GA fatality rates: How do we compare?

A

asicer

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
10,030
Display Name
Display name:
asicer
I was going to post this as a reply in the "Discussing GA Risk with Family / Friends " thread, but I thought this deserved its own thread.

Here's the raw stats:

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/NTS_Entire_14Q3.pdf

Table 2-21 shows that for 2013 there were 0.89 fatalities per 100 million passenger car miles traveled. Table 2-22 shows there were 23.27 fatalities per 100 million motorcycle miles traveled or 26x higher than passenger cars.

Table 2-14 shows 2.11 fatalities per 100 thousand GA flight hours. I don't know what is the GA average, but supposing it is 120kts or 138mph then that would work out to be 15.29 fatalities per 100 million GA miles traveled. From this, we can conclude that GA is a lot more likely to kill you than passenger cars but nearly half as likely as motorcycles. And referring to table 2-33 you are about as likely to be in a fatal GA accident as you are in a fatal light rail accident.

However, GA encompasses a lot of different types (airplanes, helicopters, balloons, etc) doing a lot of different things (pipeline patrol, acrobatics, air racing, etc). Stuffing the spouse and kids into the family Cessna to go see grandma ain't like dusting crops. To make that adjustment, I'll refer to these stats:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cirrus_Safety_Record_Average_205914-1.html

For the C172, it's 0.45 fatal accidents per 100k hours. Note that I said "fatal accidents" as opposed to "fatalities" as previously mentioned. Figure 172s are about 110kts or 127mph, that's 3.54 fatal accidents per 100 million miles. I don't have the data on how many fatalities occurred per fatal accident in a C172, but supposing it is 1.5 that would put it at 5.31 fatalities per 100 million miles or about 6 times higher than cars.

But what exactly does 6x mean? Referring to Figure 1 of this document flying a C172 is about likely to kill you as driving in a passenger car circa 1970 assuming the above numbers.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811552.pdf

Comments?
 
If you need statistics it is too dangerous for you and you should stay on the ground.
 
I don't think accidents per mile is an appropriate statistic. Planes are faster than cars. Accidents per hour is a better measure because it gives you an idea of how likely you are to die after flying a certain number of hours. So for the C172 as you mentioned at 0.45 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours what this means is that my probability of dying in a C172 over 10,000 hours which is more than I would ever do is about 5%... So I'm 95% likely to not die over the rest of my flying career.

Good enough for me! :D

The alternative of sitting and watching TV instead of flying is not living. I'd rather be dead anyway.
 
It doesn't matter if it's 1:1,000,000 if your the one. So get busy living or get busy dying.
 
sixpacker said:
I don't think accidents per mile is an appropriate statistic. Planes are faster than cars. Accidents per hour is a better measure because it gives you an idea of how likely you are to die after flying a certain number of hours.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that depend on the purpose of your flights/drives? If the bulk of your driving hours is spent pulling out of the garage, circling around a while and then putting it back in the garage then you probably want to use hours. I have a neighbor who does exactly that every Saturday with his classic car. If you are using your plane to go places then I would think per mile is more appropriate, especially since weather or maintenance would mean you'd be taking a car instead.
 
Time versus miles as the unit of risk depends on the purpose of flying. If you have to get somewhere in particular, then distance may be more appropriate unit. If flying is for recreation, then time may be the more appropriate unit.

Regardless, I appreciate the methodical approach taken by the OP, despite possible limitations of the data.
 
ClimbnSink said:
If you need statistics it is too dangerous for you and you should stay on the ground.
Click to expand...

I think it's more about having an educated answer for the non-pilots that may ask the question.
 
asicer said:
I think it's more about having an educated answer for the non-pilots that may ask the question.
Click to expand...

They won't be convinced. Better to mock them for being chicken.
 
Honestly, it's generally pointless to try and make comparisons between such high level 'averaged' statistics. It's comparing apples and oranges. Mistakes that are typically the result of operator stupidity such as running out of gas are an annoyance in a car but can be fatal in a plane.

