What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

characterizing our risk

P

prkaye

Well Known Member
I know this is a grim topic, but after the recent loss of an RV friend I've been obsessing over the risk factor. As a trained mathematician, I know statistics are very difficult things, and even finding appropriate data can sometimes be impossible. But I wonder how much we can find, and what conclusions we can draw. Lately I feel a very strong need to gain an understanding the risk -to quantify and characterize it.

When I look for aviation stats that I can try to apply to my own operations, I personally don't like the stats "per hour" of operation, for many reasons. I think the risks "per aircraft" make more sense, to me at least. This is the way we think instinctively anyway. When we lose an RV friend, we think this might happen to us, and then take comfort by pointing to our other RV friends who continue to fly without incident.

Anyway, regarding data, here are a few questions:

1) There are over 6600 (?) RVs that have been completed and flown. Probably most of these are actively flying. What would be a good guess, 6000 RVs actively flying in a given year?

2) Do we know how many catastrophic RV accidents occur in a typical year? What about breakdown by model?

3) Of the above, is are there any clear causes that stand-out as leading risk factors? For GA in general, I've heard fuel exhaustion is a leading cause... does that hold true for RVs in particular?

The reason we may tend to obsess about these things sometimes is clear... if we can understand, quantify and characterize the risk, we can better learn to manage and reduce it, and we can also derive some piece of mind. Accidents like the recent one near my home leave a very unsettling feeling that flying is gambling with ones' life, and I want to find a way to reduce that feeling.
 
My statistics instructors used to say that use of statistics was the ability to "lie with numbers"... In other words, the same data set could be manipulated to "prove" any side of an argument. The statistics per flight hour are appropriate, I think, because it allows a much more broad sample size. But if you really want to accurately evaluate risk, you would want to do it by individual pilot because pilot error is the predominate cause of fatal accidents. This is an impossible task of course, but the fact remains that some of us are at a much higher risk of killing ourselves. I think that because of our highly variable individual processes (in contrast to military or airlines)statistics on hours flown, aircraft type, etc, are not a real relevant bit of information when you simply want to know if you're going to safely complete your next cross country.

Perhaps the best thing to do is accept that flying is a pretty dangerous pastime, and we are putting ourselves at some elevated level of unnecessary risk every time we do it.
 
prkaye said:
Accidents like the recent one near my home leave a very unsettling feeling that flying is gambling with ones' life, and I want to find a way to reduce that feeling.
Click to expand...

Rule #1 Flying is dangerous. You can look at statistics all day long, study them until the cows come home, apply different quantifying formulas and massage the number for decades, but they are not going to change Rule #1. The only stats that make make sense to me are the ones that quantify mechanical failure over pilot error.

One statistic I always find interesting is we are all gonna die someday, and we all take risks, everyday. Eliminating all risk is not possible without eliminating the joys of living, and being alive. "Better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all. "

I'm sorry you lost an RV friend. You know the NTSB report and the probably cause of his accident. Apply it to the way you fly and move on. That is all we can do.

(See below for further instruction ;))
 
Last edited:
Home Built Accidents

Phil

There is an article in this months EAA Sport Aviation (Jan. 2010) on page 66.

This is the first month of the combined issue of both EAA magazines in one. It turned out really nice.

The writer took the NTSB database from 1998 to 2007 in which there were 2100 Homebuilt accidents and catagorized them by Human Error(pilot) (builder). Mechanical Error and Other. Each of those groups break down into other catagories. (General Pilot Error, Fuel Exhaustion, IFR to VFR transisition, etc.)
 
NTSB database

prkaye said:
2) Do we know how many catastrophic RV accidents occur in a typical year? What about breakdown by model?

3) Of the above, is are there any clear causes that stand-out as leading risk factors? For GA in general, I've heard fuel exhaustion is a leading cause... does that hold true for RVs in particular?
Click to expand...

Phil - these questions are answerable using the NTSB data search, although it takes some work to find and appropriately organize the data:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/Query.asp

It would be very interesting to have someone with a deeper understanding of probability look at these data systematically. Personally I think that such an analysis could be very useful for risk management and informed decision making.
 
Avoid the 'dumb' mistakes!

Phil Kaye,

Your post is very interesting and a feeling shared by most your fellow General Aviation (GA) 'pleasure' fliers! After a 22 year career as a USAF fighter pilot retiring just last year I have had far too many friends killed in military aviation, the vast majority during non-combat activities. Every one of them has a story, and in general most could have been avoided.

After retiring last year I was hired by the FAA and flew as a GA inspector. After my recent heart event I resigned from the FAA...for many reasons, a story in itself. Suffice to say the job did not 'fit' me. However in my short tenure with the FAA I was quite shocked at the GA accident stats.

Unkown to most casual fliers, in our nation of aviation there are LOTS of accidents, everyday. As an FAA employee I got to see the raw, unscrubbed data daily and was shocked how really enept most of us are in accident situations! In general, and to summerize, most accidents where pilot error, and not the tough 'engine failed, tried to glide, hit a tree' type pilot error but rather:

1) Forgot to put the gear down (Over 1/4 of the daily accidents in a given month were gear related!)
2) Flying into bad weather ie. from VFR conditions into IFR and not avoiding/getting out of it!
3) Exceeding limitations of your aircraft ie. flying into known icing ( a case last month where a Bonanza crashed with 4 inches of ice on the wings!)
4) Out of CG, out of weight limits
5) Low level aerobatics, untrained usually
6) Aircraft out of annual, or completely unsafe, and the operator knew it!
7) Not knowing basic FARs and getting violated (Not an accident but potentially career ending!)

