I'll update this once I'm done, I didn't expect to see a video from the pilot institute with only 30 views until I saw it was posted 9 minutes ago. Surprised me that it was already on my recommended feed. After watching, I was surprised about just how many more accidents per million hours there were. I e thing I wonder is on a severity scale, if aircraft incidents are more or less dangerous. I would imagine that they are more dangerous but I could also see it being on a scale where most accidents are on the ends of the spectrum. For example most accidents are either fatal or no injury, with comparatively few in between. The reason I see this being a possibility is due to how much energy is in aviation. If you have a fire and get it out, you can land. If not, you don't have to worry about landing because you are on fire. So unless the right actions are performed, it's a fatal incident. But if the right actions are taken it's a minimal or non-injury accident. I would also imagine that airframes are somewhat the same but not as extreme of a bias to one end or the other.
@@charadremur333 find my comment below where I discuss this further, but, most engine hours in a car are under low speed conditions driving in town where MOST accidents occur. HOWEVER, these low speed fender benders never actually had any potential to be fatal.....whereas, most engine time in an airplane is spent at a minimum of 70-80mph so obviously the accidents that occur under those conditions are MUCH more likely to be fatal. It's not really comparing apples to apples. I think to get a true idea of how risky driving a car is, you'd have to only include accidents that occurred at higher speeds where there is actually some potential for serious injury.
No, not at all! General Aviation has many accidents possibly because many pilots only do the minimum training and flying time. Most can only fly VFR and cannot use instruments. Those who are instrument rated do not practice enough and have problems when they have to use them. But that’s just my opinion. All the best from Sydney Australia.
Not at all, as I've seen this data. If you plot against distance instead of time, it's a VERY different picture which makes the premise much less clear.
Yep, yep, yep. Right on point. This is exactly why people absolutely cannot have flying cars or air taxis unless they actually have the skills and knowledge it takes to fly an aircraft. Even if they are automated, all it takes is one system failure in a flying car and boom-everything goes wrong unless the person operating it knows what it takes to resolve the issue. And the only way that person would know is if they received good pilot training. The Pilot Institute does an excellent job at providing this instruction and educating the general aviation community about the importance of following all the rules and being masters of our aircraft at all times when flying. Well done on this video! Thanks for sharing! :)
It’s not that. It’s flying cars will have to have lift independent of aerodynamics and a foolproof navigation system that will keep them at proper track and altitude automatically. We simply do not have the technology or energy density to make this possible.
@@calvinnickel9995 Yes, @calvinnickel9995, I agree with you that is another good reason, but even if we did have that technology, any technology humans create is imperfect because humans by nature are an imperfect species. Therefore, any technology humans create, no matter what kind of technology it is, will be bound to fail in some way at some point. That's why maintenance is so important for vehicles and buildings we create. And owners of flying cars who fail to perform the necessary maintenance checks that any good pilot would today for a standard aircraft, are much more likely to see failure at some point. That's why we have so many cars here on the ground breaking down and getting towed to maintenance shops anyway, because people don't take the time do the maintenance their cars require. It doesn't matter why they do it, even if they just don't feel like it or don't feel they have time to do it and just want to lay down and watch TV. There are still consequences when breakdowns happen, because then the car's problems become someone else's problem and the person has to pay them to fix the problem for them, when they could be doing the work to fix it themselves for free. For those in aviation, the consequences of a breakdown are much more serious, because if a plane, say a Cessna, breaks down in midair, there are no tow trucks in the sky and the pilot has to find an emergency airport to land at, assuming they are even anywhere near one. If they're not, then air traffic control operations get disrupted because now the Cessna must interfere with other aircraft operations in order to make an emergency landing. In a crowded airspace full of flying cars, the situation would be much more challenging and dangerous to navigate. That's why I posted that comment, because regardless of the advanced technologies flying cars have, the human pilot's responsibilities will never go away. Anyone who expects to fly ANY aircraft, whether it be a flying car or an air taxi, MUST know and follow all the rules and procedures of safely operating that aircraft and communicating with Air Traffic Control to ensure that aviation stays safe and efficient. Rules and procedures exist for a reason, and must be followed at all times. Like the Pilot Institute says in their videos, aviation is very unforgiving of pilots who do not follow these procedures and stay in control of their aircraft at all times during every single flight. There are absolutely no exceptions to that, even with fully-automated flying cars. Anyone expressing interest in purchasing their own flying cars must understand that.
As a private pilot, I will say that training is woefully inadequate and too many pilots don’t know their limits as well as the airplane. When I was a student pilot, I was told about carb ice, but was never trained in the aircraft to actually experience it. I had a near engine failure and it was a controller who told me to pull the carb heat.
Experience certainly matters in effectively handling emergencies. Emergency management is vital training that, unfortunately, cannot be practiced, only simulated. But I'm not sure why you would single out a carb heat situation. Carb heat is on every engine-emergency checklist. Did you mean that the training is so woefully inadequate that your instructor never talked about checklists? That is truly disturbing.
@@auburn886 Glad to hear that. True beginners can't really know the quality of their instructor. My experience was the opposite, such that I had no idea how good my first instructor was until many years later when I had a middling one.
This is most of flying. Your license is a license to learn. There’s no possible way to practically train every scenario. Even the USAF pilots who flew the SR-71 could be shown an inlet unstart because it was far too dangerous. They had to be told about it. One of the solutions was to actually purposely unstart the other engine to keep the aircraft controllable.
