Perhaps a bit of thread drift, but I've always been interested in data supporting that flying is as safe as driving. I have not seen that to be the case.

For gross estimation, about 243 Million license drivers in the US resulted in 43,000 fatalities in 2021. This results in a fatality rate of 0.0177 percent of the available driving pool. Add in the number of people who ride in cars that aren't licensed (kids mostly), the per capita fatality rate goes down farther, as the at risk group gets bigger.

About 80% of the 609,000 licensed pilots fly GA, or about 487,000 active GA pilots. (https://download.aopa.org/hr/Report_on_ ... .6M%20jobs)

There were about 332 GA fatalities in 2020, the best year in the available data.(https://www.statista.com/.../us-general ... atalities/) This results in a fatality rate of 0.068 percent.

Ergo, 3.84 more fatalities occurred in GA per capita than driving. I suspect the actual per capita fatality rate is significantly worse, as the licensed pilot group likely includes many more people who aren't very active active than the driving group.

As a comparison, it's estimated that 8% of households have a motorcycle. (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... %20Council)
Assuming they are operated by licensed drivers, and one per household, that means that there are about 20 Million riders, and 6000 fatalities. The motorcycle fatality rate is thus 6000/20M = 0.03%. Worse than cars, better than airplanes. We have a smaller pool of pilots, and fewer deaths, but we die at a higher rate.

In addition, GA fatality rates per 100,000 hours seem to be in the range of 0.6 to about 1 for most airplane types. The Cessna 172 is considered 'very safe' at .56 fatalities per 100,000 hours. In the chart below, a rate of 0.6 to 1 per 100,000 would put GA flying around the group of scuba diving and motorcycling.

I would guess that, in the age of information bombardment, the commercial statistics get mixed up as representing GA.
I try to remember Mark Twain’s position on the numbers game: There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

CParker wrote:
Is there a shift happening or am I just taking more notice?

I attribute it to the "toy-buying-frenzy" that occured during the pandemic. There just seemed to be a bunch of folks with little to no experience buying airplanes all of the sudden....and many crashing them.

ZPilot wrote:

CParker wrote:
Is there a shift happening or am I just taking more notice?

I attribute it to the "toy-buying-frenzy" that occured during the pandemic. There just seemed to be a bunch of folks with little to no experience buying airplanes all of the sudden....and many crashing them.

The core group of experienced GA pilots advancing to an age where they should probably consider leaving the flying to someone else is also probably not helping accident stats currently.

ZPilot wrote:

CParker wrote:
Is there a shift happening or am I just taking more notice?

I attribute it to the "toy-buying-frenzy" that occured during the pandemic. There just seemed to be a bunch of folks with little to no experience buying airplanes all of the sudden....and many crashing them.

Unless you’re saying we had lots of folks flying planes without earning their certificates, I don’t see the difference between getting into aviation during the panicdemic or before or after.
From what I remember, flight training at that time, sitting side by side, when many sad people were scared of a sneeze, finding a place to give dual was much harder.

I insure what I cant afford to lose. My dad said that te saddest day of his life was when he realised he could not replace tha airplane he had just bent.

I insure the 170. The beater cub will be self insured.

Bigrenna wrote:It's not that the "more connected" world is exposing more accidents... it's that there ARE actually more accidents. All you have to do is talk to your insurance broker and look at the renewal quote.

The internet has given a bunch more idiots the inspiration to go out and put themselves out over their skis... and we are all paying the price.

The data says there aren't more accidents, but insurance companies have made record payouts over the past couple of years. Many of those payouts have been for planes severely damaged on the ground and even in their hangar by storms. With storms getting more violent and more frequent. In the past couple of years, we've had repeated flooding in California, tornadoes in the Midwest and SE, and Hurricanes in Florida, Texas and other gulf states. Those storms have caused record damage at airports and that has been a big part of insurance premiums climbing as fast as they have. Here's a picture of airport damage due to a tornado in TN:


The hangar these planes were in was destroyed and most of the planes were a write-off. Add to this the planes on the ramp that were destroyed and think of the financial consequences. Liability costs haven't gone up nearly as fast as hull insurance costs. With more storm losses and the cost of airplanes going through the roof, insurance costs will continue to rise. I know several local pilots that have paid off their planes and only carry liability to be able to keep flying.