An on and on! I was disheartened by the stats, realizing that if pilots would just do that "pilot s--t" like the guy says in Tog Gun, most accidents wouldn't happen!

in general, if we could avoid the dumb stuff and the only accidents that ever happened were Act-Of-God type stuff, this aviation pastime would actually statistically be quite safe. The FAA knows it, and now I know it.

People are going to get hurt in this activity. We are going to lose friends. But we need to minimize the risks by doing the best we can to fly smart. It will make a difference and besides, the alternative is to not fly....that one does not work for me.

Finally, be careful of reading 'stats'. The real story can get lost in the numbers and lead you to conclusions that are just not true. One of my buddys quit flyig last year because a friend crashed his Glasair into a hillside. it wasn't the Glasair's fault.....

Tailwinds!
 
Toobuilder said:
But if you really want to accurately evaluate risk, you would want to do it by individual pilot because pilot error is the predominate cause of fatal accidents.
Click to expand...

I agree. Statistics doesn't necessarily mean anything to each individual. It is like saying - because one person in a million is a terrorist, then everyone has one in a million chance of being that terrorist. This is of course completely wrong, but statistically correct for a sample of unknown persons.

It is the same with accidents. The whole point is not contributing to the statistics, and there are lots of ways to minimize the risk.
 
These are some numbers that I posted a few weeks ago on a thread in the Safety forum. These are for fatal accidents in GA "personal" flying.

I finished my CFI renewal a couple of months ago and one of the topics in the course was the fact that "maneuvering" flying accounts for the highest (25%) of fatal GA accidents. Followed by descent/approach, weather, and takeoff/climb. A significant percentage of the fatal "maneuvering" accidents are identified as having these primary causes:
  • buzzing (a whopping 1/3 of "maneuvering" accidents
  • traffic pattern distractions
  • inadvertent stall/spin
  • lack of piloting skills
additionally, aerobatics, formation flying, canyon flying, and other "special operations" are identified as frequent factors. The report notes that a lack of training and proficiency in these operations is a common thread in these fatal accidents.

These numbers are from the Nall Report and I believe they are from 2006.
 
The reason we may tend to obsess about these things sometimes is clear... if we can understand, quantify and characterize the risk, we can better learn to manage and reduce it, and we can also derive some piece of mind. Accidents like the recent one near my home leave a very unsettling feeling that flying is gambling with ones' life, and I want to find a way to reduce that feeling.
__________________
Phil Kaye
RV9A (SB), fairings + wheel pants (then assembly!)

It's tough to quantify risk, especially given the pilot population in the experimental arena. Lots of pilots with limited experience and even less recent practice stepping into high performance aircraft (forget about power, it's the speed). Even more pilots who stop training and figure that repeating bad habits qualifies as practice. Kind of like a golfer with a 20 handicap who figures playing more or more time on the range by himself will actually improve his game (I know this won't work, from personal experience). On top of this, throw in an aversion to checklists, FARs, and ADM and it's no small wonder that our stats are poor. All this in spite of the FAA trying to bang away on this problem by making items such as these a major focus of every flight test you'll ever take. These 'Hot Button" topics aren't pulled from thin air - they're there because of accident history.
Forums such as these are a great source of information, both good and bad.
You don't have to search far to discover that it's OK to fly aerobatics in a 9, engines bigger than those recommended by the designer are OK, every pilot should do his own test flying, an EFIS with synthetic vision will keep you out of trouble, etc., etc., etc. That the very people who build and fly experimental airplanes are willing to somehow accept or downplay additional risk shouldn't surprise anyone.
As to your own situation, I think you're already on the right road. Get good transition training and after you've started flying your own plane, get some more. If that training is all mechanical and doesn't include decision making; find another instructor. Most importantly, when you've reached a point where you think you can't learn any more, it's time to find a new hobby.
Terry
 
Geico266 said:
Rule #1 Flying is dangerous. You can look at statistics all day long, study them until the cows come home, apply different quantifying formulas and massage the number for generations, but they are not going to change Rule #1. The only stats that make make sense to me are the ones that quantify mechanical failure over pilot error.

One statistic I always find interesting is we are all gonna die someday, and we all take risks, everyday. Eliminating all risk is not possible without eliminating the joys of living, and being alive. "Better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all. "

I'm sorry you lost an RV friend. You know the NTSB report and the probably cause of his accident. Apply it to the way you fly and move on. That is all we can do.

(See below for further instruction ;))
Click to expand...

Do you know the accidents probable cause? I'm curious, the post makes it sound like you do and I am unable to find it anywhere. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you are saying but if you know how I can find the report I would appreciate reading it. Thanks.
 
Just my humble opinion, but most fatalities are caused by pilot error of sorts. On the other hand, riding a motorcycle [my other passion] is predominately dangerous because of other road users.
As a aircraft owner and pilot I do have some control over the outcome of a flight. But s#@* happens nonetheless.
Will knowing the statistics make me feel better ? Maybe?
 
Phil,

Really sorry you lost a friend in that accident. That's hard, for sure. I think that evaluating your own risk is a very natural (and healthy) reaction to the sobering reality of losing a friend, or seeing a fatality in a GA airplane, especially if its in your type of airplane (or close). Your honest query is one I'll bet nearly every pilot makes at one point or another.