@@tgm2474 2nd instructor was an ex Marine. Nothing was ever "good enough". I told him about the carb ice incident. (It was my 2nd solo cross country) He talked me through it though and I learned a ton from him. He invited me to go along with other students one of whom was working on his commercial. That was interesting.
Imo that’s a very overused quote, and I disagree there most definitely is inherent danger but almost all of it has been mitigated by the combination of engineering and training
Thank you so much! I hate it when some of my comrades telling the young students that driving to the airport is more dangerous than general aviation. In my opinion this gives the students a false safety feeling! Now I have the right video to refute this nonsense.
Ita easier to correct a mistake in a car as the consequences of improper handling are immediate. With planes, your f-up can be 5-10 minutes in the past, going unnoticed and when symptoms show, it is too late. As for the stalls in the pattern: airlines have a tool that ga needs to adopt: minimum maneuvering speed.
Excellent video! Thank you for sharing the statistics! It really shows that we need to study, train, practice, and make well-informed decisions, always putting safety first.
As a pilot and mechanic for many years, I am often astonished at the comments in these flying videos that talk about how the government is stifling flying, they take away the fun etc. etc. I tell them nearly all the rules are written in someone's blood - they blow it off. But it's true. We can't take flying or maintenance for granted. There are too many holes and not enough Swiss cheese.
You can always get training if thats what you desire to do. Nobody says you are not allowed to get training in something, regardless of the title of your license. If you wish to learn about flying under IFR rules, then do it and don't let anyone tell you you you're not allowed to get that training.
Well, hopefully the FAA will reconsider that at some point, but yeah, can still learn IFR, and be ready for that potential change in certification paths.
When comparing to other methods of transporting a certain number of people a certain distance, the proper figure of merit is fatalities per passenger-mile. Particularly in GA, the pilot should often count as one of the passengers.
True. That would cut the relative danger rate by about half, I'd guess. Although the calculus can get really weird when you start into those weeds. After all, nobody hops in their car once a month to practice driving around the block and pulling into their driveway.
If I need to travel from here to the other side of the state, it’s a 5hr drive or a 1hr flight. Comparing driving and flying by hours isn’t apples to apples. The safety of the trip is how it’s best compared in my opinion. I think the conclusion is probably the same but the magnitude would be dramatically different. Difficult comparison to do with a lot of assumptions in any event but something to consider
if you compare distance travelled, commercial aviation is still alot safer than driving. If you compare the number of trips, than driving is safer. My driving teacher told me befoer he let me out in the world, that if I want to improve my driving, it is more important to drive often short trips than now and then long trips. I would guess the main factor of pilot error can be traced back by a lack of regular flying.
two things that would be interesting to add: - the fatalities per million hours for commercial flights (if GA 9.5 and cars are 0.68, what's the number for jets with pro pilots?) - 69% of GA crashes are caused by pilots --> I would say that this number would be much higher for cars :) (my guess would be that some self-driving cars account for less that 0.01% at the moment (remember those Teslas that killed motorcycle drivers in weird light conditions?, and then some accidents may be caused by weather (although not that much probably as in GA) and some by mechanical failure (brakes on semis), but I'd say 95+% are caused by drivers) A mechanical failure has much bigger consequences in the air where you can't just stop...
I would love to know based on your data, what would the rate be between GA and cars if you removed fuel, weather and stall accidents. Can you create that matrix with the info you already have? I say this because those are the big killers that we have control over for the most part in terms of operating. So if I take my family up for a short cross country with plenty fuel in good weather and I do not stall it is it safer than driving?
My brother used to say crashes hit bews as large number of people killed in one flight. But on roads in UK four people a day or 28 a week killed on the roads about 336 a year equivalent if one plane. Though ionlytravel in a car when forced
I have had this discussion with fellow pilots on a few occasions. It's incredible how difficult it is to debunk myths. They'll poo poo my claims that 'it's only flying the airlines that is much safer than driving--not GA"! Now, with this vid, I can finally show them something that is data driven to support my argument. The AOPA has kept stats since the 1930s on pilot fatalities and accidents, and it has improved nearly every year for ninety years (thanks in part to the Safety Institute). But we have a ways to go. It's always in the back of my mind that there is inherently more risk in flying small aircraft than driving. The surprise to me is that GA is not even as safe as driving a motorcycle! I suppose, too, that one might challenge the comparison being made in driving hours (how did they arrive at this number) versus flight hours. This might skew the findings somewhat.
What about fatalities per mile traveled, any data from that perspective? When going from A to B one spends a lot more time in a car than in a GA flight. Not to mention the hours spent driving at walking speed or less on the freeway “parking lot” during rush hour.
@@PilotInstituteAirplanes Thanks, just did a quick calculation and assuming average speeds between 90kt and 180kt that would put the fatality rate at about 3.3x to 6.7x that of driving. Still riskier than driving, but much better odds from that perspective. Thank you for the video and blog post, fascinating content!
There are so many things that muck this up, making it hard to decide what even the correct question is. Here are some I can think of: A large percentage of aircraft accidents happen during talk off and landing, so longer flights will be safer. Driving on a limited access freeway is substantially safer than most other roads. This probably makes longer car trips safer too. One is very unlikely to be killed or even seriously injured driving on any road -- but especially a freeway, -- at "walking speed". Accident rates may go up in heavy traffic, but death rates will go down. I don't know for sure, but I suspect a larger percentage of flying vs driving is done just for fun instead of to get somewhere. Does it even make sense to compare something that is done for entertainment to something that is more necessary (like getting to and from work)? For example would it be meaningful to compare the death rate (on a per hour or any other bases) of scuba diving or rock climbing to that of driving? www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/seat-belts#:~:text=The%20benefits%20of%20buckling%20up,to%20critical%20injury%20by%2050%25
@@andrewsnow7386 Excellent points. Don't also forget that nobody gets in their car once a month to practice driving around the block and pulling into their driveway. For that matter, I've never seen a person preflight their car.
