GA safety - beyond the emotion

For those of you who are interested in the facts of GA flight safety beyond the pure emotion of dissecting the latest spate of aircraft accidents I would refer you to the NTSB statistics for Accidents and Fatalities for US General Aviation 1986 through 2005.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table10.htm

These figures indicate quite clearly that the GA fatality rate has been amazingly consistent over a period of 20 years. It has averaged 1.49 deaths per 100,000 hours over that period and for the last year on record (2005) it was 1.31. The worst year (1986) was only +0.24 over the average and the best year (1999) was only -0.33 under the average. In statistical terms that is a very narrow mean distribution.

There is absolutely no indication whatsoever of a deterioration in the fatality rate over the 20 year period. In fact if anything there has been a trend for a very slight improvement indicating that pilots are progressively adopting safer flying practices or perhaps staying out of trouble with newer technology.

There is a possibility that there may be some further small gains to be made but the data does suggest that we may currently be close to the bottom line.

Some people may feel predisposed to argue that even one aviation death is too many but commonsense dictates that flying has undeniable intrinsic risk and there will always be an inevitable attrition rate.

Whether the attrition rate as indicated in the NTSB data represents a "safe" or an "unsafe" number is purely a matter of personal speculation. Only one thing is certain...the rate is not rising.

Of course it might be possible that the figure of 1.49 might be reduced by regulations that curtailed higher risk aviation activities. This philosophy taken to its extreme arrives at the indisputable conclusion that if we have in fact zero hours flown we will surely then have zero fatalities.

I am simply cautioning that if we as pilots continue to proclaim that we believe there is a safety problem in GA then we should not be surprised if eventually the public comes to believe it too. In that event we may not end up with less fatalities...but we are certain to end up with more restrictions.

Anyway happy new year. Fly safely in 2007 and try not to be part of that 1.49 figure.

Regards Bob Barrow

2007 safety

Captain Avgas said:

...

Anyway happy new year. Fly safely in 2007 and try not be part of that 1.49 figure.

Click to expand...

Thanks - you too!

Tiny Chance?

OK, so on the one hand GA has a 1.49 deaths per 100,000 flying hours average. If I'm an average GA pilot and I expect in my life to fly well less than 20,000 hours so I expect a tiny chance of dying in my GA airplane.

But then, there are about 4500 RVs built and there have been ~100 fatal accidents. 100 RV accidents / 4500 RVs = 0.022 = 2.2% of all RVs have been in a fatal accident. In a fatal RV accident, the owner/builder is almost always killed. If I am an average RV builder/owner I have a 2.2% chance of dying in my RV. That's not a tiny chance.

Are my numbers or assumptions wrong?

-- John Babrick

Stats

OldAndBold said:

OK, so on the one hand GA has a 1.49 deaths per 100,000 flying hours average. If I'm an average GA pilot and I expect in my life to fly well less than 20,000 hours so I expect a tiny chance of dying in my GA airplane.

Click to expand...

Remember GA includes all those corporate flights which are often two professional pilots in a small jet or a turbine aircraft, which have outstanding safety records, and fly a lot of hours. These guys will greatly increase the number of hours used to come up with these stats, and they don't have many accidents.

OldAndBold said:

But then, there are about 4500 RVs built and there have been ~100 fatal accidents. 100 RV accidents / 4500 RVs = 0.022 = 2.2% of all RVs have been in a fatal accident. In a fatal RV accident, the owner/builder is almost always killed. If I am an average RV builder/owner I have a 2.2% chance of dying in my RV. That's not a tiny chance.

Click to expand...

Seems like your math is correct to me, but not your conclusion. If you build and own an RV, but never fly it, what is your risk of being in a fatal accident in it? I know this is an extreme example, but my point is that there are a lot of factors that go into the equation, it's not a simple 2.2% probability of being killed in your RV.

This week's Avweb article...

From Avweb:

http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/194084-1.html

--JCB

Better numbers

Captain Avgas said:

Anyway happy new year. Fly safely in 2007 and try not to be part of that 1.49 figure.

Regards Bob Barrow

Click to expand...

Hi Bob and others,
I checked the table you linked to but I noticed that during the last ten years we never had a fatality rate greater than 1.45/100,000 hours. The ten year period before that had many 1.76, 1.8, etc, so it looks quite a bit better for the last ten years compared to the ten before that.

Thanks for the link,

Interpretation

I don't know the answer, but I think one needs to ask:

If the same population (sex, age, etc.) spent 100,000 hours doing something else (driving, golfing, boating, watching TV, fixing things around the house, etc.) what would the fatality rate be? Include sudden death from natural causes, since that happens in airplanes, too.

I am not saying that flying is risk free, but I am saying that not much else is, either. A comparison is a more reasonable way to decide whether to fly.

Also, it has been said often, but if you remove from the GA accidents the easily avoided stuff, the safety increases dramatically. We can easily avoid flying VFR into IMC, CFIT, fuel exhaustion, buzzing, flying under the influence, etc. Don't do nuthin dumb. Please.

Happy New Year everyone!!