I took a look at your website (cool by the way), as see you are a PhD mathemetician and published technical author. So its probably very natural and comfortable for you to look at stats and find answers and/or explanations. Nothing wrong with that, it serves a purpose. But I also think we can drive ourselves a bit loco trying to quantify every subjective aspect of risk, so...

...I also saw that you are a musician (and by the way, C-FUNC has got to be the perfect side number for a musician, eh!) But that left brain side of you(or is it right brain, I forget :)) will be able to take the objective view of what has happened, along with the causes and circumstances of that and other accidents you look at or hear about, the reading you do and the hangar flying with the buds you do, and keep forming an ever-improving risk avoidance/minimizing strategy.

I really think (and this is just IMHO) that it becomes more qualitative than quantitative. We learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others. Stats can point out activities to be avoided completely (flat-hatting, pressing on into bad weather, etc), or avoided until we prepare ourselves for them (acro, formation, IMC, night, etc). But its the stories behind the numbers and the accidents that really help us formulate that stayin' alive strategy.

The numbers and stats are alarming. If we use that alarm as a wake up call to help make better decisions, I believe our risk goes down. The more we learn, the more times we see something go wrong out there, and the more accidents we read about, the more data we have to refine that risk avoidance/minimizing strategy. Data is good...what we do with it, and how it modifies or improves our decision making is even more a key to our safety.

I respect the numbers, but (again IMHO) I think the goal is to learn from experience (or that of others, sad as it is sometimes), allow it to further develop our judgement, and then make daily decisions that help reduce our risk.

Hope this doesn't sound preachy...I just feel your pain, having lost buds in the military and GA. Makes ya think...but that thinking can make ya safer!

Best,
Bob
 
aarvig said:
Do you know the accidents probable cause? I'm curious, the post makes it sound like you do and I am unable to find it anywhere. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you are saying but if you know how I can find the report I would appreciate reading it. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I think he was speaking figuratively since the fallen pilot was a friend of the poster. This indicates a probablility the poster probably knew the story.

That was my take anyway.
 
Bob Mills - you said it very well! The value of accident reports in not in their numerical weight - it is in the stories behind the incidents. I fall asleep very quickly when presented with a vast array of numbers - what I want to know is what actually happened, and why.

Knowing that accidents happen make us aware that we should pay attention. Understanding why they happen makes us better pilots.

Paul
 
Geico266 said:
Rule #1 Flying is dangerous. You can look at statistics all day long, study them until the cows come home, apply different quantifying formulas an.....

(See below for further instruction ;))
Click to expand...

Yep, Rule #1 is Flying is dangerous.
Rule #2 is not Flying is totally boring.
Rule #3 is do your best to keep it safe and go do it.

Bottom line here, life is very, very short by any measure with this planet's existence and its what we do on that short trip that counts.

My last check list item before launch is something like "Great Spirit, you are in control and I welcome any assistance coming this way as always. If this is to be the last flight, so be it - I look forward to the trip beyond no matter what."

I can't imagine life without flying...if its important to you, do it and don't worry about it. If you don't, you will end up dying in a nursing home wishing you had. Chances are you will anyhow but at least you did it and loved it. No one gets out of this little trip alive.
 
The Science of Risk

First, I am sorry to hear about the loss of your friend.

As somebody with a background in the sciences, I took advantage of the opportunity to study this when I got my master's. My project was entitled "The Psychophysiology of risk taking behavior with skydiving as an example." I can fwd: the list of my sources to anybody who may be interested from a research point of view. As far as the study of recreational risk, the documentary Adrenaline Rush: The Science of Risk does a superb job of describing this field of study. Plus it was filmed for IMAX so it has great visuals. Check it out.

One interesting theory is that of risk homeostasis. Summed up by Bill Booth, a well-known innovator in the skydiving industry: "The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant." In other words, the safer our equipment (or environment) becomes, the more likely we are to take greater risks to achieve the same level of thrill (aka. stimulation.)

This theory crosses all levels of cultural boundaries. I.e. the same genetic/physiologic factors that propel all recreational risk takers are constant across the board. The biggest variable is access to a recreational category. So the only real difference between a base jumper and a heroin addict is that the base jumper is able to finance the gear and training necessary to feed his addiction to base jumping. And, as anybody in aviation knows, money is the single greatest variable that controls whether or not we keep flying! Those without financial means but who have more social responsibility, often gravitate to jobs as firefighters, policemen, etc... or they find cheaper ways to engage in recreational risk, such as buying a dirt bike or buying a $5k ultralight instead of a $50k airplane.

Again, I'm very sorry about your friend. Trying to rationalize a loss is part of the grieving process and it is, in my opinion, normal. Yes, apply what you can learn to your own flying. But also realize that rationalizing other people's errors can also reinforce our own ignorance (the "I would never do that" attitude).
 
David-aviator said:
Yep, Rule #1 is Flying is dangerous.
Rule #2 is not Flying is totally boring.
Rule #3 is do your best to keep it safe and go do it.

Bottom line here, life is very, very short by any measure with this planet's existence and its what we do on that short trip that counts.

...
Click to expand...

Very well put.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
Re: statistics (or sadistics, as we referred to them in college)...as a mathematician by training myself, what I see as a problem whenever stats are brought up is that people don't use them correctly. What we usually see is what someone earlier said...just a raw analysis of numbers to reach some particular statistical value (x% of type Y aircraft have fatal accidents per year, etc.).

What should be done is to form an hypothesis (or null hypothesis) FIRST, then TEST that with the appropriate statistics to accept or reject the hypothesis.

