Statistically speaking, per NTSB: For 2012 there were 0.155 injuries and no fatalities per 100,000 flight hours in operations by scheduled "Part 121" carriers, which includes airlines. During that same time, there were 6.78 injuries and 1.24 fatalities per 100,000 hours of operation or general aviation. What I don't know is if the hours of operation of a flight carrying 200 pax is weighted any differently than a GA Cessna 172 flight with 4 pax. I don't think so, which emphasizes how few commercial accidents there are per passenger-hour of flight. GA accounts for 97 percent of all fatal aviation accidents, and is clearly, vastly more dangerous than commercial Part 121 aviation. That said, to rely solely on the statistics is IMO fatalistic and as friend say sof life: "no one gets out alive." I look at the causes of GA accidents and for 2010 (the most recent NTSB report I could find): 18% were powerplant failure 15% were loss of control in flight 13% were loss of control on ground 12% were abnormal runway contact 12% were other collision and most accidents occur in the landing phase So you should think about how to avoid these things. One way is to stay out of GA aircraft; but staying out of cars might be safer still. My choice is to do my best to be careful. For my powerplant, I always check my fuel and oil before flight, including looking at the oil dipstick, sumping the fuel tanks and opening the fuel caps to visually check fuel level. I also constantly monitor engine operation, including temperatures, pressures and my airspeed and engine rpm (.e.g. an impending failure could be preceded by lower rpm or airspeed for a given engine power setting). I am on the lookout for nearest airports and plan my trajectory and best glide distance when flying cross country. I fly a tighter pattern and practice getting to the runway with no power, rather than dragging in a long turn to base and final. I regularly take lessons, try to get more proficient and stay well within personal minimums. But I accept the risk that something so liberating, exhilarating and enjoyable offers and it's always a personal choice.
Actually, Bob, what is unfortunate is that there are fewer GA aircraft in operation than 10 years ago, but just as many annual fatalities. I honestly think that the expense of flying and better avionics makes for less current and proficient pilots. I agree wholeheartedly that good habits and judgment go a long way in aviation safety.
Those statistics are not weighted by number of passengers. You can probably find injuries per passenger mile, which would be weighted. Something which makes GA look even worse, statistically speaking, is that most of those 121 injuries are flight attendants with broken ankles due to turbulence-- which is not something most people would consider to be an "accident." Still, 1.24 fatalities per 100,000 hours of flight is pretty good. 100,000 hours is a LOT... It looks like there are about 1.8 fatalities per fatal GA accident, so that's abut 0.7 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours of flying-- again, not very many.
The number of GA hours flown in 2012 is just slightly down from 1993, and the accident rate (both fatal and non-fatal) is significantly lower than 1993. If you look a the data, the GA accident rate has been on a steady decline since 1993 (when the data starts). NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board (Look at Table 10).
That's really not accurate either. There are no statistics to back it up. I'm a Commercial Pilot but I own my plane and fly it myself. I cannot get the same rates as a pilot I hire to fly me around..... Why? Because flying isn't my only job. My insurance carrier wants me sitting in the FBO waiting to fly someone somewhere. He doesn't want me going to a meeting and then flying myself. So I have the same ratings and go through the same SIMCOM training every year but I pay considerably more. I ask my insurance carrier to back it up with statistics and he cannot. He says "it's just the way it is". Aviation is a small community. We all borderline know each other. You can't BS the system but there are no stats to back up "owner flown" vs. "crew flown" because there aren't enough "owners" out there flying themselves.
That's not true. NBAA publishes those statistics: Safety Statistics | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association Corporate aircraft flown by professional crews have a comparable safety record to airlines-- in some years a bit better, and other years a bit worse. Here are their definitions: Corporate: Aircraft owned or leased and operated by a corporation or business firm for the transportation of personnel or cargo in the furtherance of the corporations or firms business and which are flown by professional pilots receiving a direct salary or compensation for piloting. Business: The use of aircraft by pilots (those not receiving direct salary or compensation for piloting) in conjunction with their occupation or in the furtherance of a business.
I was thinking about that, too, Jim. Also the crash of a DC9 somewhere back east when the copilot didn't actually do what he he said he did in answering to check list callouts. They attempted to take off with the flaps still retracted. Recently a Ford Tri-Motoer tried to take of with the controls locked and crashed. So, it's attitude and discipline again. The B-17 prototype crash was supposed to have instigated the development of the Check List. I have been messing around with fliers and flying for 78 years ( I know, that's hard to believe) and learned a few things about the people who do it. Some where nothing more than airborne motorcycle jockeys from the 30's, same attitude, same characteristics. Others were very disciplined and serious about what they were doing and stayed focused on the operation of a machine that could kill in an instant. Many would simply not converse with anyone until they had gotten to a safe altitude and had everything under their control. I'll always remember an instructor reading the riot act after I had a lapse in concentration. " BOY, This damn thing is just waiting for a chance to kill you and if you give it the smallest opening it'll take it! Airplanes are not your friend!" Walking into propellors. Every passenger who deplanes when the props are turning is in jeopardy and the pilots are responsible for their safety and should give them firm and precise instructions where and how to walk away from the airplane. Of course, there are too many instances when people walking around or approaching a running airplane have their head up and locked and don't think about the prop disc . Again, attitude, focus, and awareness. There are lapses when things get too busy, like on a carrier deck or a busy flight line. Been there. Been close.
I can only add this: When I fly, like most I am EXTREMELY alert. You must be. That said, I feel infinitely safer operating an aircraft than I do operating an automobile. Due to neglect and driver distraction (or just plain lack of common sense), the roads are only getting worse. Whenever I can, I fly because it minimizes my time at risk. A lot more can happen during a 6 hour drive than during a 1.5 hour flight, unless you experience one of those very rare unfortunate events.
Accident rate, yes, fatality rate is flat since 2001 or so. Hard to explain why that is. GA is very dangerous if you do not respect it is my view; but if you maintain your equipment, inspect it, keep within your personal minimums and treat every flight like a learning experience and get instruction regularly, I think the risk is worth the rewards.
That was a Northwest flight out of Detroit in the late '80s. The aircraft clipped a light pole at a car-rental lot just northeast of the airport (where I had been just about one month before!) and crashed on the road leading up towards I-94. An exacerbating factor was the fact that the warning buzzer that should have warned the crew of incorrectly-set flaps & slats wasn't working. The only survivor was a 4-year-old girl in the back of the cabin. Just this past Sunday, "60 Minutes" had a feature on her - now grown up - and other "sole survivors" of airline crashes. When I'm on a flight leaving the gate, I'm always a bit nervous until the crew sets the flaps & slats for takeoff. It seems this is happening sooner: in the past this was often done while the aircraft was already taxiing; now it usually happens after pushback and engine-start before the aircraft leaves the ramp.
I do the same thing, Jim, I always try to the flaps. When that NW crash happened they showed some of the wreckage on TV news and the first thing I saw was a shot of the wing, bottom side up, and I told my wife that the flaps were still retracted because the picture homed in on a flap hinge that was still closed. That airplane and the DC8 had external flap rotation points that "horns" connected to and I could see that the flaps had not rotated. I remember the pre-take off routine in checking control operation. Hand on the wheel or stick, thumb up, then move the control column in the chosen lateral or pitch direction and check the control surface to see if it is in the UP position. Circulate the column in all points of the compass to ascertain free movement in all axises. Visually check the flaps, doors etc. You have a good memory, Jim.
It does help that the swerve in question is a given fact at this point and generally accepted by everyone but the completely clueless.
