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

[CharlieD3]

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.

View attachment 80517 View attachment 80518

Excellent points. Thanks for sharing that story...

 

[timwinters]

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.

Which is a dynamic we haven't discussed...nor can we most likely...

...and @Rockymountain touched on it.

I'd like to see the accident/fatality rate broken out by the accident pilot's average number of hours flown/yr. I seriously doubt that data exists though.

 

[wanttaja]

One way to approach it:

You (to anti-aviation person): "Well, did you hear about that airplane crash in (location 2,000 miles away) that killed three people?"

Anti-aviation person: "Yeah!"

You: "Did you hear about that car crash in (name a nearby city) that killed three people?"

AAP: "Uhhhhh...no?"

Then point out that the media covers cars and airplanes differently.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Kritchlow]

One way to approach it:

You (to anti-aviation person): "Well, did you hear about that airplane crash in (location 2,000 miles away) that killed three people?"

Anti-aviation person: "Yeah!"

You: "Did you hear about that car crash in (name a nearby city) that killed three people?"

AAP: "Uhhhhh...no?"

Then point out that the media covers cars and airplanes differently.

Ron Wanttaja

Small point, but I wouldn’t call them “anti-aviation people”.
My wife (I am a professional pilot) is scared silly of small airplanes, but certainly not anti-aviation.

 

[MuseChaser]

My view on the safety of flying has .. umm... evolved over the years. When I started flying, I was in my early 40s, riding my motorcycle a lot, and still feeling pretty much immortal. As my sons grew older, I became increasingly conscious of the responsibility on my shoulders when my wife was on the bike behind me, or in the air with me. I wasn't (and am still not) worried about something awful befalling me personally, but the idea that I could be responsible for my son's mother becoming gravely injured or worse has become increasingly sobering over the years. We still fly together, but only on pretty much perfect flying days. I don't ride with her behind me anymore. Too many idiots on the road around us.

My father, in his mid 80s, is still healthy and doing great, but he's always been one of those extremely, and I mean EXTREMELY cautious people... he won't eat anything cooked on a grill or smoked because of carcinogens, buys the safest cars around, etc... and he always hated that I rode a motorcycle. Only in the last year or so have I learned just how much he hates that I fly. He tries to be nice about it, but it sure doesn't make it any more fun to fly. I was one of those "flying is safer than driving" folks... but that's just wrong. As others have said, there's a lot less chance of dying because someone ELSE does something stupid, but some of the flying I do is over areas where places to put down aren't always available (lots of forests, primarily) and, to be brutally honest, I don't fly enough to develop supreme confidence in my airplane mechanically and my ability to tell whether a change in engine sound or some other strange new sound is important or just a change in wind angle. When I can get up two or three times a week, those insecurities fade and I REALLY enjoy it. When I get busy and can't get out to airplane for a couple weeks, those nagging fears start to feed on themselves and it takes a bit more self-convincing to get out there again. I suppose that's healthy.

If something bad happens to your car mechanically, you pull over and consider your options in (relative, depending upon location) safety. If your plane has a power-plant or control surface malfunction (both admittedly rare, but so is a major engine issue or something else that incapacitates a car), it's true that you don't automatically explode, but putting the plane down without minor or major injury, or worse, can be problematic if you're not in an area with some flattish open spaces. Even if you do get down safely, you could be faced with several days of wilderness survival (or not surviving) if you are away from roadways. Sooo... score one for the car. It's much safer.

The chances of a drunk, texting, distracted, or wannabe race car driver T-boning you are much, MUCH smaller, of course. Score a BIG one for the wide open skies.

The onus is on the pilot. The more you fly, the better you take care of your airplane, the more you know ABOUT your airplane, the closer you work with and trust your A&P, the more frequently you fly with a trusted CFI, the better you mitigate the risk. At some point, perhaps that risk mitigation CAN make general aviation as safe as driving a car for you, personally. On the whole, it simply isn't.

 

[Pilawt]

Bottom line:

 

[Huckster79]

Your average mid-time pilot flying around in a tricycle Cessna or Piper, staying away from weather and being conservative in taking risks, is not going to come close to being as dangerous as riding a motorcycle.

Other types of flying will be even more dangerous than riding a motorcycle.

If we are talking fatalities, the nosewheel portion can be taken out, if we are talking all accidents then sure.

Yes tailwheels are more prone to a ground loop, but for the most part those are comparable to a “fender bender” in an auto, I dont beleive many groundloops result in a fatality...