I recently read "The Killing Zone," great book, but I was miffed right at the outset with the way he represented the data. He groups accidents by quantity vs. number of hours of experience. This skews the data based on the number of pilots in each category. That said, the rest of the book was pretty good.

Do 50-350 hour pilots crash more, or are there more crashes from that group because so many pilots fall in that range?

What I'd really love to see is the statistics about accident rates by experience but on a risk-by-hour basis. I imagine the additional data that's required would be extremely difficult to collect accurately.

BigBen wrote:

ZPilot wrote:

CParker wrote:
Is there a shift happening or am I just taking more notice?

I attribute it to the "toy-buying-frenzy" that occured during the pandemic. There just seemed to be a bunch of folks with little to no experience buying airplanes all of the sudden....and many crashing them.

The core group of experienced GA pilots advancing to an age where they should probably consider leaving the flying to someone else is also probably not helping accident stats currently.

So in your opinion what is an "advancing age" that should lead an experienced pilot to consider leaving something the truly enjoy. It might very well be those "advanced age" pilots have plenty to offer back into the community for the younger ones to consider.

BigBen; don't know what age you think I should quit flying but at 72 I'm (average private pilot) still landing safely on sand bars in the Platte River and basing (during vaca in NW AR) Husky on a 800' strip with water on both ends and touring all over NW backcountry strips as well as AZ creek bottoms. Don't know your age (don't care); but, I would guess there are 100s (probably 1000s) or more pilots that can match your skill and safety flying. Where do you come up with this "old guy sit on the ground" BS?
Planning to fly for many years yet to come.
Jack

flyingjack wrote:BigBen; don't know what age you think I should quit flying but at 72 I'm (average private pilot) still landing safely on sand bars in the Platte River and basing (during vaca in NW AR) Husky on a 800' strip with water on both ends and touring all over NW backcountry strips as well as AZ creek bottoms. Don't know your age (don't care); but, I would guess there are 100s (probably 1000s) or more pilots that can match your skill and safety flying. Where do you come up with this "old guy sit on the ground" BS?
Planning to fly for many years yet to come.
Jack

I agree

If you can pass your BFR every 2yrs, or checkride every 6mo, you’re good to go in my book



[

CParker wrote:I recently read "The Killing Zone," great book, but I was miffed right at the outset with the way he represented the data. He groups accidents by quantity vs. number of hours of experience. This skews the data based on the number of pilots in each category. That said, the rest of the book was pretty good.

Do 50-350 hour pilots crash more, or are there more crashes from that group because so many pilots fall in that range?

What I'd really love to see is the statistics about accident rates by experience but on a risk-by-hour basis. I imagine the additional data that's required would be extremely difficult to collect accurately.

When I was flying floats we had a development program where we could have low time CPLs in the R seat and they could log the time.

I found that the 250-1000hr guys were a hot mess, they knew EVERYTHING (just ask them) but couldn’t deliver 10% of what their ego let on, this wasn’t all of them but it was a good majority. Peak ego seemed to be around 400hrs

Once they hit around 1k they woke up to the fact that there probably was more they don’t know than do know and about a million different ways to do the same task, that life and flying is dynamic, etc etc

No idea what the actual statistics are, but the insurance companies lead you to believe things start getting more risky after 65 based on the way they quote and write their policies. Obviously this is going to vary from person to person.

flyingjack wrote:BigBen; don't know what age you think I should quit flying but at 72 I'm (average private pilot) still landing safely on sand bars in the Platte River and basing (during vaca in NW AR) Husky on a 800' strip with water on both ends and touring all over NW backcountry strips as well as AZ creek bottoms. Don't know your age (don't care); but, I would guess there are 100s (probably 1000s) or more pilots that can match your skill and safety flying. Where do you come up with this "old guy sit on the ground" BS?
Planning to fly for many years yet to come.
Jack

Look, I didn’t call you out by name. If you’re so offended by what I said you might need to examine if the shoe fits better than you want to admit. Plenty of guys in your age range show up in the accident stats despite their experience.

