Why are the airlines so much safer than GA?

jspilot said:
I really hate these types of questions. No offense to the op but these are the kinds of questions that just perpetuate the stigma that GA is unsafe. If you count up the thousands of GA flights that take off and land safely each and everyday accorss the United States their really is no way anyone can say that GA is unsafe.

.... But no one ever hears about the flights that land safely. They just hear of the ones that don't, and therefore, because many of the everyday people know nothing about the world beyond what they are told about it, people conclude, " I hear about a small plane crash every so often, those things are not safe.":mad2:
Click to expand...

First of all the OP asked "Why are the airlines so much safer than GA?", not "Why is GA unsafe?"

Secondly, the number of "GA flights that take off and land safely each and everyday" has no bearing on the relative safety of the activity. What counts is how many accidents and fatalities there are in comparison to the number of flights and flight hours, and since the OP asked "Why are the airlines so much safer than GA?", those statistics have to be compared to the number of accidents and fatalities in airline flying compared to the number of flight and flight hours.

Making these comparisons shows that airline operations are far and away safer than GA flying.

ClimbnSink said:
This is funny. It is not equipment that makes the airlines safer.
Click to expand...

It's nonsense to claim airline equipment is not a significant factor in its safety relative to GA.

jesse said:
Pretty simple: vastly superior equipment. Pilots are more experienced and receive far more training.
Click to expand...

This simple statement provides the best answer.
 
MD11Pilot said:
Some of the above responses are funny....



Jet Engines....Undoubtedly an major advantage. Performance requirements far exceed anything that any GA aircraft can do (well maybe a Gulfstream etc.) We have on board performance computers, procedures etc. in the extremely unlikely event of double engine failures...but it still comes down to flying the airplane at that point. When I flew fully loaded Navajo's, my briefing was the good engine will help us find a crash site....now it's "We lost an engine.....ok, well I guess we had better do something...tell them we are going to be late for dinner".
Click to expand...


Ha! I fly the Dash 8. You should see the passenger's faces when they see props. Then they make a B line for the 777 parked next to us. Its pretty funny.


MD11Pilot said:
Procedures....out the wazoo:yikes:
You will put the flaps down now, you will put the gear down now...you will recite these lines...verbatim...
Case in point. Landing DFW, my F/O made the 500 foot call...on speed, sink 700. We were getting a company line check. He was debriefed on an improper callout. The book says, according to the checkpilot...500 feet, on speed, sink 7...NOT 700!
Well isn't that special...do I feel safer now:hairraise:
Click to expand...


I know what you mean. Our missed approach callouts are
"Set condition levers max"
"Set power"
"Power set"
"Flaps one notch up"

I said "flaps up one notch" durring initial training and got a talking to. The reason being that under stress, all that might be heard is flaps up, they get dumped, and theres a problem. Especially on a single engine missed.
 
What is the percentage of GA accidents caused by mechanical failure? Blaming equipment is an ego bandaid for delusional hobby pilots.
 
3393RP said:
First of all the OP asked "Why are the airlines so much safer than GA?", not "Why is GA unsafe?"

Secondly, the number of "GA flights that take off and land safely each and everyday" has no bearing on the relative safety of the activity. What counts is how many accidents and fatalities there are in comparison to the number of flights and flight hours, and since the OP asked "Why are the airlines so much safer than GA?", those statistics have to be compared to the number of accidents and fatalities in airline flying compared to the number of flight and flight hours.

Making these comparisons shows that airline operations are far and away safer than GA flying.
Click to expand...

I did a little research because I was curious what the statistics said-- Here's a chart from 2013 from the FAA website with accident statistics.

ALL
U.S. general aviation 1,222

Fatal- 221
Total- 387
Aboard- 382
Flight Hours - 20,887,000

Here's the kicker... Accidents per 100,000 Flight hours--- 1.05

For 121 airline flying the stats are this--

Scheduled
ALL -20
Fatal- 1
Total- 2
Aboard- 2
Flight Hours-17,150,000

Accidents per 100,000 flight hours--- 0.006

So sure airline flying is safer. No question. But let's be real, 1.05 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown is an absolutely small amount( or 5.05 per 100,000 hours if you count accidents that don't result in a fatality-- also small.)