For the engine failures, if its deemed "minor damage" they may not ingestigate further which probably is the reason for such high unknown causes for engine failure. That being said, considering we all fly the same few engine models, I'd feel a whole heck of a lot better knowing why the engine thats in my plane failed in another of the same plane.
Having just watched a video about a Cessna 421 crash, it made literally wonder about this very question and then somehow TH-cam recommended your video. Spooky! It seems my hunch was correct. What I'd be interested in is to see if the data varies internationally. I feel like i hear more stories of GA accidents in the US, but maybe thats just because there is a lot more general aviation happening over there?
Please would you remove the data crashes caused by training accidents from these calculations? It would seem that people learning to drive are also recorded on a non disclosed basis.
Greg this was awesome data. Was there any info relating to specific engine types: NA, turbo piston, multi, turbine, jet, etc? Specifically, I’m curious about NA vs Turbo piston.
Turbo piston far more deadly. It’s not even related to engine failures. A turbo piston plane is going to be doing IFR cross country… with high stakes missions that can’t be cancelled, delayed, or diverted vs an NA plane going for circuits or a $100 hamburger.
@@calvinnickel9995 so the mission is more dangerous due to weather, icing, terrain, etc. but my curiosity is on engine failures/turbo issues, reliability of NA Vs Turbo piston.
Pilot error and driver error are the primary cause of accidents. That said, comparing fatality rates is a little misleading because aircraft are generally traveling at much higher speeds than cars and don't have anywhere near the same level of safety features such as airbags, designed crumple-zones, etc. I suspect the comparison to motorcycle accidents is more accurate as they also lack most of the safety features built into modern cars. I'm a private pilot and spent a career looking into accidents in the petroleum industry. What was often found in these investigations was that the person who made the error suffered from a lack of understanding due to a gap in training, or there was a shortcut taken and a lack of oversite. An example in aviation could be fuel exhaustion. If I land with just enough fuel to taxi to the fuel stop, it's likely the only person that would ever know would be me, on the other hand if an airliner lands with too little fuel on board, a host of people could become aware, not to mention that a host of people are calculating the requirements for their flight. Pushing to the edge of the airplane's limit is risky, pushing to the edge of the pilot's limits is often deadly.
I’m sorry but this isn’t born out by data. Scott Crossfield, Steve Fossett, Dale Snodgrass. Three extremely experienced pilots who had long careers setting records in very high performance aircraft… who all died in pedestrian single engine aircraft due to basic lapses in airmanship.
Very helpful when properly applied. That's one of the factors in the type I'm shopping for. I suspect it's hard to come by data that identify whether certain parachute usages were lifesaving. But I'm sure there are estimates out there.
Non standard entry into non standard pattern at non standard speed followed by non standard steep final. What are the odds he used standard missed approach / go around procedure? Could he have raised flaps too soon or raised fully on missed approach? (wouldn't be the first time that's killed someone ). I know this is just speculation on my part but I doubt we will ever know what really happened. That's just the way it goes with these types of GA accidents. I lost my cousin back in the 1980s. He crashed right after T/O at Andrews TX in his C310. No real answers to this day. RIP good people.
Yes, and lately at least a few crashes have been exactly that, loss of engine power during or just after takeoff. Forgetting to make sure the parking brake is disengaged is another one popping up lately. Resetting elevator trim, and then positioned for takeoff is yet another one being overlooked that can easily lead to a crash during takeoff.
No. There’s an almost zero percent chance you die. Almost all of the 10% of people who died because of engine failures were due to the stall/spin they entered trying to avoid the ground. Fly it in all the way.. aiming for a smooth landing and 200 feet or so of deceleration and you’ll walk away. Even into trees or stick frame houses.
I used to love flying and flew as a Private Pilot. Not any more. The more hours i flew (about 1300 hours total), the more i learnt about dangers of flying, after hearing about aviation accidents in which people i knew were involved, the more fearful i became of flying. There is always this "what if" question lingered in my head. I quit flying and now i avoid flying on commercial airliners either unless i have no choice when i have to go on a business trip or over the ocean. I now prefer driving and it does not bother me to drive a 1000 miles in a day. Besides, general aviation is not very versatile. Weather often becomes an issue when you fly and you have to figure out ground transportation at your destination away from home.
i once heard in uk if a road accident where seven killed in a snash at night nit parents fault butparents and five children killed all kids beliw 8 years old one a baby
There was an internet glitch. I'm sure you carefully cited the information and statistics and sources to substantiate this claim, but through some bug it didn't show up. Would you please be so kind as to repost this data and source? Thanks.
I'd say that on the whole, flying is perhaps safer in a few ways. Number one many planes have automation and backup/redundant systems that assist the pilots, and in some cases, prevent them from making errors or catastrophic errors at least. Cars don't always have those things, such as redundant braking, or monitoring systems like airplanes do. Plus, you're at the mercy of other drivers which you cannot predict. At least with flying, systems can predict weather patterns and inform pilots of developing bad weather in advance so they can plan accordingly, and while the same can be done for cars, driving in adverse weather is perhaps more risky (planes can sometimes fly above s torms, for example).
