I got the "small airplanes are so dangerous talk today"...

The CDC says that 41,000 Americans die from secondhand smoke each year. I will do my best to fly safely and make good decisions about when not to fly, since with airplanes a crash is almost certain to be my own fault. I do the same with driving where almost 50% of crashes are someone else’s fault and motorcycling where it might be 90%. Food for thought: You can die in a plane crash while you are hiding in your house with locked doors and the curtains closed, if a plane crashes into your house. You will not get out of life alive. If you try hard, you can get out of it without living.

If my ticket is punched to die in a plane crash, at least let me fly the darn plane. And if someone tells me that flying a small plane is dangerous, my response is simple: Clear prop!
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
And no doubt much of that instruction is in the pattern, with close proximity to lots of other planes.
Click to expand...

Correct. The most dangerous phases of flight are takeoffs and landings, when you are low and slow and around a lot of other planes.

Yet another reason flying is preferable to that 9 hour drive on I-95. In the car, I suffer anxiety the entire 9 hours, being one swerve away from catastrophe at all times. For a 3 hour flight, I am only on high alert during takeoffs and landings, and as copilot I feel empowered to increase the odds of safety, by being another pair of eyes or assisting with workload, so “anxiety” is transformed to a feeling of efficacy. At altitude it’s tranquility. Excepting hard IMC the whole way. And even then the ordeal is over with 6 hours sooner.
 
iamtheari said:
The CDC says that 41,000 Americans die from secondhand smoke each year. I will do my best to fly safely and make good decisions about when not to fly, since with airplanes a crash is almost certain to be my own fault. I do the same with driving where almost 50% of crashes are someone else’s fault and motorcycling where it might be 90%. Food for thought: You can die in a plane crash while you are hiding in your house with locked doors and the curtains closed, if a plane crashes into your house. You will not get out of life alive. If you try hard, you can get out of it without living.

If my ticket is punched to die in a plane crash, at least let me fly the darn plane. And if someone tells me that flying a small plane is dangerous, my response is simple: Clear prop!
Click to expand...

I don't believe that for a second. The CDC are liars. But I like your general point. :)
 
Rushie said:
Yes but I'm not sure that completely explains it. Here is JFK Jr on the left, who I find not the least bit attractive, maybe even a little repulsive. And on the right is Henry Cavill, who I find extremely attractive. You'd think they look like exactly the same "type". I don't know what the difference is, but it's there.
View attachment 80445
Click to expand...

Their eyes convey very different intents to me.

The one on the left appears to either be about to sell me insurance, or order a nice chianti to sip while chewing on my liver.

The one on the right appears to be thinking about hiking up a mountain, writing a poem, or sharing a clean and amusing joke with me, which he overheard while giving blood.
 
Risk comparisons only matter in the context of the decision being considered.

For example, if you're trying to decide whether to fly or drive to your destination, it might be part of your decision that flying involves more risk than driving.

But, if you're looking at a flight as a recreational activity (sightseeing, a fly-in, aerobatics) it makes no sense to compare it to driving. Instead, compare it with other recreational options such as a motorcycle ride, an automobile race, scuba diving, rock climbing, chess, etc.

BTW, it occurs to me that, in terms of risk, an Angel Flight trip is akin to putting the patient on the back of your motorcycle for a ride to the hospital.
 
Half Fast said:
BTW, it occurs to me that, in terms of risk, an Angel Flight trip is akin to putting the patient on the back of your motorcycle for a ride to the hospital.
Click to expand...
If I ever need a ride to the hospital for treatment for a terminal disease, I hope I can go by airplane or motorcycle. I'd even go for a pulsejet-powered skateboard or an angry, saddled rhinoceros. I'm already dead at that point, so don't try to take away what little enjoyment I might have left. Besides, someday people will ask "How did he die?" and I think "gored to death by the rhino that he was trying to ride to the hospital" is a much better answer than "cancer."

That being said, I'll still wear a helmet if it's a motorcycle trip.
 
imwithtuxedo said:
We've all been there, someone hears you're a pilot, asks you what kind of plane you fly, and then begins to "tell" you how dangerous it is to fly such small planes because they see crashes on the news where everyone dies.

