Jump to content

1 in 100 GA Pilots Killed in an Airplane?


201er

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

So that cdc page describes 214,000 unintentional deaths in a year vs 323 million population . . .

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. 

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.

I'm sorry, but isn't 6.5 x 10^-4 = 65 x (1 x 10^-5)??? Not 6.5 times the risk, but 65 times the risk. So flying is less risky than we thought!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Hank said:

I'm sorry, but isn't 6.5 x 10^-4 = 65 x (1 x 10^-5)??? Not 6.5 times the risk, but 65 times the risk. So flying is less risky than we thought!

I carried a decimal point wrong. 

Keep the 6.5 e -4.  ~ 214000/323000000

But the annual death expectation for pilots.  1 per 10^5 hours so 100 hours in a year or roughly 1 per 1000 - so 1.e-3.  See I misplaced a decimal.

So my interpretation is upside down.  Flying is close to twice as bad as expected annual risk of all other things combined for a mythic "typical" person.  Darn.

P.S.  I am not erasing my post above with a decimal point error - since I believe in allowing my errors when I make them to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Owning, and mostly working on, my plane for a year now I've thought a lot about the risks with this hobby.  My prior hobby was driving a sportbike as fast as I could on race tracks around the midwest.  In this prior hobby I knew several folks that were taken to the hospital in lifeline helicopters, folks that were in traction for a month, some that had their drivers license pulled indefinitely because a head injury caused high risks of future seizures, etc.  I ran in in the advanced class and pushed the very limits of my bike and my capabilities, however, flying seems somehow higher risk to me.  I think this feeling is valid...my opinions on why:

  • Once flying begins, you can't just pull off the side of the track if things go wrong.  Things have to work long enough to get to a suitable landing spot.  
  • I think the design margins are about the same.  Weight reduction and peak engine output means the race bike is running at the edge of technology (14,000RPM operation @~150hp in the case of the motorcycle)...but the race bike technology is modern and designed and manufactured in modern ways. 
  • I feel like there are more failure modes in a plane that can result in a crash.  Perhaps this is because it's not just operating on one plane...there is a vertical component of control and the added complexity that comes with that.
  • Flying is harder, requires more coordination...again the vertical component and complexities.  Wind and weather is a bigger factor for control.
  • Decision making is faster going 160mph on a racetrack than in the air.  Fractions of a second on start or end of braking determines if you are going to make it through the next corner.  Deciding if you should make a pass after the next corner, mid corner, while the back tire is trying to slide out on you, has to happen now...it can't wait until you see how things look after the corner.  That white spot on the pavement, I turned in on that spot at 110mph the last time I went around the track...I was a little inside of that spot this time, should I brake a little longer? (too late, corner is here!) However....the decisions are less complex, much less complex, on the motorcycle.  And while landing, decisions have to happen almost as fast in a plane.  
  • Lets be honest, my race bike was a 2004 model vs a 1966 model airplane...more stuff is wearing out...hopefully we can see and inspect all the important bits that are wearing out.  I was also the first and only owner of my 2004 sportbike, I knew exactly what had and hadn't been done to it.  
  • The airplane relies on more systems and parts to not crash.  Reliability is more challenging.
  • If you let go of the handlebars the motorcycle drives straight and stable...maybe straight into a building, but it drives straight and is stable unless a human makes it not so.
  • Any idiot can buy and drive a motorcycle with a simple endorsement on a drivers license, and medical approvals isn't really a thing.  This perhaps counters many the above points about flying being harder.
  • If I fall of a bike it's only a 1.5 ft AGL and leathers are pretty good at slowing you down.

Just some thoughts, no conclusions.  I think if well prepared, with good maintenance, with good decisions made, its safer than my bike entering a corner at 120mph with some stranger trying to pass me on the inside.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nukemzzz said:

Owning, and mostly working on, my plane for a year now I've thought a lot about the risks with this hobby.  My prior hobby was driving a sportbike as fast as I could on race tracks around the midwest.  In this prior hobby I knew several folks that were taken to the hospital in lifeline helicopters, folks that were in traction for a month, some that had their drivers license pulled indefinitely because a head injury caused high risks of future seizures, etc.  I ran in in the advanced class and pushed the very limits of my bike and my capabilities, however, flying seems somehow higher risk to me.  I think this feeling is valid...my opinions on why:

  • Once flying begins, you can't just pull off the side of the track if things go wrong.  Things have to work long enough to get to a suitable landing spot.  
  • I think the design margins are about the same.  Weight reduction and peak engine output means the race bike is running at the edge of technology (14,000RPM operation @~150hp in the case of the motorcycle)...but the race bike technology is modern and designed and manufactured in modern ways. 
  • I feel like there are more failure modes in a plane that can result in a crash.  Perhaps this is because it's not just operating on one plane...there is a vertical component of control and the added complexity that comes with that.
  • Flying is harder, requires more coordination...again the vertical component and complexities.  Wind and weather is a bigger factor for control.
  • Decision making is faster going 160mph on a racetrack than in the air.  Fractions of a second on start or end of braking determines if you are going to make it through the next corner.  Deciding if you should make a pass after the next corner, mid corner, while the back tire is trying to slide out on you, has to happen now...it can't wait until you see how things look after the corner.  That white spot on the pavement, I turned in on that spot at 110mph the last time I went around the track...I was a little inside of that spot this time, should I brake a little longer? (too late, corner is here!) However....the decisions are less complex, much less complex, on the motorcycle.  And while landing, decisions have to happen almost as fast in a plane.  
  • Lets be honest, my race bike was a 2004 model vs a 1966 model airplane...more stuff is wearing out...hopefully we can see and inspect all the important bits that are wearing out.  I was also the first and only owner of my 2004 sportbike, I knew exactly what had and hadn't been done to it.  
  • The airplane relies on more systems and parts to not crash.  Reliability is more challenging.
  • If you let go of the handlebars the motorcycle drives straight and stable...maybe straight into a building, but it drives straight and is stable unless a human makes it not so.
  • Any idiot can buy and drive a motorcycle with a simple endorsement on a drivers license, and medical approvals isn't really a thing.  This perhaps counters many the above points about flying being harder.
  • If I fall of a bike it's only a 1.5 ft AGL and leathers are pretty good at slowing you down.

Just some thoughts, no conclusions.  I think if well prepared, with good maintenance, with good decisions made, its safer than my bike entering a corner at 120mph with some stranger trying to pass me on the inside.

 

 

 

Ok, let me just be honest with myself, I'm just afraid of heights! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One perspective I didn't think about until now--of the pilots in our local community, most are over the age of 50, and many more of those are over the age of 65 than in the general population.  An older sample population SHOULD have a lower rate of fatal accidents, since they are far more likely than the typical GA pilot population to die of something else first.

According to GAMA, the pilot age distribution in GA is surprisingly even across the adult years, and the average age is about 45

image.png.1a275ff119ba210fd518cd40c7262f4b.png

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/GAMA_2019Databook_ForWebFinal-2020-02-19.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work in high end corporate aviation and have some minor involvement in smaller aircraft GA. I lost 3 friends in crashes in the last 2 years. 

1) Joe crashed his OV-1 Mohawk at the SUA Airshow practice (looks to be a broken elevator cable) 

2) Guy crashed somebody else’s Wheeler Express (unknown cause, speculation, he may have been doing aerobatics and blacked out) (control integrity was verified and he was observed doing rolls) 

3) Dan crashed an Aerostar due to misfueling

I’ve also known others in the past who crashed and died. 2 friends died in Midget Mustangs within months of each other. 

 

The first takeaway is that experimental aircraft are much more likely to crash. Although the fatality rate per crash is about the same as type certificated aircraft. 

The second is that aviation is unique in that common causes of crashes can be easily avoided. CFIT, VFR into IMC, Fuel exhaustion, maneuvering screw ups, and last but not least, experimental aircraft. 

 

The same incredible ability to mitigate risk cannot be said of motorcycling or automotive deaths. 

Edited by cujet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cujet said:

I work in high end corporate aviation and have some minor involvement in smaller aircraft GA. I lost 3 friends in crashes in the last 2 years. 

1) Joe crashed his OV-1 Mohawk at the SUA Airshow practice (looks to be a broken elevator cable) 

2) Guy crashed somebody else’s Wheeler Express (unknown cause, speculation, he may have been doing aerobatics and blacked out) (control integrity was verified and he was observed doing rolls) 

3) Dan crashed an Aerostar due to misfueling

I’ve also known others in the past who crashed and died. 2 friends died in Midget Mustangs within months of each other. 

 

The first takeaway is that experimental aircraft are much more likely to crash. Although the fatality rate per crash is about the same as type certificated aircraft. 

The second is that aviation is unique in that common causes of crashes can be easily avoided. CFIT, VFR into IMC, Fuel exhaustion, maneuvering screw ups, and last but not least, experimental aircraft. 

 

The same incredible ability to mitigate risk cannot be said of motorcycling or automotive deaths. 

It would seem from your anecdotal evidence that experimental aircraft are much riskier, but also from your small sample, all but 1 were doing higher risk maneuvers and activities. How does that compare to the general experimental vs. certified accident rate?
Is 4 to 1 the same rate for all as it is in your sample?

