LSA's are 13 x more dangerous than motorbikes?

[pmccarthy]

Here's my figures.. The fatality rate of active RAAus pilots is about 1 in 1000. We seem to have about 6 fatalities every year and about 6000 active members.

Now the death rate of 60 year-olds is about ten in a thousand from all causes.

As of now I am in my 70's where the death rate from all causes is about 20 per thousand per year. So getting old is far more dangerous, in mortality terms, than flying.

Any tips on how to stop getting older?

That is an appalling death rate. When I started in mining fifty years ago our death rate was one per 1000 per year, and it was totally unacceptable. This is for people exposed in that environment for 1840 hours per year. We got it down so low as to be almost meaningless. But 1 per 1000 pilots, probably averaging 30 hours per year each? It is really, really bad.

[Jerry_Atrick]

@APenNameAndThatA, I do disagree and the reason is you are picking an arbitrary comparison for a start...

 

Based on @M61A1, post citing c. 90% of motorcycle accidents happen on days in good weather, and a good deal of those on the weekends, then this would imply two (or more, but for the sake of argument, let's leave it at two) things: a) Motorcycles are generally only ridden in good weather and mainly on the weekends; or b) of all the motorcycle trips that are ridden, 90% of accidents occur in good weather and of those, most occur on the weekend. There is a subtle difference between them, because, it may be that 90% of all motorcycle kms or hours ridden are during the week and variable weather and for work (courier, emergency services, etc) or to commute. If it is more towards the latter, then that would imply a few other things, namely either most of the good weather/weekend riders are recreational only - only bring their shiny chromed machines out on good days and although they may be travelling somewhere, the main purpose for the ride is to enjoy the ride.. the sort of equivalent of the $100 hamburger.. or that all those motorcylists that are extremely careful and safe during the week and in bad weather become lazy when they are recreationally riding.

 

What matters is if you are lumping everything together, you are not making any meaningful comparison of risk, because recreational flying (be it in RAA or GA machines) will not nominally have the same characteristics by which to comapre risk. For example, the professional rider is riding much more frequently, in different conditions and in a different state of mind; he (or she) is more concerned with miles covered and getting to and from their destination in the quickest and (hopefully) safest time as their livelihood (and possibly someone else's life) depends on it. His bike is a means to the end. The recreational rider, like the recreational flyer, is more interested in enjoying their pastime - the journey is more often than not the reason for picking that mode of transport; taking in the sights, enjoying the weather, enjoying their destination, but possibly not bhe the main reason for their destination. Also, they are generally lilely to be periodical users of their aircraft - maybe once a week, fortnight or even month... (yes some are more frequent), and what about in the winter months (although granted, winter in most of Australia is a more forgiving environment for aviaton than winter in the UK). The professional motorcylist is likely to find themselves in urban and suburban situations; stop-start, slow traffic, etc (as well as other risks such as peds, dogs, stoopid drivers and the like). The recreational rider is likely to be on urban/suburban roads for the period it takes to get to the freeway/highway to get to the mountains or ocean roads, etc.. but they are more likely to be in rural or open road situations. The bike for the recreational rider, like the aircraft for the recreational flyer is, if not the end in itself, a big part of it. How you would compare the risk of flying to urban riding of a professional is a leap of statiscial analysis I have yet to see made valid.

 

So, in order to compare the risk, you have to compare most like-for-like. We would remove the professional daily rider (or rides) from the equation because in terms of environmental, purpose, state of mind and other factors, they are not in anyway a valid comparison of correlative factors that make up the risk (except that they are both a mode of transport - may was well compare them to shipping accidents in the atlantic ocean). By the way, by cleansing the data, I am making recreational flying seem even more safe compared to our motorcyling brethren.

 

Picking factor to express risk has to be valid, too.. The distance travelled, I think is not valid and here are the reasons:

- As recreational biking, driving or flying is concerned, distance travelled is probably not the key purpose of the trip - the time on the favoured mode of transport is. If you decide you want to do a day trip, you work out how long you want to be flying/riding, pick a suitable destination and go for it. In when biking, we may look at a distance, but it will be based on how long it will take to get there at a speed, which is pretty constant. In flying, we may pick a destination, but due to a stonking headwind component, may bin it for something else in the time we have available; or we may extend the entire duration of the trip (say to an overnighter) so we spend a comfortable x hours in the aircraft. My point is for recreational biking/driving/riding/cycling/whatever, it is more about time (for flying, your licence requirements are measured in hours with only the x-country component requiring min. distance).