By *starting* with the stats and then trying to reach a conclusion, people reason backwards, and you end up with never-ending debates about what the stats actually "mean".

(Of course, to do this scientifically, you have to control for all other factors at the same time, or use them in the analysis, such as via n-way ANOVAs or some such thing).

As a disclaimer, my training was in numerical analysis, NOT stats (which, frankly, I hated :) ).
 
gravitysucks said:
One interesting theory is that of risk homeostasis. Summed up by Bill Booth, a well-known innovator in the skydiving industry: "The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant." In other words, the safer our equipment (or environment) becomes, the more likely we are to take greater risks to achieve the same level of thrill (aka. stimulation.)
Click to expand...

That is a remarkable hypothesis, one I hadn't seen stated formally but which is borne out by observation once the theory is explored. The "constant fatality rate" concept goes a long way toward explaining the seemingly irrational behavior of many pilots.

This also causes me to wonder if we will ever substantially change the fatality rate of recreational aviation in spite of our best efforts..............

Thanks for sharing,
 
I think there was a thread not too long ago where that very hypothesis was mentioned regarding the use of ballistic recovery chutes.

The knowledge of that security blanket encouraged some pilots to fly into conditions and situations for which they were not prepared or qualified, because they knew that they could always "pull the lever" and live to tell about it.

On its face, it makes some sense ... sadly.
 
Originally Posted by gravitysucks View Post

One interesting theory is that of risk homeostasis.
Click to expand...


Sam Buchanan said:
That is a remarkable hypothesis, one I hadn't seen stated formally but which is borne out by observation once the theory is explored. The "constant fatality rate" concept goes a long way toward explaining the seemingly irrational behavior of many pilots.

This also causes me to wonder if we will ever substantially change the fatality rate of recreational aviation in spite of our best efforts..............

Thanks for sharing,
Click to expand...

I've seen a show on automobile accidents which also referred to the principle of risk homeostasis. Humans seem to have a sense as to how much risk they are comfortable with, and fly (or drive) to that limit. Being humans, each persons risk limit is different. Being humans, each person is willing to do a different amount of work furthering their understanding of the risks they undertake.

Yet, automobile accident fatalities are decreasing every decade, despite the likelihood that the mistake count has remained the same. This is due to tremendous advances in braking, handling, crumple zones, and personal protection systems.

This is why I don't get too excited about "latest and greatest" pilot training schemes. There is already an enormous amount of safety and training information at our fingertips. One just has to be willing and able to absorb it.

I tend to get more excited about advances in the HW. The evolutionary cycle for aircraft HW is far shorter than that for people. I just feel that HW like b*tching betty's, b*tching EMS systems, Amsafe belts, and so forth are going to save more lives than agonizing over the latest NTSB report.

People are going to make mistakes. We should try to minimize the number, and we spend a lot of effort doing so already. We should try to minimize the consequences, and I think the effort there still has room for improvement, though it's getting better. If we accept that even the best of us has a finite, definable chance of having a "brain fart" at the worst possible moment, having the redundancy of a piece of HW looking out for us makes a lot of sense.

Finally, I like the quote from NASA's Mary Schafer regarding safety.
 
Read the Nall Report. Most accidents are preventable IMO so don't do the things that will get you killed.

Take the AOPA online courses.

Don't run out of gas, fly into weather, mountains, etc and you should be fine.
 
Sam Buchanan said:
That is a remarkable hypothesis, one I hadn't seen stated formally but which is borne out by observation once the theory is explored. The "constant fatality rate" concept goes a long way toward explaining the seemingly irrational behavior of many pilots.

This also causes me to wonder if we will ever substantially change the fatality rate of recreational aviation in spite of our best efforts..............

Thanks for sharing,
Click to expand...

I think this is two very different things. Flying private airplanes is not considered a thrill seeking activity like for instance base jumping or extreme skiing. A base jumper seek the thrill, and is willing to do calculated risk to achieve that adrenaline rush. The risk has to be real, or there is no point to it. Accidents with private airplanes happen because the pilot simply was not aware of the actual risk involved, or something odd happened and he took the wrong decisions, often due to a mix of bad luck, lack of planning and lack of experience or simply lack of awareness (tired etc). Accidents due to real thrill seeking are fewer.

Doing base jumping without risk is pointless, and there are very few old base jumpers around. But flying a private airplane safely year after year is very possible. It is also possible to seek the thrill in a private airplane, but not without a high degree of risk (which statistically will end very bad sooner or later).

If you are aware of the actual risks involved, and you are not a typical thrill seeking person, flying is not dangerous. This is not a "this will not happen to me" or "I will never be that stupid" kind of thing, it is simply what the statistics really tells us.
 
Mountain Flying

Ron Lee said:
Read the Nall Report. Most accidents are preventable IMO so don't do the things that will get you killed.

Take the AOPA online courses.

Don't run out of gas, fly into weather, mountains, etc and you should be fine.
Click to expand...
Some of us live in the mountains...
 
SvingenB said:
I think this is two very different things. Flying private airplanes is not considered a thrill seeking activity like for instance base jumping or extreme skiing. A base jumper seek the thrill, and is willing to do calculated risk to achieve that adrenaline rush. ......
Click to expand...
I have to respectfully disagree, in part. Painting GA flying risk with one big brush doesn't apply. Some fly for the adrenaline, some for the serenity, some for the pleasure of going from point A to B, etc. Each of these carries different levels of risk from the various "failure modes."