Unfortunately, I was ready (partly because of my job) to rebut this argument.

Annoying person/family member: small planes are so dangerous
Me: really, why?
AP: I always see on the news how people die when they crash. I'd never get in one of those. Too dangerous.
Me: Yeah, that's sad when people die. Do you drive a car?
AP: of course, why?
Me: Just curious. Do you think driving a car is too dangerous to not ever do it again?
AP: That's ridiculous. Cars are much safer than small planes.
Me: That's interesting, because in 2018, some 650+ people died in Oklahoma in car crashes and only 393 people died in the small airplane crashes in the entire United States in 2018. Also, planes don't crash into each in midair because a sixteen year old is on snapchat or facebook...
AP: silence
Me: Wanna go flying?
AP: silence

Not changing hearts and minds, but I felt better.
Click to expand...

Flying piston aircraft is significantly more dangerous than driving a car. Your values are not valid due the vast number of automobile operations and a very low number of aircraft operations. Pilots who do not understand that distinction are prone to be an aviation accident statistic.
 
schmookeeg said:
Their eyes convey very different intents to me.

The one on the left appears to either be about to sell me insurance, or order a nice chianti to sip while chewing on my liver.

The one on the right appears to be thinking about hiking up a mountain, writing a poem, or sharing a clean and amusing joke with me, which he overheard while giving blood.
Click to expand...

Very good! I think you’re right, it’s the subtle facial “micro” expressions if you can call it that, that cause me to respond probably on a subconscious level.
 
So, if flying airplanes is soooooo much more dangerous than driving (and, yes, I understand that it indeed is, statistically anyway) then why is my airplane insurance ($60k hull value) cheaper than the policy for my two trucks...one of which is liability only???

That makes zero sense.
 
Ditto, my plane liability insurance is also less than my cars. For more coverage. Insurance companies are pretty good at math.
 
jbarrass said:
Ditto, my plane liability insurance is also less than my cars. For more coverage. Insurance companies are pretty good at math.
Click to expand...
The insurance companies are indeed pretty good at math. They also have a large database of how many hours each covered pilot flies each year, which helps them actuarialize the risk of a loss. The "more dangerous than driving" figure is usually put in accidents per total fleet mile. The GA fleet doesn't move as many miles as the car fleet and they know it from the hours we report with each annual policy renewal.
 
timwinters said:
So, if flying airplanes is soooooo much more dangerous than driving (and, yes, I understand that it indeed is, statistically anyway) then why is my airplane insurance ($60k hull value) cheaper than the policy for my two trucks...one of which is liability only???

That makes zero sense.
Click to expand...


The total risk exposure during a premium payment period is much greater for your car, since you use your car much more than your airplane. The risk of a single flight is greater than the risk of a single drive over the same distance, but you take many many more drives than flights during a year.
 
Quote:
"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for." - John Augustus Shedd

Corollary 1:
A plane in the hangar is safe, but that is not what planes are built for."

Corollary 2:
A pilot on the ground is safe, but that is not why pilots exist.

IMHO, a life that holds paramount the avoidance of personal risk is hardly a life; certainly not the life that I want to live. That doesn't mean I seek out risk; rather, it means that I do not let risk deter me from things I want to do. Instead, I seek to mitigate risks to an acceptable level relative to the reward of the activity.

I am a pilot, a motorcyclist, a (former) racing driver, and a cave diver. One of the upsides of my hobbies is that I see very little point in worrying about my cholesterol....
 
Maybe it should be total accidents instead of just fatal accidents. Then see where the numbers fall.
 
Half Fast said:
I am a pilot, a motorcyclist, a (former) racing driver, and a cave diver. One of the upsides of my hobbies is that I see very little point in worrying about my cholesterol....
Click to expand...
On the flip side, those who sit and live in fear likely have cortisol levels through the roof, giving them anxiety, insomnia, depression and raising their risk for a stroke! See? Being fearful isn’t healthy either! :rofl:
 
Ryanb said:
I’m not going to go there, but second hand smoke absolutely causes cancer. Believing anything different is deluding yourself.
Click to expand...