 

- Comparing distance based on an average calculation of speed is erroneous. We are comparing ground speed to airpseed and in the air, we are almost always subject to a wind component that speeds us up or slows us down.. and I don't think one can reliably assume a net zero for many reasons. inclduing prevailing winds, time of day, rarely are routes flowin reciprocally, etc. At a couple thousand feet, you can easily experience a 20+kt headwind and by the time you get to your destination, the wind has dropped and you are experiencing a small tailwind on the way back. This does not affect ground vehicles in the same way. As another example, we have heard on these fora how people have been able to almost hover their aircraft in stiff headwinds; you may in theory take off into a 50kt headwind (somehow) and hold it there for your friends to see your death defying skill and get absorbed by it all that you forget that you had only an hours fuel, exhaust that fuel, stall, and lights out. You have not flown 1km, but have been aloft an hour.. To me, per hour seems a more realistic risk comparison.

 

Going to your project analogy - say we were comparing the risk of bespoke software development and implementation v. buy off the shelf and implement. Th risk we are comparing between them is failed software development. Sounds reasonable, but I would not use the average of all software implementations - SCADA and ERP are different beasts with different risk profiles that makes the comparison meaningless. If I was doing an ERP implementation, I would strip out from historical data non-ERP projects.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Here's my figures.. The fatality rate of active RAAus pilots is about 1 in 1000. We seem to have about 6 fatalities every year and about 6000 active members.

Now the death rate of 60 year-olds is about ten in a thousand from all causes.

As of now I am in my 70's where the death rate from all causes is about 20 per thousand per year. So getting old is far more dangerous, in mortality terms, than flying.

Any tips on how to stop getting older?

You're only as young as thewoman you feel, they say ;-)

[APenNameAndThatA]

Here's my figures.. The fatality rate of active RAAus pilots is about 1 in 1000. We seem to have about 6 fatalities every year and about 6000 active members.

Now the death rate of 60 year-olds is about ten in a thousand from all causes.

As of now I am in my 70's where the death rate from all causes is about 20 per thousand per year. So getting old is far more dangerous, in mortality terms, than flying.

Any tips on how to stop getting older?

 

That is fascinating. The calculations that I had done in the past, when I was considering flying, were as follows. 1 fatal per 100 000 hours. That means that if someone flew 50 hours per year, there was a 1/2000 chance of dying per year. The base mortality rate for people who are about 40 or 50 is about 1/1000. Importantly, that includes people who were already *known* to be at risk, such as people with severe medical illness. I reasoned that if I flew, I would roughly increase the chance of me dying by 50%. As for flying with kids in the plane: their base rate risk of death was 1/2000, and they did not have a chronic illness. That means that, if you fly with your kids a lot, if they are going to die, it will probably be in your aircraft. Flying: it's not dangerous, but it's not safe.

[APenNameAndThatA]

@APenNameAndThatA, I do disagree and the reason is you are picking an arbitrary comparison for a start...

 

Based on @M61A1, post citing c. 90% of motorcycle accidents happen on days in good weather, and a good deal of those on the weekends, then this would imply two (or more, but for the sake of argument, let's leave it at two) things: a) Motorcycles are generally only ridden in good weather and mainly on the weekends; or b) of all the motorcycle trips that are ridden, 90% of accidents occur in good weather and of those, most occur on the weekend. There is a subtle difference between them, because, it may be that 90% of all motorcycle kms or hours ridden are during the week and variable weather and for work (courier, emergency services, etc) or to commute. If it is more towards the latter, then that would imply a few other things, namely either most of the good weather/weekend riders are recreational only - only bring their shiny chromed machines out on good days and although they may be travelling somewhere, the main purpose for the ride is to enjoy the ride.. the sort of equivalent of the $100 hamburger.. or that all those motorcylists that are extremely careful and safe during the week and in bad weather become lazy when they are recreationally riding.