In addition, motorcycles can be used in lower risk and higher risk activities which are determined by the operator. Dirt bikes jumping driveways along a busy road are much more likely to be involved in a bad accident than those in closed Motocross courses. Street bikes racing along narrow, winding roads at high speeds because it’s fun/cool/a release are more likely to have an accident than someone riding a straight wide road with good visibility of other vehicles/deer/objects in the road. There are similar reasons autos are more or less dangerous (tailgating, speeding, showboating...). Both motorcycles and autos can be operated in high risk or low risk operations just like planes. 
 

It seems the main thing they all have in common is:  the operator has the ability to choose where on the risk spectrum they wish to operate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep an eye on the big picture...

Environment and strange things can occur...

In my local community... we lost a motorcyclists, and severely injured the other...

One got run over at a stop light...

The other had a front brake lock up on his home street... 

 

Kind of a reminder to test brakes as you begin to move...

And be careful at aviation’s busy intersections, like anywhere near the runway...


PP thoughts only, not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AIREMATT said:

...n accident than someone riding a straight wide road with good visibility of other vehicles/deer/objects in the road.

Reminds me of an anecdote.  I used to have a motorcycle in college.  Don't tell my mom - she still doesn't know and she would kill me if she knew what a dangerous activity I used to...

Anyway a buddy hit a dear on his motorcycle one day.  He hit it square on and he just held his line - good for him and that was his experience as a bicycle racer as was I.  Anyway that dear folded over the front of the bike.  The deer didn't make out too well but he didn't even crash but came to a safe stop and just a little bit of faring damage.  I figure a lot of people might have swerved into a tree or oncoming traffic to avoid the deer.  Good for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2021 at 2:23 PM, aviatoreb said:

Reminds me of an anecdote.  I used to have a motorcycle in college.  Don't tell my mom - she still doesn't know and she would kill me if she knew what a dangerous activity I used to...

Anyway a buddy hit a dear on his motorcycle one day.  He hit it square on and he just held his line - good for him and that was his experience as a bicycle racer as was I.  Anyway that dear folded over the front of the bike.  The deer didn't make out too well but he didn't even crash but came to a safe stop and just a little bit of faring damage.  I figure a lot of people might have swerved into a tree or oncoming traffic to avoid the deer.  Good for him.

He hit a deer, didn’t crash, didn’t hurt the motorcycle much?  I’m sorry, this doesn’t add up. Was he going 5mph?  If you hit a deer at highway speed on a motorcycle, and connect well (IE Square on), it’s a closed casket and the bike is trashed. This is a 200lb animal being hit by a 300lb bike and a 200lb rider with an approach speed of 55mph. That’s a tremendous amount of energy transfer in human biology terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nukemzzz said:

He hit a deer, didn’t crash, didn’t hurt the motorcycle much?  I’m sorry, this doesn’t add up. Was he going 5mph?  If you hit a deer at highway speed on a motorcycle, and connect well (IE Square on), it’s a closed casket and the bike is trashed. This is a 200lb animal being hit by a 300lb bike and a 200lb rider with an approach speed of 55mph. That’s a tremendous amount of energy transfer in human biology terms.

Don't know what happened, but that's why they tell you to brake in a straight line--energy decreases to the square of speed, so if you waste any tire grip trying to swerve and fail, you're hosed (aside from the possibility of losing control).  Spending all your tire grip on straight line braking is less risky to your health.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

Don't know what happened, but that's why they tell you to brake in a straight line--energy decreases to the square of speed, so if you waste any tire grip trying to swerve and fail, you're hosed (aside from the possibility of losing control).  Spending all your tire grip on straight line braking is less risky to your health.

I was dubious or anyway very surprised when he was telling me when we were walking to the motorcycle parking area where he was going to show me his bike.  The faring was really wrecked and there was blood on it.  It happened.  He said he was going about 40.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2021 at 6:12 PM, aviatoreb said:

P.S.  I am not erasing my post above with a decimal point error - since I believe in allowing my errors when I make them to be seen.

Thinking back to a common expression used by my math profs, you could have said "I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ohdub said:

Thinking back to a common expression used by my math profs, you could have said "I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader"

I always hated that when I was a student.  What a cop out.  So I vowed not to do that when I became a prof.  And I stayed true to my promise to my believe.  Everyone makes errors, and so do I.  You learn a lot by seeing how error trapping works in real.  If I make an error.  I and I notice it myself I point it out and how I found it.  If I get caught with an error, I try and find where I went wrong real time.  

->

I always hated that when I was a student.  What a cop out.  So I vowed not to do that when I became a prof.  And I stayed true to my promise to my belief.  Everyone makes errors, and so do I.  You learn a lot by seeing how error trapping works in real life.  If I make an error, and I notice it myself, I point it out and how I found it.  If I get caught with an error, I try and find where I went wrong real time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is what Mark Twain appropriately stated,

”there are lies, damn lies, and statistics”.