@@PilotInstituteAirplanes I see just direct accident causes. It would be crucial to see, what leads to them as those very factors can improve the safety. You can't say "don't do CFIT" or "do not stall/spin after EFAT". Those direct causes are not the original ones, such as I've mentioned. If a pilot stalls/spins to the ground, the stall/spin is not the cause of the accident, this is basically the aftermath. The problem happened before that. Maybe even long before that.
A very different picture? GA flying has over an order of magnitude higher number of fatalities per hour. The planes would have to be going 700 miles an hour on average to be as safe as cars going an average of 50 MPH to be as safe.
I don't know if comparing cars driven per mile(s) and plane flown per hour is the right approach to this. Maybe it would be better to compare both via time spent doing it, so you at least get the same type of measurements.
One practical problem with these stats is that you compare flight hours to ALL TYPES of driving hours combined, whereas, the majority of flight hours are spent in FLIGHT.....basically the ONLY place where a fatal accident could even occur due to necessarily high speeds when impact occurs(how many fatal accidents happen while taxiing?) Conversely, the average driver is probably spending much more time driving in town where there is a high rate of accidents, like getting rear ended, but a VERY low rate of FATAL accidents due to the low speeds of city driving. The average driver spends less time on the highway where accidents are not as frequent but when they do occur there is a MUCH higher likelihood of it being fatal. So by lumping city and highway driving together you get a HUGE number of total accidents but the majority of them occurred under slow speed traffic conditions where fatalities are all but impossible which makes driving appear disproportionately safer than flying. The only fair way to compare them would be to exclude nonfatal motor vehicle accidents that occurred at low speed and only include accidents that actually had potential to be fatal. You just can't compare engine hours spent at an average of 35mph to engine hours spent at 75-110 kts. You have to compare apples to apples. No doubt, GA flying is much riskier than the average vehicle commute to work but I suspect if you controlled for these factors, GA would come out to be more comparable to riding motorcycles. And just with common sense, that makes sense. A motorcyclist has very limited protection so a crash at 45mph has a much higher chance of being fatal than a 45mph crash in a car with airbags. I suspect GA flying is roughly on par with riding a motorcycle..... that is to say, it's definitely dangerous but at least as a pilot, whether I die is up to how good I am at flying and not just random bad luck on the road. Unlike a motorcyclist, I'm not going to get blindsided at an intersection and crushed under a Chevy Suburban by a lady putting on makeup while she is driving haha.
Also appropriate to compare fatals per million miles. Distance rather than time, and if city driving is included it’s only fair to include pedestrians struck by cars.
The statistics is not as straight forward, comparing hours between cars and airplanes ignores the fact that a 4 hour trip in a car can equal to 35-45 minute flight in a plane. Planes are faster, so if you calculate for distance travelled numbers are very different. When providing statistical analysis it is a good idea to look from various angles. Also, video ignores the fact that majority of the accidents happen with pilots under 400 hours, so called “Killing zone,” a term coined from the book with similar name.
It is not possible to compare the safety of car travel with the safety of GA because the data is totally inadequate on large numbers of car incidents. If a car for example has any mechanical issue, that is preventing further travel, nothing happens. Car stops on the side of the road and nothing gets reported. A lot of small accidents where only a single vehicle is involved,are also unreported. Equivalent incidents in a single engine aircraft could be a major problem, possibly fatal crash with extensive investigation. Most aircraft accidents are reported and investigated, yet there must be millions of car incidents and small accidents that nobody ever reports anywhere.
Were you surprised by the data?
I'll update this once I'm done, I didn't expect to see a video from the pilot institute with only 30 views until I saw it was posted 9 minutes ago. Surprised me that it was already on my recommended feed.
After watching, I was surprised about just how many more accidents per million hours there were. I e thing I wonder is on a severity scale, if aircraft incidents are more or less dangerous. I would imagine that they are more dangerous but I could also see it being on a scale where most accidents are on the ends of the spectrum. For example most accidents are either fatal or no injury, with comparatively few in between. The reason I see this being a possibility is due to how much energy is in aviation. If you have a fire and get it out, you can land. If not, you don't have to worry about landing because you are on fire. So unless the right actions are performed, it's a fatal incident. But if the right actions are taken it's a minimal or non-injury accident. I would also imagine that airframes are somewhat the same but not as extreme of a bias to one end or the other.
Very.
@@charadremur333 find my comment below where I discuss this further, but, most engine hours in a car are under low speed conditions driving in town where MOST accidents occur. HOWEVER, these low speed fender benders never actually had any potential to be fatal.....whereas, most engine time in an airplane is spent at a minimum of 70-80mph so obviously the accidents that occur under those conditions are MUCH more likely to be fatal. It's not really comparing apples to apples. I think to get a true idea of how risky driving a car is, you'd have to only include accidents that occurred at higher speeds where there is actually some potential for serious injury.
No, not at all! General Aviation has many accidents possibly because many pilots only do the minimum training and flying time. Most can only fly VFR and cannot use instruments. Those who are instrument rated do not practice enough and have problems when they have to use them. But that’s just my opinion. All the best from Sydney Australia.
Not at all, as I've seen this data. If you plot against distance instead of time, it's a VERY different picture which makes the premise much less clear.
Yep, yep, yep. Right on point.
This is exactly why people absolutely cannot have flying cars or air taxis unless they actually have the skills and knowledge it takes to fly an aircraft. Even if they are automated, all it takes is one system failure in a flying car and boom-everything goes wrong unless the person operating it knows what it takes to resolve the issue. And the only way that person would know is if they received good pilot training. The Pilot Institute does an excellent job at providing this instruction and educating the general aviation community about the importance of following all the rules and being masters of our aircraft at all times when flying.
Well done on this video! Thanks for sharing! :)
🙌
It’s not that.