 

[Huckster79]

Someone else wrote they dont seek out risk but accept them... Thats my thought as well, i dont do daring things just to do them, but nor will I live in a bubble. Each of us has a different comfort spot on the spectrum of reckless to super safe...

I had a brother in perfect health at 23 he dropped dead playing softball, I always tell my boys this:

“If you don't live while you are alive you are dead before you begin”

My plane was my mid-life crisis buy and idc! I thought i can pay cash in a couple years, then though what the hell i might not be here then, nor be able to get a medical, etc.

Clint Black put it well, “The highest cost of living is dying, thats one everybody pays, so have it spent before ya get the bill, theres no time to kill”

 

[bflynn]

To me, flying is not about accepting risk, it is managing it away. I try to take every method to identify and remove possible negative outcomes. If there is doubt about the successful outcome, then it’s time to reevaluate.

 

[Huckster79]

To me, flying is not about accepting risk, it is managing it away. I try to take every method to identify and remove possible negative outcomes. If there is doubt about the successful outcome, then it’s time to reevaluate.

Completely concur...

i guess what I mean is there is risk in everything we do, some has to be accepted... getting out of bed has risks, staying in bed for too long has risks as well...

 

[Tarheelpilot]

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.

You are a lot more tolerant than I am. That woman’s behavior was rude and very inappropriate. I would have politely told her to keep her opinion to herself.

 

[bflynn]

I’m more passive aggressive than that. I would have stepped up close to her, leaned over and whispered in her ear “Oh honey, it isn’t just flight attendants that I chase.” I’m quite sure her retreat would have been worth it.

 

[Weekend Warrior]

I think of aviation similar to playing poker: you don't want any leaks in your game.
You could be the best pilot in the air, but if you skimp on pre-flights, there is a leak in your game. Other leaks could be you don't get wx briefings, consider flight following troublesome/annoying, scud run, push fuel limits, etc. The leak you don't see is the one that bites!
Assessing yourself can be difficult (if not impossible), but I try to see my own weaknesses, and address them. I ALWAYS listen to criticism (that can be hard too).

 

[Bonchie]

If we are talking fatalities, the nosewheel portion can be taken out, if we are talking all accidents then sure.

Yes tailwheels are more prone to a ground loop, but for the most part those are comparable to a “fender bender” in an auto, I dont beleive many groundloops result in a fatality...

I wasn't meaning to take a shot at tailwheel users. I was just presenting "average, fair weather, risk averse" pilot in that description.

The certain types of flying I was alluding to wasn't taildraggers, but things like aerobatics, single engine hard IMC over terrain, bush flying in Alaska, etc.

 

[Tantalum]

That is ridiculous.

Bob, calm down.

lol..

I dug up an old spreadsheet

I love data like this, thanks!
Question.. for "pilot miscontrol" is that a catch all term... "gee, the plane crashed, we don't know why, I guess the pilot just miscontrolled it!" That's a very large category making up 1 in 4 accidents so I'd be interested what this actually is.. are these turn to final stall spins? I mean, what other miscontrol events are there that will kill you? Outside of over stressing the aircraft?

 

[Rushie]

lol..

Question.. for "pilot miscontrol" is that a catch all term... "gee, the plane crashed, we don't know why, I guess the pilot just miscontrolled it!" That's a very large category making up 1 in 4 accidents so I'd be interested what this actually is.. are these turn to final stall spins? I mean, what other miscontrol events are there that will kill you? Outside of over stressing the aircraft?

Yes, that’s sort of like when they can’t pinpoint the cause of death and end up saying his heart wasn’t beating anymore.

 

[Half Fast]

lol..

View attachment 80546


I love data like this, thanks!
Question.. for "pilot miscontrol" is that a catch all term... "gee, the plane crashed, we don't know why, I guess the pilot just miscontrolled it!" That's a very large category making up 1 in 4 accidents so I'd be interested what this actually is.. are these turn to final stall spins? I mean, what other miscontrol events are there that will kill you? Outside of over stressing the aircraft?

When the investigators are stumped they toss a coin. Heads it’s pilot error, tails it’s carb ice.

 

[wanttaja]

Question.. for "pilot miscontrol" is that a catch all term... "gee, the plane crashed, we don't know why, I guess the pilot just miscontrolled it!" That's a very large category making up 1 in 4 accidents so I'd be interested what this actually is.. are these turn to final stall spins? I mean, what other miscontrol events are there that will kill you? Outside of over stressing the aircraft?