Even though I believe I'm a very competent pilot, the odds of me having a problem due to botched acro or airframe failure are much greater than the fairweather aviator who flies a C-182 from A to B. You can't compare the risk of the two missions so loosely without factoring in the relative enjoyment benefit.

Why do I fly the way I do? For the enjoyment. I would not enjoy flying that C-182 from A to B as much as I do flying my acro and formation. This is what I choose to do while flying, and I manage and accept the risk it brings.

That being said, I keep risk in perspective by reviewing accident details and asking myself if I could be subject to the same scenario.
 
Sam Buchanan said:
That is a remarkable hypothesis, one I hadn't seen stated formally but which is borne out by observation once the theory is explored. The "constant fatality rate" concept goes a long way toward explaining the seemingly irrational behavior of many pilots.

This also causes me to wonder if we will ever substantially change the fatality rate of recreational aviation in spite of our best efforts..............
Click to expand...


SvingenB said:
I think this is two very different things. Flying private airplanes is not considered a thrill seeking activity like for instance base jumping or extreme skiing.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone on this thread has compared flying a small plane to ultra-risk endeavors such as base jumping or extreme skiing.

Accidents with private airplanes happen because the pilot simply was not aware of the actual risk involved, or something odd happened and he took the wrong decisions, often due to a mix of bad luck, lack of planning and lack of experience or simply lack of awareness (tired etc). Accidents due to real thrill seeking are fewer.
Click to expand...

You are being very kind to the pilots who kill themselves (and their passengers) doing stupid things such as buzzing someone on the ground, aerobatics with no training, impromptu formation flight, extreme scud running, etc. I consider these accidents to be due to "thrill seeking". These behaviors do not account for all fatalities, but they result in a regrettably large percentage of lost lives, and it seems that percentage is not decreasing even with the advancement of hardware or public awareness.

If you are aware of the actual risks involved, and you are not a typical thrill seeking person, flying is not dangerous.
Click to expand...

'Dangerous' is a relative term, but the "non-thrill seeker" is not the component of the pilot population we are considering when examining the concept of risk homeostasis.
 
Last edited:
When I have a flight student who appears to have a elevated fear of flight (believe it or not some flight students are terrified of flying), I spend a ground session combing through the fatal NTSB reports. It has a surprisingly calming effect on them. I get them to realize that very seldom to airplanes just crash. Most fatal accidents are the result of pilot error of course. After our little journey through the reports we finish by writing up a detailed set of "personal minimums". I then get them to commit never to violate them. I keep a set of personal minimums, not ashamed to say there are flights I refuse because I am uncomfortable with the risks.

Our hobby is dangerous, so are many of the things that make life interesting. We're all going to die, yeah 100% fatality rate. How's that for a sobering statistic. There's a French proverb that says, "a clean conscience is softer then a fresh pillow". I have peace. Breaks my heart to hear of good pilots leaving their loved ones prematurely. God bless them, but I am not deterred.
 
In my mind at least,

Most airplanes don't crash. Some do.
Most crashes could be easily prevented. Some can't.
Keep gas in your plane and make good decisions your chances are pretty good.

My wife is a nurse and somehow has had the courage to work in the Pediatric Oncology clinic over the years. Unfortunately every year 1 or 2 kids in her clinic don't make it.

Last week a 39 year old cousin died of Leukemia.

So many healthy people talk about things they're going to do and most never do them. Out of respect for the many people that never get the opportunity, pursue your dreams and live your life to the fullest.
 
Last edited:
Hi Phil,

I don't have much of value to add other than I know first hand where you're coming from. In my business/hobby, I've learned that I can just about count on 5-6 of these per year, and I no longer have enough fingers/toes left to count them on. This year us starting out the same...last year too. Some friends I know very well, others not so much and some are just acquaintances but it's still difficult none the less. Nothing worse than talking to someone and hours later finding out they're gone. The frustrating thing is that often times they are better pilots than me with better airplanes than mine, and it weighs heavily sometimes. It's even worse to see an accident happen and be the first one there....not fun either.

Last year after a particularly disturbing loss I spoke candidly with Doug Rozendaal about this very feeling you describe. He's been through this more times than me (not that all of us keep a running tally), so I had to ask him how one deals with it after it happens over and over and over again.

I suggest if you haven't had the opportunity, do a search of these forums for posts by him. He's managed to sum it up rather expertly and in words even an idiot like me can understand. Better yet, if you get a chance to see his safety presentation person, it'll REALLY help put things in perspective. I appreciate the fact that I can learn from those who go before me with such experiences, so again...do some searching and you'll find some rather informative posts on the subject (and related subjects).

Anyway, again I don't have much to add other than I feel for you. Also, no matter how you slice it flying small single engine piston driven sport airplanes if dangerous no matter how you slice it - plain and simple. As others have said, "dangerous" is relative, but as it relates to fatalities it's dangerous.

Best Regards,
Stein
 
Stein,

Thank you for your kind words.

I have read this thread and I see a recurring theme here that is in nearly all pilot discussions of accidents.... Two points.

First point. We all say we read accidents because "We want to learn from other's mistakes" Right? Well the FAA definition of learning is a change of behavior. So unless reading the report causes us to change our behavior, we have learned nothing, and it's a waste our time.....

Secondly, the real reason why many Pilots read accident reports is to let themselves off the hook. There is lots of that going on in this thread. Call it denial, or rationalization, it doesn't matter what you call it, pilots are masters of this skill.....