It’s flying cars will have to have lift independent of aerodynamics and a foolproof navigation system that will keep them at proper track and altitude automatically.
We simply do not have the technology or energy density to make this possible.
@@calvinnickel9995 Yes, @calvinnickel9995, I agree with you that is another good reason, but even if we did have that technology, any technology humans create is imperfect because humans by nature are an imperfect species. Therefore, any technology humans create, no matter what kind of technology it is, will be bound to fail in some way at some point. That's why maintenance is so important for vehicles and buildings we create. And owners of flying cars who fail to perform the necessary maintenance checks that any good pilot would today for a standard aircraft, are much more likely to see failure at some point.
That's why we have so many cars here on the ground breaking down and getting towed to maintenance shops anyway, because people don't take the time do the maintenance their cars require. It doesn't matter why they do it, even if they just don't feel like it or don't feel they have time to do it and just want to lay down and watch TV. There are still consequences when breakdowns happen, because then the car's problems become someone else's problem and the person has to pay them to fix the problem for them, when they could be doing the work to fix it themselves for free.
For those in aviation, the consequences of a breakdown are much more serious, because if a plane, say a Cessna, breaks down in midair, there are no tow trucks in the sky and the pilot has to find an emergency airport to land at, assuming they are even anywhere near one. If they're not, then air traffic control operations get disrupted because now the Cessna must interfere with other aircraft operations in order to make an emergency landing. In a crowded airspace full of flying cars, the situation would be much more challenging and dangerous to navigate.
That's why I posted that comment, because regardless of the advanced technologies flying cars have, the human pilot's responsibilities will never go away. Anyone who expects to fly ANY aircraft, whether it be a flying car or an air taxi, MUST know and follow all the rules and procedures of safely operating that aircraft and communicating with Air Traffic Control to ensure that aviation stays safe and efficient. Rules and procedures exist for a reason, and must be followed at all times. Like the Pilot Institute says in their videos, aviation is very unforgiving of pilots who do not follow these procedures and stay in control of their aircraft at all times during every single flight. There are absolutely no exceptions to that, even with fully-automated flying cars. Anyone expressing interest in purchasing their own flying cars must understand that.
As a private pilot, I will say that training is woefully inadequate and too many pilots don’t know their limits as well as the airplane. When I was a student pilot, I was told about carb ice, but was never trained in the aircraft to actually experience it. I had a near engine failure and it was a controller who told me to pull the carb heat.
Experience certainly matters in effectively handling emergencies. Emergency management is vital training that, unfortunately, cannot be practiced, only simulated. But I'm not sure why you would single out a carb heat situation. Carb heat is on every engine-emergency checklist. Did you mean that the training is so woefully inadequate that your instructor never talked about checklists? That is truly disturbing.
@@tgm2474 I had a bad instructor when I first started. The one who saw me through getting my license was outstanding.
@@auburn886 Glad to hear that. True beginners can't really know the quality of their instructor. My experience was the opposite, such that I had no idea how good my first instructor was until many years later when I had a middling one.
This is most of flying. Your license is a license to learn. There’s no possible way to practically train every scenario.
Even the USAF pilots who flew the SR-71 could be shown an inlet unstart because it was far too dangerous. They had to be told about it. One of the solutions was to actually purposely unstart the other engine to keep the aircraft controllable.
@@tgm2474 2nd instructor was an ex Marine. Nothing was ever "good enough". I told him about the carb ice incident. (It was my 2nd solo cross country) He talked me through it though and I learned a ton from him. He invited me to go along with other students one of whom was working on his commercial. That was interesting.
"General Aviation itself is not inherently dangerous, but like the sea, it is very unforgiving to carelessness ".
Imo that’s a very overused quote, and I disagree there most definitely is inherent danger but almost all of it has been mitigated by the combination of engineering and training
@@hunterreeves6525You're saying what the quote is saying. It's unforgiving and becomes dangerous.
Flying is not as dangerous as the journey to the airfield.
@@mothmagic1 watch the video before commenting on it
Basically, it's dangerous.
Thank you so much! I hate it when some of my comrades telling the young students that driving to the airport is more dangerous than general aviation. In my opinion this gives the students a false safety feeling!
Now I have the right video to refute this nonsense.
Very interesting video. I suspected that small planes were more dangerous than autos but was surprised by the big margin.
Made me feel better watching this. Thanks
Ita easier to correct a mistake in a car as the consequences of improper handling are immediate. With planes, your f-up can be 5-10 minutes in the past, going unnoticed and when symptoms show, it is too late.
As for the stalls in the pattern: airlines have a tool that ga needs to adopt: minimum maneuvering speed.
Thank you for putting this all together. It was informative.
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent video! Thank you for sharing the statistics!
It really shows that we need to study, train, practice, and make well-informed decisions, always putting safety first.
Absolutely!
GA just has very good safety measures. there's no way you'd do something equvivalent to speeding in a plane for too much.
Eye opening. Thanks for the video.
As a pilot and mechanic for many years, I am often astonished at the comments in these flying videos that talk about how the government is stifling flying, they take away the fun etc. etc.
I tell them nearly all the rules are written in someone's blood - they blow it off. But it's true.
We can't take flying or maintenance for granted. There are too many holes and not enough Swiss cheese.
Put as many planes in the air as there is cars on the road and you will see a bigger difference in the stats.
It is a darn shame that Sport Pilots are not allowed to get IFR training. Because "safety" you know.