I use "Pilot Miscontrol" as a catch-all term for a failure in the pilot's stick and rudder skills. This doesn't include considered judgement cases like running out of fuel, continued VFR into IFR conditions, CG, etc. A good term might be "real-time mistakes."

This isn't "Loss of Control," like the big analysts talk about. In many of these cases, the plane is under perfect control...but the pilot has made some dumb mistake, like undershooting the approach or futzing up a sub-system.

My Pilot Miscontrol category has some sub-entries under them, and a given accident may be flagged in one or more of these. The categories are:

Loss of Control - Stall
Loss of Control - Winds
Loss of Control - Takeoff Directional
Loss of Control - Landing Directional
Bad Flare or Bounce
System Mismanagement (Trim settings, gear in wrong position, canopy unlatched, landing with brakes on, etc.)
Approach Path Misjudged
Other Loss of Control

Again, fuel mismanagement, carb heat, etc. are tracked separately.

As for "Base to Final Spins," for homebuilts, at least, it's NOT the main area where stalls occur.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Zeldman]

Heck yes small planes are dangerous..!!!

for reporters....

 

[LongRoadBob]

I use "Pilot Miscontrol" as a catch-all term for a failure in the pilot's stick and rudder skills. This doesn't include considered judgement cases like running out of fuel, continued VFR into IFR conditions, CG, etc. A good term might be "real-time mistakes."

This isn't "Loss of Control," like the big analysts talk about. In many of these cases, the plane is under perfect control...but the pilot has made some dumb mistake, like undershooting the approach or futzing up a sub-system.

My Pilot Miscontrol category has some sub-entries under them, and a given accident may be flagged in one or more of these. The categories are:

Loss of Control - Stall
Loss of Control - Winds
Loss of Control - Takeoff Directional
Loss of Control - Landing Directional
Bad Flare or Bounce
System Mismanagement (Trim settings, gear in wrong position, canopy unlatched, landing with brakes on, etc.)
Approach Path Misjudged
Other Loss of Control

Again, fuel mismanagement, carb heat, etc. are tracked separately.

As for "Base to Final Spins," for homebuilts, at least, it's NOT the main area where stalls occur.

Ron Wanttaja

Wow. I’ve heard so much about base to final, and (ok home built...but still) I never would have thought takeoff and climb was so much higher.

 

[Half Fast]

I use "Pilot Miscontrol" as a catch-all term for a failure in the pilot's stick and rudder skills. This doesn't include considered judgement cases like running out of fuel, continued VFR into IFR conditions, CG, etc. A good term might be "real-time mistakes."

This isn't "Loss of Control," like the big analysts talk about. In many of these cases, the plane is under perfect control...but the pilot has made some dumb mistake, like undershooting the approach or futzing up a sub-system.

My Pilot Miscontrol category has some sub-entries under them, and a given accident may be flagged in one or more of these. The categories are:

Loss of Control - Stall
Loss of Control - Winds
Loss of Control - Takeoff Directional
Loss of Control - Landing Directional
Bad Flare or Bounce
System Mismanagement (Trim settings, gear in wrong position, canopy unlatched, landing with brakes on, etc.)
Approach Path Misjudged
Other Loss of Control

Again, fuel mismanagement, carb heat, etc. are tracked separately.

As for "Base to Final Spins," for homebuilts, at least, it's NOT the main area where stalls occur.

Ron Wanttaja

Interesting graphic. What % of accidents are caused by making all those right hand turns in the pattern?

 

[MIFlyer]

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.

you can be honest with us, have you ever taken liberties with a package?

 

[Huckster79]

I wasn't meaning to take a shot at tailwheel users. I was just presenting "average, fair weather, risk averse" pilot in that description.

The certain types of flying I was alluding to wasn't taildraggers, but things like aerobatics, single engine hard IMC over terrain, bush flying in Alaska, etc.

I gotcha, I didn't mean to be argumentative either, just pointing out that we do have more "fender bender" accidents than nosewheels but I would have to assume our fatality rate isnt' much if any different. Just talking for discussion sake..

 

[Dana]

I suspect the accident types would be different for taildraggers. More runway excursions, more aerobatic accidents, fewer IMC related things. Perhaps more engine failures (cheap, maybe not well maintained planes), better fatality rate after engine failure (slower planes and pilots more likely to practice landings just for fun). And so forth.