Of course continuous exposure to second hand smoke is not something that I would willingly participate in but that’s really a problem for people who live with smokers and are essentially part time smoking - accidental exposure is not a big deal.
 
Warmi said:
Of course continuous exposure to second hand smoke is not something that I would willingly participate in but that’s really a problem for people who live with smokers and are essentially part time smoking - accidental exposure is not a big deal.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
Many moons ago was a some function a woman asked my wife what I did for a living. When my better half answered I was a pilot the woman became unhinged saying things like don't you worry about him chasing flight attendants, etc? My bride answered that I fly cargo. Didn't stop her a bit as she kept talking about flight attendants. Some folks were about ready to break out laughing and her husband was visibly embarrassed. Some people have their minds made up and no facts will ever change them. They are good for a laugh however.
 
Crow said:
Many moons ago was a some function a woman asked my wife what I did for a living. When my better half answered I was a pilot the woman became unhinged saying things like don't you worry about him chasing flight attendants, etc? My bride answered that I fly cargo. Didn't stop her a bit as she kept talking about flight attendants. Some folks were about ready to break out laughing and her husband was visibly embarrassed. Some people have their minds made up and no facts will ever change them. They are good for a laugh however.
Click to expand...


Well, I suppose you could have been carrying inflatable flight attendants as cargo....
 
Half Fast said:
The total risk exposure during a premium payment period is much greater for your car, since you use your car much more than your airplane.
Click to expand...
Agree...that's commonly the case, and it's the case for me these days. But a decade ago, when I was working all over God's creation, I was putting as many miles, or more, on my plane as I was on my vehicles and it made no difference...had a few years with 250+ hours. Plane was still cheaper.
 
timwinters said:
Agree...that's commonly the case, and it's the case for me these days. But a decade ago, when I was working all over God's creation, I was putting as many miles, or more, on my plane as I was on my vehicles and it made no difference...had a few years with 250+ hours. Plane was still cheaper.
Click to expand...


How many hours did you have in the car during those years?
 
Robert Ryan said:
The AOPA article mentions “numerous initiatives” that have made flying safer. Can someone explain to a new pilot what these are? Unfortunately the article doesn’t go Into detail. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/december/pilot/first-look-nall-report
Click to expand...

What they are talking about is not big changes. The first change that greatly improved safety started in 1978 when standardized POH\AFMs were required for new aircraft. Prior to that the manuals were pamphlets.

Numerous changes have made to training and testing of pilots, weather technology, ATC radar coverage, ect.

Private pilots 40 years ago received no where near the comprehensive training they do today.
 
Huckster79 said:
Click to expand...
Actually, the video does a fair job of correlating the two modes of transportation, generally.

But, most of us get into our cars every day, more than twice.

Most of us in GA do not get into our aircraft every day. Most PPL probably don't get into a plane once a week. Many don't even pilot once a month.

So, we're still stuck with apples and oranges.

That said, the way (IMO) to make GA more safe is to....

GO
FLY
!

We'll become more proficient, we'll continue learning, we'll get safer.

I'm one of those in the video that was "less trained" than today's newly minted PPL.

But, I've been in a fully developed stall, and a spin. I know what they really are. I've done slow flight in a 150 that was the equivalent of hovering.

MOST PPLs don't see that in training today.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE ME A BETTER PILOT. But it is experience that many new PPLs are unfamiliar with.
 
Warmi said:
Another myth ...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21877107

Smoke-free ordinances provide a healthy indoor environment, but their implementation in six states had little or no immediate measurable effect on AMI mortality.
Click to expand...

Judging from the abstract, that government study showed that you're not likely to immediately drop dead from a heart attack due to short term exposure second hand smoke, which is a completely different thing from cancer due to long term exposure.

But I agree that short term exposure is no big deal medically, it's just annoying.
 