You can always get training if thats what you desire to do. Nobody says you are not allowed to get training in something, regardless of the title of your license. If you wish to learn about flying under IFR rules, then do it and don't let anyone tell you you you're not allowed to get that training.
Well, hopefully the FAA will reconsider that at some point, but yeah, can still learn IFR, and be ready for that potential change in certification paths.
When comparing to other methods of transporting a certain number of people a certain distance, the proper figure of merit is fatalities per passenger-mile. Particularly in GA, the pilot should often count as one of the passengers.
True. That would cut the relative danger rate by about half, I'd guess. Although the calculus can get really weird when you start into those weeds. After all, nobody hops in their car once a month to practice driving around the block and pulling into their driveway.
If I need to travel from here to the other side of the state, it’s a 5hr drive or a 1hr flight. Comparing driving and flying by hours isn’t apples to apples. The safety of the trip is how it’s best compared in my opinion. I think the conclusion is probably the same but the magnitude would be dramatically different. Difficult comparison to do with a lot of assumptions in any event but something to consider
You can see why we were unable to make that comparison here: pilotinstitute.com/is-flying-safer-than-driving/
if you compare distance travelled, commercial aviation is still alot safer than driving. If you compare the number of trips, than driving is safer.
My driving teacher told me befoer he let me out in the world, that if I want to improve my driving, it is more important to drive often short trips than now and then long trips. I would guess the main factor of pilot error can be traced back by a lack of regular flying.
two things that would be interesting to add:
- the fatalities per million hours for commercial flights (if GA 9.5 and cars are 0.68, what's the number for jets with pro pilots?)
- 69% of GA crashes are caused by pilots --> I would say that this number would be much higher for cars :)
(my guess would be that some self-driving cars account for less that 0.01% at the moment (remember those Teslas that killed motorcycle drivers in weird light conditions?, and then some accidents may be caused by weather (although not that much probably as in GA) and some by mechanical failure (brakes on semis), but I'd say 95+% are caused by drivers)
A mechanical failure has much bigger consequences in the air where you can't just stop...
Yes, I was also wondering a bit about what percentage of automotive deaths are due to "driver error" which probably is higher than for aircraft.
Are experimental vs certified aircraft taken into account?
I would love to know based on your data, what would the rate be between GA and cars if you removed fuel, weather and stall accidents. Can you create that matrix with the info you already have? I say this because those are the big killers that we have control over for the most part in terms of operating. So if I take my family up for a short cross country with plenty fuel in good weather and I do not stall it is it safer than driving?
My brother used to say crashes hit bews as large number of people killed in one flight.
But on roads in UK four people a day or 28 a week killed on the roads about 336 a year equivalent if one plane.
Though ionlytravel in a car when forced
if ever i feel unmotivated to study Imma just go watch this video
I have had this discussion with fellow pilots on a few occasions. It's incredible how difficult it is to debunk myths. They'll poo poo my claims that 'it's only flying the airlines that is much safer than driving--not GA"! Now, with this vid, I can finally show them something that is data driven to support my argument.
The AOPA has kept stats since the 1930s on pilot fatalities and accidents, and it has improved nearly every year for ninety years (thanks in part to the Safety Institute). But we have a ways to go. It's always in the back of my mind that there is inherently more risk in flying small aircraft than driving. The surprise to me is that GA is not even as safe as driving a motorcycle! I suppose, too, that one might challenge the comparison being made in driving hours (how did they arrive at this number) versus flight hours. This might skew the findings somewhat.
What about fatalities per mile traveled, any data from that perspective? When going from A to B one spends a lot more time in a car than in a GA flight. Not to mention the hours spent driving at walking speed or less on the freeway “parking lot” during rush hour.
Good question! We answer it here: pilotinstitute.com/is-flying-safer-than-driving/
@@PilotInstituteAirplanes Thanks, just did a quick calculation and assuming average speeds between 90kt and 180kt that would put the fatality rate at about 3.3x to 6.7x that of driving. Still riskier than driving, but much better odds from that perspective. Thank you for the video and blog post, fascinating content!
There are so many things that muck this up, making it hard to decide what even the correct question is. Here are some I can think of:
A large percentage of aircraft accidents happen during talk off and landing, so longer flights will be safer.
Driving on a limited access freeway is substantially safer than most other roads. This probably makes longer car trips safer too.
One is very unlikely to be killed or even seriously injured driving on any road -- but especially a freeway, -- at "walking speed". Accident rates may go up in heavy traffic, but death rates will go down.
I don't know for sure, but I suspect a larger percentage of flying vs driving is done just for fun instead of to get somewhere. Does it even make sense to compare something that is done for entertainment to something that is more necessary (like getting to and from work)? For example would it be meaningful to compare the death rate (on a per hour or any other bases) of scuba diving or rock climbing to that of driving?
www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/seat-belts#:~:text=The%20benefits%20of%20buckling%20up,to%20critical%20injury%20by%2050%25
@@andrewsnow7386 Excellent points. Don't also forget that nobody gets in their car once a month to practice driving around the block and pulling into their driveway. For that matter, I've never seen a person preflight their car.
Great content. For a better comparison, you should use both metrics (aviation x automobile) fatalities per hour and fatalities per distance
Thanks! To find out why that wasn't practical see our breakdown here: pilotinstitute.com/is-flying-safer-than-driving/
Anytime i drive on the interstate, i wish i am flying
For the engine failures, if its deemed "minor damage" they may not ingestigate further which probably is the reason for such high unknown causes for engine failure. That being said, considering we all fly the same few engine models, I'd feel a whole heck of a lot better knowing why the engine thats in my plane failed in another of the same plane.