To add 2 more cents worth - from a different perspective -
Leaving earth is risky - so is every other human endeavor - in fact so is just being born - we're all on the way out as soon as we get in the game.

So... in addition to everything else on our checklists, I humbly submit that we add a review to be sure our paperwork is in order - so that our families will have it a little bit easier if we don't make it home for dinner tonite - CHECK AND UPDATE AS NECESSARY - Wills, Powers of Attorney, Medical Powers of Attorney, funeral & burial instructions, insurance beneficiary designations, retirement plan beneficiary designations (IRAs, 401s, etc), letter of instructions concerning computer passwords, location of documents, people to contact, etc.
Add whatever else your checklist needs for your particular circumstances.

I'm a probate lawyer and I make a much better living when your paperwork is not up to date. [disclaimer - this is not legal advice - and I'm not soliciting - I've got plenty to do]

John-
Quoting statistics is no way to determine how safe an aircraft is. Just as others have said in this forum - the pilot is the greatest variable. The fact that you are participating in the forum, asking challenging questions about safety, and are genuinely concerned for everyone here will most likely put you on the opposite side of the bell curve. Remember that statistics are based on averages, not absolutes. If you really want to make a difference, talk to the people you see doing something stupid or without proper training. How many times have we sat on the ground and said "He's going to kill himself someday" and then never sat down and talked to the guy and explained to him how risky his behavior is? Maybe he's doing low level aerobatics, or can't land in a crosswind - but its our responsibility to instruct each other at every opportunity. I don't care if we're flying F-15s or RVs, if you are humble, approachable, and credible, people will listen to what you have to say. I'm not worried about the guys in this forum, I'm worried about the uninformed, undertrained fool who is capable of giving us all a bad name. You can sit on the computer and quote statistics, or you can go to the airport and actually make a difference.

hevansrv7a said:

I don't know the answer, but I think one needs to ask:

If the same population (sex, age, etc.) spent 100,000 hours doing something else (driving, golfing, boating, watching TV, fixing things around the house, etc.) what would the fatality rate be? Include sudden death from natural causes, since that happens in airplanes, too.

I am not saying that flying is risk free, but I am saying that not much else is, either. A comparison is a more reasonable way to decide whether to fly.

Also, it has been said often, but if you remove from the GA accidents the easily avoided stuff, the safety increases dramatically. We can easily avoid flying VFR into IMC, CFIT, fuel exhaustion, buzzing, flying under the influence, etc. Don't do nuthin dumb. Please.

Click to expand...

Howard,

Excellent post! If people would avoid these behaviors, G/A flying would be much safer. We as experimental flyers need to look even further to discover why our type of flying has nearly twice the accident rate as G/A.

Since experimental airplanes cannot be used for hire, they are not used as rentals, charter, corporate or instruction. Annual usage is much below the fleet average because of this.

Because the FAA or EAA has neither the time nor inclination to determine experimental fleet utilization, they consider it to be statistically equivalent
with all General Aviation. If experimental airplanes fly significanly fewer block hours per year, due to their lack of commercial usage, AND have TWICE the accidents, then we must prepare ourselves for the fact that this sport could be 4 to 10 times more hazardous than the GA fleet average.

What can we do? First of all, acknowledge the risks. Once you do, you will be motivated to look for solutions. Here's my short list......feel free to add.

1) Don't use untested parts / designs
2) Build like your life depends on it
3) Hire an experienced A&P to look over your baby before you make first flight
4) Don't use car gas. Too many dangers for money saved.
5) No unproven engine/prop combinations.
6) If you have less than 500 hrs of flight time, hire out the first test flight
7) Buy transition training in your make and model

Guys, I love this sport. Let's keep it safe. Happy New Year!

NTSB query

I did a query on the NTSB site for accidents from Jan 1, 2004 thru Dec 31, 2006. The query was limited to amateur built, all catagory's. The query produced 660 crashes in 3 years. An approximation by me is that one third are fatal. If you want an exact number of fatal do the query and tally it up. You can even do a body count if you wish.

I did not limit the query to only Vans RV so this includes ALL amateur built, but you can do that if you wish. I dont really care what this means per 100,000 hours since that is only a bogus estimate number anyway. I prefer to look at it per day/week/month/year. That means more to me.

Do the math any way you wish. Do the query any way you wish. Draw your own conclusions.

NTSB accident query

And don't hit the ground to hard in 2007

Good Topic to Start the Year!

Happy New Year to all! First thing I'm gonna do is NOT go flying until these little guys in my head lay off with the little hammers.....

As I have said on another thread, I look at safety and accident prevention from the standpoint of "Layers of Protection" - how am I protecting myself from each type of failure (be they mechanical or pilot induced...). Studying the accident statistics is a good way of getting a good handle on the overall picture of risk in this activity versus risk in other activities. Now if I really want to DO something about making things safer on a personal level, I need to take things one step further and look at the causes of each of the accidents listed.

In essence, take a look at the categorical causes (CFIT, continued VMC into IFR, Engine Failure, etc, etc,....) and ask your self "How am I going to prevent that from happening to me?" Come up with a way that positively improves the odds of each cause not happening to you, and you've made your flying safer. That's one way we take positive action to keep ourselves and our friends alive.

