Aircraft safety

[Madhatter]

Ever since I started flying over 50 years ago many people over the years have commented on how risky it is.

Today I got in the middle of a police high speed criminal car chase not something I did but was in the way of the criminal. I was able to make myself a static object to give the criminal the option to go in front or behind and not T bone me. I would have been lucky to make it to a level one trauma center, and my wife was with me. It was like something out of a Hollywood movie scene. 

After that incident I realized how much safer general aviation can be. We control almost all the variables, pilot proficiency, fuel, maintenance, weather etc. It won't be some other idiot to cause our accident it's all on us.

[Anticept]

Statistics are a pain in the ass because someone MUST select for conditions, and they are not always going to be representative of your own risk; only an approximation.

I had a discussion with someone recently about slip to landings. A company put out an obnoxious statement about how pilots who have to slip to land are dangerous.

I said that I don't know if I would call them dangerous, but statistically, they are more likely to have an accident. That person was downright OFFENDED that I suggested that. They are a Pitts flier themselves and the need to do it so they can see the runway over the nose.

I mean, yeah that's probably a case to argue that they need to do it and it makes them safer, but that doesn't change the overall statistics and that the statement released by that company is probably rooted in a grain of truth. That's the issue with blanket statements.

Wild tangent here: there's also something else about blanket statements: while we should remember there are specific conditions that blanket statements don't apply (the "exception to every rule" rule) which can get you hurt... there are also people who have experienced only those specific conditions, and have no experience outside of it. Without actually understand the reasoning for a blanket statement's existence, depending on ones experiences, there is a tendency to either see it as infallible, or disregard it altogether. Both cases are not a healthy mindset; you might end up on the other side of that fence someday and learn a lesson, and hopefully without catching a nasty case of death. That sword falls both ways.

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

I'm sure all the seasoned lifelong fliers around here can relate.  On one hand I count the friends I've seen pay the ultimate price, my CFI perished with inflight break up one month after I finished training.  On the other, I'm in a rural area and every year there are head on accidents with multiple fatalities, two separate being school teachers from our district, earlier last year a young 22 mom, heck - there was 16 year that died hitting a deer that went through windshield just 1 mile from my home.  I have not run math, but driving in local area is probably up there with flying.

Whether it is a lightning strike on the golf course, a duck hunter capsizing in fridge water, or whatever one's pursuit, shit happens.

I will say the last two years I've been following Dan Grider's Probable Cause, for those who know of him he's extremely polarizing and has driven a massive amount of debate.  Not touching that can of worms, I do take away the safety elements he strives to educate.  I have reinstituted check lists, started mentally briefing rejected take off landing zones, deciding to not fly if I'm less than 100% mentally and physically on point, sort of using his DMMS pattern disciple (if I flew a less forgiving complex or twin, I'd absolutely adhere to that).  I've always considered my life more important than saving a plane, seems so many unecessary aviation fatalities occur on that note, stretching a glide (Mcpadden), impossible turns, or not being prepared for the dynamic of an engine out.  That's where CT's are so lovely, one really really really has to mess up to turn it into a fatality.

 

[Madhatter]

10 hours ago, Anticept said:

Statistics are a pain in the ass because someone MUST select for conditions, and they are not always going to be representative of your own risk; only an approximation.

I had a discussion with someone recently about slip to landings. A company put out an obnoxious statement about how pilots who have to slip to land are dangerous.

I said that I don't know if I would call them dangerous, but statistically, they are more likely to have an accident. That person was downright OFFENDED that I suggested that. They are a Pitts flier themselves and the need to do it so they can see the runway over the nose.

I mean, yeah that's probably a case to argue that they need to do it and it makes them safer, but that doesn't change the overall statistics and that the statement released by that company is probably rooted in a grain of truth. That's the issue with blanket statements.

Wild tangent here: there's also something else about blanket statements: while we should remember there are specific conditions that blanket statements don't apply (the "exception to every rule" rule) which can get you hurt... there are also people who have experienced only those specific conditions, and have no experience outside of it. Without actually understand the reasoning for a blanket statement's existence, depending on ones experiences, there is a tendency to either see it as infallible, or disregard it altogether. Both cases are not a healthy mindset; you might end up on the other side of that fence someday and learn a lesson, and hopefully without catching a nasty case of death. That sword falls both ways.

When someone says slip to a landing I have to ask what are they referring to. When I land a tail wheel aircraft in a crosswind without a slip you will groundloop, guaranteed.  If I am high on short final I will slip to lose altitude.  This is a very important maneuver to master for several reasons. I you have an engine failure you will use a slip to manage your glide path at the last part of your landing. Anyone who says these people are dangerous are stupid blowhards who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

[Anticept]

Forward slips to landing.

[Mike Koerner]

Fifteen people that I have known personally (at least met and talked to) have died in aircraft accidents.

I know it’s fifteen because I have each of their names listed on a spread sheet called “Dead Flying Friends”. A column next to their names describes the nature and circumstances of the incidents that ended their lives. Another column lists their aviation experience: their flight hours, ratings, noteworthy aviation accomplishments and awards. The last column is my appraisal of their flying skills. It’s just a “Yes” or “No” response to the question “Were they a better pilot than me?” Most, I believe, were. 

I have only known one person, personally, who died in a car accident. Yes, I have known of many people who have died in cars, and I’ve seen some of them by the side of the road (I have also seen some in and around the remains of aircraft). But, except for the one, I did not know any of these car accident victims personally.

