurance
companies tell us so !!) but i think the outcome of the activity is as
important in deciding on taking it up. I did read somewhere when i was
learning to fly, that statistically most accidents happen when pilots
reach 200, 500. 1000, 2000 and so on hours logged, this would mean that
if you average 20 hrs a year be careful after 10 yrs 25yrs and so on !!

If you only flew 20 hours per year, the chances are that the 200 hour would
not be a danger point, but every hour getting to that point. It would be
difficult for most to be a safe flyer at those types of hours per year.
--
Jim in NC

the annual number of accidents and deaths on roads is a hundred fold
more than those in GA.

But there are a thousand-fold more cars and drivers on the road than
GA planes and pilots in the air.

Statistics show that GA is more dangerous than driving. But those
stats include the idiots who do all kinds of stupid things in order to
kill themselves and achieve immortality as one of those statistics.

If as you say flying is as risky a riding a motorcycle....

Doubtful. An insurance actuary wrote in Flying mag some years ago
that "the only more dangerous way to get from point A to point B than
riding a motorcycle is to be shot from a canon."

vince norris

In article ,
vincent p. norris wrote:

Statistics show that GA is more dangerous than driving.

No. Statistics show a higher frequency of injury or death per
hour with flying than driving. That isn't the same thing as
showing anything wrt danger.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Judah wrote:

There are many vehicles available for ground transportation. Which is
safer? A car, a bus, a motorcycle? Perhaps you'll find similar results as
comparing Airlines, GA, and Ultralights...

Airliners aren't just flying a plane. The airliners typically follow
specific policies for dealing with numerous situations that a single pilot
may not think of. They have crews with thousands of hours, and the crews
are professionals - they fly almost every day. Much like bus and truck
drivers have additional ratings on their drivers licenses, and typically
have more training and experience, resulting in safer operations. And they
drive 8 hours a day for a living, instead of commuting an hour back and
forth to work each day.



I've seen lots of stats comparing GA to the Airlines and GA to cars,
but I'm curious (for comparison's sake) to see the accident rates for
private vehicles to commercial. I would think that there would be a
corresponding difference.

Mike