As others have said, awareness and interest is the first huge step - that right there ups your safety factor for the new year!

Build and Fly Safe!

Paul

OldAndBold said:

But then, there are about 4500 RVs built and there have been ~100 fatal accidents. 100 RV accidents / 4500 RVs = 0.022 = 2.2% of all RVs have been in a fatal accident. In a fatal RV accident, the owner/builder is almost always killed. If I am an average RV builder/owner I have a 2.2% chance of dying in my RV. That's not a tiny chance.

Are my numbers or assumptions wrong?

Click to expand...

I went a little further and broke it down by model, all from the ASF database:

RV 3/4 3.55 % have been in a fatal accident 51/1434

RV 6/6A 1.76 % have been in a fatal accident 37/2106

RV 7 0% 0/391

RV 8 1.5% have been in a fatal accident 10/664

RV 9 0% 0/262

RV 10 0% 0/62

Using historical data I have a 0% chance of dying in my RV-10! This is where numbers lie! But there is a certain trend. I think it is pretty safe to say that the rate of a RV 3/4 fatal accident is twice the rate of a RV-6 or RV-8 fatal accident. Maybe Van is improving on his design safety. Maybe better education and open forums are helping. I thought it was strange that there weren't any 7 or 9 crashes. Is the database flawed?

Just my 3 cents!

I'll bet the RV3, 4 and 6 have a bunch more collective hours on them than the 7, 8, 9 and 10 - being older designs. That probably explains at least some of the numbers.

Also - got to be careful using the NTSB database. Since a homebuilder can call his airplane anything he wants, there may be accidents in airplanes called "Smith 7A" or "Smith Super Duper Special" instead of "Smith Van's RV7A" (or whatever).

???All I said was...

Low Pass said:

John -

Respectfully, you really need to consider a hobby other than flying experimental aircraft. The inherent danger will *never* take you anywhere close to the safety I believe you are seeking. Certainly not flying any experimental with an auto-derrivative engine.

Click to expand...

Pardon? All I did was state the numbers. I did not make any conclusions.

And, I have not gotten anywhere close to deciding on an engine. I have been leaning towards a Superior IO-360 or a 390, but defintely not an auto engine.

Seems to me that some people really really want to close theirs eyes, shut their ears and re-interpret the numbers so that they don't have to face the facts about the danger of what we are doing. Myself, I do want to face the facts straight on. Sorry if that makes me sound like a wimp.

I am a high time engineer AND a low time pilot. If I could get it together, I would be starting my own avionics company marketing cybernetic (self-learning) aircraft. The business case would be an airplane that can keep the pilot out of danger or take over, find (visually) a place to land and land if the pilot has gone out to lunch. It is in my nature to seek better solutions to the airplane safety problem. Part of the motivating reason for building this silly airplane is to give myself a flying test bed for new software ideas, possibly even try and get a NASA grant to take it to the next step. The other motivating reason for building it is that I want to experience God's creation as only an airplane can do.

I don't think it is fair to tell me to go away and find another hobby just because I am concerned by the safety level (or lack thereof) of the hobby.

Regards,

John Babrick

John,

The raw numbers are what they are, as you've observed. But I think any individual pilot can, with diligence, discipline and good decision-making, be much safer than the 'average' pilot.

Heck, just checking the weather and sticking your finger in the gas tanks will cut your chances of an accident drastically - eliminating two of the most common causes of fatal accidents.

In fact, I find it encouraging that so many accidents are due to stupidity on the part of the pilot. That means that my accident rate can be improved by not being an idiot.

Nall Report

Read This:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf

Yup, 75.5% non-fatal & 78.6% fatal accidents caused by "improper action or inaction of the pilot". Only 15/10% mechanical.

25%+ weather/fuel related.

I'll read the whole report later - looks really interesting.

Adding more to the numbers (Sorry, it's that Aggie education) and Matt's pointing out (which is why numbers lie!) that the RV-3/4/6 have more flying hours. I took only the last five years and you will see flying RV's has become a lot safer over time:

RV 3/4 .7% were involved in fatal crashes

RV 6 .95% were involved in fatal

RV 7 .5 % were involved in fatal crashes (I found them, RV-7A and RV-9A are in a different area)

RV 8 1.21 % were involved in fatal crashes

RV 9 and 10 0 crashes

In the last five years .8 % of the RV fleet has been involved in a fatal accident. That is about a .16% rate per year. Using these numbers approx 8 to 9 RV should be involved in fatal crashes this year.

If you look at these crashes you will see "improper action of the pilot" as being the major cause.

I'm not sure anyone posted that we are getting more fatal accidents in GA just that pilots were still making the same dumb errors in most cases. I agree with one poster here that if you take the top 3 dumb reasons for accidents and NEVER make these mistakes yourself, you have a very high likelihood of never having a fatal accident.

I think we should always strive to do better and lower the rate.

The USMC instigated G-WOE training which focuses on on individual airmanship/ human error recognition and action. It has been tremendously successful reducing the Class A accident rate as a whole for the Marines from 5.2 to 1.5 (2006) and on the 4th MAW Class A mishap rate from 9.96 to zero in 2004.