 

What matters is if you are lumping everything together, you are not making any meaningful comparison of risk, because recreational flying (be it in RAA or GA machines) will not nominally have the same characteristics by which to comapre risk. For example, the professional rider is riding much more frequently, in different conditions and in a different state of mind; he (or she) is more concerned with miles covered and getting to and from their destination in the quickest and (hopefully) safest time as their livelihood (and possibly someone else's life) depends on it. His bike is a means to the end. The recreational rider, like the recreational flyer, is more interested in enjoying their pastime - the journey is more often than not the reason for picking that mode of transport; taking in the sights, enjoying the weather, enjoying their destination, but possibly not bhe the main reason for their destination. Also, they are generally lilely to be periodical users of their aircraft - maybe once a week, fortnight or even month... (yes some are more frequent), and what about in the winter months (although granted, winter in most of Australia is a more forgiving environment for aviaton than winter in the UK). The professional motorcylist is likely to find themselves in urban and suburban situations; stop-start, slow traffic, etc (as well as other risks such as peds, dogs, stoopid drivers and the like). The recreational rider is likely to be on urban/suburban roads for the period it takes to get to the freeway/highway to get to the mountains or ocean roads, etc.. but they are more likely to be in rural or open road situations. The bike for the recreational rider, like the aircraft for the recreational flyer is, if not the end in itself, a big part of it. How you would compare the risk of flying to urban riding of a professional is a leap of statiscial analysis I have yet to see made valid.

 

So, in order to compare the risk, you have to compare most like-for-like. We would remove the professional daily rider (or rides) from the equation because in terms of environmental, purpose, state of mind and other factors, they are not in anyway a valid comparison of correlative factors that make up the risk (except that they are both a mode of transport - may was well compare them to shipping accidents in the atlantic ocean). By the way, by cleansing the data, I am making recreational flying seem even more safe compared to our motorcyling brethren.

 

Picking factor to express risk has to be valid, too.. The distance travelled, I think is not valid and here are the reasons:

- As recreational biking, driving or flying is concerned, distance travelled is probably not the key purpose of the trip - the time on the favoured mode of transport is. If you decide you want to do a day trip, you work out how long you want to be flying/riding, pick a suitable destination and go for it. In when biking, we may look at a distance, but it will be based on how long it will take to get there at a speed, which is pretty constant. In flying, we may pick a destination, but due to a stonking headwind component, may bin it for something else in the time we have available; or we may extend the entire duration of the trip (say to an overnighter) so we spend a comfortable x hours in the aircraft. My point is for recreational biking/driving/riding/cycling/whatever, it is more about time (for flying, your licence requirements are measured in hours with only the x-country component requiring min. distance).

 

- Comparing distance based on an average calculation of speed is erroneous. We are comparing ground speed to airpseed and in the air, we are almost always subject to a wind component that speeds us up or slows us down.. and I don't think one can reliably assume a net zero for many reasons. inclduing prevailing winds, time of day, rarely are routes flowin reciprocally, etc. At a couple thousand feet, you can easily experience a 20+kt headwind and by the time you get to your destination, the wind has dropped and you are experiencing a small tailwind on the way back. This does not affect ground vehicles in the same way. As another example, we have heard on these fora how people have been able to almost hover their aircraft in stiff headwinds; you may in theory take off into a 50kt headwind (somehow) and hold it there for your friends to see your death defying skill and get absorbed by it all that you forget that you had only an hours fuel, exhaust that fuel, stall, and lights out. You have not flown 1km, but have been aloft an hour.. To me, per hour seems a more realistic risk comparison.

 

Going to your project analogy - say we were comparing the risk of bespoke software development and implementation v. buy off the shelf and implement. Th risk we are comparing between them is failed software development. Sounds reasonable, but I would not use the average of all software implementations - SCADA and ERP are different beasts with different risk profiles that makes the comparison meaningless. If I was doing an ERP implementation, I would strip out from historical data non-ERP projects.

 

Your are being too all-or-nothing about whether or not data has any value, and dumping the data just because it is imperfect. Take the comparison of death rates between car drivers and motorcyclists: most of the the fatalities might be from weekend riders and most of the kilometers might be from professional riders during the week (I don't know). That does not mean that the comparison is meaningless, it just means that you need to take that into account when you are deciding if buying a motorbike to ride on the weekend is a good idea.