Having just watched a video about a Cessna 421 crash, it made literally wonder about this very question and then somehow TH-cam recommended your video. Spooky! It seems my hunch was correct. What I'd be interested in is to see if the data varies internationally. I feel like i hear more stories of GA accidents in the US, but maybe thats just because there is a lot more general aviation happening over there?
Are you saying that 70% of the time I do unintended, I die?
Please would you remove the data crashes caused by training accidents from these calculations? It would seem that people learning to drive are also recorded on a non disclosed basis.
Woah you guys are using Xplane 12 for some of these demonstration videos?
Microsoft Flight Simulator actually!
@@PilotInstituteAirplanes nice!
Greg this was awesome data. Was there any info relating to specific engine types: NA, turbo piston, multi, turbine, jet, etc? Specifically, I’m curious about NA vs Turbo piston.
Turbo piston far more deadly.
It’s not even related to engine failures. A turbo piston plane is going to be doing IFR cross country… with high stakes missions that can’t be cancelled, delayed, or diverted vs an NA plane going for circuits or a $100 hamburger.
@@calvinnickel9995 so the mission is more dangerous due to weather, icing, terrain, etc. but my curiosity is on engine failures/turbo issues, reliability of NA Vs Turbo piston.
Pilot error and driver error are the primary cause of accidents. That said, comparing fatality rates is a little misleading because aircraft are generally traveling at much higher speeds than cars and don't have anywhere near the same level of safety features such as airbags, designed crumple-zones, etc. I suspect the comparison to motorcycle accidents is more accurate as they also lack most of the safety features built into modern cars. I'm a private pilot and spent a career looking into accidents in the petroleum industry. What was often found in these investigations was that the person who made the error suffered from a lack of understanding due to a gap in training, or there was a shortcut taken and a lack of oversite. An example in aviation could be fuel exhaustion. If I land with just enough fuel to taxi to the fuel stop, it's likely the only person that would ever know would be me, on the other hand if an airliner lands with too little fuel on board, a host of people could become aware, not to mention that a host of people are calculating the requirements for their flight. Pushing to the edge of the airplane's limit is risky, pushing to the edge of the pilot's limits is often deadly.
I wonder how the numbers would be when fatality rates are compared to Miles traveled. My guess is that it looks better for GA.
Good question! We answer it here: pilotinstitute.com/is-flying-safer-than-driving/
I'd like to see a % comparison between low time vs high time pilots. I know for a fact that newbies take chances a high time pilot knows not to.
Meanwhile complacency is also a thing
@@Haniel93 but he still has a point: is inexperience more widespread than complacency?
I’m sorry but this isn’t born out by data.
Scott Crossfield, Steve Fossett, Dale Snodgrass.
Three extremely experienced pilots who had long careers setting records in very high performance aircraft… who all died in pedestrian single engine aircraft due to basic lapses in airmanship.
Would this be a good time to mention: parachutes.
The only proven GA method of accident or potential accident recovery.
Very helpful when properly applied. That's one of the factors in the type I'm shopping for. I suspect it's hard to come by data that identify whether certain parachute usages were lifesaving. But I'm sure there are estimates out there.
Non standard entry into non standard pattern at non standard speed followed by non standard steep final. What are the odds he used standard missed approach / go around procedure? Could he have raised flaps too soon or raised fully on missed approach? (wouldn't be the first time that's killed someone ). I know this is just speculation on my part but I doubt we will ever know what really happened. That's just the way it goes with these types of GA accidents. I lost my cousin back in the 1980s. He crashed right after T/O at Andrews TX in his C310. No real answers to this day. RIP good people.
The disturbing fact I took away from this is that if you encounter an engine failure, there's a 10% chance you will die.
an engine failure on approach or at take-off is certainly not a situation with good odds
Yes, and lately at least a few crashes have been exactly that, loss of engine power during or just after takeoff. Forgetting to make sure the parking brake is disengaged is another one popping up lately. Resetting elevator trim, and then positioned for takeoff is yet another one being overlooked that can easily lead to a crash during takeoff.
No.
There’s an almost zero percent chance you die.
Almost all of the 10% of people who died because of engine failures were due to the stall/spin they entered trying to avoid the ground.
Fly it in all the way.. aiming for a smooth landing and 200 feet or so of deceleration and you’ll walk away. Even into trees or stick frame houses.
@@calvinnickel9995 Exactamundo.
Well if you don't crash test like in the thumbnail it is inherently safe. Just be good!
I used to love flying and flew as a Private Pilot. Not any more. The more hours i flew (about 1300 hours total), the more i learnt about dangers of flying, after hearing about aviation accidents in which people i knew were involved, the more fearful i became of flying. There is always this "what if" question lingered in my head. I quit flying and now i avoid flying on commercial airliners either unless i have no choice when i have to go on a business trip or over the ocean. I now prefer driving and it does not bother me to drive a 1000 miles in a day. Besides, general aviation is not very versatile. Weather often becomes an issue when you fly and you have to figure out ground transportation at your destination away from home.
Great content but your video editor needs to stop the excessive use of the zoom and shake transitions.
solid advice
i once heard in uk if a road accident where seven killed in a snash at night nit parents fault butparents and five children killed all kids beliw 8 years old one a baby
Helicopters are the most dangerous.
There was an internet glitch.
I'm sure you carefully cited the information and statistics and sources to substantiate this claim, but through some bug it didn't show up.
Would you please be so kind as to repost this data and source? Thanks.
Truth. Aerodynamic knowledge is much more vital in a helicopter.
@PabloGonzalez-hv3td
Not really.. it’s just different.