Similar programs are now being run with the US Coast Guard.

From AW&ST, Dec. 4 2006.

More Beyond Emotion

Captain Avgas said:

For those of you who are interested in the facts of GA flight safety beyond the pure emotion of dissecting the latest spate of aircraft accidents I would refer you to the NTSB statistics for Accidents and Fatalities for US General Aviation 1986 through 2005.......

Regards Bob Barrow

Click to expand...

Bob,

Let's dove tail some GAMA numbers into NTSB table 10.

In 2005, GAMA reported a delivery 2391 aircraft. This includes piston, turboprops, and business jets. In 2005, the NTSB reported 1617 aircraft accidents, 321 of them fatal, taking 562 lives.

If the 2005 accident/delivery ratio is reasonably accurate, 67% of those aircraft will be involved in an accident, 13.4% of them fatal, maybe not the first year, but certainly in succeeding years. Another way of saying it, 67% of each years delivery schedule is ultimately destroyed or damaged in an accident, 13.4% are involved in a fatal accidents.

Since 1986, there have been 40263 accidents reported to the NTSB. It would be interesting to know the number of airplanes GAMA delivered over that time frame. If the 67% figure is accurate, 60094 aircraft were delivered.

The latest fatality rate of 1.31 is very good IF the flight hours are accurate. The report states that flight hours are an FAA estimate (not NTSB). The change from 1986 is about a minus 10%. It is possible flight hours are down a lot more than that due to the cost of flying today as compared to 1986. That would change the fatality rate dramatically. The report does not state how the FAA estimates annual flight hours.

The public believes this business is risky because it is. Maybe it is not changing much, but it is risky and for us expect the public to believe otherwise is not realistic.

Ironflight said:

Happy New Year to all! First thing I'm gonna do is NOT go flying until these little guys in my head lay off with the little hammers.....

Build and Fly Safe!

Paul

Click to expand...

Little hammers? That ought to learn ya.

My head was OK as I don't get along well anymore with New Years Eve juice, so I took a friend up for a RV demo. He loved it (so what's new). Sure is fun flying when it is cold as the engine just sucks in all those O2 molicules and makes lots of power.

OldAndBold said:

Pardon? All I did was state the numbers. I did not make any conclusions.

And, I have not gotten anywhere close to deciding on an engine. I have been leaning towards a Superior IO-360 or a 390, but defintely not an auto engine.

Seems to me that some people really really want to close theirs eyes, shut their ears and re-interpret the numbers so that they don't have to face the facts about the danger of what we are doing. Myself, I do want to face the facts straight on. Sorry if that makes me sound like a wimp.

I am a high time engineer AND a low time pilot. If I could get it together, I would be starting my own avionics company marketing cybernetic (self-learning) aircraft. The business case would be an airplane that can keep the pilot out of danger or take over, find (visually) a place to land and land if the pilot has gone out to lunch. It is in my nature to seek better solutions to the airplane safety problem. Part of the motivating reason for building this silly airplane is to give myself a flying test bed for new software ideas, possibly even try and get a NASA grant to take it to the next step. The other motivating reason for building it is that I want to experience God's creation as only an airplane can do.

I don't think it is fair to tell me to go away and find another hobby just because I am concerned by the safety level (or lack thereof) of the hobby.

Regards,

John Babrick

Click to expand...

Looks like you caught my post before I deleted it. I realized I may have taken your point from a negative perspective.

Best of luck with all your aviation ventures.

rv6ejguy said:

The USMC instigated G-WOE training which focuses on on individual airmanship/ human error recognition and action. It has been tremendously successful reducing the Class A accident rate as a whole for the Marines from 5.2 to 1.5 (2006) and on the 4th MAW Class A mishap rate from 9.96 to zero in 2004.

Similar programs are now being run with the US Coast Guard.

From AW&ST, Dec. 4 2006.

Click to expand...

Impressive. I searched for a better description of this program but didn't find much. Can you give us more details or maybe a link or two?

Man, it seems like every thread on here lately is about how we're all gonna die! I'll throw in my own personal rationalization for flying. I really don't give two ****'s about the average pilot or the average accident or whatever. I'm not average: I won't fly in IMC, I won't run out of fuel, I won't buzz the neighbor's house, I won't fly at night, I'll cut no corners on fuel/cooling systems, I have an engine monitor on a professionally built engine, etc.

The point I'm trying to make is that while I can't prepare for every possible mishap, I can GREATLY reduce the risk of flying by just doing what I'm supposed to. After that it becomes a cr@p shoot just like driving, swimming, sleeping with $5 hookers...er...uh...forget that last one.

GrayHawk said:

Impressive. I searched for a better description of this program but didn't find much. Can you give us more details or maybe a link or two?

Click to expand...

Without reproducing the whole article from Aviation Week, basically this program gets aviators to self judge their performances and practices after training them on what to look for and refreshing proper practices and safety. As with most related safety programs, they want to discover bad habits that may have developed. The program does not concern itself with CRM but rather individuals.