The main difference is that with aviation the pilot is nearly always in a position to manage the risk of flying. A driver, once on the road, is largely at the mercy of other drivers.

Roughly 80% of fatal general aviation accidents are the result of pilot error. Put simply, a well trained pilot that is constantly learning is giving themselves a good shot at avoiding the things that cause 80% of fatal aviation accidents.

The same can not be said for driving a car, unfortunately.
 
I agree with that Rocket, if you are diligent about fuel management & weather and avoid high risk activities, you have just brought the odds way down, maybe to auto levels or even better. Look at the two most recent accidents, fog (weather) and air show demonstration (high risk).
 
Years ago my insurance gave me a discount for watching one of the King videos on risk. It was a pretty good analysis and they concluded it was about the same as a motorcycle. The analysis wasn't perfect I suppose, but it's as good as any alternative I've seen so I'll use it.

Interestingly, when my passengers ask, I use the motorcycle analogy and it seems to "click" nearly all the time. It provides a graceful way out for those with a low risk tolerance, they probably don't ride either. For the rest it seems to make them realize, that it is quite fun and mostly safe enough, but extra vigilance is needed so you don't get bitten.
 
Comparing aviation accident statistics to motorcycle accident statistics may make your passengers feel better.
In my opinion they are useless.
How do you compare a drunken bikers risk with a skilled motorcyclist’s risk?
How do you compare a bold unskilled pilot’s risk with someone who works to mitigate risk?
In my opinion the motorcycle or the aircraft is not the risk so it is not a good basis for comparison.
When people fly with me; my injuries and the experimental aircraft elevate the risk.
I make an effort to explain the risk because I want them to understand there is risk of injury or death.
It is a part of my emergency procedures explanation.
I explain everything involved in the mission so there are no surprises.
I feel it is a good aviation decision not to fly with me and I am grateful when they make it.
The last thing I need in an emergency is a passenger acting badly.
 
How do I compare? My fatality rate in all activities I participate in is still hovering around 0:1
 
Your data sounds correct. Those who don't like the conclusions will always mock it, but statistics is the only yardstick we have to measure relative risk.

I have long since stopped justifying to myself or others that GA is a safe and economical way to travel. GA is neither cheap nor safe compared to driving or airlines. But those are not the reasons we fly airplanes. It is a sport with its own rewards, and it comes with expense and risk.

One does not justify rock climbing as the cheapest and safest way to get to the top. Nor does one justify skiing as the cheapest and safest way to get to the bottom.
 
EdFred said:
How do I compare? My fatality rate in all activities I participate in is still hovering around 0:1
Click to expand...

I got scared half to death once. So that puts me at 0.5/400 hours flown. I guess that would be 0.5/400000 miles for the OPs stats.
 
jbarrass said:
Years ago my insurance gave me a discount for watching one of the King videos on risk. It was a pretty good analysis and they concluded it was about the same as a motorcycle. The analysis wasn't perfect I suppose, but it's as good as any alternative I've seen so I'll use it.

Interestingly, when my passengers ask, I use the motorcycle analogy and it seems to "click" nearly all the time. It provides a graceful way out for those with a low risk tolerance, they probably don't ride either. For the rest it seems to make them realize, that it is quite fun and mostly safe enough, but extra vigilance is needed so you don't get bitten.
Click to expand...

I used to use the Motorcycle comparison with the caveat that in a airplane it will most likely be the pilots fault, on a motorcycle it will most likely be another drivers fault, So a well informed cautious pilot will have much better odds than a motorcyclist.

I have since started commuting to work on a motorcycle. It is my wife's fault she would rather ride motorcycles than fly, so the conversation started with "You have your airplane...." When she moved up to a larger motorcycle I started commuting on the the smaller 750 it gets almost 60MPG (more avgas money).

