CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
Would be interesting to know the numbers for sure
Exposing loved ones to the risks associated with GA
- Thread starter CC268
- Start date
Would be interesting to know the numbers for sure
wanttaja
En-Route
Then again, maybe he doesn't read the thread because he has a single-seat airplane and the family issue just doesn't enter into it.
One of these days, I swear I'm going to write a "Myths of Aviation Accidents" article.
Myth #1: Continued VFR flight into IFR conditions is a major cause of GA accidents.
It ain't. My database (1998-2015) shows that less than 3% of Cessna 172 accidents are due to this cause.
Mind you, the FATALITY rate of this type of accident is high. About 14% of the FATAL accidents are due to this cause. But it certainly isn't a majority. More fatal 172 accidents involve midairs (16.9%) than continued VFR into IFR. Almost as many (11.5%) occur due to maneuvering at low altitude (another high-fatality-rate cause).
Myth #2: A large percentage of accidents are caused by running out of fuel.
For the Cessna 172s, it's less than 5%...and that includes both exhaustion and starvation cases. It's higher for some types, due to more-complex fuel systems.
Fatal accidents? Less than 1%.
Myth #3: Mechanical failure accidents are rare
39% of all the Cessna 210 accidents in my database involved mechanical failures. It's much lower for other types (25% for Bonanza 36s, ~11% for 172s), but it's not the rarity folks want to believe.
Myth #4: The Cirrus has a high accident rate.
Maybe true at the beginning. Cirrus put a lot of effort into reducing accidents. Overall, though, during the 1998-2015 period, Cirrus has the second-lowest Fleet Accident Rate (accidents vs. registered examples) for all the types I looked at (Cessna 150/152, Cessna 172, Cessna 182, Cessna 210, Piper PA-28, Piper J-3, Piper PA-18, Beech Bonanza, Beech Mustketeer, Mooney, Robinson R-44, Bell 206).
The lowest of that batch was the Piper J-3...and remember, this was FLEET accident rate, not per flight hour. Most J-3s probably fly less than most Cirruses. In fact, the FAA estimate says that four-seaters have an average usage rate 1/3rd higher than two seaters. Computed as accidents per 100,000 flight hours, using the FAA General Aviation Survey, the Cirrus *is* the lowest out of the types I listed.
The sad truth is, most aviation accidents occur due to inadequate piloting skills...undershoots, overshoots, stalls, losing directional control on takeoff or landing, not putting the gear down or the flaps up, misjudging the approach, etc. Personally, I think myths #1 and #2 continue because many pilots assume they'll *never* make a mistake at the controls, thus those other causes are much more likely.
Ron Wanttaja
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Haven't read the thread but here goes, excuse the repetitions. Is it really riskier? Riskier than what? Driving? With seat belts or without? Riding? With helmet or without. At what speeds? Good tires or bad? A big majority of airplane accidents are pilot error. A majority of those errors happen before the airplane takes off and many of those happen before the engine is even started. Many happen before you even leave the house to drive out to the airport. Personally I think flying is pretty safe if you respect it.
AdamZ
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,869
- Location
- Montgomery County PA
- Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
Good thread. I can't say I feel guilty about the risk but like @SixPapaCharlie said for me it was mostly about my kid. Fact is flying has risks and we all know there are ways to minimize the risk, check Wx, do preflight, don't do "watch this maneuvers" etc. I don't ever brush anything off as "oh its just a short 12 nm flight to my A&P's airport. I recognize I am a bit more anxious when I fly my wife and daughter ( For those of you who are younger and single, trust me that life and attitudes change after you have a family). I also recognize that I am not beyond screwing something up, none of us are. I think that perhaps that is a good thing, It probably makes us safer pilots.
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
I only fly mine when it's a trip. So maybe 2-3 times a year. No offense to anyone who takes their kids up joyriding regularly, but I just decided not to do that. Not when they are young at least. They are both still in carseats and that add another layer of danger if you crash and have to evacuate the airplane quickly.
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
Then again, maybe he doesn't read the thread because he has a single-seat airplane and the family issue just doesn't enter into it.
One of these days, I swear I'm going to write a "Myths of Aviation Accidents" article.
Myth #1: Continued VFR flight into IFR conditions is a major cause of GA accidents.
It ain't. My database (1998-2015) shows that less than 3% of Cessna 172 accidents are due to this cause.