The first step was to open the minds of all to be receptive- something difficult for some, especially the "Top Gun" type elite who might think they know it all. Training included reviewing accident reports by the way.

rv6ejguy said:

Without reproducing the whole article from Aviation Week, basically this program gets aviators to self judge their performances and practices after training them on what to look for and refreshing proper practices and safety. As with most related safety programs, they want to discover bad habits that may have developed. The program does not concern itself with CRM but rather individuals.

The first step was to open the minds of all to be receptive- something difficult for some, especially the "Top Gun" type elite who might think they know it all. Training included reviewing accident reports by the way.

Click to expand...

Ross,

Actually, the Blue Angels in training are very self critical. I watched a 1 hour segment on the Military channel last week about being a Blue Angel and self evaluation in debriefing is a part of what they do. These guys are VERY good but getting there is not easy. I even detected some humility in the debriefings.

If anyone living in the midwest is interested, the Blue Angels will be at the St. Louis County Air Show on Labor Day week end, 2007.

Hard to get beyond the emotion

It's hard for me to remove the emotion from the aviation safety issue. I've seen too much. I wonder how many of you other guys have personally witnessed crashes.

I was in the Air Force for four years, as an avionics tech on FB-111A's at Plattsburg AFB in New York. During that time, we lost two crews to in-flight engine detonations (the turbines literally exploded) and one to terrain-following radar failure at low altitude. Another crew was simply lost at sea and we never learned what happened (but it was probably another TF radar failure). I also saw the bloody after-effects of an F111 that was landed by the navigator after the pilot was decapitated by a bird strike. And during an open house at neighboring Pease AFB, some kid snuck into a hanger and managed to remove the tags and pull the ejection lever, thereby blasting the F111 crew capsule through the roof. The bloody capsule sat in the corner of one of our hangars for a few weeks, for some some unknown reason. But I personally witnessed only one crash during my four year hitch -- I saw a Canadian Canberra bomber cartwheel down the runway one morning when I was riding the launch truck.

For some reason, everyone thought I was nuts when I turned down a ride in an F111 the month I won "Maintenance Airman of the Month".

OK, those were all military incidents, so they don't apply.

Here's the casualties I have personally witnessed since I started hanging around small airplanes in '97.

1. My instructor and I watched a Mooney land gear up during one of my lessons.

2. I watched a Beech Duchess do a hammerhead stall into the ground from about 100 feet one afternoon when I was working on my Cherokee's annual. The guy had one engine out and was trying to make a low pass for the tower to verify his gear down. He turned to the bad engine at low speed. It was a flight school plane and the instructor had taken control after the engine failure.

3. I saw a brand new RV8 over-run the 1500' runway at an RV flyin at Waco a couple of years ago, and ground-loop at the end to avoid the trees. The plane went over the nose and the pilot went to the hospitol, but I heard later it was just minor injuries.

4. I watched a factory demonstrator pilot stall an "un-stallable" Glastar Sportsman from about 50' altitude while filming a segment for "Wings to Adventure" at an airport near Oshkosh in 2005. We were taxiing on the parallel taxiway and were closest to the accident, but it was completely engulfed before there was time to do anything to help. Wouldn't have made any difference, anyway. He hit so hard the roll cage was crushed flat.

Oh, and the reason I was able to find a hangar to buy when I moved to Houston was that the guy who built it killed himself and his nephew doing a high speed pullup in his Glasair. The wing came off. I didn't actually see that one, though.

All of the GA incidents were pilot mistakes (while all the military incidents were mechanical). But the Duchess incident proves that being a proficient pilot is no guarantee that you won't screw up when the pressure's on -- and that the costs for screwing up in this hobby are extreme.

jonbakerok said:

I was in the Air Force for four years, as an avionics tech on FB-111A's at Plattsburg AFB in New York...........being a proficient pilot is no guarantee that you won't screw up when the pressure's on -- and that the costs for screwing up in this hobby are extreme.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the source of many war stories originating at Plattsburg did not end after I left there in the mid 60's. There are pieces of B-47's and KC-97's on the bottom of the lake from those days.

I was there the morning a B-52 diverted from Pease, landed with so little fuel the struts did not compress sufficiently to activate the brakes, and plowed into a half dozen parked 97's. There was at least 2" of jet fuel and avgas on the ramp going down the storm drains. Fortunately, there was no fire.

......surprised you still hang out at an airport.....you must be one of those born aviators who can't live without it.

Guilty as charged

David-aviator said:

Sounds like the source of many war stories originating at Plattsburg did not end after I left there in the mid 60's. There are pieces of B-47's and KC-97's on the bottom of the lake from those days.

I was there the morning a B-52 diverted from Pease, landed with so little fuel the struts did not compress sufficiently to activate the brakes, and plowed into a half dozen parked 97's. There was at least 2" of jet fuel and avgas on the ramp going down the storm drains. Fortunately, there was no fire or it would have been the end of the 7th Bomb Wing.

......surprised you still hang out at an airport.....you must be one of those born aviators who can't live without it.

Click to expand...