I have probably known, personally, a hundred times more people who drive cars than people who fly airplanes. Furthermore, the people I know probably drive in cars ten times more often than the pilots I know fly in airplanes.

That means flying is fifteen thousand times more dangerous than driving. (Do your own calculation.)

I believe that we, as pilots, can affect this outcome.  That alone, allows me to continue flying. But it is only true if we recognize, accept, and try to address the problem: Flying in light aircraft is fantastically dangerous.

 

By the way, this method of assessing the risk of flying by comparing it to driving, was originally proposed by Bruno Gatenbrink, perhaps 10 years ago.
 

[Madhatter]

9 hours ago, Mike Koerner said:

Fifteen people that I have known personally (at least met and talked to) have died in aircraft accidents.

I know it’s fifteen because I have each of their names listed on a spread sheet called “Dead Flying Friends”. A column next to their names describes the nature and circumstances of the incidents that ended their lives. Another column lists their aviation experience: their flight hours, ratings, noteworthy aviation accomplishments and awards. The last column is my appraisal of their flying skills. It’s just a “Yes” or “No” response to the question “Were they a better pilot than me?” Most, I believe, were. 

I have only known one person, personally, who died in a car accident. Yes, I have known of many people who have died in cars, and I’ve seen some of them by the side of the road (I have also seen some in and around the remains of aircraft). But, except for the one, I did not know any of these car accident victims personally.

I have probably known, personally, a hundred times more people who drive cars than people who fly airplanes. Furthermore, the people I know probably drive in cars ten times more often than the pilots I know fly in airplanes.

That means flying is fifteen thousand times more dangerous than driving. (Do your own calculation.)

I believe that we, as pilots, can affect this outcome.  That alone, allows me to continue flying. But it is only true if we recognize, accept, and try to address the problem: Flying in light aircraft is fantastically dangerous.

 

By the way, this method of assessing the risk of flying by comparing it to driving, was originally proposed by Bruno Gatenbrink, perhaps 10 years ago.
 

I was only referring to my situation where I had zero control over the outcome of the potential accident.  In an aircraft I have control over the outcome utilizing my training,  experience, good maintenance, etc, without an external influence. I also am aware of a lot of fatal accidents in GA, the majority were because of gross stupidity . I also know pilots with an immense quantity of hours, some pushing 35 thousand hours that follow the rules and don't push their limits or the aircraft limits. Of course GA is more risky than automotive but we have a certain amount of control over it as individuals. 

[FredG]

According to the National Safety Council, the US estimated mileage death rate in the first half of 2023 was 1.34 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/preliminary-estimates/).

According to the AOPA, in 2016 there were 0.87 deaths per 100,000 non-commercial fixed-wing aircraft flight hours.  (https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/joseph-t-nall-report/28th-nall-report/non-commercial-fixed-wing).

Assuming 150 statute MPH for those flight hours, you get 0.87 deaths per 15 million airplane miles traveled or, about 6 deaths per 100 million airplane miles traveled.  So, by these calculations, the death rate in non-commercial fixed-wing aircraft is 4.3 times greater per mile traveled in comparison to each mile traveled by automobile.

Of course, these are simple averages and do not account for pilot or driver skill, age, training, personality, substance use, etc.  So, depending on how safe a driver or pilot you are, your mileage (literally) may vary.

Mike, Bruno Gatenbrink may be a great balloon pilot, but he is not much of an epidemiologist.  One problem with his risk comparison calculation is that the result is strongly dependent on how many pilots the person doing the calculation knows.  The more pilots a person knows, the riskier flying becomes.  That probably isn't quite right.    

BTW, if one assumes that the average speed of the vehicles in the NSC estimated mileage death rate is 50 MPH (while still assuming 150 statute miles per hour for GA airplane travel), then the death rate in non-commercial fixed-wing aircraft is 12.9 times greater per hour of travel time in comparison to each hour of travel by automobile.

 

[Jim Meade]

The FAA Airplane Flying Handbook, I think chapter 9, has quite an extensive discussion of both forward and side slips in the landing environment.  (As we here know, but many don't, with the side slip the nose stays pointed in the direction of travel whereas in the forward slip, the nose is at an angle to the direction of travel.)

When I was doing a lot of basic dual given, I insisted students become very proficient in the FAA preferred side slip to a landing.  I won't bore you with the advantages over a crab approach, I'm sure you all know theat.

[EricB]

Statistics, like much of science and math education, is sadly lacking in many people.  In any statistic, one should always ask population size (how many cases are included), what is the "confidence interval" (if one says 90%, is that plus or minus 5% or 50%), and the selection criteria for including the case in the stated result.  Without knowing those 3 key items any statistic is useless.  This leads to people saying you can manipulate statistics any way you want.  That is only true if the people reading the stat do not ask the right questions.

Maybe a bit off topic but when I see statistics quoted anywhere, I get a bit annoyed about the lack of understanding on the subject.

 

[FredG]

9 hours ago, EricB said:

Statistics, like much of science and math education, is sadly lacking in many people.  In any statistic, one should always ask population size (how many cases are included), what is the "confidence interval" (if one says 90%, is that plus or minus 5% or 50%), and the selection criteria for including the case in the stated result.  Without knowing those 3 key items any statistic is useless.  This leads to people saying you can manipulate statistics any way you want.  That is only true if the people reading the stat do not ask the right questions.

Maybe a bit off topic but when I see statistics quoted anywhere, I get a bit annoyed about the lack of understanding on the subject.

 

Any statistics in particular got you annoyed in this thread?