Jump to content

1 in 100 GA Pilots Killed in an Airplane?


201er

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

Wohoo!!  I had not realized!  Wow - and What a good and proper thread to have earned me that position.  A thread sort of a bit about math - as related to aviation risk.  Something I think a lot about.


Congrats on the big number!

And... thanks for helping us keep the math straight...

Just be cautious on today’s flight... (the only one that matters...)

Excitement related to new gadgets can lead to hazardous attitudes... 99.999% of the time... (I read somewhere around here)  especially if the gadget is an electronic AI made by that other company...

:)

PP Thoughts only, just trying to keep my post count lead going...

Live every day...

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not a mathematician nor statistician but if the fatality rate is 1:100,000; and I fly 3,000 hours in my flying career, isn’t my chance of being one of the fatalities 3,000/100,000=3%?  Of course all of us are above average pilots :rolleyes:, so the rate is even less, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, amillet said:

I’m not a mathematician nor statistician but if the fatality rate is 1:100,000; and I fly 3,000 hours in my flying career, isn’t my chance of being one of the fatalities 3,000/100,000=3%?  Of course all of us are above average pilots :rolleyes:, so the rate is even less, no?

1:100,000 assumes that it's totally random, which means you get fresh odds every hour.  The 3,000th hour is no more dangerous than the first (hopefully it's the opposite!).  This fits nicely with the whole "your next flight is the most important" mantra, and we know the ways to stack the odds more in our favor.  Bad things will still happen, but imho, there's a lot more that you can do flying to change the odds vs. riding a bike or driving a car.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AP for the win!

Today’s Flying Logic Prize is awarded early, to aggiepilot!

We are much safer to be flying a Mooney...

The math just got more complex... it is a study of related rates... :)

Get off the couch, go fly!  It eliminates the sedentary lifestyle...

Riding the bike to the airport is too dangerous... time to get that hangar home! 
 

Pretzel logic.... The hangar home would be perfect for Erik... a perfect place for all those bikes... :)

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I am going to guess the following.

That 10 were not from the 1000 you know (maybe some were?) but rather they were including the people that the people you knew knew and thus the information came to you?  That broader two step network can easily be 10 times 1000.  (made up number - but true mechanism).

No, that's what I meant.  I'm an antisocial type so I only know a handful of pilots, so estimated the less than 1000 based on all the other GA pilots they know.

A few years ago I attended the local EAA meeting--the first one I attended was memorable, someone based at the airpark gave a talk about having an engine fire on takeoff and didn't realize it until someone called on the radio.  He flew went around the pattern and came back to land, and by the time he did, the fire had burned through the floor and smoke started entering the cabin.  Some other members pulled him and his passenger out of the plane, and he suffered some serious burns while his passenger died.  His suggestion--consider adding stainless steel plates to the floor of the cabin of experimental planes.  I haven't been back since

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, amillet said:

I’m not a mathematician nor statistician but if the fatality rate is 1:100,000; and I fly 3,000 hours in my flying career, isn’t my chance of being one of the fatalities 3,000/100,000=3%?  Of course all of us are above average pilots :rolleyes:, so the rate is even less, no?

@aviatoreb's math is more correct, in general, but yes, if the per-hour risk and hours flown are small, multiplying hours by risk is a good approximation.  It's when the risk is large or the hours flown is large that this becomes less accurate and his calculation is the broadly correct approach.

To put it in perspective, if you flew 100,000 hours in your career, you would not have a 100% chance of dying.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, amillet said:

I’m not a mathematician nor statistician but if the fatality rate is 1:100,000; and I fly 3,000 hours in my flying career, isn’t my chance of being one of the fatalities 3,000/100,000=3%?  Of course all of us are above average pilots :rolleyes:, so the rate is even less, no?

Flip a coin. It's 1:2 you'll get heads. If you get tails the first time, does that guarantee heads on the second flip? No, the odds are still 1:2 on every flip, regardless of how many times you flip it.

As a young college freshman, uneducated about statistics but possessing a scientific calculator with statistical functions, I rolled one die about 40-50 times, punching the number into my calculator. Sure enough, it all averaged to 3.5, which rounds to 4 because I don't have six-sided dice with decimal displays. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RLCarter said:

Aren’t they six sided?

The ones I did this with were six sided, so despite averaging 3.5, it is a number that the die can never show. Thus four.

But I also have dice with 4, 8, 10, 12 and 20 sides. The 10- and 20-sided dice can be used to fake percentages or decimals by using two dice of different color and deciding the designations prior to rolling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, amillet said:

I’m not a mathematician nor statistician but if the fatality rate is 1:100,000; and I fly 3,000 hours in my flying career, isn’t my chance of being one of the fatalities 3,000/100,000=3%?  