Don't know about being a "born aviator", but nothing in this life seems so interesting as airplanes. I have to admit that I've had second thoughts since that Glastar crash, though. I started counting up all the incidents I'd witnessed and wondering if this flying thing might actually be as dangerous as it looks.

Coming off my duty assignment in CIC aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise in 1968 and with plenty of advance warning thanks to my job, I hurriedly made my way to the observation deck and watched and waited as the crew of a stricken A-6 Intruder returning from a sortie planned to eject near the ship. With rescue helicopters hovering and awaiting nearby, they successfully bailed. The A-6 immediately nosed straight down from about 4000' or so and unlike my mental images of fire and explosion thanks to Hollywood, that A-6 just hit the water and sank with barely a splash.

Fast forward a few years later. One day with a fairly strong and gusty wind out of the south, I heard a local instructor, known to be the cocky type flying a Citabria announce a downwind entry for 27. Intrigued by his aerial prowess, I grabbed my friend's 10 year old son by the hand and we hurried outside for a better look. We were standing by the side of the runway at about midfield as he flew final holding the plane in an extreme attitude to compensate for the drift. He put the plane on the asphalt runway well enough but as it sped past us, the plane suddenly turned into the wind, departed the runway into the grass, hit an inevitable depression and proceeded to nose over in slow motion. Naturally, as the vertical stab and rudder met the ground, they crumpled like paper as the weight of the airplane came to rest upon them. Laying upside down, we ran towards the Citabria as the pilot released his shoulder harness and we watched as he promptly fell to the roof of the upside down airplane. As we approached, he managed to crawl out of the cabin and angrily waved while shouting to us......"I'm okay, I'm okay!"

If you hang around the airport long enough, you are bound to see an incident or two. One very hot day, a Cessna 150 pilot hit the wires on the departure end of 27, plunged straight to the ground and died instantly. The force of the impact caused him to come out of his still laced shoes and the pair laid in the bloodied and buckled cockpit for weeks until the wreckage was finally hauled away. Every now and then I was drawn to visit the wreck laying atop a flatbed next to a hangar and just silently stare at those shoes.

The most profound incident I ever witnessed was at an airshow, actually a major RC event in Iowa several years ago. The full size real airplanes were flying out of a nearby airport. The pilot of the look-alike Japanese Zero did a high speed flyby followed by an abrupt pull-up. Apparently, the plane experienced an accelerated stall and plunged to the ground with much heat and fire and smoke. What made it so very sad for me was his wife was sitting in the bleachers just in front of me and I'll never forget the incredulous look of shock and fear and pain on her face as she was attended to and practically carried away by airshow officials as she collapsed in their arms.

"Let's dove tail some GAMA numbers into NTSB table 10.

In 2005, GAMA reported a delivery 2391 aircraft. This includes piston, turboprops, and business jets. In 2005, the NTSB reported 1617 aircraft accidents, 321 of them fatal, taking 562 lives.

If the 2005 accident/delivery ratio is reasonably accurate, 67% of those aircraft will be involved in an accident, 13.4% of them fatal, maybe not the first year, but certainly in succeeding years. Another way of saying it, 67% of each years delivery schedule is ultimately destroyed or damaged in an accident, 13.4% are involved in a fatal accidents."


WHAT!! I don't get your interpretation. The 1617 accidents in 2005 refers to the entire fleet of GA aircraft not just the ones that were delivered the year before.

Yeah, those numbers are way too high.

If I'm reading the GAMA report right, the total GA fleet size in 2005 was 209,708.

That makes the 2005 total accident rate 0.77% (of the fleet) and the fatal rate 0.15% using the accident numbers given above.

mdredmond said:

Yeah, those numbers are way too high.

If I'm reading the GAMA report right, the total GA fleet size in 2005 was 209,708.

That makes the 2005 total accident rate 0.77% (of the fleet) and the fatal rate 0.15% using the accident numbers given above.

Click to expand...

I don't claim to be a statistician. But I am very suspect of numbers posted to support any particular point of view, including mine. It goes to show you can make a case for anything and pick your favorite.

The NTSB reports seem factual. There were 40263 wrecks since 1986. Certainly some were returned to service after repair but it does represent a lot of bent metal. I wonder how that compares to the number of aircraft shot down in WWII?

I looked for the GAMA fleet size but could not locate it. It would be interesting to see if that number moves relative to production and accidents. Like what was the fleet size in 1986 vrs today? The numbers are also somewhat misleading because of the number of experimentals certified each year. A few years ago there were more experimentals certified than production aircraft and they are not in the GAMA numbers.

Of all the numbers we see, I am most suspect of the FAA's estimate of annual flying hours. It sure seems quiet when you fly these days compared to years ago. I flew down to SUS today and it was very quiet as usual. This particular airport had 3 flight schools at one time, today there is only one. The northwest ramp, just 10 years ago, had at least 25 parked airplanes, today there are about 10.

Yup. 99.8% of statistics are made up on the spot.

The REAL risks

Some people have been inclined to dispute the NTSB data but I think it would be reasonable to assume that even if I had reported that the fatality rate was a half (or even a quarter) of my stated figure of 1.49 deaths per 100,000 hours the resulting respondent emails would be virtually identical. I have come to understand that now.