@@calvinnickel9995 Correctamondo.
3:05 69%? really?
even if I was filthy rich I would never fly GA when you can fly 1t class on a 777 hell no!
I'd say that on the whole, flying is perhaps safer in a few ways. Number one many planes have automation and backup/redundant systems that assist the pilots, and in some cases, prevent them from making errors or catastrophic errors at least. Cars don't always have those things, such as redundant braking, or monitoring systems like airplanes do. Plus, you're at the mercy of other drivers which you cannot predict. At least with flying, systems can predict weather patterns and inform pilots of developing bad weather in advance so they can plan accordingly, and while the same can be done for cars, driving in adverse weather is perhaps more risky (planes can sometimes fly above s torms, for example).
"Caused by pilots" is an extremely broad term and should be analyzed better. Was it poor training, fatigue, show-off?
We break that term down here: pilotinstitute.com/is-flying-safer-than-driving/
@@PilotInstituteAirplanes I see just direct accident causes. It would be crucial to see, what leads to them as those very factors can improve the safety. You can't say "don't do CFIT" or "do not stall/spin after EFAT". Those direct causes are not the original ones, such as I've mentioned. If a pilot stalls/spins to the ground, the stall/spin is not the cause of the accident, this is basically the aftermath. The problem happened before that. Maybe even long before that.
@@DrzewieckiDesign That's what accident reports are for.
@@PilotInstituteAirplanes And most often they do not mention those things either, at least not in case of GA accidents.
If you plot against distance instead of time, it's a VERY different picture which makes the premise much less clear.
A very different picture?
GA flying has over an order of magnitude higher number of fatalities per hour.
The planes would have to be going 700 miles an hour on average to be as safe as cars going an average of 50 MPH to be as safe.
@@calvinnickel9995 Paul Bertorelli did a video on it years ago. I wish I could find it.
If you avoid weather, don't take substances, and properly plan/preflight, the safety rate almost certainly has to surpass autos.
Not if you compare with car drivers who avoid weather, do not take substances and properly plan ahead.
@@gregfaris6959 Touché.
@@gregfaris6959that would still be an interesting exercise. Comparing ideal circumstances that is.
cars are ridiculously safe aswell
@@gregfaris6959 Touche.
I don't know if comparing cars driven per mile(s) and plane flown per hour is the right approach to this. Maybe it would be better to compare both via time spent doing it, so you at least get the same type of measurements.
We didn’t use miles and hours, we used hours for both.
One practical problem with these stats is that you compare flight hours to ALL TYPES of driving hours combined, whereas, the majority of flight hours are spent in FLIGHT.....basically the ONLY place where a fatal accident could even occur due to necessarily high speeds when impact occurs(how many fatal accidents happen while taxiing?) Conversely, the average driver is probably spending much more time driving in town where there is a high rate of accidents, like getting rear ended, but a VERY low rate of FATAL accidents due to the low speeds of city driving. The average driver spends less time on the highway where accidents are not as frequent but when they do occur there is a MUCH higher likelihood of it being fatal. So by lumping city and highway driving together you get a HUGE number of total accidents but the majority of them occurred under slow speed traffic conditions where fatalities are all but impossible which makes driving appear disproportionately safer than flying.
The only fair way to compare them would be to exclude nonfatal motor vehicle accidents that occurred at low speed and only include accidents that actually had potential to be fatal. You just can't compare engine hours spent at an average of 35mph to engine hours spent at 75-110 kts. You have to compare apples to apples. No doubt, GA flying is much riskier than the average vehicle commute to work but I suspect if you controlled for these factors, GA would come out to be more comparable to riding motorcycles. And just with common sense, that makes sense. A motorcyclist has very limited protection so a crash at 45mph has a much higher chance of being fatal than a 45mph crash in a car with airbags. I suspect GA flying is roughly on par with riding a motorcycle..... that is to say, it's definitely dangerous but at least as a pilot, whether I die is up to how good I am at flying and not just random bad luck on the road. Unlike a motorcyclist, I'm not going to get blindsided at an intersection and crushed under a Chevy Suburban by a lady putting on makeup while she is driving haha.
Also appropriate to compare fatals per million miles. Distance rather than time, and if city driving is included it’s only fair to include pedestrians struck by cars.
We're comparing fatal car accidents in the video, not total accidents. pilotinstitute.com/is-flying-safer-than-driving/
Stay out of GA aircraft and your life expectancy will increase.
If you call that living...
The statistics is not as straight forward, comparing hours between cars and airplanes ignores the fact that a 4 hour trip in a car can equal to 35-45 minute flight in a plane. Planes are faster, so if you calculate for distance travelled numbers are very different. When providing statistical analysis it is a good idea to look from various angles. Also, video ignores the fact that majority of the accidents happen with pilots under 400 hours, so called “Killing zone,” a term coined from the book with similar name.
Here’s a full breakdown where we go into exactly why that’s a difficult comparison: pilotinstitute.com/is-flying-safer-than-driving/
It is not possible to compare the safety of car travel with the safety of GA because the data is totally inadequate on large numbers of car incidents. If a car for example has any mechanical issue, that is preventing further travel, nothing happens. Car stops on the side of the road and nothing gets reported. A lot of small accidents where only a single vehicle is involved,are also unreported. Equivalent incidents in a single engine aircraft could be a major problem, possibly fatal crash with extensive investigation. Most aircraft accidents are reported and investigated, yet there must be millions of car incidents and small accidents that nobody ever reports anywhere.
We’re talking about fatal accidents in the video. pilotinstitute.com/is-flying-safer-than-driving/