After a few years of riding motorcycles and being around motorcycle riders I have determined the motorcyclist are almost as bad as pilots, more often than not motorcycle accidents are the motorcyclist fault.

And as with airplanes the pilot and motorcyclist can do a lot to minimize the chances of having an accident even when it wouldn't be their fault, with good situational awareness.
Pilot - flying over land-able or more survivable areas or postponing a flight until better conditions exist.
Motorcyclist - looking ahead for that car that may run that stop sign, or not see you.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
FlyingTiger said:
I agree with that Rocket, if you are diligent about fuel management & weather and avoid high risk activities, you have just brought the odds way down, maybe to auto levels or even better. Look at the two most recent accidents, fog (weather) and air show demonstration (high risk).
Click to expand...

The problem is, now it's a question of how reliable is the human being? Every pilot tells themselves and everyone else, that they are safe and won't screw up like those other idiots. Yet the planes keep crashing and people keep dying.

If you view the airplane as a complete system that includes a pilot as part of that system, you find that yes, the most unreliable component of that system is the pilot, but the fact remains, it is a necessary component and you can't fly without it.

So to the passenger of this plane who is not part of the system, but merely a consumer of it, how do you evaluate the quality of this most critical part? Most of the time you really can't, because like I said before all pilots are rated above average if you ask them. This is why the stats are somewhat useful to passengers with no knowledge. The stats evaluate the entire system. Pilots tend to exclude themselves and only evaluate the aircraft and the mission.

jbarrass said:
Interestingly, when my passengers ask, I use the motorcycle analogy and it seems to "click" nearly all the time. It provides a graceful way out for those with a low risk tolerance, they probably don't ride either. For the rest it seems to make them realize, that it is quite fun and mostly safe enough, but extra vigilance is needed so you don't get bitten.
Click to expand...

I use the motorcycle stats too. I might also include the driving in the '70s as well. I like that. It gives the passengers a point of reference for a go, or no go decision. They can ask themselves "Would I feel safe riding on the back of a motorcycle on the freeway?" or, "Would I let my kids ride on the back of a motorcycle on the freeway?" and if the answer is no, they stay on the ground.

I'm good with their decision either way. I not a proselytizer for GA. I personally don't try to cajole anybody into going flying. They either want to or they don't. However the question of "How safe is it?" comes up all the time and the motorcycle answer satisfies most without a lot of "yes, well, sort of... it all depends... and there are no good ways to... ".
 
brcase said:
I used to use the Motorcycle comparison with the caveat that in a airplane it will most likely be the pilots fault, on a motorcycle it will most likely be another drivers fault, So a well informed cautious pilot will have much better odds than a motorcyclist.

I have since started commuting to work on a motorcycle. It is my wife's fault she would rather ride motorcycles than fly, so the conversation started with "You have your airplane...." When she moved up to a larger motorcycle I started commuting on the the smaller 750 it gets almost 60MPG (more avgas money).

After a few years of riding motorcycles and being around motorcycle riders I have determined the motorcyclist are almost as bad as pilots, more often than not motorcycle accidents are the motorcyclist fault.

And as with airplanes the pilot and motorcyclist can do a lot to minimize the chances of having an accident even when it wouldn't be their fault, with good situational awareness.
Pilot - flying over land-able or more survivable areas or postponing a flight until better conditions exist.
Motorcyclist - looking ahead for that car that may run that stop sign, or not see you.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...


I rode a motorcycle through most of dental school, including several interstate trips back and forth to my home. I had 3 near misses and they all were the other driver's fault. Sometimes in traffic, it's hard to stay out of everyone's blind spots. On the other hand, I have driven (in a car) over an oil spot in a turn and some black ice that would have been very bad news on a motorcycle.
 
Dav8or said:
The problem is, now it's a question of how reliable is the human being? Every pilot tells themselves and everyone else, that they are safe and won't screw up like those other idiots. Yet the planes keep crashing and people keep dying.
Click to expand...

isn't fuel exhaustion the number one cause of off airport landings? Ironic since it is 100% in the pilot's control.
 
