How safe are we?

[aviatoreb]

I disagree. It may be a big sky, but there are plenty of "our fellow man" out there trying to kill us. You can never mitigate all the risk: flying is inherently dangerous.

 

Enough all this scary stuff.  I'm going skydiving and free diving!

 

Then I'm going to eat a steak, gain some weight, smoke a cigar, and clean my gun.

 

Maybe I'm going to go hang out under a coconut tree and sunbathe.

[Bennett]

Enough all this scary stuff.  I'm going skydiving and free diving!

 

Then I'm going to eat a steak, gain some weight, smoke a cigar, and clean my gun.

 

Maybe I'm going to go hang out under a coconut tree and sunbath.

Watch out for sunburn under that coconut tree - dangerous for skin cancer, and while you are at it, try free climbing - something I tried for a while when the consequences didn't seam to matter.  At 35 years of flying, I am getting too close to your 50 year analysis.  Time to go back to racing cars, or racing sailboats offshore -oops, I already do that. 

[N33GG]

Well guys and gals, seeing as I am well past 40 years of flying and quickly approaching the dreaded and deadly 50 year mark, perhaps I will take one for the team, and thereby reduce your collective statistical risk. If so, it has all been well worth the risk, and no regrets!

Just for the record...

[mikesalman]

I'm so depressed now, I want to sell my Mooney

[aviatoreb]

Well guys and gals, seeing as I am well past 40 years of flying and quickly approaching the dreaded and deadly 50 year mark, perhaps I will take one for the team, and thereby reduce your collective statistical risk. If so, it has all been well worth the risk, and no regrets!

Just for the record...

 

You got 10 more years before the magic 50.  :-)

 

 

Watch out for sunburn under that coconut tree - dangerous for skin cancer, and while you are at it, try free climbing - something I tried for a while when the consequences didn't seam to matter.  At 35 years of flying, I am getting too close to your 50 year analysis.  Time to go back to racing cars, or racing sailboats offshore -oops, I already do that. 

 

You should take up free diving.  Much more impressive.

 

Hiding in the crummy statistics I was having fun with...is the independently distributed assumption (iid) - which is garbage.  In all likelihood the longer you survived already, then the less likely that you were one of the yahoos who brought that bulk statistic down.  By 35, or 40, or 50 years, you are probably one of the keepers and very unlikely to be of the riskier behavior sorts - statistical selection argument.  Survival of the fittest (survival of the wisest in this case - no old bold pilots right).

[aviatoreb]

I'm so depressed now, I want to sell my Mooney

 

Can I have it?

 

Just kidding - but don't sell the Mooney!  - and one more detail I didn't mention - if the iid assumption I was using were true, then the 50 years to 50% argument is correct, that is simply stated as truth on year 1 - but if you made it 49 years that doesn't mean that there is a 50% mortality rate on that last year.  It starts afresh each year. You have 0.15% for year 49-50 (but better since you surely have a better p than in my assumption from the general population - you surely are not general population material if you made it this far)!.

[Hank]

Can I have it?

 

Just kidding - but don't sell the Mooney!  - and one more detail I didn't mention - if the iid assumption I was using were true, then the 50 years to 50% argument is correct, that is simply stated as truth on year 1 - but if you made it 49 years that doesn't mean that there is a 50% mortality rate on that last year.  It starts afresh each year. You have 0.15% for year 49-50 (but better since you surely have a better p than in my assumption from the general population - you surely are not general population material if you made it this far)!.

 

Thanks for bringing that part up. Saved me the trouble of mentioning it myself, and it carries more weight coming from a mathematician than from a simple engineer who eased through Statistics in grad school based mostly on working knowledge obtained on the job than anything discussed in class . . .

[PMcClure]

One funny thing I have noticed about risk; Young people seem to take more where as older folks seem to be more conservative. However, this is completely at odds with reality. A youngster has more to risk. More income, more time and more future experiences. Where as an 80 year old arguably has much less at stake and should take more risks since the risk vs reward equation is more in his favor. 

[fluffysheap]

"The pilot's inadequate preflight inspection..."
"The pilot's improper flight planning..."
"The pilot's improper fuel management..."
"The (often student) pilot's failure to maintain directional control on landing"

"The pilot's inappropriate decision to <do something really stupid>"

 

If you removed all of the NTSB reports where the probable cause is one of those, there wouldn't be many accidents left.  Still not as safe as airlines, but probably safer than cars.

 

One thing that's often overlooked in statistics is the general existence of Alaska.  Alaska flying has a lot of accidents, and they're frequently fatal.  Meanwhile, Alaska's population is so low that it can't contribute meaningfully to the risk of car accidents, even if Alaska driving is actually less safe than average.  I'm not sure what percentage of accidents or fatalities are Alaska-related - maybe 10%? - but it's enough to move the needle, for sure.

 

Perversely, the reason many people feel safer in cars is because of the perception of being more in control, but in reality the majority of aircraft accidents are self-inflicted.  Meanwhile, many car accidents are the result of poor driving by somebody else, or genuine accidents (in the sense of fluke occurrences) where the driver has no significant ability to prevent the accident.

 

One funny thing I have noticed about risk; Young people seem to take more where as older folks seem to be more conservative. However, this is completely at odds with reality. A youngster has more to risk. More income, more time and more future experiences. Where as an 80 year old arguably has much less at stake and should take more risks since the risk vs reward equation is more in his favor. 

 

Younger people have more to lose, but also more to gain.  A business risk earns money that they have more time to spend, a Jackass stunt impresses girls that an 80 year old wouldn't be able to.  They're also more likely to survive their risk-taking, and more likely to be strong enough to take the risks in the first place.  Perhaps the difference isn't as significant in an airplane, but evolution wasn't planning for that.