Mind you, the FATALITY rate of this type of accident is high. About 14% of the FATAL accidents are due to this cause. But it certainly isn't a majority. More fatal 172 accidents involve midairs (16.9%) than continued VFR into IFR. Almost as many (11.5%) occur due to maneuvering at low altitude (another high-fatality-rate cause).
..snipped
Even the source I used said only 4% of all accidents are caused by VFR into IMC.
It's the fatal rate that's very high as you say. Whether it's the 25% the FAA cites or your number of 14% is more accurate (not sure if you are still singling out 172s in that sentence), either way, that's a very high number of fatals contributed to one event.
Of the 11% of 172 crashes that happen due to mechanical failure, what's the fatality rate of those accidents?
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
Then again, maybe he doesn't read the thread because he has a single-seat airplane and the family issue just doesn't enter into it.
One of these days, I swear I'm going to write a "Myths of Aviation Accidents" article.
Myth #1: Continued VFR flight into IFR conditions is a major cause of GA accidents.
It ain't. My database (1998-2015) shows that less than 3% of Cessna 172 accidents are due to this cause.
Mind you, the FATALITY rate of this type of accident is high. About 14% of the FATAL accidents are due to this cause. But it certainly isn't a majority. More fatal 172 accidents involve midairs (16.9%) than continued VFR into IFR. Almost as many (11.5%) occur due to maneuvering at low altitude (another high-fatality-rate cause).
Myth #2: A large percentage of accidents are caused by running out of fuel.
For the Cessna 172s, it's less than 5%...and that includes both exhaustion and starvation cases. It's higher for some types, due to more-complex fuel systems.
Fatal accidents? Less than 1%.
Myth #3: Mechanical failure accidents are rare
39% of all the Cessna 210 accidents in my database involved mechanical failures. It's much lower for other types (25% for Bonanza 36s, ~11% for 172s), but it's not the rarity folks want to believe.
Myth #4: The Cirrus has a high accident rate.
Maybe true at the beginning. Cirrus put a lot of effort into reducing accidents. Overall, though, during the 1998-2015 period, Cirrus has the second-lowest Fleet Accident Rate (accidents vs. registered examples) for all the types I looked at (Cessna 150/152, Cessna 172, Cessna 182, Cessna 210, Piper PA-28, Piper J-3, Piper PA-18, Beech Bonanza, Beech Mustketeer, Mooney, Robinson R-44, Bell 206).
The lowest of that batch was the Piper J-3...and remember, this was FLEET accident rate, not per flight hour. Most J-3s probably fly less than most Cirruses. In fact, the FAA estimate says that four-seaters have an average usage rate 1/3rd higher than two seaters. Computed as accidents per 100,000 flight hours, using the FAA General Aviation Survey, the Cirrus *is* the lowest out of the types I listed.
The sad truth is, most aviation accidents occur due to inadequate piloting skills...undershoots, overshoots, stalls, losing directional control on takeoff or landing, not putting the gear down or the flaps up, misjudging the approach, etc. Personally, I think myths #1 and #2 continue because many pilots assume they'll *never* make a mistake at the controls, thus those other causes are much more likely.
Ron Wanttaja
Thanks for sharing. #3 on your list is probably the concerning one to me, when it comes to flying others. Almost 40% of 210 accidents are mechanical failure...that's pretty damn scary. Especially if you think about flying your kids around. Granted the 172 is much lower...but still even the stats guy is saying mechanical failures aren't a rarity. Definitely things to think about when you decide to go fly your loved ones around in your airplane that's got a pretty high percentage of mechanical failure. Like I said, this thread doesn't refer to us pilots accepting the risk, but the responsibility of exposing others to it.
I think pilots like to think mechanical failure is pretty unlikely...but based on those numbers I think it's a hell of a lot more likely than we'd like to think. It's somewhat eye opening to see the stats guy throw it out there...the stats never lie
So don't go do any young eagle flights in your 210 cause the odds are stacked against you (exaggerating here a bit)
I'm playing devils advocate here in this thread but it's interesting to think about.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Then again, maybe he doesn't read the thread because he has a single-seat airplane and the family issue just doesn't enter into it.
One of these days, I swear I'm going to write a "Myths of Aviation Accidents" article.
Myth #1: Continued VFR flight into IFR conditions is a major cause of GA accidents.
It ain't. My database (1998-2015) shows that less than 3% of Cessna 172 accidents are due to this cause.
