"Safer than sleeping in the same room with Flyguy" , but didn't want to skew the results.Really believe there is a paradigm in the aviation community - since we do it, it must be safe - sort of thing.
What Is The Safest - Driving A Car Or Flying An Airplane
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
What Is The Safest - Driving A Car Or Flying An Airplane
Really curious as to the opinion of everybody as to which they think is safer. Started to add a third option "Safer than sleeping in the same room with Flyguy" , but didn't want to skew the results.
Really believe there is a paradigm in the aviation community - since we do it, it must be safe - sort of thing.
"Safer than sleeping in the same room with Flyguy" , but didn't want to skew the results.Really believe there is a paradigm in the aviation community - since we do it, it must be safe - sort of thing.
Joe
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
-
eichenberger
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 8:27 pm
Which is safer, flying or driving?
The answer to this question is an example of the old saying that figures don't lie, but liars can figure. It all depends upon how you look at it.
The real question relates to the time that a person is exposed to any given risk. Since airplanes are faster, especially airliners, your time exposed to the risk of travel is dramatically less in an airplane for a given distance. LA to NY is a classic example - 3 days in a car; 4 - 5 hours in an airliner.
I bet most adults, by the time they hit 70 to 75 years old, will have driven well over 30,000 hours, and depending on where you live and what you do for a living, many people can hit 50,000 driving in a lifetime.
Few pilots will ever hit the 30,000 hour mark - 50,000 is nearly impossible.
So few people are ever in a life-threatening auto accident, even at these huge hour numbers.
I'd bet we couldn't say the same for flying. At 30,000 hours in an airplane, for sure at 50,000, you're on borrowed time.
The real question relates to the time that a person is exposed to any given risk. Since airplanes are faster, especially airliners, your time exposed to the risk of travel is dramatically less in an airplane for a given distance. LA to NY is a classic example - 3 days in a car; 4 - 5 hours in an airliner.
I bet most adults, by the time they hit 70 to 75 years old, will have driven well over 30,000 hours, and depending on where you live and what you do for a living, many people can hit 50,000 driving in a lifetime.
Few pilots will ever hit the 30,000 hour mark - 50,000 is nearly impossible.
So few people are ever in a life-threatening auto accident, even at these huge hour numbers.
I'd bet we couldn't say the same for flying. At 30,000 hours in an airplane, for sure at 50,000, you're on borrowed time.
Ha, no tailwheel air pressure problems at all! Did your exwife ever schedule activities during your time with your daughter? Couldn't make it for the 3 days because of that sort of thing, had hopes to get down there at least one day, but with the airplanes at one town, and you non argumentive folks in another town without an airport, I was not sure I would be able to catch up with any of you. In fact, I became sure of it and flew East instead. Won over $280, (actually had more than $280 in my pocket climbing back into the airplane than when I climbed out of it earlier) at the downtown airport in Shreveport. Last trip about a year before that was even more profitable. Can't , but will, wait till next year.(ha)gahorn wrote:How come you didn't make the Xmas party, Joe? There was at least one airplane there that had no tailwheel air pressure problems at all (not including the nose-pusher that Flyguy phlew!
When are you going to join us for one of these North Texas breakfasts or lunches. We have them often, so no excuse on that.
Joe
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
Re: Which is safer, flying or driving?
Jerry, that is so true. And those are not the statistics that the people are paid to come up with.eichenberger wrote:The answer to this question is an example of the old saying that figures don't lie, but liars can figure. It all depends upon how you look at it.
The real question relates to the time that a person is exposed to any given risk. Since airplanes are faster, especially airliners, your time exposed to the risk of travel is dramatically less in an airplane for a given distance. LA to NY is a classic example - 3 days in a car; 4 - 5 hours in an airliner.
I bet most adults, by the time they hit 70 to 75 years old, will have driven well over 30,000 hours, and depending on where you live and what you do for a living, many people can hit 50,000 driving in a lifetime.
Few pilots will ever hit the 30,000 hour mark - 50,000 is nearly impossible.
So few people are ever in a life-threatening auto accident, even at these huge hour numbers.
I'd bet we couldn't say the same for flying. At 30,000 hours in an airplane, for sure at 50,000, you're on borrowed time.
Joe
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
-
russfarris
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 2:25 am
Hi Russ, at first was thinking of general aviation and travel using an airplane vs a car. But after I was warned about being so far out on a limb, thinking about taking a fifth, of Jackrussfarris wrote:Joe: By "flying" are you including the airlines? Or just general aviation?
It makes a big difference...Russ Farris
What's you thinking?
Joe
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
-
Matthew_bailey
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 2:50 am
Jerry, using that argument (hours spent in the activity) ....I wonder why so many aviation professionals live to retirement? I've wasted enough time on this topic or I'd try to find the data, but when I was with the ALPA safety commitee it was discovered that Airline pilots were more likely to survive to retirement than any other profession except politicians. 