I don’t know about you guys, but I read accident reports all the time, and the more pertinent factor, which is almost impossible to quantify, categorize or apply to these studies, is the number of deaths attributable to stupidity, hubris, or ignorance.

Very few accidents seem to be completely out of the control of the pilot, and fewer of those are random freak accidents.   
Most appear to be egregious errors, really large poor decisions, series of small decisions, or combinations of the three. 

Be vigilant, be humble, be smart, train, and adhere to the personal minimums and the judgment you swore you would practice when you got your license, or the first time you took a loved one. 
This won’t eliminate the chances of dying, but I’d bet my life your odds are better by an order of magnitude. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2021 at 10:32 AM, AIREMATT said:

It would seem from your anecdotal evidence that experimental aircraft are much riskier, but also from your small sample, all but 1 were doing higher risk maneuvers and activities. How does that compare to the general experimental vs. certified accident rate? 

It's been a decade since I've looked carefully into the statistics. Back then, single engine, amateur built aircraft had a 6x hourly crash rate, vs their type certificated counterparts. Unfortunately, the hours were estimated. More careful examination really did not help the cause of amateur built experimental aircraft. As they tend to fly far fewer hours and much shorter trips. Whether it's 4 to 1, or 10 to 1 depends on how data is chosen. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, cujet said:

It's been a decade since I've looked carefully into the statistics. . . . . Whether it's 4 to 1, or 10 to 1 depends on how data is chosen. 

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cujet said:

More careful examination really did not help the cause of amateur built experimental aircraft. As they tend to fly far fewer hours and much shorter trips. Whether it's 4 to 1, or 10 to 1 depends on how data is chosen. 

That doesn’t necessarily make them more dangerous. They just tend to do more low altitude sightseeing and takeoffs and landings rather than longer flights at cruise and less time spent near the ground or in the traffic pattern. Maybe a comparison would be more relative if we compared cycles rather than hours because of the nature of the two types of flying. 
Sort of like comparing turbojets to turboprops. Both are turbine powered but one spends longer times at high altitudes Enroute above the WX and one spends more time at low altitudes for shorter times in the WX and turbulence and traffic patterns. Maybe the per hour comparison isn’t the best there either. I wonder how they’d compare based on a per cycle ratio.

Something to think about when determining which stats to live by.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s face it...

Factory built planes have one thing going for them...

If one of us has a problem, 3k other Mooney owners are going to want to know about it... we’ll have it figured out, and a solution will be shared...

If something blocks the fuel in my plane... it will be a 1 in 1000 occurrence... and everyone will know what happened and best ways of how to avoid it...

When I’m not around, you can search for plugged fuel tank vent or mud dauber...

When it comes to experimental planes... the builder decides where to run the fuel lines... he may get a different result than all the other home builders...

It is challenging to stay with the tried and true guidance provided by Mooney MMs...

Some home built planes don’t get that much documentation...

Some builders aren’t that skilled at following documentation...

Some home built planes are better than others...

Some home builders are better than others...

Find Tom @Yooper Rocketman to see how a home built plane can be built...

Tom ran into a challenge with some wing bolts... the spec didn’t meet the requirement of the plane... the standard bolt, was too thin, and would move...   the bolt met the spec for building bolts... it was just in the thin end of the range...


There is such a broad range of home built/builder...

When THEY run out of gas... was it a pilot issue, a builder issue, or a design issue..?

if you go through the recent pages of MS... we lost a Mooney pilot... but, in his home built airplane... (RIP)

So many variables to account for ...

Factory built Mooneys eliminate a ton of variables...   :)

Best regards,

-a-

Edited by carusoam
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, this whole analysis is nearly farcical despite everyone's best efforts.  We all want to know what our risk is so we can better manage it.  The problem is even if we did know, which we can't, we can't manage it, since our risk factors are stochastic by nature.

The accident rate can be calculated a number of ways.  The FAA prefers number of accidents per unit time, not a horrid measure by any means.  The problem is no one really knows the denominator.  The FAA can estimate, but garbage in gives garbage out.  Without knowing the actual time airplanes fly (and we don't) we really haven't a clue as to airplane risk.

The measure of "do you know a dead pilot" really is farcical. An octogenarian who has one chum perish in the sixties will answer yes, but he's been flying 50 years not personally experiencing a fatality.

These mathematic analyses might make you feel better, they might not, but they are completely and utterly meaningless.  We all know what kills pilots.  If we do our best to avoid those situations and engage in beast practices the rest of the time we're managing risk about as well as can be.

  • Like 1
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.