Mind you, the FATALITY rate of this type of accident is high. About 14% of the FATAL accidents are due to this cause. But it certainly isn't a majority. More fatal 172 accidents involve midairs (16.9%) than continued VFR into IFR. Almost as many (11.5%) occur due to maneuvering at low altitude (another high-fatality-rate cause).
Myth #2: A large percentage of accidents are caused by running out of fuel.
For the Cessna 172s, it's less than 5%...and that includes both exhaustion and starvation cases. It's higher for some types, due to more-complex fuel systems.
Fatal accidents? Less than 1%.
Myth #3: Mechanical failure accidents are rare
39% of all the Cessna 210 accidents in my database involved mechanical failures. It's much lower for other types (25% for Bonanza 36s, ~11% for 172s), but it's not the rarity folks want to believe.
Myth #4: The Cirrus has a high accident rate.
Maybe true at the beginning. Cirrus put a lot of effort into reducing accidents. Overall, though, during the 1998-2015 period, Cirrus has the second-lowest Fleet Accident Rate (accidents vs. registered examples) for all the types I looked at (Cessna 150/152, Cessna 172, Cessna 182, Cessna 210, Piper PA-28, Piper J-3, Piper PA-18, Beech Bonanza, Beech Mustketeer, Mooney, Robinson R-44, Bell 206).
The lowest of that batch was the Piper J-3...and remember, this was FLEET accident rate, not per flight hour. Most J-3s probably fly less than most Cirruses. In fact, the FAA estimate says that four-seaters have an average usage rate 1/3rd higher than two seaters. Computed as accidents per 100,000 flight hours, using the FAA General Aviation Survey, the Cirrus *is* the lowest out of the types I listed.
The sad truth is, most aviation accidents occur due to inadequate piloting skills...undershoots, overshoots, stalls, losing directional control on takeoff or landing, not putting the gear down or the flaps up, misjudging the approach, etc. Personally, I think myths #1 and #2 continue because many pilots assume they'll *never* make a mistake at the controls, thus those other causes are much more likely.
Ron Wanttaja
Seems a little hunt and peck for me, thinking the model of the aircraft has anything to do with anything is silly, I mean leading the mechanical failure off with a 210, come on
I'm quite safe in the turboprop I fly, put a rich PPL into it and he'll not be quite as safe, goes back to the common sense thing.
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
Thanks for sharing. #3 on your list is probably the concerning one to me, when it comes to flying others. Almost 40% of 210 accidents are mechanical failure...that's pretty damn scary. Especially if you think about flying your kids around. Granted the 172 is much lower...but still even the stats guy is saying mechanical failures aren't a rarity. Definitely things to think about when you decide to go fly your loved ones around in your airplane that's got a pretty high percentage of mechanical failure. Like I said, this thread doesn't refer to us pilots accepting the risk, but the responsibility of exposing others to it.
I think pilots like to think mechanical failure is pretty unlikely...but based on those numbers I think it's a hell of a lot more likely than we'd like to think. It's somewhat eye opening to see the stats guy throw it out there...the stats never lie
So don't go do any young eagle flights in your 210 cause the odds are stacked against you (exaggerating here a bit)
I'm playing devils advocate here in this thread but it's interesting to think about.
Issues are being mixed here and that's confusing the discussion. Are you sacred of a forced landing or dying?
Yes, mechanical issues cause a lot of "crashes," but they aren't nearly as likely to kill you as other incidents. There's at least two engine outs per day in US general aviation. Now, how many fatals do you see reported due to an engine out compared to the number of engine outs that happen in total? Several a year? They happen, but compared to the number of incidents, it's very low.
Cajun_Flyer
Pattern Altitude
The organization I volunteer for has a minimum requirement to fly the kids - 300 hours and an instrument rating. Think that's a good minimum to set before I take my own kids up as well. Even then, it will only be if it's something they actually want to do. I don't want to take them up just because it'd be fun for me.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 6,529
- Display Name
Display name:
3G
Risk management. There's tons of ways to do this, but by instilling a formal way of quantifying your exposure to the risk you present, your equipment presents, and the environment presents both to yourself and others can lead to informed decision making.
No. I don't want to lose the trust others place in me for their wellbeing. It's easier to explain why it's not a smart decision to go today than it easy to say I'm sorry in the last few seconds.
wanttaja
En-Route
Yes, I was singling out 172s, but the percentage doesn't change that much among aircraft types. The 172 is the most-produced aircraft in history, so the increased number of accidents gives better statistical results.