There are those who would still be recounting morbid stories of bodies and blood on the runway and others would still be reacting with heightened levels of anxiety. It's the shark attack syndrome....the risks are miniscule but the fear is palpable nontheless.

It's like taking a very nervous passenger up for their first flight. If they're fidgeting anxiously and a wet stain is beginning to appear under their arms it is virtually guaranteed to be useless to begin comforting them with statistical data on the remote possibility of their death during the flight.

If a recent RV poll is to be believed then the average RV builder is about 50 years of age...and perhaps by the time he gets flying he might be a bit older.

If this average RV builder flies 50 hours a year (probably above average) and manages to fly to age 70 (also probably above average) he will run up 1000 hours. On that basis based on the NTSB data he will have a 1.49% chance of dying while flying.

On the other hand the National Cancer Institute data indicates that at age 50 the statistical chances of dying from a malignant cancer by age 70 is 7%. The chances of dying from cardiovascular disease in the same period is considerably higher. Of course that's only the death rate. There's always the possibility that a stroke could leave you alive but paralysed for an indefinite period.

When you start to look at multiple health factors the figures become even more daunting. A fifty year old man has approximately a 40% chance of having either a heart attack, a stroke, a malignant cancer, or a complete kidney failure before age 70.

In the US in the year 2004 no less than 550,270 people died (probably horribly) of cancer, 108,694 were terminated in accidents, 65,829 died in utter confusion from Alzheimers, and cardiovascular disease claimed a whopping 2.4 million. That compares with just 558 people who died in GA accidents in the same year.

So the real risk is not that you will die flying but that you will lose your medical and never be able to venture into the clouds ever again.

I had a pilot friend who had a serious and completely unexpected heart attack at 43. He told me later that as they wheeled him to the ambulance the thing that was running through his mind was that he would never fly again....and he didn't.

There is nothing wrong with being cautious...but there is nothing admirable or beneficial in being so preoccupied with dying that we are unable to enjoy living.


Regards Bob Barrow

...as long as our contemplation of dying is limited to ourselves. A good number of GA accidents kill passengers and otherwise innocents. That's a steep price paid for our hobby - paid by people other than ourselves.

Every decision needs to be made while being mindful of the simple question: "How will I put myself, my family & others in jeopardy by doing this...?" Answering that honestly could very likely save the day.

Short conversation

My insurance agent called before the holidays and tried to get me to buy life insurance.

I reminded him that I increased my home owners insurance to cover the airplane I was building in the basement. Then I mentioned that I am also an SCCA driving instructor and when I'm not doing that or working on my plane I enjoy mountain climbing and backpacking in some very remote locations.

As for dying in my RV. All I can say is, when I?m laying there dieing, I don?t want to say, ?I wish I would have??!

whew, man its hot in here

man if anybody reads these last few threads and still wants to fly they got it pretty bad. you need the stomach of a billy goat to hang around here.
anyone know where i can get a good deal on some dynons


ps. never mind the numbers.
as far as cancer, yes all that die are horrible deaths. some just come back it aint the cancer that kills you, its the chemo and radiation and it comes in many different flavors.never mind the numbers, people die. be safe, proficent, vigilant (insert your best phrase here)as you can but whatever you do, dont die on the couch. enjoy it while you can. as safe as you can

Captain Avgas said:

.....There is nothing wrong with being cautious...but there is nothing admirable or beneficial in being so preoccupied with dying that we are unable to enjoy living.

Regards Bob Barrow

Click to expand...

Base on the NTSB statistical analysis and cancer deaths, a young inexperienced pilot may well conclude, "A half million people died of cancer last year but only 558 in a small airplane, the odds are excellent I can fly through that winter ice storm in front of me."

The discussion is about the safety of pilots and their passengers, it is about making intelligent decisions. It is not about endless numbers advocating one conclusion or another or worring about death.

I believe we, who have some experience, have a duty to pass on to younger pilots what little we know about surviving. Based on personal experiences (and of course NTSB numbers) we have differing views on just what the risk is. Some have lost friends, and/or survived a wreck, seen a lot of blood, and some have never had a mag failure. The perspectives are different and perhaps somewhat incompatible in discussing the subject.

Perhaps it should end.

Tomorrow I blast off on a 578 nm flight behind an auto engine - yes, a major risk in the view of some, but a calculated one. The flight is planned in detail, the weather is good, the engine has been running fine, and with a little luck, will be home before sunset.

(Going to look at a RV-9A before first flight, just another set of eye balls checking things over.)

Captain Avgas said:

There are those who would still be recounting morbid stories of bodies and blood on the runway....

There is nothing wrong with being cautious...but there is nothing admirable or beneficial in being so preoccupied with dying that we are unable to enjoy living.


Regards Bob Barrow

Click to expand...

