Very surprised

I have always struggled with visualizing the risk of flying compared to something like driving. Tonight I decided to do some research, and quickly came upon a DOT graphic that helped get almost all of the data.

I made one change and re-graphed it. The change was to convert "Injuries per 100 million miles driven" into "Injuries per 100,000 hours driven", by assuming 60 mph in a car. Then you can compare risk per hour between them.



If you think about it, this is not "what is the safest way to get there", as you generally fly much faster than you drive. This is a "how safe is it to be in one" type of comparison.

In a nutshell, we get the following:

1. Driving is twice as safe in 2013 than in 1990.
2. Flying commercial is 6 times safer in 2013 that in 1990.
3. Flying commercial is the safest way to travel by hour, even more so by mile.
4. Riding in a car is more dangerous that driving.
5. GA is more dangerous that commercial flying by 25 times.
6. GA is more dangerous that driving a truck by 2 times.
7. GA safety is roughly the same in 2016 then in 1990.
8. GA is still safer that driving a car by 4.5 times.

All that being said, please don't get complacent. I like to think that GA is safer because the pilots are more careful that the average driver on the road.

I think Mark Twain is credited with "Lies, damned lies, and statistics!"
Car accident data for "injuries" is dominated by many small accidents with minor injuries. If you look at the same data set but for "fatalities", GA doesn't look very good, compared to driving or commercial flying.

cdeerinck said:

GA is still safer that driving a car by 4.5 times.

Click to expand...

It should be a surprise because this is false.

GA flying is not safer than driving (or riding as a passenger in) a car.
There is a lot a pilot can do to swing the odds much higher than the average GA accident rate but even then it still won't be as safe a car travel.

BobTurner said:

Car accident data for "injuries" is dominated by many small accidents with minor injuries. If you look at the same data set but for "fatalities", GA doesn't look very good, compared to driving or commercial flying.

Click to expand...

Correct, my post above is for injuries. If you look at fatalities it is:
- GA is 5.6 times more dangerous based on a per mile basis
- GA is 21 times more dangerous based on a per hour basis

rvbuilder2002 said:

It should be a surprise because this is false.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it is fair to call my post false, when you changed the definition of what constitutes "danger". I for one would not define an injury as "safe".

Never the less, those are the numbers. Draw what ever conclusions you choose to.

It's been said that 91% of statistics are false.

Yeah. Can't be that dangerous. At least 75% of pilots are above average.

Time to waste?

Hmmmm,

There seems to be a fundamental flaw in your calculations from the outset, an average of 60mph in a car. Spend a few weeks checking your average speed it will be much lower than this. Even on long motorway journeys when you can get to 80 ish, by the time you get to town the average is pushed right down. The figure should be about 30 mph.

Having said all that, if you have time to waste doing this kind of thing can I ask you pop round my house and help me with some riveting! At the end you can come and fly in the aeroplane. How safe it will be will depend on a number of factors, just like the car journey to the airfield.

Thanks for putting a smile on my face and have a great day!

Even tougher.....

Thees nubmers are evne moer prolbematic whne yuo cosnider taht 5 out fo 3 piltos aer dyslesic!!!

GA

Flawed data. GA IS commercial flying in many cases. Some of it VERY high risk: Ag work, pipeline and powerline patrol. Air Ambulance is mostly GA and has a pretty dismal record.
I do a lot of long distance driving in a car. I feel much safer in a VFR homebuilt airplane but cannot handle the unavoidable weather delays so I drive most of the time.
I sincerely believe that the most dangerous thing I have ever done is mixing with the loon semi drivers at 80 m/h on the interstate. This is not to categorize, some of them are safe and professional, far too many are not.
If you carefully study the final accident reports the pattern has not changed that much in 50 years. Scud running in low IMC conditions. Stall/spin etc etc.
Regarding EAB, if you set aside the ultralights, the known accident prone designs which include the ultralights, oddball one off airplanes, gyrocopters and Lancairs the record looks MUCH better. Nothing against the Lancair, I would own a Legacy if I was rich. They are just far too much airplane for a lot of pilots.
Read the accident report on a Midget Mustang II flown by a commercial pilot and maybe you will understand what I am talking about. Kathrynsreport.com/todays reports.
For those who have not done so, if you place any value on your life and your passengers, get some spin training and upset training with a REALLY GOOD instructor

I did a similar analysis many years ago. I concluded that GA flying and Motorcycle riding are about the same. Driving in a car is several factors safer - I was only looking at fatalities.

jrs14855 said:

If you carefully study the final accident reports the pattern has not changed that much in 50 years. Scud running in low IMC conditions. Stall/spin etc etc.

Click to expand...

That may be true for GA generally but it is definitely not true for amateur-built aircraft. And that's the subset in which we operate. The single largest cause of aircraft accidents in the amateur-built category (30%) is engine failure. In fact the amateur-built category has twice as many accidents resulting from engine failure than certificated aircraft. Many builders struggle to instal a safe FWF set-up. And later when they are flying they often struggle to maintain their FWF properly.