Last edited:
rbridges said:
isn't fuel exhaustion the number one cause of off airport landings? Ironic since it is 100% in the pilot's control.
Click to expand...

Unless you have a leak that happens somewhere. And you know how accurate our fuel gauges are.
 
I understand why people study this stuff so closely but there has to be a point at which you just decide, ok this isn't an insane suicidal stunt. Know to avoid the big killers of weather and fuel starvation, follow your checklists&preflight, pay attention, and you'll probably be fine.

Or stay home, fall down the stairs, and break your neck instead.
 
sixpacker said:
I don't think accidents per mile is an appropriate statistic. Planes are faster than cars. Accidents per hour is a better measure because it gives you an idea of how likely you are to die after flying a certain number of hours. So for the C172 as you mentioned at 0.45 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours what this means is that my probability of dying in a C172 over 10,000 hours which is more than I would ever do is about 5%... So I'm 95% likely to not die over the rest of my flying career.

Good enough for me! :D

The alternative of sitting and watching TV instead of flying is not living. I'd rather be dead anyway.
Click to expand...


I'm not following your math. If there are .45 fatal accidents in 100,000 hours, wouldn't that mean .045 fatal accidents for 10,000 hours?
 
cowman said:
I understand why people study this stuff so closely but there has to be a point at which you just decide, ok this isn't an insane suicidal stunt. Know to avoid the big killers of weather and fuel starvation, follow your checklists&preflight, pay attention, and you'll probably be fine.

Or stay home, fall down the stairs, and break your neck instead.
Click to expand...

I think the point of the thread is not to convince the pilot it is safe to fly, it is to answer the concerns of passengers about how safe it is. Remember, they won't be dying "doing what they love" at all. Telling them they could slip and fall in the bathtub isn't a very satisfying answer and reinforces that you either have no idea how safe it is, or you just don't care.
 
Comparing GA flying to cars to motorcycles does not work. The stats for GA include the biz jet crowd and package delivery. Commercial aviation is generally cattle car flying.
Try comparing YOUR stats. Being liberal with the numbers, I have 100,000 air miles between airplanes and helicopters. Following the same loose estimations, I have about 1.2 million car miles (cars, truck, SUV). Not sure but I would guess about 10,000 miles on a motorcycle. I have never bent metal on either the plane or the motorcycle. I have had one serious crash in the car and several minor. In all cases, no serious injuries.
My guess is you are safer flying or riding with me on the bike than as a pax in the car. On the other hand, I do take recurring training for the aircraft. I have not seen a DE for the car in 44 years!
 
Last edited:
If GA and motorcycle numbers include all the drunks, ill trained, and unlucky while GA is mostly sober and well trained then airplanes are deathtraps.
 
asicer said:
...And referring to table 2-33 you are about as likely to be in a fatal GA accident as you are in a fatal light rail accident...
Click to expand...

I can't figure out why light rail fatalities would be that high. :confused:
 
Dav8or said:
I think the point of the thread is not to convince the pilot it is safe to fly, it is to answer the concerns of passengers about how safe it is. Remember, they won't be dying "doing what they love" at all. Telling them they could slip and fall in the bathtub isn't a very satisfying answer and reinforces that you either have no idea how safe it is, or you just don't care.
Click to expand...

Well I've only had 2 passengers so far, my wife and a long time friend. Both are willing to fly with me again so that's a good sign right :D

I'd talked to both often enough to have explained the dangers, how they can be avoided, and to try to break down all the statics into a more understandable "probably safer than a motorcycle but slightly more risky than a car" manner.

They were both OK with this. However, bear in mind that we all ride snowmobiles which I pointed out are probably more dangerous. Also, my wife rides horses, which again are probably more dangerous.

I've talked to some other people- mostly friends. I have a lot of people approaching me asking if they could go(had to explain the pro-rata share rule to one who was offering money). Some willing to send their young kids up with me even. Just hasn't worked out in our schedules as we're rarely in the same place at the same time.

