5 ms·

This is newsworthy not because a small twin went down but because the business using it was working on the Ohio tragedy. There are more than 4 fatal general av

This is newsworthy not because a small twin went down but because the business using it was working on the Ohio tragedy. There are more than 4 fatal general aviation accidents per week. Over the past 2 decades, here have been roughly 2 fatalities from 1.25 fatal accidents for every 100,000 flight hours in general aviation, with 260 accidents per year. There are roughly 0.05 fatalities from 0.005 fatal accidents for every 100,000 flight hours on airlines, with an average of 1 accident per year: https://www.bts.gov/content/us-general-aviationa-safety-data https://www.bts.gov/content/us-general-aviationa-safety-data https://www.bts.gov/content/us-air-carrier-safety-data https://www.bts.gov/content/us-air-carrier-safety-data Comparatively, there have been an average of 1.2 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles, or (generously assuming 60 mph) 0.07 fatalities per 100,000 hours. Taking a general aviation flight is 30x riskier than driving a car for an hour. Taking an airline flight is a little safer than driving for an hour. I'd not run these numbers before, I knew it was higher but not that high. It'll make me think twice when our partner business offers to fly me out to work on one of their machines that's several hours away. I'm specifically thinking of the 20 hours of driving I did last week from Michigan to Tennessee; I think there's a ratio of drunk drivers on rural roads at night versus daytime highway miles that's not captured, but it's not what I thought it was!

codazoda 4y ago
Where did these numbers come from? I’m really surprised that driving (0.07 fatalities per 100k miles) is not significantly more dangerous than commercial flying (0.05 fatalities per 100k miles). I always thought driving was much more dangerous than commercial flying, but apparently only slightly.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I assume because vehicle collisions have much more morbidity risk, that is not captured in fatality statistics.
- LeifCarrotson 4y ago
  Sorry, I didn't link the driving data, but it's here: https://www.bts.gov/content/motor-vehicle-safety-data https://www.bts.gov/content/motor-vehicle-safety-data And the numbers were for fatalities per 100k hours, not miles, because the flight data is recorded in hours.
ericpauley 4y ago
It should be noted that 60mph is generous to the car, not to general aviation. A more fair comparison might be to compare mile for mile. A twin is probably pushing 200mph, leading to 10 fatalities per 100M miles (as dangerous as riding a bicycle, for what little that’s worth). Not great, but you also need to consider that a lot of fatal GA accidents are from private pilots (<2 fatalities per accident on average), not part 135 commercial operators as you’d probably be dealing with.
- LeifCarrotson 4y ago
  Yes, sorry I can't edit anymore to make that clearer. One of the founders of our partner business has a private plane he uses to fly himself and his salespeople/customers/engineers around the midwest, he's a Part 91 private pilot. I've flown with him before and he's a smart, careful guy, but he's a pilot second and machine salesman first, who happens to use his private plane to enhance his B2B network over distances and to small town destinations that are hard to reach with either driving or with commercial aviation. Because it's a comparison for business, working hour-by-hour makes some sense, because it's a decision between a 6-hour drive in the morning, working a long day, and driving home the next morning, or flying there in 2 hours, working, and coming back in the same day. You make different decisions when it's a 1-day or half-day trip, versus the 3-day trip I made last week for 6 hours on site. More and more of that gets pushed to videoconferencing....
Kon-Peki 4y ago
> This is newsworthy not because a small twin went down but because the business using it was working on the Ohio tragedy. But not the one everyone is thinking about. This had nothing to do with the train derailment, these guys were on their way to help get the metal factory up and running again. In 2021 my brother-in-law was part of a large team of engineers that went from the US to Belgium and Luxembourg to help get factories working again after the devastating floods. This is a normal part of the job for good engineers; nobody hears anything about it unless the plane crashes.

codazoda 4y ago

Where did these numbers come from? I’m really surprised that driving (0.07 fatalities per 100k miles) is not significantly more dangerous than commercial flying (0.05 fatalities per 100k miles). I always thought driving was much more dangerous than commercial flying, but apparently only slightly.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
I assume because vehicle collisions have much more morbidity risk, that is not captured in fatality statistics.
LeifCarrotson 4y ago
Sorry, I didn't link the driving data, but it's here: https://www.bts.gov/content/motor-vehicle-safety-data https://www.bts.gov/content/motor-vehicle-safety-data And the numbers were for fatalities per 100k hours, not miles, because the flight data is recorded in hours.

ericpauley 4y ago

It should be noted that 60mph is generous to the car, not to general aviation. A more fair comparison might be to compare mile for mile. A twin is probably pushing 200mph, leading to 10 fatalities per 100M miles (as dangerous as riding a bicycle, for what little that’s worth). Not great, but you also need to consider that a lot of fatal GA accidents are from private pilots (<2 fatalities per accident on average), not part 135 commercial operators as you’d probably be dealing with.

LeifCarrotson 4y ago
Yes, sorry I can't edit anymore to make that clearer. One of the founders of our partner business has a private plane he uses to fly himself and his salespeople/customers/engineers around the midwest, he's a Part 91 private pilot. I've flown with him before and he's a smart, careful guy, but he's a pilot second and machine salesman first, who happens to use his private plane to enhance his B2B network over distances and to small town destinations that are hard to reach with either driving or with commercial aviation. Because it's a comparison for business, working hour-by-hour makes some sense, because it's a decision between a 6-hour drive in the morning, working a long day, and driving home the next morning, or flying there in 2 hours, working, and coming back in the same day. You make different decisions when it's a 1-day or half-day trip, versus the 3-day trip I made last week for 6 hours on site. More and more of that gets pushed to videoconferencing....

Kon-Peki 4y ago

> This is newsworthy not because a small twin went down but because the business using it was working on the Ohio tragedy. But not the one everyone is thinking about. This had nothing to do with the train derailment, these guys were on their way to help get the metal factory up and running again. In 2021 my brother-in-law was part of a large team of engineers that went from the US to Belgium and Luxembourg to help get factories working again after the devastating floods. This is a normal part of the job for good engineers; nobody hears anything about it unless the plane crashes.