This thread is definitely moving towards the morbid. Avgas, I'm jumping on board your train. What is accomplished by trading horror stories about bloody shoes still stuck to rudder pedals or guys getting their heads taken off by birds? I was once the only person around when a woman got run completely over by a car. The hysterical driver was of no help, and all I could do was hold the woman's hand while she died. I also saw a guy get run over by a train once. My brother was nearly hit when a person jumped out of a highrise window and splattered right at his feet. Another friend saw his girlfriend run over and killed by a boat. This list could go on and on, but what's the point? People die and it's sometimes bloody. If I can learn something useful from an accident report then I'd love to see it, but if it's presented simply to scare me off flying, then you can keep it.

Incidently, I drove past the airport today and didn't see a single crash -- imagine that.

szicree said:

People die and it's sometimes bloody. If I can learn something useful from an accident report then I'd love to see it, but if it's presented simply to scare me off flying, then you can keep it.

Click to expand...

If I worried that much about dying I couldn't move out of my house. I would have missed the joy of racing motorcycles, sailing, flying, the list goes on. I agree that we can learn not to make stupid mistakes but we can't fear every step we make.

Obsurdity

Guys,

Let's get this thread back on track. Cancer, heart disease, and auto deaths are a direct result of daily life, and for the most part their risks are not elective. They are also attributable to a general population of 300 million people. 55,000 auto deaths are the result of trillions of annual automotive seat miles, and have no place in this discussion.

When you launch your single engine GA aircraft into a winter cold front, and haven't shot an approach in 6 months, it's important that you know your odds for survival are very slim. The same goes for low-level aerobatics, untrained formation flying and buzzjobs. Remember, all the really great airshow pilots are.......... DEAD.

You guys that keep drawing this thread into obsurdity are doing the neophytes here no favors. Let's help them learn instead.

Different planet

Yukon said:

Guys,
auto deaths are a direct result of daily life, and for the most part their risks are not elective.

Click to expand...

We must be living on a different planet (I'm on the blue planet between Venus and Mars).

On my planet, every day literally tens of thousands of drivers climb behind the wheel of their car while completely smashed on alcohol or other drugs (approximately 40% of all fatal road accidents involve substance abuse). Others refuse to buckle their small children into seat belts. Many who are grossly overtired go to sleep at the wheel and veer into oncoming traffic. An alarming number of the truly elderly are driving despite failing eyesight, hearing, and mental faculties. Many are on the roads with debilitating and dangerous cardiovascular conditions (I personally know an interstate semi-trailer driver who has had 2 previous strokes).

And then there's those aggressive misfits who regularly run red lights, pass on double lines, and generally ignore all speed laws.

I'd say virtually all road fatalities are "elective" in that they ultimately come down to poor (and mostly illegal) decision making on the part of a driver. I'm not aware of too many road fatalities that could be put down to engine or instrument failure.

And the real tragedy with road accidents is that the negligent driver is often not the one who is killed...he simply slaughters other innocents.

That's the thing I truly like about private flying. I can chose my own level of risk. I don't have to worry too much about some other pilot's poor decision taking me out.

And for the same reason I'm quite happy for other pilots to chose their own level of risk as well.

I personally don't see a lot of behaviour among pilots that really warrants the glass-half-empty attitude to GA safety. On the contrary, in direct contrast to many drivers on the road, I find most pilots to be courteous, law abiding, relatively cautious, well informed, reasonably intelligent, and above all, friendly.

I know that there are those who feel a concern bordering on religious zealotry when it comes to aircraft accidents, but we truly do need to view this matter in relative terms.

The socio-economic fallout from the road toll is absolutely horrendous. It costs the economy billions and burdens the entire health system. It diverts valuable national resources and funds from more productive pursuits. And it tragically affects the lives of tens of thousands of families every year.

Gentlemen, some perspective please.

Regards Bob Barrow

im with ya avgas but

Yukon said:

Guys,

auto deaths are a direct result of daily life, and for the most part their risks are not elective. .

Click to expand...

maybe he means because weve got to drive to get to work. and groceries and such

Yukon said:

When you launch your single engine GA aircraft into a winter cold front, and haven't shot an approach in 6 months, it's important that you know your odds for survival are very slim. The same goes for low-level aerobatics, untrained formation flying and buzzjobs. Remember, all the really great airshow pilots are.......... DEAD.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... what about Bob Hoover (arguably the greatest pilot ever), Sean Tucker, Wayne Handley, Duane Cole (died of natural causes), Gene Soucy, Patty Wagstaff, Tom Poberezny, Charlie Kulp........... I agree with Cpt Avgas. And pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

OK, well, I'm sure glad ...

OK, well, I'm sure glad we took the emotions out of this discussion!

--JCB

Low Pass said:

I agree with Cpt Avgas. And pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you have given up your rights to fly heads up and at full attention. Thats why Chuck Yeager likes to grill hot dogs I guess.

Not less culpable

cytoxin said:

maybe he means because weve got to drive to get to work. and groceries and such

Click to expand...

That's exactly what he means...I'll leave it up to others to decide whether it's a reasonable hypothesis that because a man requires his car to get to work he is somehow less culpable when he gets totally drunk and runs down some child.

Personally I don't think it's a theory that stands up well to critical examination but I'd be happy for YUKON to expand it further.

Bob Barrow

I Give Up

OK Bob, I give up! What does all your rhetoric have to do with aviation safety?