If you read the accident report and ask yourself this simple question, "Did the pilot believe that they were capable of doing what ever they did that killed them?" Of course, otherwise it would not be an accident, it would be suicide.

Further, in most cases, the pilot that got killed had done the same thing many times successfully, but something else cropped up, added an unforseen link to the accident chain, and they got caught.

Then ask yourself, "Have I ever done something that was fairly high risk because I knew that I could do it?" Or, "I've done it several times and I can handle it."

The better question is, "If the dead pilot was wrong, could I be wrong someday too?"

Instead of reading accident reports to learn why something could not happen to "me", read them to prove that it could it happen to "me."

Do it that way and we will be much more likely to change our behavior......

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
 
What if?

What if you could set up a plane/pilot profile in the flight planning system that you use? and it would spit out the odds (1:X0000)that you will NOT complete this flight alive?

Would a number change the way you conduct your flying business?:confused:
 
Last edited:
Sam Buchanan said:
I don't think anyone on this thread has compared flying a small plane to ultra-risk endeavors such as base jumping or extreme skiing.
Click to expand...
It was referred to the post by "gravitysucks" who studied skydiving and risk taking. The idea was that safer skydiving equipment only resulted in higher risk taking by the divers.

This is understandable because pushing the boundaries by doing new tricks (due to better equipment) will increase the risk and the thrill again. Better equipment opens new possibilities that nullify increased safety. Since the thrill is such a major factor, it is meaningless talking about a "safe" way of doing extreme sport. Calculated, yes but not safe.

With private airplanes this is totally different. The thrill (adrenaline rush) does not need to be a major factor, and in most cases it isn't. It doesn't even need to be a factor at all because there are lots of other things to do (a perfect landing, optimal engine management and so on, even a perfect loop). What I mean is that it is perfectly possible to fly and have fun without taking risks that makes it dangerous. It is all up to us, and the only requirement is to be aware of the risks and act accordingly. On the other hand, it is also possible to do really high risk stuff, like flying across the Atlantic ocean in a single engine airplane. And it is possible to ignore risk awareness altogether and fly like a lunatic.
 
B25Flyer said:
The better question is, "If the dead pilot was wrong, could I be wrong someday too?"

Instead of reading accident reports to learn why something could not happen to "me", read them to prove that it could it happen to "me."

Do it that way and we will be much more likely to change our behavior......

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
Click to expand...

Doug...absolutely the best way to say it.
 
Then ask yourself, "Have I ever done something that was fairly high risk because I knew that I could do it?" Or, "I've done it several times and I can handle it."
The better question is, "If the dead pilot was wrong, could I be wrong someday too?"
Instead of reading accident reports to learn why something could not happen to "me", read them to prove that it could it happen to "me."
Do it that way and we will be much more likely to change our behavior......
Click to expand...

I don't think so. :)

Changing a mature adults risk perception doesn't happen overnight, as a result of reading a few pop psych questions. Lets divide up the population of pilots into sober rationalists and non-sober free spirits, at the mean of the bell curve. Don't you think that pilots two sigma to the right are going to answer those self evaluation questions the same as a pilot two sigma to the left? :rolleyes:

I think psychology can have a great deal to say about a pilot, if evaluated by a trained professional to some fixed standard. Self-evaluations, ehh, not so much. Even then, the occasional Lisa Nowak (another NASA reference, I assume she was professionally evaluated at some point) slips through. And who knows if her particular kind of "loose screw" would have ever shown up on a mission?

Perhaps an objective standard that might be more helpful would be to ask yourself: "How many safety articles have I read and approved of this month"? If it's not greater than one you don't go flying until you fix the problem. But again, it's a self-eval, and only as good as honesty of the evaluator. How many pilots even pencil whip an IMSAFE test before they go flying, much less fill out something as formal as faa safety's PAEDU Risk Assessment Methodology form?

I know you care a great deal about safety, Doug, and I do as well. But if we want to lower the accident rate by "correcting" pilots innate risk perceptions, my guess is we are going to have to lobby the FAA to get psych profiles done by the AME. Then we will have pilots in the gray area failing their medical due to nebulous, poorly repeatable tests. That should be fun. ;)

Of course, I am a pessimist where humans are concerned. So I read with appreciation this months AOPA Pilot safety article that says pessimists are safer pilots. :D
 
SvingenB said:
It was referred to the post by "gravitysucks" who studied skydiving and risk taking. The idea was that safer skydiving equipment only resulted in higher risk taking by the divers.

This is understandable because pushing the boundaries by doing new tricks (due to better equipment) will increase the risk and the thrill again. Better equipment opens new possibilities that nullify increased safety. Since the thrill is such a major factor, it is meaningless talking about a "safe" way of doing extreme sport. Calculated, yes but not safe.

With private airplanes this is totally different. The thrill (adrenaline rush) does not need to be a major factor, and in most cases it isn't. It doesn't even need to be a factor at all because there are lots of other things to do (a perfect landing, optimal engine management and so on, even a perfect loop). What I mean is that it is perfectly possible to fly and have fun without taking risks that makes it dangerous. It is all up to us, and the only requirement is to be aware of the risks and act accordingly. On the other hand, it is also possible to do really high risk stuff, like flying across the Atlantic ocean in a single engine airplane. And it is possible to ignore risk awareness altogether and fly like a lunatic.
Click to expand...