That is not correct.  See the description I gave above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

 multiplying hours by risk is a good approximation.  It's when the risk is large or the hours flown is large that this becomes less accurate and his calculation is the broadly correct approach.

To put it in perspective, if you flew 100,000 hours in your career, you would not have a 100% chance of dying.  

I agree completely.  As you say, if either hours is low, then the long hand version I gave and the short cut others have given here are very close to the same.  But they differ greatly as this deviates, as describe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news friends!  I made one more successful flight.  AND the pi-plane is in the avionics shopping receiving some lovely avionics.  My wife drove me home - and here I am.

Hello Canada!  That's Toronto in the distance as I fly just over Oswego, NY on my way south.

IMG_1527.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Good news friends!  I made one more successful flight.  AND the pi-plane is in the avionics shopping receiving some lovely avionics.  My wife drove me home - and here I am.

Hello Canada!  That's Toronto in the distance as I fly just over Oswego, NY on my way south.

IMG_1527.jpg

Ah ha...... cheated death again!  Excellent!!! :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I agree completely.  As you say, if either hours is low, then the long hand version I gave and the short cut others have given here are very close to the same.  But they differ greatly as this deviates, as describe.

Except don't use "career hours" in the equation because none of us are dead yet.  Instead, use estimated future hours.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

Ah ha...... cheated death again!  Excellent!!! :D

I did so twice today! My trusty steed took me two whole thousand feet into the dim, overcast sky and we streaked thirty whole nautical miles above the trees and ponds to my EAA chapter meeting with lunch. After which, the temperature not having risen measurably since I arose at 0700, we shivered on the ramp and added fluid and bled my right brake. Skies not having cleared or warmed per forecast, I then returned home via direct GPS routing at the same illustrious altitude.

Temperature of 2°C does not give one confidence to enter the overcast a few hundred feet above; indeed, I had to run almost half Carb Heat to make the obstinate needle rise to the top of the orange stripe (10°C) on my trusty Carb Temp Gage. Almost a full hour in the logbook . . . Two safe landings, both gentle and smooth, one a greaser followed by a poor-to-middling rollout.

But I cheated death twice! :D

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, I’d say just participating in MS means most of us are trying to reduce our rate from 1:100,000 hours. Safety protocols, knowledge and judgment(risk mgmt) going up all help our rate to go down. All 3 can be gleaned from the limitless posts scattered throughout MS relating to each individuals need for information specific to their situation. I’d say just having a place like MS for us all to read about others experiences reduces our odds from the general 1:100,000.

As aviatoreb and aggiepilot said, there are conditions that can affect each individuals odds both higher and lower than 1:100,000. More of those who take actions to reduce their risk will in more cases than not lower their chances of a fatal accident while others who go out of their way to take riskier actions will increase their chances of a fatal accident. 

Averaged out those two groups may well end up at about a 1:100,000 rate. Which group do you want to be a part of??

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just posted this in a thread on FAA predictive accident rate model.  It is relevant to this discussion

Data suggest that increased probability of having a fatal accident in a M20C is strongly correlated with poor decision making and/or inattentiveness, and nighttime, independent from ratings and/or total time.   The compliment to this suggestion is that good decision making and attentiveness really reduces the probability of having a fatal accident.   I didn't find one summary that show a really good set of decision making that had a fatal outcome.   Nothing close.  I don't raise this to belittle anyone dead or alive, but to point out that the NTSB database clearly shows that bad decision making, including flying outside of abilities, rules, or currency, clearly kills pilots more than any other factor.

Here's a summary that supports this assertion, developed from an analysis of the NTSB database.  It is based on factors that were given by the investigators as causes of all listed fatal accidents in Mooney M20C aircraft (in no particular order) between May, 1993, and February, 2008.  It's a sad list.

1.  Fuel mismanagement

1a.  Pilot did not sump tanks on a Mooney that hadn't flown in months and was parked outdoors.   Rainfall during the period when the plane was parked outdoors: 5 inches.  Fuel starvation on departure due to water ingestion.

1b.  Pilot forgot to switch to the fullest tank before starting a night approach in VMC when the non-fullest tank was almost empty.

1c. Pilot knowingly departed with 10 gallons of fuel for a local flight, then used it all up.  Engine quit 1.3 miles from airport.  Stalled trying to stretch the glide.

1d.  FBO closed.  Pilot did not want to wait for the FBO staff to come to airport to fuel the airplane.  Departed without waiting.  Pilot turned around after realizing insufficient fuel to reach destination, then run out of fuel on night VMC final approach after returning to the very same airport where pilot was unwilling to wait for fuel.