Amateur-built aircraft have an accident rate three times higher than comparable factory-built aircraft conducting similar flight operations.

And even more worrying.....the fatal and serious injury rate is more than five times higher in amateur-built aircraft than similar factory-built aircraft.

When I hear pilots talking about the drive to the airport being the most dangerous part of the flight I have to laugh. In particular, flying in the Experimental category is hugely more statistically dangerous than driving.

Infidel said:

It's been said that 91% of statistics are false.

Click to expand...

Fake news / alternative facts...

Engine failure doesn't kill pilots.

Failing to make allowances for engine failure (safe off-field landing site within glide distance? Inability to maintain safe flying speed whilst panicking? Lax FWF maintenance practices?) kills pilots.

A risk mitigation approach means being aware of risks, and taking steps to manage them.

If you know that engine failure in E/AB is a risk: Get some professional help with maintaining FWF? Plan your flights so you have safe landing options? Practice forced-landings so you're current and the procedures run on rails? Have a think, take some action. You might not eliminate all the risk, but you can probably decide to attack most of it.

Attack the other accident categories your local regulator publishes breakdowns for too.

For example:

Crashing into buildings, power lines, etc is a GA risk. But you don't need to be down at powerline height or building height, the people who have those accidents CHOOSE to be there. So... don't choose it for yourself. Don't fly beatups. Don't fly low along rivers unless you KNOW there aren't any wires. Operate under procedures which include maintaining runway heading at Vy 'til 500' AGL. Plan a proper arrival pattern which keeps you away from obstacles. You don't hear of airliners having accidents because they're doing low passes over their friend's house, or doing aileron rolls on climbout. You shouldn't either. Exclude yourself from that risk category, make it impossible for you to contribute a tally to that statistic.

VFR into IMC? Equip your aircraft for survival, and get IFR training. Even if you don't get the rating, get enough experience so that you know the risks, know how to maintain control of the aircraft, know how to call for help, know how to turn back into clear air without spiral-diving into the deck. Make sure you have an attitude indicator and a turn coordinator and you know how to use them. Consider an autopilot with its own built-in gyro so you don't have to trust the gyro in your head. Make it impossible for you to contribute a tally to that statistic.

CFIT. Fuel emergencies. Losing control whilst manoeuvring. Losing control on the ground. What actions can you take to minimize the threats to your safety from each category?

Think of each risk factor, and think of what you can do to your operation or your airplane to mitigate it. Extinguish risk where possible, manage it otherwise so you can quantify the residual risk left over, and can make an educated decision about whether you're comfortable about accepting it.

You might decide that you're going to exclude single-engine IFR, or that you need to install better instrumentation, or that you need extra training, or that you need to improve your maintenance standards, or that you need to assert stronger personal minimums. Great. Make the commitment, do what you need to do, manage the residual risk.

As commenters here have said, GA has an accident rate comparable to motorcycles. But unlike motorcycles, where a rider can be wiped off the road by an 18-wheeler through no fault of his own, in aviation we tend to suffer the consequences of our own decisions.

So make decisions. Don't be passive about it. Make choices about the accident categories you're prepared to expose yourself to, and to what extent. Let all the accidents happen to the people who aren't careful, who haven't thought about it, who do stupid things because their friends are watching. Let those people have the accident hours that show up in the stats, because you're actively managing your own safety, and those things can't happen to you anymore.

- mark

newt said:

Engine failure doesn't kill pilots.

Click to expand...

Maybe technically that's true....it's colliding with the ground after the engine quits that actually kills you. Saying that engine failure doesn't kill pilots is in fact just playing with words.

The reality is that engine failure is the single biggest killer of pilots (and passengers) in the amateur-built category. And the best way to address that problem (and avoid becoming a statistic yourself) is to take whatever practical steps required to minimise the possibility of the engine failing in the first place.

The high engine failure rate in amateur-built aircraft is simply proof that many builders are not up to the task of installing a reliable FWF and many are reluctant to pay for professional assistance. The same goes for maintenance.

pa38112 said:

I did a similar analysis many years ago. I concluded that GA flying and Motorcycle riding are about the same. Driving in a car is several factors safer - I was only looking at fatalities.

Click to expand...

Indeed it is. Most often fatalities don't provide a fair picture as there are more car drivers than GA fliers or motorcycle riders.

As already noted the comparison between the highway and general aviation data is somewhat problematic for a variety reasons. I would further argue that neither the "per mile" or "per hour" approaches adequately represent how RVs are actually flown. While many of us do fly a lot of cross country, I suspect that the majority of RV flights are relatively short, ending at the same airport they departed. Since we know that at least half of all accidents occur during the takeoff or landing phases of flight, its not exactly clear how accident rates calculated per hour or per mile really relate to RV safety.