I also used 172s in this case since the median time in type is one of the lowest of the types I looked at, and I assumed the VFR into IFR rate would be higher due to less experience. Looking again, I see that the rate is higher for other types...up to ~6% for the PA-28s.
Whether it's a "very high" number is a personal call. Even for the PA-28s, it averages about three fatal accidents a year. About 2.4 for 172s, while for Bonanza 36s it's less than one.
What I consider "Continued VFR into IFR Conditions" may not be the same as others use. For my purposes, I need a specific call to that effect by the NTSB final report. I do have a separate category for "Disorientation." This includes cases of qualified instrument pilots, in properly-equipped airplanes, that lost control in IFR. It's about 1/3rd the rate of Continued VFR into IFR.
Pretty low...a bit over 6%. We don't train (much) for avoidance of IFR conditions, we don't train (much) for avoiding disorientation, but we do a HECK of a lot of practice handling engine failures. Which is what most of the 172 mechanical failures are.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
I don't want to put others at risk when GA is significantly more risky than our normal day to day risks we take (driving, etc). I think everyone likes to make feel good statements, but reality is Rons numbers paint a different picture.
Also an engine out in Texas and Kansas where your landing in a field is way different than flying here in Phoenix where there aren't many places to put down (engine failure on takeoff here isn't a good thing). So technically speaking I am putting my passengers at a much higher risk here in Phoenix than if I was flying in flat land field country.
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
"Hunt and peck" is how I type; not really applicable here. "Cherry pick" is probably the term you're looking for, and I'll plead guilty as charged...at least as far as the 210 data. I hadn't looked at the "Mechanical Failure" roll-up for it, before, and was surprised it was so high. Like I said, other types are lower, but the 210 landing gear has a lot to answer for....
Eleven percent mechanical failure, 25% percent mechanical failure, even 39% mechanical failure are all less than half: The MAJORITY of aircraft accidents are attributable to the pilot's stick-and-rudder skills and decision-making abilities. Continued VFR into IFR and running out of fuel are a very minor portion of that. Yet some pilots seem fixated on these as major factors.
Ron Wanttaja
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
Seems like a good requirement. As long as it's not a 210 your good to go ;p
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
I mean it's high as a percentage of the total number of fatals. Not that the number of accidents themselves is high.
The FAA claims only 219 fatal accidents total in GA last year. That's a pretty low number spread across a ton of different types.
Thanks for those numbers. That's jives with what I was posting earlier.
Last edited:
Stewartb
Final Approach
When my daughter was a teenager she had heard that moose spotting led to many airplane accidents. Low, slow, and distracted aren't a healthy combo yet we all do it. She'd ask to go to be my spotter, and she was good at it. She'd glue her face in the bubble window and tell me to crank it over so she could see. "Yank and bank, Dad!" Those were good days and we both have fond memories. I wouldn't trade that for anything.
Dav8or
Final Approach
My personal policy is that I do not solicit airplane rides and if an adult (over 18) asks to go, I will take them, but I will explain the risks and statistics as I know them if they ask. When it comes to children, I would only take them if I have the direct permission from both parents and again, if they ask I will explain the risks and statistics as I know them to be. I have yet to ever fly a kid and I'm OK with that. I really didn't get into aviation to fly other people around.
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
Just out of curiosity what do you say in terms of the statistics and risks?
Dav8or
Final Approach
Oh, I usually use the whole motorcycle thing to keep it simple. I say flying (piston GA) is statistically more dangerous than driving a car and about on par with riding a motorcycle. Then I will also point of the fallacies and problems with trying to compare statistics between modes of transportation and how it's hard to really pin down. After that there are usually questions and I try to honestly answer them as best I know based on what I read in magazines and on web forums.
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
Yea sounds like what I do too
Something about "lies, damn lies, and statistics."Then again, maybe he doesn't read the thread because he has a single-seat airplane and the family issue just doesn't enter into it.
One of these days, I swear I'm going to write a "Myths of Aviation Accidents" article.
The numbers will tell you whatever you want. Take your stat on VFR into IMC. Low percentage of "accidents" but high percentage of fatality when it occurs. YMMV, but I am far more concerned with risk factors that have high fatality or serious injury rates than accidents which have a high probability of occurring but also have a high probability of being walked away from. I'm pretty much with @denverpilot. I use the motorcycle stat as an intro, but typically point out that most accidents are pilot error and I tend to be a boy scout, particularly with passengers on board. I'm happy to go beyond that if they ask.