 

It is wrong to say that you cannot compare risks when someone rides for a certain amount of time, and fly for a certain distance. It does not matter what the motivation is. The further/longer you fly/ride/drive, the greater the risk. Simple as that.

 

As for the idea that comparing distance based on speed being erroneous, it's not. LSA's fly in a pretty specific speed band. The issues of headwind are going to be smaller than the individual differences in LSA speeds. As all winds are headwinds, as it were, you could take headwinds into account by saying that there is, on average, a 5 kt headwind. It does not make a difference.

 

If someone is wanting to work out how safe flying is, they can compare it to driving *or* riding a motorbike. If someone wants more accurate data, they can drill down and modify the *base rate* of risk by taking into account their hours, temperament, aircraft, weather and etc.

 

-------------------

 

Let me say the same thing differently by asking you some questions.

1. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is safer driving a car?

2. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is more dangerous than riding a motorbike?

3. Before the above statistics were presented to you, did you have any idea if LSA was safer or more dangerous that driving? If so, what did you base your assessment on? Was the thing more or less reliable than the calculation above?

4. Do you have a better way of comparing the risk? If not, do you not have a clue how dangerous LSA is compared to travelling by car? As in, no clue?

5. It is generally accepted that travelling by commercial airline is safer than travelling by car. Do you accept those statistics? Why? Commercial airlines travel vastly greater distances vastly faster than car, by people who travel for different reasons and motivations, and less often, so how can you compare the risks?

[Jerry_Atrick]

Your are being too all-or-nothing about whether or not data has any value, and dumping the data just because it is imperfect. Take the comparison of death rates between car drivers and motorcyclists: most of the the fatalities might be from weekend riders and most of the kilometers might be from professional riders during the week (I don't know). That does not mean that the comparison is meaningless, it just means that you need to take that into account when you are deciding if buying a motorbike to ride on the weekend is a good idea.

For the purposes of deciding when to ride my motorcycle, yes.. for comparing the relative safety of motorcycle riding to recreational (in the general sense) flying, no. We wouldn't normally "dump" data; we would normalise it to make a meaningful risk comparison... This might mean excluding outliers, smoothing spikes and troughs, using randomising and/or gaussian functions, etc.. Or it may be that one data set is not able to be normalised and does have to be dumped. There are so many differences between recreational motorcycle riding and recreational flying, I could have just said they are too differnt and left it at that. We don't; we say lets find the best way to correlate them and exlcude the worst to get a meaningful comaprison. Otherwise, I am simply distorting the figures, nominally to support my view? Who knows?

 

It is wrong to say that you cannot compare risks when someone rides for a certain amount of time, and fly for a certain distance. It does not matter what the motivation is. The further/longer you fly/ride/drive, the greater the risk. Simple as that.

The motivation is alsmost irrelevant.. but the factors that apply for a given situation or classification are. In this example, I was using similarities - not motivations. I may ride a motorbike because I want to feel the speed, live the leans and forces felt negotiating the twisties, or take my helmet off and feel the wind in my (two) hairs. I may want to fly a plane to be free of the bounds of the earth, avoid the crazy motorcyclists or just not have to sit behind other traffic (except at the airport). These are the motivations. I was simply looking for common data points with which to express risk or probability that are valid between the two activities.

 

BTW, in terms of risk of fatality, we are taught the more experienced and current we are, the less risk we have.. this would intuitively hold true and I presume is based on statistical analysis; we may suffer an engine failure but if we are current and experienced (and practised), we may have a much better chance of survival than someone who isn't.. It does not stand, if we are looking purely and probability, that the longer we do an activity, the more likely we are to suffer a problem, but assume we are. We should then all fly once a month for an hour and we will all be OK, right?

 

As for the idea that comparing distance based on speed being erroneous, it's not. LSA's fly in a pretty specific speed band. The issues of headwind are going to be smaller than the individual differences in LSA speeds. As all winds are headwinds, as it were, you could take headwinds into account by saying that there is, on average, a 5 kt headwind. It does not make a difference.