Based on my math, if you try an find out the percentage of airplane accidents compared to the number of hours flown, the percentage comes out to .005 percent. ummmmm...that's not bad. I'll take those odds honestly.

Even better, the accident rate in General aviation equates to about 1 accident every 17,000 hours flown per year. Unless I'm really bad at math( which is possible) I have to tell you, these stats are not bad and not reflective of an overly risky activity.

You can find all these stats here.


http://www.ntsb.gov/data/aviation_stats.html

My whole point is not that we can't do more for safety or to go and operate an airplane recklessly. I'd never advocate for that. My point is we pilots are good at flying and we deserve to be known for these safety statistics and not defined by the alarmist media who reports on ever single accident just to perpetuate an obvious falsity.
 
Last edited:
ClimbnSink said:
What is the percentage of GA accidents caused by mechanical failure? Blaming equipment is an ego bandaid for delusional hobby pilots.
Click to expand...

It's not just a question of mechanical failure. It's also a matter of having the power or deicing capability to fly through or around adverse weather, for example.

And even if GA accidents were limited to the 20% caused by mechanical failures, that would still far exceed the accident rate for airlines.
 
acrophile said:
It's not just a question of mechanical failure. It's also a matter of having the power or deicing capability to fly through or around adverse weather, for example.

And even if GA accidents were limited to the 20% caused by mechanical failures, that would still far exceed the accident rate for airlines.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the advanced avionics and overall superior capabilities of transport category aircraft. There are many other considerations related to the safety of airlines other than mechanical failure vis-a-vis general aviation.
 
so.....what about the 80% gorilla in the room.....the pilot....and his lack of judgement? :eek:
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
so.....what about the 80% gorilla in the room.....the pilot....and his lack of judgement? :eek:
Click to expand...
Well if those guys had the excess power and deice capabilities of an airliner they could power through their lack of judgement.:rolleyes2::lol::rofl:
 
Well trained pilots that fly daily in machines properly maintained and capable to fly in all weather all the time. They also have a flight crew to attend to the passenger needs, baggage crew to take care of the bags, fueling crew to do that as well. They even have their weather pulled for them and flight plan done for them. Their primary focus is flying the plane with CRM and no distractions. It is a whole different world.
 
toddsanderson said:
Well trained pilots that fly daily in machines properly maintained and capable to fly in all weather all the time. They also have a flight crew to attend to the passenger needs, baggage crew to take care of the bags, fueling crew to do that as well. They even have their weather pulled for them and flight plan done for them. Their primary focus is flying the plane with CRM and no distractions. It is a whole different world.
Click to expand...

Machines that can flynin all weather until the deice system is MEL'd, a baggage crew to baby sit because the load thig wrong, angry pasengers due to the slow rampers and consequential missed connections, amd fuelers who leave the latches opena dn caps hanging down. The PIC is responsible for all of that at the end of the day., and yhese things happen regularly
 
Lots of reasons. Lots of redundancy, two pilot crews, professional crews (they get PAID to actually READ the checklists, and the other guy is watching, so they actually do it), frequent training. There has been what, one accidental gear up landing by airliners in the USA? Something like that. That alone tells you something. They dont forget.
 
Danos said:
Machines that can flynin all weather until the deice system is MEL'd, a baggage crew to baby sit because the load thig wrong, angry pasengers due to the slow rampers and consequential missed connections, amd fuelers who leave the latches opena dn caps hanging down. The PIC is responsible for all of that at the end of the day., and yhese things happen regularly
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree that they monitor the work. What they don't do is try to appease an uncomfortable passenger or try to figure out how to put too much baggage in a luggage compartment that is over weight and now a plane out of CG. They are not pumping fuel with their bare hands in 20 degree weather with 25 mph winds and trying to keep the freezing rain off the wings because they do not have ground de-ice. They are not trying to fly over the Rockies in a Mooney with no de-ice and no ability to get on top. They are not flying a 45 year old twin with 23 year old de-ice boots and props that have not been rebuilt in 20 years along with an airplane with an autopilot that works sometimes and pencil whipped annuals from an IA friend that allows "owner assisted" annuals for a bottle of single malt scotch.