After all, I expose a loved one to the risks of aviation every time I fly: Me! Plus, my wife would kill me if I had a fatal accident.
wanttaja
En-Route
I give a lot of talks on accident statistics, and I always lead with two (other) quotes about statistics:
“Statistics are like swimsuits. What they reveal is interesting. What they conceal is vital!”
- Professor Aaron Levenstein
“The purpose of analysis is insight, not bull****”
- T.C. Weston, The Boeing Company, 1974
The latter is from a former boss, it was on a sampler hung on his office wall (and bull**** was completely spelled out). There's a heck of a lot of truth in it. You analyze to discover causes and (hopefully) find ways to resolve issues. Too often, statistics are meaningless fluff, or are used to try to prove the author's pre-conceived notions.
An example of the former is the typical accident article that ballyhoos, "Accidents were down 20% in 2016!" Accidents are random things. They vary year to year, and the fact that one year is higher than another really isn't that significant. That sort of thing needs a longer-term baseline.
For the latter, I've had several requests along the lines of, "Can you look at your data and show that XXXX is safer than YYYY?" Well, no I can't, but I can run an analysis to determine what the actual relationship is.
Myself, I prefer a balance. A plane hit by a meteorite would probably be fatal 100% of the time, but it's a low enough probability that I don't fret about it. Continued VFR into IFR has a high fatality rate, but I'm not sure what can be done about it other than tell people "Don't do that."
I fly a class of airplane with a higher-than-normal accident rate (homebuilt), with next to no gauges or other pilot aids, and a high fatality rate. I restrict my flying to nice weather, I take good care of the airplane, and look at each accident report as an opportunity to learn and maybe reduce the chance of something similar happening to me. I feel I am realistic about my pilot skills (middling), and try to compensate.
Ron Wanttaja
JonH
Pre-takeoff checklist
If the day of the flight I'm worried or concerned over anything, I won't fly, happens 25% of the time. Usually weather, or bad night's sleep.
If the day of the flight I wake up and feel like it's going to be the best day of my life, game on!
I've ended flights w/ pax prematurely over very small things. G1000 issues, radio issues, and x-wind components higher than I'm used to.
If the day of the flight I wake up and feel like it's going to be the best day of my life, game on!
I've ended flights w/ pax prematurely over very small things. G1000 issues, radio issues, and x-wind components higher than I'm used to.
danhagan
En-Route
I've lost people I knew well at my field that had more certificates and hours. In the past couple of years one was to a mis-fueling and the other CFIT Vmc-IMC on pipeline patrol...he was 20,000 plus hours, but plane was vfr only.
Your number of hours means nothing, its the current hour you're flying
Your number of hours means nothing, its the current hour you're flying
The reliability of the airplane is not the main issue. Mechanical failures accounted for only about 15% of noncommercial fixed-wing GA accidents in the latest Nall Report (2015).
http://aopa.org/-/media/files/aopa/home/training-and-safety/nall-report/25thnallreport.pdf
(See Figure 3 on page 8.)
Last edited:
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I would disagree with the statement I bolded...no, experienced pilots are not immune to accidents; but they do have experience-based skills and knowlege that may give them the ability to better deal with a situation, and as a result are going to be less likely to have an accident in the same situation as an inexperienced pilot.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
I gotta ask, what gives with "well with kids" bit?
I know they are oh so special and reaffirm ones group identity and all that jazz, but frankly how I fly with a pax, be it a 12yr old or a 60yr old is exactly the same, and to be frank all those murders and rapists and scumb bags were also kids once too. Frankly your kid might turn out great, or might be a drain on society, if you want the brass tacks of the matter, based on global resources, the life of a accomplished professional is worth more than your kids life, as it has taken more resources from the earth and society to get them to where they are, vs the resources to make another 12 year old paste eater. Just because a human hasn't reached the trivial age of 18 yet does NOT make their life worth any more or less than you or my life.
Again, pax are pax, it's a great responsibility for a PIC, but really my deciding factor as to who boards my personal plane is ONLY weight and personality.