The study even took into account the Age-60 rule and it was a great disappointment to find that airline pilots were more than twice as likely to reach retirement than professional/commercial drivers. The reason it was a disappointment was because it blew our argument for an increase in hazardous duty pay incentives during contract negotiations.
The data was slightly skewed against the employer's argument because more than 85% of the time pro-pilots spent in life was outside the relatively safe cockpit environment in activities such as driving to/from the airport, taking the kids to school, etc.etc. Pilots still live longer than other professions and the primary reason is the safety of their work environment (prior to 9-11.) (You'd think a contributing factor would be their frequent medical exams, but that was proven to be almost valueless due to the goofy FAA disqualifications to flight,... one of the questionable bits of data in the study. Those goofy disqualifiers actually argued in favor of your argument because it (falsely) increased the count of those who didn't make it to retirement. But we were not allowed to consider them in our argument with the employer for additional benefits, because they didn't "materially" contribute to the argument of a hazardous workplace.) Pro-pilots suffer from two major safety-hazards that were significant: Alcohol abuse and hyper-tension, ...but the most likely cause of death? --Auto-related.
The study even took into account the Age-60 rule and it was a great disappointment to find that airline pilots were more than twice as likely to reach retirement than professional/commercial drivers. The reason it was a disappointment was because it blew our argument for an increase in hazardous duty pay incentives during contract negotiations.
The data was slightly skewed against the employer's argument because more than 85% of the time pro-pilots spent in life was outside the relatively safe cockpit environment in activities such as driving to/from the airport, taking the kids to school, etc.etc. Pilots still live longer than other professions and the primary reason is the safety of their work environment (prior to 9-11.) (You'd think a contributing factor would be their frequent medical exams, but that was proven to be almost valueless due to the goofy FAA disqualifications to flight,... one of the questionable bits of data in the study. Those goofy disqualifiers actually argued in favor of your argument because it (falsely) increased the count of those who didn't make it to retirement. But we were not allowed to consider them in our argument with the employer for additional benefits, because they didn't "materially" contribute to the argument of a hazardous workplace.) Pro-pilots suffer from two major safety-hazards that were significant: Alcohol abuse and hyper-tension, ...but the most likely cause of death? --Auto-related.
It seems that most of the discussion on this (at least in the "Carb Ice" thread) centers around death rates and I don't think that gives an accurate picture. I think that in order to truly assess which mode is safer you need to include all accidents. While the ratio of accident:death is higher in an aircraft (you're more likely to walk away from a car accident), the same also applies to a motorcycle (which I also drive). Planes, cars, and motorcycles are three very different modes of transport with different factors effecting them, different safety features, and different survival rates and to confine the comparison to death rates isn’t comparing apples to apples in my book. Obviously, you're more likely to survive a car accident given a car's inherent stability, air bags, crumple zones, metal cage that surrounds the occupants, etc. After all, how many crashes have we seen on the NASCAR and F1 circuits that guys have walked away from? I think we all know at least one person that has been in accident and probably injured.
If a car runs off the road and hits a tree there's a good chance you'll survive it; do that on a motorcycle and they'll be picking you up with a shovel; do that in a plane from the runway and you’ll probably survive; do that in a plane from altitude and they'll be picking you up with tweezers. Let's face it, car accidents happen every day and people are injured (sometimes severely) everyday, but a car is far more stable and has more safety features built in than planes or motorcycles making survival far more likely – injury, though, is another story. How often do we see on the news that someone was hurt in accident? The accident rates in cars are so high that it becomes just another mundane piece of news. Here in MA, I can guarantee you at least 6-12 accidents daily in the Boston – metro area during commuter hours and at least one car fire a week (3 or 4 a week in spring – fall). There are so many, in fact, that the police and tow trucks position themselves on the highway in strategic spots to improve their response time. There aren’t many deaths, but there sure are a lot of injuries.
I’ll take my chances in the plane. At least I don’t have to worry about whether that yahoo coming at me is going to run the stop sign or not.
My $.04 or $.05.
If a car runs off the road and hits a tree there's a good chance you'll survive it; do that on a motorcycle and they'll be picking you up with a shovel; do that in a plane from the runway and you’ll probably survive; do that in a plane from altitude and they'll be picking you up with tweezers. Let's face it, car accidents happen every day and people are injured (sometimes severely) everyday, but a car is far more stable and has more safety features built in than planes or motorcycles making survival far more likely – injury, though, is another story. How often do we see on the news that someone was hurt in accident? The accident rates in cars are so high that it becomes just another mundane piece of news. Here in MA, I can guarantee you at least 6-12 accidents daily in the Boston – metro area during commuter hours and at least one car fire a week (3 or 4 a week in spring – fall). There are so many, in fact, that the police and tow trucks position themselves on the highway in strategic spots to improve their response time. There aren’t many deaths, but there sure are a lot of injuries.
