Goodbye, Farewell, Auf Weidersein

[Hank]

The numbers I remember from the Nall report indicate that per hour, flying has approx. 7 times the accident rate of driving, which is comparable to riding a motorcycle. This article apparently refers to miles traveled, which to me would reduce the airplane accident rate not increase it . . . . 

[peevee]

1 minute ago, Hank said:

The numbers I remember from the Nall report indicate that per hour, flying has approx. 7 times the accident rate of driving, which is comparable to riding a motorcycle. This article apparently refers to miles traveled, which to me would reduce the airplane accident rate not increase it . . . . 

Welcome to statistics, where you can bend them any way you want.

[Hank]

Just now, peevee said:

Welcome to statistics, where you can bend them any way you want.

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics."  --Mark Twain

[peevee]

15 minutes ago, Hank said:

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics."  --Mark Twain

I hated that class.

[gitmo234]

3 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Per mile 

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/198/how-dangerous-is-flying-in-a-single-engine-plane

Private aircraft have a fatality rate about 19 times greater than driving. It is also true that a majority of the accidents that occur are pilot error (71%) and could have been prevented. 

There are risks involved when taking to the sky as a private pilot and understanding these risks is part of the continual learning process. The key to safety is performing careful planning, keeping current and proficient, knowing when to cancel flights or turn around and not to exceed your capabilities or the capabilities of your aircraft.

I always like the reactions to numbers. People just see the percentage. 19 times!!!! 19 times more likely of an extremely small number is still a small number. 

Kind of like saying "buying two lottery tickets doubles your chance of winning"

Edited August 23, 2017 by gitmo234

[kortopates]

I always have a giggle at these threads, as logic goes like this:-

1. legal says we cant use our planes as personal transportation because there is a risk we will crash and die while on company business.
2. legal says we can drive though.
3. legal says we can use commerical airlines 

so lets take point 2.
Facts show that driving is thousands times more dangerous than flying in a GA aircraft.  Legal works on facts.  Hmmmmmmmmm hence the giggle.
Andrew

Huge myth to think flying GA is 1000x safer than driving. It's not as safe as driving at all, but more on a par with motorcycle accident rates. Often you hear the big lie that driving to the airport was more dangerous than the (GA) flight. If only it was no more dangerous. Of course commercial airlines have a great safety record but GA is horrible. The company's are exercising very reasonable risk management or should I say their insurance companies are for them.

Some companies will allow GA flights when the pilot is a commercial pilot. But they are really thinking part 135 taxi ops.
But I did just as @gxrpilot when I was in the same situation - trying to stay under the radar. But they often seem to find out when taking a pax. But by the time I left I was too visible to get away with it anymore which really sucked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaV8or]

6 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

I always have a giggle at these threads, as logic goes like this:-

1. legal says we cant use our planes as personal transportation because there is a risk we will crash and die while on company business.
2. legal says we can drive though.
3. legal says we can use commerical airlines 

so lets take point 2.

Facts show that driving is thousands times more dangerous than flying in a GA aircraft.  Legal works on facts.  Hmmmmmmmmm hence the giggle.

Andrew

Maybe in the UK, but here in the US this is no way accurate. Driving your car is much safer than flying GA.

[Bravoman]

14 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Huge myth to think flying GA is 1000x safer than driving. It's not as safe as driving at all, but more on a par with motorcycle accident rates. Often you hear the big lie that driving to the airport was more dangerous than the (GA) flight. If only it was no more dangerous. Of course commercial airlines have a great safety record but GA is horrible. The company's are exercising very reasonable risk management or should I say their insurance companies are for them.

Some companies will allow GA flights when the pilot is a commercial pilot. But they are really thinking part 135 taxi ops.
But I did just as @gxrpilot when I was in the same situation - trying to stay under the radar. But they often seem to find out when taking a pax. But by the time I left I was too visible to get away with it anymore which really sucked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 I was both a math and Econ major in college, and that gives me a pretty good perspective on how statistics can be used to arrive at the results that you want.  That being said, it anecdotally seems hard to believe that any type of aviation is more dangerous than driving. There are some 40,000 people killed on US roads each year, not to mention the several million more injuries of various severities. I may be wrong on this, but I think the number of people killed in aviation accidents is in the hundreds.  If comparing apples to apples based upon hours driven versus flown, I can see it being  close, but not weighted as heavily  as you suggest as against aviation. 

[kmyfm20s]

19 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Huge myth to think flying GA is 1000x safer than driving. It's not as safe as driving at all, but more on a par with motorcycle accident rates. Often you hear the big lie that driving to the airport was more dangerous than the (GA) flight. If only it was no more dangerous. Of course commercial airlines have a great safety record but GA is horrible. The company's are exercising very reasonable risk management or should I say their insurance companies are for them.

Some companies will allow GA flights when the pilot is a commercial pilot. But they are really thinking part 135 taxi ops.
But I did just as @gxrpilot when I was in the same situation - trying to stay under the radar. But they often seem to find out when taking a pax. But by the time I left I was too visible to get away with it anymore which really sucked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with what you say Paul but in GA stastitics is experimental and acrobatic included? That is something I could never figure out.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

Well this stinks. We've lost 3 active members in the past week.