I know they are oh so special and reaffirm ones group identity and all that jazz, but frankly how I fly with a pax, be it a 12yr old or a 60yr old is exactly the same, and to be frank all those murders and rapists and scumb bags were also kids once too. Frankly your kid might turn out great, or might be a drain on society, if you want the brass tacks of the matter, based on global resources, the life of a accomplished professional is worth more than your kids life, as it has taken more resources from the earth and society to get them to where they are, vs the resources to make another 12 year old paste eater. Just because a human hasn't reached the trivial age of 18 yet does NOT make their life worth any more or less than you or my life.
Again, pax are pax, it's a great responsibility for a PIC, but really my deciding factor as to who boards my personal plane is ONLY weight and personality.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
The discussion sounds to me more like the kids aren't equipped to evaluate risk than the kids are more important than adults.
No qualms. We've done it a lot; mostly single engine and all single pilot (largely IFR). Heck my wife and I have flown off on trips and left the kids at home once they were driving age. The neighbors knew we were gone and the kids know the neighbors well. So, if they needed something they could get help easily.
Statistically it's on par with motorcycle riding. Plus you can lower it by not being stupid; staying from stupid human tricks makes a big difference in the safety. I'm no Bob Hoover, just a regular ol' average private pilot. Don't run out of fuel, no low altitude maneuvers, definitely no "hold my beer and watch this", avoid t-storms and ice like the plague.
I feel much safer flying than driving. Yes, I know there are risks in flying.
Statistically it's on par with motorcycle riding. Plus you can lower it by not being stupid; staying from stupid human tricks makes a big difference in the safety. I'm no Bob Hoover, just a regular ol' average private pilot. Don't run out of fuel, no low altitude maneuvers, definitely no "hold my beer and watch this", avoid t-storms and ice like the plague.
I feel much safer flying than driving. Yes, I know there are risks in flying.
DFH65
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 2,629
- Display Name
Display name:
DFH65
You could die any day of anything of something you do or something someone else does. If you live your life worrying about every little thing you will likely live a very long, boring and unremarkable life. I believe that God knows the number of my days and if today is the day I die so be it if not then I am virtually indestructible.
Be smart take care of the things you can control and the reality is unless you do something stupid or just are unlucky you and your passengers are probably not going to die in a plane accident.
Be smart take care of the things you can control and the reality is unless you do something stupid or just are unlucky you and your passengers are probably not going to die in a plane accident.
arkvet
Line Up and Wait
I often wonder what % of pilots killed in GA accidents due to pilot error had previously made the statement "Most GA accidents are pilot error. Don't inadvertently go VMC to IMC, don't run out of fuel, etc... and it's pretty safe."?
Easy to say "don't be that guy" but the truth is most of the "victims" likely thought they wouldn't be.
Personally yeah I see what you're saying OP. I fly a PA32 for personal use only. Right now at the beach with family. Wife and 3 young kids. The level of responsibility and ADM seems heavy at times. I prematurely rented the car for an extra day this year and kept my morning work schedule empty the day AFTER we are plannintk return. If the weather delays us we will all eat steak and/or lobster!
Easy to say "don't be that guy" but the truth is most of the "victims" likely thought they wouldn't be.
Personally yeah I see what you're saying OP. I fly a PA32 for personal use only. Right now at the beach with family. Wife and 3 young kids. The level of responsibility and ADM seems heavy at times. I prematurely rented the car for an extra day this year and kept my morning work schedule empty the day AFTER we are plannintk return. If the weather delays us we will all eat steak and/or lobster!
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
Easy to say and easy to do if you are conservative in your flying. Many pilots don't make that choice.
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
LOL. Have fun with the replies to this one. I've made similar observations before and got raked over the coals pretty hard. I do agree.
SixPapaCharlie
May the force be with you
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,415
- Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
I don't want to be the reason my kids die in any situation but especially for my hobby. I don't have to fly. I do it 99% just for fun. I think it's different than if we were all to end up on an airliner that went down. This is just me joyriding and taking them with me at times when there's no one on the ground to watch them. My daughter on the other hand really wants to tag along. My son doesn't care so much about flying at all. But neither of them are old enough to really understand that this hobby of mine is capable of ending their lives
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
What is interesting to me is the 85% due to pilot error number. That is a just a bit more than 5/6. So if we take the chances of dying per mile travelled in GA being about 6X that if driving a car (roughly correct I believe) that means that if the pilot doesn't make errors, the chances of dying per mile are about the same.
Of course, the chances of being in an accident in GA are about 1/6 that of driving, but about 36X more likely to be fatal.
Of course, the chances of being in an accident in GA are about 1/6 that of driving, but about 36X more likely to be fatal.