I’ll take my chances in the plane. At least I don’t have to worry about whether that yahoo coming at me is going to run the stop sign or not.
My $.04 or $.05.
Doug
-
eichenberger
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 8:27 pm
flying v. driving
Gahorn makes my point - pro pilots die in cars. But the reason is that they spend far more time in cars than airplanes.
My car has a computer that gives averages for speeds, mpg, etc. When I came to work this morning, I had averaged about 38 mph since I last reset the computer, thousands of miles ago. So I assume that's pretty close.
I drive about 23,000 miles per year. That's about 605 hours per year. I've been driving 40 years this April (will be 56 years old in April). So, that's about 24,200 hours as DIC (driver in command). That doesn't count the additional thousands of hours I've spent as a passenger in a car that someone else was driving.
Assuming that I work another ten years, I'll drive another 6,050 hours, for a total of 30,250 hours DIC time by retirement. Then I'll drive a lot less, but still, give me another ten years, until age 76, driving half what I do now. That's an additional 3,000 hours, for a total of 33,250 hours time by age 76.
Add that 33,250 hours to all the time that we've all spent as a passenger, and it's easy to see that we spend huge amounts of our lives in cars.
I dedicated one of the books I wrote , Handling In-Flight Emergencies, to several pilots killed in civilian flying. It took a whole page to list all of their names, one after the other.
Without thinking about it too long, I can think of three people I've known in my life who died in a car.
Jerry
My car has a computer that gives averages for speeds, mpg, etc. When I came to work this morning, I had averaged about 38 mph since I last reset the computer, thousands of miles ago. So I assume that's pretty close.
I drive about 23,000 miles per year. That's about 605 hours per year. I've been driving 40 years this April (will be 56 years old in April). So, that's about 24,200 hours as DIC (driver in command). That doesn't count the additional thousands of hours I've spent as a passenger in a car that someone else was driving.
Assuming that I work another ten years, I'll drive another 6,050 hours, for a total of 30,250 hours DIC time by retirement. Then I'll drive a lot less, but still, give me another ten years, until age 76, driving half what I do now. That's an additional 3,000 hours, for a total of 33,250 hours time by age 76.
Add that 33,250 hours to all the time that we've all spent as a passenger, and it's easy to see that we spend huge amounts of our lives in cars.
I dedicated one of the books I wrote , Handling In-Flight Emergencies, to several pilots killed in civilian flying. It took a whole page to list all of their names, one after the other.
Without thinking about it too long, I can think of three people I've known in my life who died in a car.
Jerry
Well this whole discussion depends on your "Data Set". While flying/piloting on major airlines is indeed super safe, there is another side.
Commercial pilots flying Part 135 operations in Alaska now have the highest risk of death than any other profession. The following excerpt was taken from the April 26, 2002 issue of the Anchorage Daily News:
"The most dangerous work site in Alaska is a small plane.
That wasn't always true. Commercial fishing and helicopter logging killed many more Alaska workers a decade ago, before new standards and methods slashed the death toll for both high-risk occupations.
Today, aircraft accidents top the list. Since 1990, such accidents have killed 107 working civilian pilots in Alaska. That amounts to an annualized rate of 410 fatalities per 100,000 people, five times the rate for all U.S. pilots."
While the Daily News isn't the highest quality newspaper in the world, the statisticss are alarming. This is one of the main reasons the FAA implemented the "CAPSTONE" program here. Basically, the FAA paid to install 150 UPS avionics suites in commercial aircraft located in SW Alaska. These new GPS based avionics incorporate the now famous ADS-B technology. If you havn't heard of CAPSTONE before you may learn more at this link:
http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/
Commercial pilots flying Part 135 operations in Alaska now have the highest risk of death than any other profession. The following excerpt was taken from the April 26, 2002 issue of the Anchorage Daily News:
"The most dangerous work site in Alaska is a small plane.
That wasn't always true. Commercial fishing and helicopter logging killed many more Alaska workers a decade ago, before new standards and methods slashed the death toll for both high-risk occupations.
Today, aircraft accidents top the list. Since 1990, such accidents have killed 107 working civilian pilots in Alaska. That amounts to an annualized rate of 410 fatalities per 100,000 people, five times the rate for all U.S. pilots."
While the Daily News isn't the highest quality newspaper in the world, the statisticss are alarming. This is one of the main reasons the FAA implemented the "CAPSTONE" program here. Basically, the FAA paid to install 150 UPS avionics suites in commercial aircraft located in SW Alaska. These new GPS based avionics incorporate the now famous ADS-B technology. If you havn't heard of CAPSTONE before you may learn more at this link:
http://www.alaska.faa.gov/capstone/