 

[MBDiagMan]

I suspect the accident types would be different for taildraggers. More runway excursions, more aerobatic accidents, fewer IMC related things. Perhaps more engine failures (cheap, maybe not well maintained planes), better fatality rate after engine failure (slower planes and pilots more likely to practice landings just for fun). And so forth.

I would be super interested to see the data that makes you say all that.

 

[wanttaja]

Wow. I’ve heard so much about base to final, and (ok home built...but still) I never would have thought takeoff and climb was so much higher.

What comes to my mind is inattention. Base-to-final, we're generally super-focused on getting the plane on the runway.

Takeoff...not as much. "I'm off the ground, time to get out the charts, change frequencies, fiddle with the GPS," etc.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

I suspect the accident types would be different for taildraggers. More runway excursions, more aerobatic accidents, fewer IMC related things. Perhaps more engine failures (cheap, maybe not well maintained planes), better fatality rate after engine failure (slower planes and pilots more likely to practice landings just for fun). And so forth.

Well...there's a LOT more factors involved that just gear position.

The Van's RV-6 is a good example. It comes in both taildragger and nosewheel versions. So will it settle the issue?

Nope. Take a look at the following. The taildragger version has a lower percentage of accidents caused by Pilot Miscontrol...which is where you're expect to see the effect of the taildragger configuration.

But....but.... look at the pilot experience. Either average or median, the typical RV-6 taildragger pilot involved in an accident has TWICE the experience as the nosedragger pilots.

___________Aircraft Type__________|_RV-6 Taildragger_|_RV-6 Nosewheel_|
__________Total Accidents_________|________83________|_______142______|
__________Fatal Accidents_________|________22________|_______37_______|
___________Percent Fatal__________|________27%_______|_______26%______|
________Average Pilot Hours_______|_______4061_______|______1976______|
________Median Pilot Hours________|_______1563_______|_______797______|
_________Max Time in Type_________|_______2000_______|______6500______|
__________________________________|__________________|________________|
__________________________________|____Percentage____|___Percentage___|
_________Pilot Miscontrol_________|_______44.6%______|______47.2%_____|
___________Builder Error__________|_______4.8%_______|______1.4%______|
_________Maintenance Error________|_______2.4%_______|______4.2%______|
____Undetermined Loss of Power____|_______10.8%______|______6.3%______|
_________Engine Mechanical________|_______7.2%_______|______2.8%______|
________Landing Gear/Brakes_______|_______0.0%_______|______2.8%______|
_________Other Mechanical_________|_______4.8%_______|______1.4%______|
__________Fuel Exhaustion_________|_______2.4%_______|______3.5%______|
__________Fuel Starvation_________|_______1.2%_______|______3.5%______|
_____________Carb Ice_____________|_______1.2%_______|______2.1%______|
____________VFR to IFR____________|_______1.2%_______|______2.1%______|
______Maneuvering at low alt______|_______4.8%_______|______5.6%______|
_______Inadequate Preflight_______|_______1.2%_______|______2.8%______|
_________Midair Collision_________|_______2.4%_______|______4.2%______|

So the age-old question isn't answered....

(Due to xenforo system limitations, I was unable to include the entire spreadsheet...so not all the rows in the causes are included).

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

Here's a PDF with more data on the RV-6 comparison.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[iamtheari]

I am starting to think that the answer to outsiders’ claims about the dangers of flying can be taken from the New Parents’ Playbook: If you don’t have an airplane, you cannot possibly have anything valid to say about airplanes and you are a despicable person for even trying to speak on the topic.

It’s an annoying, self-righteous non sequitur, but it works for new parents so why not us?

 

[Tantalum]

I am starting to think that the answer to outsiders’ claims about the dangers of flying can be taken from the New Parents’ Playbook: If you don’t have an airplane, you cannot possibly have anything valid to say about airplanes and you are a despicable person for even trying to speak on the topic.

It’s an annoying, self-righteous non sequitur, but it works for new parents so why not us?

It's because of the crap everyone believes on the media.. aviation is one of those easy click-bait headlines and most people know nothing about flying so they'll believe any garbage they read

 

[Bill]

Takeoff...not as much. "I'm off the ground, time, to get out the charts, change frequencies, fiddle with the GPS," etc.

Seeing as this data was a for homebuilts, I’d bet some of that 36% on takeoff is “oh crap, the engine just stopped.”

 

[Dana]

I would be super interested to see the data that makes you say all that.