So, I don't get much of this as a problem... I don't know if it's just the sort of company I keep or that they know I'm fairly cautious and trust me or what but as I said, not much trouble with it.
 
jbarrass said:
Years ago my insurance gave me a discount for watching one of the King videos on risk. It was a pretty good analysis and they concluded it was about the same as a motorcycle.
Click to expand...

Must have been a long time ago. My take on the NTS numbers is that GA fatality rates have been falling while motorcycle fatality rates haven't. We're a lot better off than motorcycles nowadays.
 
Dav8or said:
I can't either. Maybe it includes suicides where people throw themselves in front of trains? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I think so. If you were commuting to work when a despondent stock broker walks onto the tracks, you and a thousand fellow commuters have just been in a fatal accident.
 
I have around 70,000 miles on motorcycles, and am just starting my pilot training. The problem with comparing pilots to motorcyclists is that motorcyclists seem to have, on average, about 50 less IQ points than pilots.
 
Without any evidence whatsoever to support my claim, I'd say that the primary cause of any vehicle, motorcycle, or airplane accident is that the person operating it just sucked.

Deep ain't it?

Seriously. The vast majority of the people I've known to have car wrecks, just plain suck or sucked at driving. Makes sense it would be the same for pilots.



For example: I suck at making sound arguments. If I depended on that to keep me alive, I would surely perish. The statistics would likely indicate some other cause.
 
No matter what form of transportation you choose, accident statistics are going to be skewed by the idiot factor. I wish there was a way to filter out the idiots from the stats to get a fairer picture.

I do think both motorcycles and airplanes suffer because they attract a certain element of risk takers or adrenaline junkies — even more so than cars. And those risk-taking idiots make the rest of us look bad in the mortality stats, unfortunately.

That said, even conscientious, careful, experienced pilots can die. I'm not trying to brush off the risks, just saying I think the mortality stats are rather skewed because some forms of transportation are idiot-magnets :)
 
DFH65 said:
It doesn't matter if it's 1:1,000,000 if your the one. So get busy living or get busy dying.
Click to expand...



:yeahthat:

When you go up, show them all of the amazing photos from up top. It just might change their minds.
 
OkieFlyer said:
Without any evidence whatsoever to support my claim, I'd say that the primary cause of any vehicle, motorcycle, or airplane accident is that the person operating it just sucked.

Deep ain't it?

Seriously. The vast majority of the people I've known to have car wrecks, just plain suck or sucked at driving. Makes sense it would be the same for pilots.



For example: I suck at making sound arguments. If I depended on that to keep me alive, I would surely perish. The statistics would likely indicate some other cause.
Click to expand...

I really suck at driving......said no one ever!
 
FloridaPilot said:
I really suck at driving......said no one ever!
Click to expand...

Funny, but untrue.

Uncle got old and decided to hang up the keys. And I've heard a couple times "You drive because I don't enjoy it and you're better at it than I am." Admittedly, they were from females and I have yet to hear it from a male.
 
sarangan said:
One does not justify rock climbing as the cheapest and safest way to get to the top. Nor does one justify skiing as the cheapest and safest way to get to the bottom.
Click to expand...
I like this answer. Do you really need to justify your hobby, or even your career to other people?

I don't talk about flying much to non-pilots although I'll answer questions if they ask. If they start with the, "aren't you afraid?" type questions I steer the conversation in another direction.
 
Everskyward said:
I like this answer. Do you really need to justify your hobby, or even your career to other people?
Click to expand...


So you're cool with removing the requirement for a criminal background check every single time I purchase gear for one of my other hobbies? ;)
 
denverpilot said:
So you're cool with removing the requirement for a criminal background check every single time I purchase gear for one of my other hobbies? ;)
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with what I posted? It would be a better analogy if I had posted that I'm in favor of removing the licensing requirement for pilots, which I'm not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top