See above, and also this may be a definitional thing, but isn't the best selling LSA range, Vans? And don't they travel at decent speeds and altitude - better performance than your average GA machine? Morgans? And a plethora of other LSAs? Even microlights are getting faster and higher (the VL3 is probably exceptional, but blows the pants of most SEP GA high performance aircraft for speed and altitude). Over here, we can have almost calm ground conditions and at 2,000' easily hit 20kt winds... And higher speed winds the higher you go. 5kts average headwinds (without the numbers) seems incredibly small to me. There is an issue of cross-wind takeoffs and landings with lighter aircraft, but winds aloft are not representative of winds (or lack thereof) on the ground. Either way, it is still not a valid comparison anyway, because once in the air, you tend to fly constant airspeeds and more or less constant direction with well defined turning points. On the ground, you still have varying speeds per hour and are constantly changing throttle, braking, changing direction, slowing, speeding up, etc.. It is simply not a valid comaparison. As an example, my 170 mile one way trip to London on a Sunday evening ahould be able to be done in well under three hours; I try to maintain a motorway speed of 80mph and only 25 miles of that is not on motorway - 8 miles is on 50mph and the rest 30.. I can't be bothered with the math, but that would make it in the order of 2:35, but I rarely get it below 3 hours because there is always something to slow you down, somewhere.. Not so with flying normally.

 

If someone is wanting to work out how safe flying is, they can compare it to driving *or* riding a motorbike. If someone wants more accurate data, they can drill down and modify the *base rate* of risk by taking into account their hours, temperament, aircraft, weather and etc.

Agreed.. My stance is you have to drill down to a certain level before risk comaprisons are useful at all - the level you have to drill down to will depend on the differences in what you are comparing. But you are right, it is somewhat subjective as to the level of statistical error (or inaccuracy) any one person will tolerate before they will accept the finding.

 

Re the below, I will go through in more detail later (I actually don't do the math anymore; I finished in model governance). Have to look for work now...

 

 

-------------------

 

Let me say the same thing differently by asking you some questions.

1. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is safer driving a car?

2. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is more dangerous than riding a motorbike?

3. Before the above statistics were presented to you, did you have any idea if LSA was safer or more dangerous that driving? If so, what did you base your assessment on? Was the thing more or less reliable than the calculation above?

4. Do you have a better way of comparing the risk? If not, do you not have a clue how dangerous LSA is compared to travelling by car? As in, no clue?

5. It is generally accepted that travelling by commercial airline is safer than travelling by car. Do you accept those statistics? Why? Commercial airlines travel vastly greater distances vastly faster than car, by people who travel for different reasons and motivations, and less often, so how can you compare the risks?

[turboplanner]

I don't know what to add.

there is so much to say, it really is comparing apples to oranges.

I remember there was a joke that statistically you have a better chance of not getting cancer if you owned a budgie. I think that sums up this thinking too.

That would have been, as you say, a joke. I couldn't think of any researcher in the medical profession who would set up an analysis of getting all forms of cancer against the ownership of a budgie.

[M61A1]

Your are being too all-or-nothing about whether or not data has any value, and dumping the data just because it is imperfect. Take the comparison of death rates between car drivers and motorcyclists: most of the the fatalities might be from weekend riders and most of the kilometers might be from professional riders during the week (I don't know). That does not mean that the comparison is meaningless, it just means that you need to take that into account when you are deciding if buying a motorbike to ride on the weekend is a good idea.

 

It is wrong to say that you cannot compare risks when someone rides for a certain amount of time, and fly for a certain distance. It does not matter what the motivation is. The further/longer you fly/ride/drive, the greater the risk. Simple as that.

 

As for the idea that comparing distance based on speed being erroneous, it's not. LSA's fly in a pretty specific speed band. The issues of headwind are going to be smaller than the individual differences in LSA speeds. As all winds are headwinds, as it were, you could take headwinds into account by saying that there is, on average, a 5 kt headwind. It does not make a difference.

 

If someone is wanting to work out how safe flying is, they can compare it to driving *or* riding a motorbike. If someone wants more accurate data, they can drill down and modify the *base rate* of risk by taking into account their hours, temperament, aircraft, weather and etc.

 

-------------------

 

Let me say the same thing differently by asking you some questions.

1. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is safer driving a car?

2. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is more dangerous than riding a motorbike?

3. Before the above statistics were presented to you, did you have any idea if LSA was safer or more dangerous that driving? If so, what did you base your assessment on? Was the thing more or less reliable than the calculation above?

4. Do you have a better way of comparing the risk? If not, do you not have a clue how dangerous LSA is compared to travelling by car? As in, no clue?