I have no data, which is why I said "I suspect", just from my observations of how people fly, and thinking real data would be interesting. For example, I see (other than student training) taildraggers out just shooting landings for fun more often than I see nosedraggers doing the same thing. People looking for cross country machines are more likely to choose a nosewheel, which is why I speculated that IMC related accidents would be lower for a taildragger, and so forth.

But Ron showed some data. Ron, you list numbers of accidents, do you know what the relative fleet size for RV-6 vs. -6A? And any breakdown as to phase of flight when the accidents occurred? But to the extent you can draw any conclusion with such small numbers (you really can't), it matches my predictions, more VFR to IFR for the nosewheel, more mechanical problems for the tailwheels. I expected "maneuvering at low altitude" to be higher for the taildraggers, but perhaps the higher pilot time made them more able to pull it off?

 

[wanttaja]

Seeing as this data was a for homebuilts, I’d bet some of that 36% on takeoff is “oh crap, the engine just stopped.”

Nope. Notice the caption on the graphic: "Phase of Flight for Stall/Spin Accidents of Homebuilt Aircraft When Aircraft is Fully Operational."

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

But Ron showed some data. Ron, you list numbers of accidents, do you know what the relative fleet size for RV-6 vs. -6A?

Ah, fleet sizes. Had a go-around with a nice guy from Van's recently on that topic. We have some, ummm, differences.

As of January 2019, I show 1,898 RV-6* aircraft on the US registry. By RV-6*, I mean all RV-6 aircraft, irregardless of gear configuration. By "RV-6", I'm referring to any combination of terms that I think might indicate an RV-6: "RV-6," "RV6," "RV 6," "VANS 6." Wild cards are used.

For the -6As, I take the RV-6 list, and look for combination of "6A"..."6A", "6 A", and "6-A."

I get 920 aircraft matching "RV-6A". So the fleet is almost exactly split between known nosewheel aircraft and "other."

And any breakdown as to phase of flight when the accidents occurred?

There are, but what's in the NTSB report is mostly worthless. When I've done the analysis (like for the diagram I posted) I go through and do a manual determination. I.e., read the accident reports, and set the appropriate flag.

But to the extent you can draw any conclusion with such small numbers (you really can't)...

True, but it's the only statistics we have. The RV-6 is the most common single type of homebuilt; if one is going to draw conclusions, it's the baby. My 20-year database (1998-2017) has 227 RV-6 accidents; each accident is less than a half-percent of the total. When I publish formally, I set myself a lower bound for aircraft to include. Usually it's 50... so each accident is a full two percent of the total.

My current project is on fires in homebuilt aircraft...both in flight, and on the ground after crashes. The former is refreshingly rare, but there were 344 instances of the latter. I've analyzed them by construction method, not type. I have the type breakdown (for both in-flight and post-impact) but figure the numbers are too low to be reliable. I don't want a company to get a bad rep based on inadequate data.

... it matches my predictions, more VFR to IFR for the nosewheel, more mechanical problems for the tailwheels. I expected "maneuvering at low altitude" to be higher for the taildraggers, but perhaps the higher pilot time made them more able to pull it off?

Or they're older, and are less likely to take risks. Or a tailwheel is less likely to snag on a wire. Or they're purchasers, not builders, and are out having fun with their "hot rod." There are nine cases of maneuvering at low altitude for RV-4s; seven involved purchased airplanes.

Then again, it's an older design. Most of the RV-4s are probably now owned by someone other than the original builder.

Hopefully, you can see my problem. There are a TON of variables involved. Pilot total time, pilot ratings, pilot time in type, builder vs. purchaser, total time on aircraft, etc, fleet sizes, active aircraft, etc. It's not something that simply boils down where the third wheel is at.

The Van's fleet is indeed big enough to draw conclusions on, but even then, it starts losing validity the more-deeply you get into the aircraft type variations. I just completed an analysis of the accident statistics of the RV fleet. Would have loved to do separate analyses of the RV-7 and RV-8 nosegear vs. taildraggers, but it diluted the results too much for my liking. And there weren't enough RV-3, RV-10, or EAB RV-12 accidents to include, either.

The article is scheduled to appear in the March 2020 issue of KITPLANES.

Ron "Going into hiding on 29 February" Wanttaja

 

[Tantalum]

My Pilot Miscontrol category has some sub-entries under them, and a given accident may be flagged in one or more of these. The categories are

Wow, thanks for the details!!