Can't we just ban politics and religion topics and be happy?

Or people could just take a healthy dose of skin thickener with the morning cereal or coffee.

Clarence

[Hank]

13 minutes ago, kmyfm20s said:

I agree with what you say Paul but in GA stastitics is experimental and acrobatic included? That is something I could never figure out.

Yes and yes. The accident statistics include ALL of general aviation, just as the comparison highway analysis includes cars, trucks, buses, taxis and professional drivers 

[takair]

I wonder if there is a way to normalize exposure over a typical "business trip". For example, if I have to drive 4 hours or fly 1 hour to the same destination, then don't I have more exposure driving...even if it might be "safer" per hour? Add additional fatigue, highways, congested roads, etc.  and on a nice day, it feels like flying may be safer than a long drive.  I think there is a cross over point, where weather may increase your exposure and driving may be wiser...perhaps it's a matter of knowing when we should drive vs. fly...at least that is what I try to tell myself.  I have to agree with others, not all flying is created equally....nor is all driving.

[Hank]

Seems to me the driving fatality rate is per 100 million miles, and the aviation rate is per 100,000 or 1,000,000 hours, I forget exactly. So it would be difficult to compare for a given single trip. Which is another reason the lawyers puke on it:  math ain't their strong skill,  but they can all divide jury awards by three . . . . .  

[DaV8or]

2 minutes ago, Bravoman said:

 I was both a math and Econ major in college, and that gives me a pretty good perspective on how statistics can be used to arrive at the results that you want.  That being said, it anecdotally seems hard to believe that any type of aviation is more dangerous than driving. There are some 40,000 people killed on US roads each year, not to mention the several million more injuries of various severities. I may be wrong on this, but I think the number of people killed in aviation accidents is in the hundreds.  If comparing apples to apples based upon hours driven versus flown, I can see it being  close, but not weighted as heavily  as you suggest as against aviation. 

I'll help with a visual. Go to any freeway in America and stand on an overpass. Count the number of cars you see pass beneath you in an hour. Then go to any airport in America and count the number of uniquely registered planes either taking off, or landing in an hour. More cars = more deaths. Less planes = less deaths. All of the statistical data on rate of GA fatalities is always based on miles traveled and then compared to automotive based on miles traveled and never on just the raw totals. 

[Bravoman]

6 hours ago, Hank said:

Seems to me the driving fatality rate is per 100 million miles, and the aviation rate is per 100,000 or 1,000,000 hours, I forget exactly. So it would be difficult to compare for a given single trip. Which is another reason the lawyers puke on it:  math ain't their strong skill,  but they can all divide jury awards by three . . . . .  

Actually, the fee is 40% of any jury award, so our math is better than you think!

[gitmo234]

On the legal side, the other amazing thing is how private businesses are somehow more conservative than the federal government in this regard. I have a permit allowing me to get prior approval and land on most any military post in the US. I fly GA for official travel every time it’s cost beneficial. 

[mike_elliott]

16 minutes ago, gitmo234 said:

I fly GA for official travel every time it’s cost beneficial.

Wow you must be an 0-9 or higher

 

[gitmo234]

GS-15 full time and O3 part time. It’s a no brainer. Drive 4+ hours for a meeting, get paid mileage, per die, for 2 days, hotel, and lose 2 days labor or fly 90 minutes, land on post, have someone pick me up, attend the meeting, fly home, no overtime, one day per dime, no hotel, and no lost time. Back at work the next day

[kortopates]

55 minutes ago, ABCDEF said:

Keep in mind 70% plus of deaths in GA are self induced by making stupid decisions. Running out of gas, flying IMC when not equipped, flying into icing, flying overweight, flying into storms, not checking DA, being too cheap for proper maintaince....... on and on....

Remove the moron factor and flying is definitely safer then rolling down the road with drunks and texters. 

 

 

But the only way to remove the moron factor is to say you'll never make a dumb mistake. But its well proven that very very smart people do make dumb mistakes at times. None of us are infallible. Thus our best defense is to admit we are fallible and try to recognize things are changing, the consequences of our actions and take corrective actions before we're in a position of having no outs. If we don't recognize how easily we can be a moron from time to to time, we're much more likely to get into trouble.

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by kortopates

[kortopates]

This is the basis of the argument on cars being safer than GA - by 7 to 8 times more so!!  This material comes from King Schools who as far as I know, where among the first to raise this ugly lie about the saying that the most dangerous part of flying was the drive to the airport and have been campaigning to set the record straight and preach the needs for good ADM. Professional pilots and the airlines get it, but I think we still have a long ways to go unfortunately.  But in fairness its harder than just ADM, since we can never expect to be more than single pilot, single engine, single electrical system, single everything unlike the airlines that is redundant everything. But i personally thing the professional training and 2 person crews are the probably the biggest factors for their safety record rather than our limited equipment. But we have lots of room for much needed improvement.