5. It is generally accepted that travelling by commercial airline is safer than travelling by car. Do you accept those statistics? Why? Commercial airlines travel vastly greater distances vastly faster than car, by people who travel for different reasons and motivations, and less often, so how can you compare the risks?

I think that it is way more complex than comparing numbers of deaths or even hours.

I think some comparisons between bike and rec flying are valid, like the fact that a lot of motorcyclist crashes happen on weekends in fine weather, mainly because that's when people participate in recreational activities. Those that do it for fun , as much as we may not like it are likely to be less current than those who do it every day for a living. Both are less forgiving if errors are made and small error is likely to have significant consequences.

Perhaps there are correlations between age and crashes in both, but perhaps we needn't bother being concerned about that as long as there risk to the public is minimal. Probably the biggest factor in the safety of either is the pilot or rider, how do you assess that? Some people seem to be the ones that always having mishaps while others seem to never have problems.

It's not like comparing airlines or bus companies, how can you arrive at meaningful conclusions when the single biggest factor is you?

 

There many factors to consider and I would consider the data absolutely meaningless unless it's done properly.

[Flightrite]

After trying to take all those stats in I don't think I'll ever get out of bed again!?

[mnewbery]

My thoughts:

1. Sport Diving, especially in the Yoo ess of Aye. Many deaths are/were associated with the physical exertion of hauling gear about as opposed to having an accident at depth, once or twice a year. 90% died while still wearing a weight belt - such as getting in and out of the water

2. Commercial Diving and working in a Chinese coal mine

 

If anyone is interested, the statistics are out there. DAN Asian Pacific or Wikipedia for example

 

Statistics are like prisoners. If you torture them enough they will tell you anything

[octave]

After trying to take all those stats in I don't think I'll ever get out of bed again!?

 

Are you aware of how many people die in bed?

[Litespeed]

I would expect that been in hospital is a big factor in deaths- so don't go and you might live longer.

Lets face it, hospitals are full of sick people.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I think the most dangerous piece of gear in our society is the ladder. Based on fatalities. Harry Schneider nearly died from a ladder fall, after surviving many years of test flying gliders, not to mention the German army in WW2.

To my mind, the comparison is between " all risks " and the extra risk from flying.

There is an extra risk from being overweight ( 2 in 1000 if 5kg overweight, Australian male in his 60's.)

But here is the doozy: Extra risk from being inactive? 4 in 1000.

So I reckon that while flying is not completely safe, it is safer than being overweight and much safer than being inactive.

This means that if a guy was watching his weight and exercising to stay fit for flying, you do him a terrible disservice by grounding him.

Personally, I reckon the worst thing out is a medical death. Many people I know, including my parents, suffered horribly and they would have been better off in a plane crash, not that they ever would have chosen such a thing.

Bugger I gotta lose some weight.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Quoting myself here.. that is pretty conceited

 

Re the below, I will go through in more detail later (I actually don't do the math anymore; I finished in model governance). Have to look for work now...

 

 

-------------------

 

Let me say the same thing differently by asking you some questions.

1. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is safer driving a car?

On the raw numbers, no... but... see later...

2. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is more dangerous than riding a motorbike?

Again on the raw numbers, yes (note, I just had a quick look and wasn't sure why you were dividing kms by 30... but it doesn't really matter).

3. Before the above statistics were presented to you, did you have any idea if LSA was safer or more dangerous that driving? If so, what did you base your assessment on? Was the thing more or less reliable than the calculation above?

I had my thoughts (based on the UK) .. .Intuitiuvely and anecdotally, my thoughts (as with others here) is risk could be expressed as Car < LSA+GA < Motorbike (I am GA but know a lot of LSA folk who thik the same).

 

4. Do you have a better way of comparing the risk? If not, do you not have a clue how dangerous LSA is compared to travelling by car? As in, no clue?