2.   Drugs

2a.  Pilot took cough syrup containing codeine before departing into clouds and becoming spatially disoriented after a vacuum pump failure.

2b.  Pilot took methamphetamine and flew into IMC.  Tried to shoot and NDB approach without an instrument rating, AND ran out of fuel.

3.   Spatial disorientation

3a. Non instrument rated pilot flew into IMC over mountains at 13,900'.

3b. Non instrument rated pilot crashed into trees in low ceilings and fog while trying to find a grass strip.

3c. Non instrument rated pilot flew into IMC while looking for VFR route to airport.   Tried to shoot ILS with radar vectors.   Failed.

3d.  Instrument rated pilot departs night into IMC and on climb out loses control after reporting a "prob".   No problem found with engine, vacuum or gyros.

4.  Failure to fly the airplane

4a.  Pilot flew into the ground while doing low-altitude pipeline reconnaissance flight with a jury-rigged 36 gallon auxiliary fuel tank in the baggage compartment.

4b.  Departure stall with a normally running engine.   4 fatalities, including pilot and three grandchildren.

5.  Lack of training in complex aircraft.  A 100 hour total time pilot with 3 Mooney hours, takes three friends for a ride with no complex training, only to produce a departure stall.  One survivor.

6. Poor decision making (maybe shouldn't be a separate category)

6a.  Two IR pilots warned during wx briefing about light to moderate icing between 6,000 and 18,000 ft and deciding to go anyway.  Flight over mountainous terrain.  Pilots forgot carburetor heat when engine quit at 12,000 ft.  Night forced landing unsuccessful.

6b.  Non instrument rated pilot takes off in mountainous terrain with low ceilings hoping to find a VFR route out.  Doesn't.

7. Pilot Health

7a.  Pilot reports of "chest pains" after departure.  Doesn't make it back to the field.

7b.  69 y.o. solo pilot has a heart attack aloft.

8.  Poor/Incorrect Maintenance

8a.  Clogged fuel strainer in right tank.  Left tank empty.  Resulted in unsuccessful off-field landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, 0TreeLemur said:

I just posted this in a thread on FAA predictive accident rate model.  It is relevant to this discussion

Data suggest that increased probability of having a fatal accident in a M20C is strongly correlated with poor decision making and/or inattentiveness, and nighttime, independent from ratings and/or total time.   The compliment to this suggestion is that good decision making and attentiveness really reduces the probability of having a fatal accident.   I didn't find one summary that show a really good set of decision making that had a fatal outcome.   Nothing close.  I don't raise this to belittle anyone dead or alive, but to point out that the NTSB database clearly shows that bad decision making, including flying outside of abilities, rules, or currency, clearly kills pilots more than any other factor.

Here's a summary that supports this assertion, developed from an analysis of the NTSB database.  It is based on factors that were given by the investigators as causes of all listed fatal accidents in Mooney M20C aircraft (in no particular order) between May, 1993, and February, 2008.  It's a sad list.

1.  Fuel mismanagement

1a.  Pilot did not sump tanks on a Mooney that hadn't flown in months and was parked outdoors.   Rainfall during the period when the plane was parked outdoors: 5 inches.  Fuel starvation on departure due to water ingestion.

1b.  Pilot forgot to switch to the fullest tank before starting a night approach in VMC when the non-fullest tank is almost empty.

1c. Pilot knowingly departed with 10 gallons of fuel for a local flight, then used it all up.  Engine quit 1.3 miles from airport.  Stalled trying to stretch the glide.

1d.  FBO closed.  Pilot did not want to wait for the FBO staff to come to airport to fuel the airplane.  Departed without waiting.  Pilot turned around after realizing insufficient fuel to reach destination, then run out of fuel on night VMC final approach after returning to the very same airport where pilot was unwilling to wait for fuel.

2.   Drugs

2a.  Pilot took cough syrup containing codeine before departing into clouds and becoming spatially disoriented after a vacuum pump failure.

2b.  Pilot took methamphetamine and flew into IMC.  Tried to shoot and NDB approach without an instrument rating, AND ran out of fuel.

3.   Spatial disorientation

3a. Non instrument rated pilot flew into IMC over mountains at 13,900'.

3b. Non instrument rated pilot crashed into trees in low ceilings and fog while trying to find a grass strip.

3c. Non instrument rated pilot flew into IMC while looking for VFR route to airport.   Tried to shoot ILS with radar vectors.   Failed.

3d.  Instrument rated pilot departs night into IMC and on climb out loses control after reporting a "prob".   No problem found with engine, vacuum or gyros.