If you job is to check off a list, train, and fly an capable airplane daily with a capable crew you will always be safer than the guy trying to manage his own airplane by himself flying lesser equipment with less experience, and usually trying to do too much at once.
 
toddsanderson said:
Yep, I agree that they monitor the work. What they don't do is try to appease an uncomfortable passenger or try to figure out how to put too much baggage in a luggage compartment that is over weight and now a plane out of CG. They are not pumping fuel with their bare hands in 20 degree weather with 25 mph winds and trying to keep the freezing rain off the wings because they do not have ground de-ice. They are not trying to fly over the Rockies in a Mooney with no de-ice and no ability to get on top. They are not flying a 45 year old twin with 23 year old de-ice boots and props that have not been rebuilt in 20 years along with an airplane with an autopilot that works sometimes and pencil whipped annuals from an IA friend that allows "owner assisted" annuals for a bottle of single malt scotch.

If you job is to check off a list, train, and fly an capable airplane daily with a capable crew you will always be safer than the guy trying to manage his own airplane by himself flying lesser equipment with less experience, and usually trying to do too much at once.
Click to expand...


You've never flown a Dash 8. We dont pack the baggage compartment out of CG, we make sure the rampers dont because they will. If the deice isnt working., the were restricted as per the MEL and most of the time have to make sure that the dispatcher didnt screw up and file us at an icing altitude. Etc etc. the problems are still there. It would be great if it was all as easy and perfect s youre saying, but it never is.
 
Last edited:
I thought we were talking about jets. I agree the little commuter turbo props are a handful. I fly a KA200 Part91 and it is work. We do it all from loading the baggage to reserving rental cars, hotel rooms, maintenance, training, scheduling, etc. The guy flying an Airbus 340 for the airlines is flying the plane - that is it. When I think airline, I think RJ or bigger.
 
toddsanderson said:
I thought we were talking about jets. I agree the little commuter turbo props are a handful. I fly a KA200 Part91 and it is work. We do it all from loading the baggage to reserving rental cars, hotel rooms, maintenance, training, scheduling, etc. The guy flying an Airbus 340 for the airlines is flying the plane - that is it. When I think airline, I think RJ or bigger.
Click to expand...

Theyre a handfiul, but Im convinced we have more fun. :)
 
Ryanb said:
A repetitious question I'm sure, but what actually makes the airlines so much safer than GA? IMC seems to be a big deal for GA but for the airlines it seems to be no big deal. Is it automation on the aircraft that plays a big role in safety? Are the jet engines much more reliable than a piston? I know the pilots are trained but many GA pilots are too, so what is it that makes the airlines a 180 from GA?
Click to expand...

2 pilot cockpits, $50,000 worth of recurrent training annually, 1000 hrs worth of line flying per year, much more expensive aircraft that operate under Strict Liability and get much more maint money spent on them.
 
Way more clueless stupidity on the lower end of the GA spectrum.
 
Henning said:
2 pilot cockpits, $50,000 worth of recurrent training annually, 1000 hrs worth of line flying per year, much more expensive aircraft that operate under Strict Liability and get much more maint money spent on them.
Click to expand...


Pretty much it. More time spent doing it with more money thrown at training while flying better equipment under more restrictive rules. Not really surprising.
 
jspilot said:
I really hate these types of questions. No offense to the op but these are the kinds of questions that just perpetuate the stigma that GA is unsafe. If you count up the thousands of GA flights that take off and land safely each and everyday accorss the United States their really is no way anyone can say that GA is unsafe.

.... But no one ever hears about the flights that land safely. They just hear of the ones that don't, and therefore, because many of the everyday people know nothing about the world beyond what they are told about it, people conclude, " I hear about a small plane crash every so often, those things are not safe.":mad2:
Click to expand...

Well, it's a matter of perspective. Compared to wing suiting without a parachute, GA is safe. Compared to driving a car, GA is NOT safe, compared to buzzing the roads on a motorcycle, it's about par.
 
olasek said:
extremely insightful indeed :mad2: ... so let's organize a wide action among GA pilots for better attitude and watch accident rates plunge 100-fold.
Click to expand...

The subtleties of an internet forum are sometimes difficult to decipher so in the interest of not taking what you said in the wrong way and in the hopes that you didn't take what I said in the wrong way....

It is about YOUR ATTITUDE. YOU decide whether YOU are going to operate in a more professional manner.

That was the intentions of my statement, which I stick by.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top