If I said I could have anything more than a guesstimate of how risky LSA flying is compared to car driving, I would be lying. But if came out with a straight, 1 fatality per 40,000,000 hours v 1 per 100,000 hours, that would tell me it is possible, even probable, that the risk of LSA flying is more dangerous than driving mainly because of the difference in magnitude - but it is not necessarily so. The road deaths are all road deaths.. we think this as drivers/riders and pax/pillions; and unhelpfully, there is no definition in the docs, but I found one here: https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/Road_Safety_Australia_1117 INFOGRAPHIC 2 March 2018.pdf and it includes "vulnerable" road users, which includes peds and cyclists (and motorcyclists). The data you cited for motorcyle fatalities (which I read as 15% of the fatalities, not 30%) was in 2008, and according to the infographic, vulenrable user road-deaths has been increasing as a percentage, so more up to date data could be used, but for our purposes it should be good enough. However, we would have to exclude all other vulnerable users as they don't figure in LSA fatality statistics - well.. they shouldn't have an impact as one would hope with the rules, we aren't taking out too many innocent bystanders when we bite it. And, as per previous posts, I would be looking to remove or smooth statistically irrelvant data until it is not significant. It may presently not be significant, but without analysis, I can't tell. Thinking for cars, I would expect that there would be a lot more journeys that are way outside the bounds of what would be attempted in an LSA weather wise, urban v. highway driving, etc that would materially skew the results. I have many times driven in thick fog - as have others. You mentioned the number of people per car/motorcycle..that is one other area to look at because the number of people dying per fatal incident may also be a factor. Maybe a split by factory and homebuild - there aren't too many homebuilds out there in road user land and there will be a huge difference in homebuild quality despite inspections, so including all homebuilds may also not be a fair comparison. You have to look at the numbers to work out what is statistically significant and for the purpose of what you want to compare. Some of the above may not make sense to smooth/leave out depending on the context you are comparing the risks for.

 

5. It is generally accepted that travelling by commercial airline is safer than travelling by car. Do you accept those statistics? Why? Commercial airlines travel vastly greater distances vastly faster than car, by people who travel for different reasons and motivations, and less often, so how can you compare the risks?

I would believe these based on the fact the stats are compiled and analysed with appropriate model governance to provide assurance. As I mentioned earlier, motivation is not a factor, but the context is. Rarely is airline flying used as part of the enjoyment of the trip, especially long-haul. But, it is about from getting from A to B over longer distances So, a more accurate comparison of risk would be to exclude or smooth all those small car trips, or change the model to affect it. So instead of saying how many deaths per mile or hour travelled in an airline, you may use how many fatalities per passenger (or more accurately, occupant) mile or hour travelled and compare that to the same metric on a per-passenger/occupant mile/hour for road users. This can help smooth the dataset inconsistencies. You could seriously write a book on it. As an example, a few years ago, on a London radio station they made some comment about how polluting large ariliners are in that a one-way flight from London to Miami is the equivalent of the emissions of 8 family cars per year. So I called them up and on air explained why the logic may be flawed.. One of these aircraft hold, say 300pax. To keep it simple, multiply the 300 pax by the c. 4,500 miles. This is the same as taking one person 1.35m miles (give or take). Now, taking an average family car, and lets assume 4 people per car for the average of 12,000 miles per year. This gives us 384,000 miles for 8 cars; the airliner is c. 3.5 times more efficient than a family car. In other words, if we all drove the same pax miles as airliners do, the world would be a lot worse off than it is.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Jerry_Atrick

[pmccarthy]

For the comparison to be valid, you would have to look at circumstances. The best test would be “ could that have happened to me?”. For cars, eliminate drug- affected hooning in a stolen car and multiple teenage deaths with unlicensed drivers, etc. For aircraft, eliminate most scud-running inadvertent entry to IMC etc or loss of control during low flying and showing off. Just compare the circumstances that could apply to your driving and flying. I have no idea what the result would be.

[onetrack]

The only people with valid information as regards the risks involved in flying light aircraft with single engines, are insurance companies who specialise in life insurance.

 

I can tell you this much - if you have a regular life insurance policy, make sure it covers death involving a light aircraft - because the vast majority of life insurers refuse to insure you, once you take to the skies in a light aircraft with a single engine.

[Thruster88]

I often wonder how police can operate motorcycles given the appalling accident statistics of bikes. Workcover (NSW) would be on their case like flies on manure so they must be doing something very different to the average rider. Is it very good training, detailed assessment of risks, competency based testing of skills and mental attitude, strong oversight by management, sounds a bit like flying. One major advantage we pilots have is total control over our situation including but not limited to what we will do in an engine malfunction situation. Mid air collision is the only thing we cannot totally control, fortunately very rare.