I view GA to be a safe activity as I do driving a car. I think flying is actually safer because I’m in relatively complete control of the outcome. With the exception of maintenance(. I rent) I control if I fly, where I fly, when I fly, how much fuel I take, who comes with me and how much distraction I allow. With driving a car, I’m around other people who may be sleepy and not able to concentrate because of their screaming kids, texts going off or whatever else is on their mind. To me, safe should be defined as the number of variables that are under your direct control, not based on statistics or perception. If I can control my own outcome— to a relative high likelihood, I feel safe. If less factors can influence that outcome, I feel safer.
 
I'm not going into safe vs not safe but I do know this. In my short span as a pilot, I've had the DPE and a few CFI's tell me that I have some very good / safe habits (to even quote them telling this place I rent planes from, "This will be one of your safer renters"). In my 20+ years of driving, I've never had anyone tell me I was a safe driver. Most think I'm a rather dangerous driver, regardless of my track record.
 
timwinters said:
One year in particular I put about the same miles on both: 40,000.

assuming an average of 50 mph, I was in the truck for 800.
Click to expand...

In actuarial terms it matters little what YOU do as an individual. What matters is what the aggregate risk pool does. If you fly a lot more than the weighted average you are getting a bit of a free ride on the backs of those who fly less or little at all. So fly more and enjoy!
 
chemgeek said:
In actuarial terms it matters little what YOU do as an individual. What matters is what the aggregate risk pool does. If you fly a lot more than the weighted average you are getting a bit of a free ride on the backs of those who fly less or little at all. So fly more and enjoy!
Click to expand...

Actually, I found in those days that the more I flew the cheaper my rates were. They'd rather insure a pilot who flies 150+ hrs per year than one who flies 20.
 
Bill Greenwood said:
... I, sadly know dozens of friends who have been killed in flying...
Click to expand...

Dozens means at least 24. That is sad, indeed. I hit the 30 year mark in aviation this year, and it was just this year when for the first time someone I knew died while flying. He wasn't a close friend, but I knew him, and I attended the funeral. It certainly makes you think. I have made aviation part of my life, and it has brought me tremendous joy over the last 30 years. When I hear about an accident and reflect on the risks involved with aviation, I always end up thinking of the many active GA pilots that I know, many of whom have been flying longer than me, who have lived long lives, lives that have been enriched by the joy of aviation. I count myself among that group.
 
There are a lot of convoluted statistics, but they are all generated from population statistics. Population statistics are very hard to apply to an individual. Do you assume the 3000 hr, ATP rated, type rated, owner pilot flying a Cessna Mustang has the same risk as a 50 hour private pilot in a V35? I see comparisons between driving and flying above about hours. Is that a real comparison?? I have advanced computers on my cars and plane. My average distance covered in my plane is 300 statute miles in an hour, as the crow flies which is equal to about 400 road miles. My car always averages less then 30 mph even those times when I am on the highways a lot. Quite a bit of time going slow, sitting at stoplights etc.

My take on it is that the stats are a bell curve. There are people at very very high risk. Those are the ones that don't match the pilot, with the airframe with the mission. There are those at very low risk that match the pilot with the plane with the mission. The difference between those 2 groups may be greater than an order of magnitude different in risk. Unlike in a car, the pilot can heavily control his/her risk. On the road, you are always 1 second away from some person falling asleep, being intoxicated or distracted crossing that line and changing your life forever. I, personally, on most days would rather fly than drive to destination. I remember one night, I did a night approach to minimums into Olympia WA. Probably on the higher end of a potential risk flight, but I was proficient, my plane was top shelf, and the mission was well within mine and the aircrafts minimums. Later that night I was broad-sided at a blind intersection by a drunk undocumented individual that ran the red-light at probably 45 mph. His bumper penetrated my door, I was the passenger, and if not for the amazing cage of the Subaru, my life would have been changed forever. Fortunately just some sore ribs. In aviation, you have great control over your destiny. Just match the pilot with the plane with the mission. An imbalance of any of those 3 dramatically increases risk.

Below was my steed that night, and the tower partially in the clouds. The Subaru that gave its life for me with a twisted frame. Be careful out there.

1.jpg 1.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top