Flying single engine airplanes (piston or otherwise) is by any objective standard of measurement a high risk activity. Let's be careful not to miss the forest for the trees here. Yes, there are activities that a pilot may choose to engage in that increase the risk (to really get the adrenaline pumping), such as aerobatics, formation flying, etc., but the inherent risks associated with just getting in the plane to go flying remain. To me, this is a good thing. Flying is one of the great adventures of our time, and one that we have access to with relative ($$?) ease. Risk and adventure are immutably linked and proportionate to each other, so we can't reduce one without sacrificing the other...(I suspect this is what contributes to "risk homeostasis" described in an earlier post).

That said, it is unwise to convince ourselves that we really aren't taking meaningful risks by flying unless we choose to engange in "hair rasing" activities. The adverse consequences that fall out of such thinking are obvious and unappealing, so let's keep it real! :)

Every individual performs their own risk/reward calculus when choosing their activities. Such choices are the essence and privilege of free human beings, and as such I celebrate and embrace this freedom!
 
Last edited:
WhiskeyMike said:
Every individual performs their own risk/reward calculus when choosing their activities. Such choices are the essence and priviledge of free human beings, and as such I celebrate and embrace this freedom!
Click to expand...

Well said!!
And I will fight to maintain this freedom.
 
WhiskeyMike said:
Every individual performs their own risk/reward calculus when choosing their activities.
Click to expand...
Of course. My point was simply that in extreme sports, the risk (thrill) is the reward itself. This is not usually the case for most of us flying private airplanes.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyMike
Every individual performs their own risk/reward calculus when choosing their activities. Such choices are the essence and priviledge of free human beings, and as such I celebrate and embrace this freedom!

Quote: plehrke
Well said!!
And I will fight to maintain this freedom.


I have no quarrel with the folks who ponder the risk and chose to accept it...
But there are too many who blast off without a worry in the world, these are the ones who read the accident reports and say, "what an idiot," while they are doing exactly the same things regularly......

These are the folks who will tell you that the most dangerous part about flying is the drive to the airport.... That is a fairy tale, and while it is alright to lie to your spouse or your friends about that, don't lie to yourself....

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
 
A lot of interesting observations on this thread. This whole experience with the crash last week and this follow-up discussion (as well as other discussions I have had) have started to shift the way I'm thinking about flying, in a way that's hard to describe. One of the more concrete manifestations of this is that I've pretty-much settled-on getting a local pilot with a lot more experience than me to fly the first 5 hours on my plane.
But I am happy to say that my enthusiasm is returning, and I got out to the shop yesterday to do the first real work (nosegear intersection fairing layup) that I've done since the accident.
My plan is to move to the airport for final assembly in 4 weeks!
 
prkaye said:
A lot of interesting observations on this thread. This whole experience with the crash last week and this follow-up discussion (as well as other discussions I have had) have started to shift the way I'm thinking about flying, in a way that's hard to describe. One of the more concrete manifestations of this is that I've pretty-much settled-on getting a local pilot with a lot more experience than me to fly the first 5 hours on my plane.
But I am happy to say that my enthusiasm is returning, and I got out to the shop yesterday to do the first real work (nosegear intersection fairing layup) that I've done since the accident.
My plan is to move to the airport for final assembly in 4 weeks!
Click to expand...

Phil, I appreciate your revised outlook on flying (and life in general) and consider it as part of your aviation "maturation".

Many of us have been in your position and have altered our approach to flying as the Hobbs meter rolls. I shutter to recall how naive in some respects I was in my early aviation pursuits. But as the years pile up I get increasingly more conservative with my personal limits. I've come to accept that there are many aspects of flight that are either beyond human capabilities or human control regardless of the skill level of the pilot. We are involved in a risky hobby, and we must individually decide how to approach the risks.

Some have said we don't get older, just wiser. ;)

Best wishes for a speedy completion of your project and a most enjoyable conclusion of your Phase One from hour six onward! :)
 
Phil,

You are definitely getting there. I've been flying since 1981 and have never had an emergency that was life threatening. Like Sam, as I age, I get more and more careful with my decisions and planning. I have several quotes that I've written on white paper with a broad black marker that I've taped to the walls of my hangar so I can read them whenever I'm in there. All of them were made by Sam Buchannan. This is not to be sappy toward Sam; it just seems that he is spot on with what I believe and have experienced during my flying career. The quotes keep flying in perspective for me. Everything you do involves some level of risk, even walking to the bathroom in the middle of the night. Do things that you enjoy. If flying worries you, don't do it. I love it, but I do have reservations when I read about accidents like we've seen in the past three months. I would like to know what happened the short few minutes before the crash. They just don't make sense to me. I feel your pain.
 
One thing I take away from accident reports I have read is to always check my assumptions, especially the one that comes as a seductive whisper: "It has never happened to me before, therefore it never will". It's really easy to let that particular assumption guide oneself into increasingly risky behavior - without even knowing the magnitude of the risk. Doing something risky once, and getting away with it, doesn't make the behavior less risky. At some point the odds catch up with you.

It's not limited to flying, for example I've seen it with people using power tools.
But questioning that assumption will almost certainly lead to a change of behavior - if undertaken honestly.

I believe Hunter S. Thompson once said (and I paraphrase) "If you ride a motorcycle long enough, it will kill you. Your job, therefore, is to delay that day until you die of old age first."

Seems pretty appropriate for flying, too.

Mark Olson N407V RV-7A 600 hours
N16XV F1 Rocket Evo - under construction
 
B25Flyer said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyMike
Every individual performs their own risk/reward calculus when choosing their activities. Such choices are the essence and priviledge of free human beings, and as such I celebrate and embrace this freedom!