 

Some other thoughts...

Experimental aircraft have their own set of risks.  Experimentals have a much higher accident rate due to buzzing and improper aerobatics - I believe due to the pride taken by the builder/pilot who then goes and does something dumb to show off.  That's separate from the fact that most aerobatics in general are flown by experimentals.  Then there are the various accidents caused by construction problems.  Most, although of course not all, of these turn up in the first few flights.  Many of them result in power failures that don't even show up in the accident reports because they usually happen in the pattern, and often while the plane is being flown by a qualified test pilot, and therefore just turn into a regular dead-stick on-airport landing.  Then there are accidents caused by things that are supposed to be improvements, but aren't, like John Denver's fuel selector.  Finally there are accidents caused by pilots actually experimenting, which are the only ones that "should" happen.

 

The only pilot I personally knew who was killed in an accident was killed in an experimental by a power loss on what amounted to the plane's second flight; but he also, in my opinion, should have been able to safely land regardless, as he was flying a biplane over a wheat field.  Even in experimentals, you usually need bad luck and a mistake.

 

But even within the experimental category, there are variations.  Lancairs have a lot of stall/spins.  RVs tend to have landing follies.  The canard family has fuel contamination and different kinds of landing problems.  So while the RVs have plenty of accidents, the Lancairs have many more fatal accidents.  Overall, if you disregard the "phase 1" (initial 50 hours) accidents, experimentals are only slightly less safe than factory-built GA.

 

I can't figure out why night IFR is more dangerous than day IFR, although the statistics say it is.  I actually prefer to fly at night, as there's less traffic (and that traffic is easier to see), controllers are less harried, and the weather is better (less turbulence, and the thunderstorms have often died down).  VFR- sure, you might fly into terrain or clouds you couldn't see, or land on some debris on the runway.  But IFR should pretty much take care of all that.  There's still some risk of a runway problem, but less, because IFR-capable airports are usually better maintained, and terrain and IMC should be a nonissue.  Even most of the birds have gone to sleep, although I still managed to almost hit a bird at night once.  I wonder how many of these increased accidents are a result of misjudging the runway height due to lack of night-flying proficiency?  Even if it's a lot, those usually shouldn't be fatal.

 

I'm in that 500-1000 hour zone where accident rates increase.  That I do understand.  It's a zone where you feel like you know what's coming and can handle anything and so get complacent, but of course you can't handle anything.  I've had probably more in-flight problems than the average 500 hour pilot.  Something stupid happens on almost every flight.  Sometimes it's a major problem, sometimes it's harmless, but there's usually something.  I don't feel lucky enough to create my own problems too, I have enough as it is!

[chrisk]

I can't figure out why night IFR is more dangerous than day IFR, although the statistics say it is.  I actually prefer to fly at night, as there's less traffic (and that traffic is easier to see), controllers are less harried, and the weather is better (less turbulence, and the thunderstorms have often died down).  VFR- sure, you might fly into terrain or clouds you couldn't see, or land on some debris on the runway.  But IFR should pretty much take care of all that.  There's still some risk of a runway problem, but less, because IFR-capable airports are usually better maintained, and terrain and IMC should be a nonissue.  Even most of the birds have gone to sleep, although I still managed to almost hit a bird at night once.  I wonder how many of these increased accidents are a result of misjudging the runway height due to lack of night-flying proficiency?  Even if it's a lot, those usually shouldn't be fatal.

 

I suspect there are two factors with night IFR (and of course I say this without looking up statistics).  1)  I suspect there are a number of CFIT accidents that are due to a visual approach, instead of flying a full instrument approach.  and 2)   Off field landing seem like a much greater challenge at night.   --Maybe comparable to an off field landing in dense fog.  That big black spot might be a field, forest, lake, or canyon.

[PMcClure]

I think Fluffysheep is on to something. Living life is deadly. Part of the problem in GA is that we put too much emphasis on the risk and not enough on the reward. Single Engine, Twin, Turbo, Turbine, IFR/VFR, Aerobatic, etc... are all things people do and live. All we can do is our best to understand the risk and make plans to mitigate it. But if you continue the argument of what is safest to its logical conclusion, we should all stay home. 

[Marauder]

But if you continue the argument of what is safest to its logical conclusion, we should all stay home.

Home is not safe either! People routinely die in home accidents ranging from slipping in bath tubs to falling off of their roofs. Safest place is an asylum with padded walls. A place most of us should be anyways -- who else spends this kind of money on old airplanes?!

Sent using Tapatalk

[Hank]

Who ever said life is supposed to be safe, with zero risk? If you are breathing and have a pulse, you are at risk of either one stopping and you are at risk of both of them stopping. Inactivity creates additional health risks. Stay in bed, your muscles will atrophy, digestion will suffer, then come bedsores and joints that work poorly.

 

Me, I exercise myself pulling and pushing an airplane in and out of its hangar, and I practice unique yoga positions crawling in and out of the cockpit, using the seat furthest from the door, to say nothing of removing and reinstalling the belly and underwing inspection panels every year. All we can hope to do is manage our risk, hold it down to an acceptable level and plan for the things we think might occur. I even pay for insurance against some (many?) risks. But I can't hide from risk, and it won't approach zero until after I am no longer able to think about it.

 

Live your life, manage your risk, get whatever enjoyment you can within the boundaries that you set. I choose to not bungee jump or skydive, but I won't stop you from trying it. Just try not to plummet into my real property or motor vehicles. If you choose to run the risk of entering my home without permission, your risk is higher than you think and not just from the criminal justice system.

[MB65E]

Go FLY!!

...safely