4.  Failure to fly the airplane

4a.  Pilot flew into the ground while doing low-altitude pipeline reconnaissance flight with a jury-rigged 36 gallon auxiliary fuel tank in the baggage compartment.

4b.  Departure stall with a normally running engine.   4 fatalities, including pilot and three grandchildren.

5.  Lack of training in complex aircraft.  A 100 hour total time pilot with 3 Mooney hours, takes three friends for a ride with no complex training, only to produce a departure stall.  One survivor.

6. Poor decision making (maybe shouldn't be a separate category)

6a.  Two IR pilots warned during wx briefing about light to moderate icing between 6,000 and 18,000 ft and deciding to go anyway.  Flight over mountainous terrain.  Pilots forgot carburetor heat when engine quit at 12,000 ft.  Night forced landing unsuccessful.

6b.  Non instrument rated pilot takes off in mountainous terrain with low ceilings hoping to find a VFR route out.  Doesn't.

7. Pilot Health

7a.  Pilot reports of "chest pains" after departure.  Doesn't make it back to the field.

7b.  69 y.o. solo pilot has a heart attack aloft.

8.  Poor/Incorrect Maintenance

8a.  Clogged fuel strainer in right tank.  Left tank empty.  Resulted in unsuccessful off-field landing.

This is an excellent way of considering the problem - investigate and learn what are the modalities that have been typical contributing factors in fatal occurrences and systematically avoid and mitigate them in our own operations.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this to be interesting and relevant.

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/overview/key_data.html

It is the rate of accident and unintentional injury deaths including violence.  I asserted on here, that increased risk do to aviation as an activity may not disappear for many of us if we would stop aviation, but rather we would likely end up taking up another comparable activity, like sailing, hunting, canoeing, and so on.

In other words - if we quite flying but then take up sailing as a decision to mitigate risk, we may have done nothing, or maybe even made it worse.  If we quite flying and take up sailing for other reasons, then great.

So that cdc page describes 214,000 unintentional deaths in a year vs 323 million population ( I am not researching that for real so I am just taking these numbers off hand as a for instance, so please forgive me).

That would then be a roughly p=6.5 e -4=0.00065 mortality rate per year by all accident causes, from cars, to falling off ladders and so on.  (Btw ladders scare me - I don't climb ladders - its not a rational decision thing but I get afraid of heights on ladders which is weird because I am not at all afraid of heights flying.  Or even on the balcony of tall buildings).

Note that this is bigger than the rate by flying 100 hrs per year which is roughly 1.e-5.  By roughly a factor of 6.5.  Because on average most people have some kind of "flying like" risk built into their routine.

So asking what is the chance of dying by accidental death in a 75 year period (under the absurd assumption that the rate stays constant and also that it is independent) would compute to be, 

1-(1-.00065)^75=.048 so call it 5%.

5% chance of dying in your lifetime by some tragic accident of some sort.  1 in 20 people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, 0TreeLemur said:

Data suggest that increased probability of having a fatal accident in a M20C is strongly correlated with poor decision making and/or inattentiveness, and nighttime, independent from ratings and/or total time.   The compliment to this suggestion is that good decision making and attentiveness really reduces the probability of having a fatal accident.   I didn't find one summary that show a really good set of decision making that had a fatal outcome.   Nothing close.  I don't raise this to belittle anyone dead or alive, but to point out that the NTSB database clearly shows that bad decision making, including flying outside of abilities, rules, or currency, clearly kills pilots more than any other factor.

I have to agree with this. It was my own closest call.

Plans to stay overnight were rapidly changed to an immediate late afternoon departure, to beat incoming weather the next morning. My destination was beyond impending bad weather at the time, but would be clear in the morning. So I set out,  intending to see what it was like.

Took off tired without a planned stop. ATC advised me again of weather ahead, and darkness was approaching--all I saw was a layer of clouds. Too tired, and 2+ hours at 10,500, I just soldiered on and asked for vectors between two large storms. Should have landed short . . . .

Anyway, after pursuing the lightest-looking clouds for a while, I stumbled into a thin spot, saw ground lights and spiraled down, letting the friendly controller know what I was doing. Went the last half hour below the clouds with great visibility, had the airport all to myself for a strong, gusty, direct crosswind landing and awkward taxi to the hangar.

Had a stiff drink at home, and learned a lot the next few days thinking about that flight and looking at my course tracks on my EFB. Managed to make a local VFR flight again in only a few weeks . . . .

Aviation Decision Making is complex and dynamic, and must be evaluated more than just before takeoff. If unsure or uncertain of what you should do, land and think it over. I don't ever want to be in the situation I was in that night, ever again.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.