Quote: plehrke
Well said!!
And I will fight to maintain this freedom.


I have no quarrel with the folks who ponder the risk and chose to accept it...
But there are too many who blast off without a worry in the world, these are the ones who read the accident reports and say, "what an idiot," while they are doing exactly the same things regularly......

These are the folks who will tell you that the most dangerous part about flying is the drive to the airport.... That is a fairy tale, and while it is alright to lie to your spouse or your friends about that, don't lie to yourself....
Click to expand...

Doug,

I speak strongly about upholding our freedoms because they are under constant attack by those who seek to restrict them using the thinly veiled premise of protecting us from ourselves. But clearly, with the flying freedoms we enjoy come responsibilities, and certainly among them is the responsibility to make prudent and wise decisions. Your comments are spot-on and speak well to the lack of awareness and/or candor on the part of some to honestly assess (and then accept) the risks that they choose to take.

One would normally expect a licensed pilot, knowing they stand to pay the ultimate price for screwing up, would be well motivated to give appropriate attention to such matters as risk mitigation, training, adequate preparation and so on. In cases where this doesn't happen I think you have to recognize what you're dealing with...plain old fashion denial (i.e, its the other guy's problem, not mine).

Over the years I have seen a number of people with varying degrees of denial participate in high risk activities. This mix is a real witch's brew where some are fortunate to avoid serious injury or death...but many others are not. Denial (or "cognitive dissonance") can be a fairly deep psychological condition and therefore much more difficult to effectuate a change with conventional training and education.

I applaud your posts, articles and presentations designed to increase safety and risk awareness. I'm sure that your words and actions have caused people to wake up and smell the coffee, and thereby avoid hurting themselves or others. In that way, you have made a real difference and I encourage you to keep at it! I just wish I was more optimistic about the percentage of the "in-denial" audience that can be reached.
 
Last edited:
molson309 said:
I believe Hunter S. Thompson once said (and I paraphrase) "If you ride a motorcycle long enough, it will kill you. Your job, therefore, is to delay that day until you die of old age first."

Seems pretty appropriate for flying, too
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is the most constructive view. Could the same be said of commercial flight? To say that GA is so risky that it's simply a matter of time before it kills you sounds like surrender to me. I'd prefer to think of my flying one flight at a time. Why should any one flight be more dangerous than any single flight on an airliner? Is it the single engine? Buy/build a good one and monitor it. The lack of strict procedures? Make your own and stick to em. Worried about midairs? Get flight following and gadgetry.

I'm not trying to downplay the risks, but I sincerely believe that MY flying can be as safe as I make it.
 
WhiskeyMike said:
Doug,

I speak strongly about upholding our freedoms because they are under constant attack by those who seek to restrict them using the thinly veiled premise of protecting us from ourselves. But clearly, with the flying freedoms we enjoy come responsibilities, and certainly among them is the responsibility to make prudent and wise decisions. Your comments are spot-on and speak well to the lack of awareness and/or candor on the part of some to honestly assess (and then accept) the risks that they choose to take.

One would normally expect a licensed pilot, knowing they stand to pay the ultimate price for screwing up, would be well motivated to give appropriate attention to such matters as risk mitigation, training, adequate preparation and so on. In cases where this doesn't happen I think you have to recognize what you're dealing with...plain old fashion denial (i.e, its the other guy's problem, not mine).

Over the years I have seen a number of people with varying degrees of denial participate in high risk activities. This mix is a real witch's brew where some are fortunate to avoid serious injury or death...but many others are not. Denial (or "cognitive dissonance") can be a fairly deep psychological condition and therefore much more difficult to effectuate a change with conventional training and education.

I applaud your posts, articles and presentations designed to increase safety and risk awareness. I'm sure that your words and actions have caused people to wake up and smell the coffee, and thereby avoid hurting themselves or others. In that way, you have made a real difference and I encourage you to keep at it! I just wish I was more optimistic about the percentage of the "in-denial" audience that can be reached.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind words, and I share your concern about the constant attack on our Liberty under the guise of security....

I do believe that all of us can grow up... I would like to say that I have, but that would be a lie.... But I think I am getting better.... If that is true, then I am living proof that even the worst offenders can reform....

I participate in a very high risk corner of our business and I have lost lots of friends... But the rewards from my aviation activities have been worth the risks... No doubt... My challenge is to acknowledge them and drive them out when ever I can.....

One tool I use is to beat the drum in forums like this, it holds me accountable to others....

Tailwinds,

Doug Rozendaal
 
szicree said:
I'm not sure this is the most constructive view. Could the same be said of commercial flight? To say that GA is so risky that it's simply a matter of time before it kills you sounds like surrender to me. I'd prefer to think of my flying one flight at a time. Why should any one flight be more dangerous than any single flight on an airliner? Is it the single engine? Buy/build a good one and monitor it. The lack of strict procedures? Make your own and stick to em. Worried about midairs? Get flight following and gadgetry.

I'm not trying to downplay the risks, but I sincerely believe that MY flying can be as safe as I make it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Every flight is as safe as WE make it. Most engine related accidents are due to lack of fuel for instance, not due to lack of a second engine. Accidents are like the science of reliability. By looking at the reports and apply the ancient 80/20 rule of reliability and maintenance, you have already improved your reliability (chance of not being involved in a fatal accident) roughly by a factor of 5. That is: Find and improve the 20% of factors that are responsible for 80% of accidents. Being sure that you have enough fuel before EVERY flight is such a factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top