If you want to turn this into an experience contest I can tell you right now I’ll lose, I’m new to this hobby. However that doesn’t mean I was born yesterday, I’ve been around enough machinery and the people running it to see how age affects operators.

On the extreme end, I know of a couple of guys that have to be damn near 90 years old that are still able to get someone to sign off on their ability to fly. One totaled his plane a few years ago then shortly after bought another. I don’t think it’s a great leap for an observer to conclude it may be time for them to hang it up, but what do I know.

Mapleflt wrote:

BigBen wrote:

ZPilot wrote:

CParker wrote:
Is there a shift happening or am I just taking more notice?

I attribute it to the "toy-buying-frenzy" that occured during the pandemic. There just seemed to be a bunch of folks with little to no experience buying airplanes all of the sudden....and many crashing them.

The core group of experienced GA pilots advancing to an age where they should probably consider leaving the flying to someone else is also probably not helping accident stats currently.

So in your opinion what is an "advancing age" that should lead an experienced pilot to consider leaving something the truly enjoy. It might very well be those "advanced age" pilots have plenty to offer back into the community for the younger ones to consider.

FWIW, I never said they had nothing to offer.

And I said “advancing to an age.” I didn’t state an age because I don’t know what it is for every individual, and it will be different for every individual. As someone else pointed out, insurance rates start climbing after age 65. I’m sure insurance companies have better numbers than I do, and have a reason for picking 65. Boomers are a big generation, especially among pilots. The average boomer is about 69 now. Draw your own conclusions.

BigBen wrote:Look, I didn’t call you out by name. If you’re so offended by what I said you might need to examine if the shoe fits better than you want to admit. Plenty of guys in your age range show up in the accident stats despite their experience.

If you want to turn this into an experience contest I can tell you right now I’ll lose, I’m new to this hobby. However that doesn’t mean I was born yesterday, I’ve been around enough machinery and the people running it to see how age affects operators.

On the extreme end, I know of a couple of guys that have to be damn near 90 years old that are still able to get someone to sign off on their ability to fly. One totaled his plane a few years ago then shortly after bought another. I don’t think it’s a great leap for an observer to conclude it may be time for them to hang it up, but what do I know.

I know that wasn’t directed at me, however


For me it’s more than a hobby, its how I put food on the table, I have a checkride every 6mo and a yearly class 1 medical I have to maintain

I’m on the younger side of GA pilots as well

I witnessed a simple trainer class plane come in to land, PIO it to the point it slammed the nose wheel, went off the runway, and I still don’t know how it didn’t flip but the tail was waaay up in the air before it settled back on its gear.

I ran over, as Im getting to the plane I see the door open, it was some 20 something year old, I asked if he was ok, he was, I ask if he needs a phone or anything to call his instructor, he says he’s a CPL!!

Winds were calm, beautiful day, fully functioning and very forgiving and easy to fly plane

Another place I flew, we had a few working AG pilots landing turbine tailwheels, old as dirt, they’d land in a good cross wind and wouldn’t even chirp the tires


I’d wager those old guys you mentioned, they are using a trick to get signed off… it’s called flying to standards lol



Have you personally flown with them, or have you seen them do something unsafe that seems related to their age? How did he total the plane?

BigBen wrote:

FWIW, I never said they had nothing to offer.

And I said “advancing to an age.” I didn’t state an age because I don’t know what it is for every individual, and it will be different for every individual. As someone else pointed out, insurance rates start climbing after age 65. I’m sure insurance companies have better numbers than I do, and have a reason for picking 65. Boomers are a big generation, especially among pilots. The average boomer is about 69 now. Draw your own conclusions.

There is another forum I know of, some insurance guys post on there, beneath their names it states what aircraft they own


I always thought I had a pretty nice plane but overkill airplane, my plane is modest compared to what the insurance guys own