[M61A1]

For the comparison to be valid, you would have to look at circumstances. The best test would be “ could that have happened to me?”. For cars, eliminate drug- affected hooning in a stolen car and multiple teenage deaths with unlicensed drivers, etc. For aircraft, eliminate most scud-running inadvertent entry to IMC etc or loss of control during low flying and showing off. Just compare the circumstances that could apply to your driving and flying. I have no idea what the result would be.

No-one thinks an inadvertent stall/spin is going to kill them, but it seems happen a lot.

I don't know how many people bought a motorcycle to ride it slowly in a straight line on a highway. I don't know many, just one. I think perhaps the same is with flying. How many do it just to take off and fly in a straight line at high altitude?

 

I often wonder how police can operate motorcycles given the appalling accident statistics of bikes. Workcover (NSW) would be on their case like flies on manure so they must be doing something very different to the average rider. Is it very good training, detailed assessment of risks, competency based testing of skills and mental attitude, strong oversight by management, sounds a bit like flying. One major advantage we pilots have is total control over our situation including but not limited to what we will do in an engine malfunction situation. Mid air collision is the only thing we cannot totally control, fortunately very rare.

I saw a magazine article some years ago, and I don't know if things have improved.

It basically asked how any group of people would be treated if 100% of them had been in a traffic accident, Then went on to tell us how the QLD police motorcycle unit was one such group.

 

I have always maintained that you can make a lot of your own luck, and with motorcycling I have only ever had one close call that I could do absolutely nothing about. Scared the hell out of me, as previously I'd had close calls and always left myself a way out.

[Bruce Tuncks]

There was a time when I was learning to fly gliders when we just happened to drive past a few dying motorcyclists. Thank goodness there were already ambulances etc there, and we had to look up later what had happened. This helped me convince the wife how safe gliding was in comparison to motorbikes.

I like pmc's point about how relevant some accidents are to us personally. When I eliminate the ones which I wouldn't do, like flying into cloud-covered mountains, I think that what is left is very safe. A few fatalities have been the result of the pilot going into panic when the sound of silence replaced the engine noise, for another example. This is not relevant to us older wiser guys with heaps of gliding in our books, or indeed anybody well trained and in practice.

The last fatality anywhere near Gawler was a metal aircraft which took off and flew into low overcast, from which it emerged in bits. I remember the day and deciding it wasn't a flying day at all.

These are the equivalent events to the hoon drivers pmc mentioned. I personally discount them.

So the question to the pessimists out there... How am I taking a risk if I continue to fly in good weather over wheat country?

[facthunter]

How do you get airborne. Tug or winch? Mixing with other gliders in a thermal. Some GA fellow flying though your circuit. Applying YOUR personal standards isn't reliable. MOST pilots think anything bad won't happen to them. Only "other people" make mistakes. Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

These days, due to laziness, I usually fly the Jabiru Nev. But in the glider, we use the tug planes. There is no time during the launch when the glider is at any risk.... you have circuit height before you lose the ability to land straight ahead.

At Alice Springs I did winch launches and they sure were scary till I found that it only FELT like the wings were going to be ripped off.

A midair down low would get your attention I agree.

Yes I'm worse than most pilots... I doubt that anything will happen to me or even at my club. Other places and pilots do accidents, and I wish they would stop so CASA would go broke.

[jackc]

I often wonder how police can operate motorcycles given the appalling accident statistics of bikes. Workcover (NSW) would be on their case like flies on manure so they must be doing something very different to the average rider. Is it very good training, detailed assessment of risks, competency based testing of skills and mental attitude, strong oversight by management, sounds a bit like flying. One major advantage we pilots have is total control over our situation including but not limited to what we will do in an engine malfunction situation. Mid air collision is the only thing we cannot totally control, fortunately very rare.

Or a mid flight structural failure.

[Flightrite]

Are you aware of how many people die in bed?

A few die from over exertion, lucky buggers?

[Flightrite]

Or a mid flight structural failure.

Actually many situations we have zero control over, humans designed, built and maintain our flying machines, we have zero control over their work!

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yep, bed is a dangerous place. The most dangerous sport, on mortality figures, is BOWLS. Yep more people die playing bowls than they do motorbike racing.