An alternative, and sobering perspective comes from the history of fatal RV accidents. According to NTSB there have been about 200 of these total, out of about 9600+ RVs reported on the Van's Aircraft hobbs meter. This means that roughly 1 in 50 of flying RVs has been involved in a fatal accident.

Decisions, decisions

Assuming one is a competent stick (eliminating things like stall/spin, loss of control, runway excursions, etc.) it seems to me that the level of safety in GA is determined by the risk management decisions the pilot makes for the flight scenario the pilot is contemplating.

Somewhere I read that it is a good practice to plan to "always have one more thing you can do" and "always leave yourself an out." I try to use this approach wherever possible to reduce risk.

Example: Contemplating a flight over mountainous terrain in a single engine airplane, do I want to fly the route direct or along valleys with roadways. Flying the valleys may take longer but gives me one more thing I can do--try to land on a road--if the engine quits.

I am hoping that through aggressive risk management I am getting the risk of GA flying down to acceptable levels for me and my loved ones.

LeRoy Johnston RV-6A Esperanza 1200 hours

RV7Guy said:

Thees nubmers are evne moer prolbematic whne yuo cosnider taht 5 out fo 3 piltos aer dyslesic!!!

Click to expand...

Yep, but that's KO

Missing Factor

One very important factor has been overlooked….the fun factor. Isn’t it interesting that the amount of fun and enjoyment one gains from each of these is directly proportional to the accident statistics?

Driving a car….. Okay fun on occasion

Driving a large truck….maybe fun the first day or so, after that, not so much.

Commercial air travel…..painful more often than not. The thrill we each enjoyed in the past, largely gone (or maybe that’s just me)

Motorcycles…..good fun, but too many variables out of my control (IMHO)

Certified GA….beats all of the above

EAB GA….. Boom. Nothing compares.

Get out and enjoy life…..right after you read and consider Mark’s (aka: Newt) excellent post above on mitigating risks.

Cheers!

+1..

..for Newt's post above. It's a good strategy, IMO.

It's all in what we DO with our aircraft......

Captain Avgas said:

That may be true for GA generally but it is definitely not true for amateur-built aircraft. And that's the subset in which we operate. The single largest cause of aircraft accidents in the amateur-built category (30%) is engine failure. In fact the amateur-built category has twice as many accidents resulting from engine failure than certificated aircraft. Many builders struggle to instal a safe FWF set-up. And later when they are flying they often struggle to maintain their FWF properly.
Amateur-built aircraft have an accident rate three times higher than comparable factory-built aircraft conducting similar flight operations.
And even more worrying.....the fatal and serious injury rate is more than five times higher in amateur-built aircraft than similar factory-built aircraft.
When I hear pilots talking about the drive to the airport being the most dangerous part of the flight I have to laugh. In particular, flying in the Experimental category is hugely more statistically dangerous than driving.

Click to expand...

While "most" certified general aviation aircraft typically are flown from point A to point B. They don't do aerobatics, fly formation, etc.
Yes, I know there are exceptions to everything, but I'm talking typical operations of amateur-built vs. certified aircraft.

Getting to the engine failure category, most of these are caused by fuel starvation. And many of these are caused by modifications to the fuel systems.

Engine Failure

Engine failure does not kill anyone unless they have the incredibly poor judgement to be taking off on a very short runway with obstacles that preclude any chance of survival if the engine quits.
It is the event following the engine failure that is all too frequently a disaster in EAB, typically stall spin with altitude remaining.
The other issue is that no one has a clue how many have survived an engine failure without even putting a scratch on the airplane. Look at the recent RV engine failure in NM, not in a nice area, not a scratch on the airplane. Or the Cherokee at SNA, landed by the flight instructor on a busy city street with no damage to the airplane.

jrs14855 said:

Engine failure does not kill anyone unless they have the incredibly poor judgement to be taking off on a very short runway with obstacles that preclude any chance of survival if the engine quits.
It is the event following the engine failure that is all too frequently a disaster in EAB, typically stall spin with altitude remaining.
The other issue is that no one has a clue how many have survived an engine failure without even putting a scratch on the airplane. Look at the recent RV engine failure in NM, not in a nice area, not a scratch on the airplane. Or the Cherokee at SNA, landed by the flight instructor on a busy city street with no damage to the airplane.

Click to expand...

Interesting as there are many "saves" that don't get reported. I'm in that category. Titan tornado several years ago. On climb out and 150' AGL..engine quit. Non event other than requiring a strong Crown & Coke afterwards.

Kinda like; do a good job and nobody notices. Do a bad job and you never hear the end of it.

Infidel said:

Interesting as there are many "saves" that don't get reported. I'm in that category. Titan tornado several years ago. On climb out and 150' AGL..engine quit. Non event other than requiring a strong Crown & Coke afterwards.
Kinda like; do a good job and nobody notices. Do a bad job and you never hear the end of it.

Click to expand...

It's called, "No good deed goes unpunished!"