In 2009, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reported a rate of 1.13 fatal car accidents
per 100 million vehicle miles.

In 2009 the National Transportation Safety Board statistic showing an aircraft fatal accident rate of 1.32 per
100,000 hours flown in GA aircraft.

Assuming typical aircraft speed of 150 miles per hour, fatal aircraft accidents occur at a rate of 8.8 per 100 million
miles (about 7 or 8 times greater than cars).

Nationally, in 1997, there were 21 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for motorcycles

Sources of information:

ntsb.gov/aviation
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table10.htm
nsc.org
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/99report.htm
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF97.pdf
http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2006/810606.pdf
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20120703/NJNEWS/307030030/Fatalmotorcycle-crashes-reminder-their-danger

Edited August 24, 2017 by kortopates

[Candy man]

24 minutes ago, kortopates said:

This is the basis of the argument on cars being safer than GA - by 7 to 8 times more so!!  This material comes from King Schools who as far as I know, where among the first to raise this ugly lie about the saying that the most dangerous part of flying was the drive to the airport and have been campaigning to set the record straight and preach the needs for good ADM. Professional pilots and the airlines get it, but I think we still have a long ways to go unfortunately.  But in fairness its harder than just ADM, since we can never expect to be more than single pilot, single engine, single electrical system, single everything unlike the airlines that is redundant everything. But i personally thing the professional training and 2 person crews are the probably the biggest factors for their safety record rather than our limited equipment. But we have lots of room for much needed improvement.

In 2009, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reported a rate of 1.13 fatal car accidents
per 100 million vehicle miles.

In 2009 the National Transportation Safety Board statistic showing an aircraft fatal accident rate of 1.32 per
100,000 hours flown in GA aircraft.

Assuming typical aircraft speed of 150 miles per hour, fatal aircraft accidents occur at a rate of 8.8 per 100 million
miles (about 7 or 8 times greater than cars).

Nationally, in 1997, there were 21 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for motorcycles

Sources of information:

ntsb.gov/aviation
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table10.htm
nsc.org
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/99report.htm
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF97.pdf
http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2006/810606.pdf
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20120703/NJNEWS/307030030/Fatalmotorcycle-crashes-reminder-their-danger

I remember reading an article  in one of the flying magazines in the early 90's. It took the accident rate and backed out  vfr into IMC, fuel exhaustion, and I think a couple of other relatively controllable accidents, and then it recalculated the accident rate and greatly reduced it. on one side you can get the numbers to say whatever you want when you manipulate them enough, on the other it made a lot of sense.

Lawrence

 

[Htwjr]

Figures don't lie but liars figure.

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, Candy man said:

I remember reading an article  in one of the flying magazines in the early 90's. It took the accident rate and backed out  vfr into IMC, fuel exhaustion, and I think a couple of other relatively controllable accidents, and then it recalculated the accident rate and greatly reduced it. on one side you can get the numbers to say whatever you want when you manipulate them enough, on the other it made a lot of sense.

Lawrence

And if you took drunk driving, texting, putting make-up on, shaving, driving in poor weather, poor maintenance, etc out of automobile driving it would be a lot safer also.

You can't take all of the things you don't like out of the aviation stats because you don't like them. They exist and the first step is to admit that. The next step is not to say I would never do any of these things, therefore I am invincible - because the people that did these things said they never would also. It's good to admit that everyone can make a bad decision in a stressful situation. Good decisions are made when there are a lot of options, starting when you are on the ground with a "Go or No Go" decision, Take-offs are optional, Landings are mandatory.

Because we have told fearful passengers many times how much safer flying is than driving some of us have convinced ourselves, because we like that idea. So far not one person on here has come up with credible information to back that up. Just standing back objectively at a distance and looking at single engine, single pilot aviation and thinking about all of the things that could go wrong, it's easier to see why the facts show more of an inherent danger. Motorcycle riding is a good comparison - I started riding in my 30's and rode for 15 years - it was enjoyable, but it was a risk. Never did I ever convince myself that it was safer than being in a car. The biggest problem in motorcycle accidents is younger people at a point in their life where they feel invincible. Feeling vulnerable in aviation or anything else is good, it causes us to be more cautious in making decisions. Thinking we're safer because I said so is contrary to that.

[mooniac58]

15 minutes ago, daver328 said:

How about asking someone  "Who did you vote for?" and then attacking them because you think they voted for Trump whether they answer or not? Seems to me you were just fine with that? I wasn't - because I was the one attacked. Did that person (or really those two persons) get warnings? Do they have a permanent strike? Ya ... I'm sure!

Or posting false political rhetoric like "Trump is taking away ASD-B?" Ya that's aviation related ... sure buddy!

I recently report a totally inappropriate post. Did you warn that person? He's as bold as ever posting away!

 

Yes, I warned 3-4 people on that topic.  Anyone that I saw bringing up politics at all.  There is no place for it here and it just leads to much nastier discussion.

[kevinw]

Why don't we chalk this up to "lesson learned" and let the banned member back in.