What Is The Safest - Driving A Car Or Flying An Airplane

[GAHorn]

"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"

Perhaps that's because Pilots are more memorable people than ordinary drivers?

Just as an aside,...I wonder how much our perception is influenced by the occasion of death vs the actual number of people we know who've died? For example, because we are all so interested in airplanes...perhaps an airplane death is more prominent in our memory than a death from a more common cause.
Further example: Someone I've "known of" is different from someone I've "known". Since student pilot days, I've recalled a guy named "Rocko" who I saw occasionally at the coffee pot in the FBO where I was learning. He was PIC of an Aero Commander one night IFR in clear air over the Grand Canyon when a marine F-4 Phantom mistook his position lights for that of an aerial refueling tanker. The Phantom flew up his tailcone and killed him, while the Marine bailed out successfully. If anyone had asked me if I knew Rocko, I would have said yes, and I would have counted him in this recent discussion thread. I really never recall any direct conversation betwixt us, but I count him as someone I knew who died in a plane.
I also recall seeing my first auto-fatality. I was 6 or 7 years old riding with my Mom near St. Augustine, Tx and she tried to keep me from looking at the driver of a wreck on the wayside whose head was stuck through the steering wheel and lying lifeless on the dash. I only just remembered the occasion as I thought of this discussion thread. I'd never claim to know that person, nor would I normally have ever thought of the event if I were asked about my knowledge of deaths. I've seen probably 10 or 20 such auto-deaths over the years but don't have them stored in my priority memory-recall because they aren't associated with a personal reason for doing so....as driving deaths are not integral to a hobby or life's profession or passion... like flying is. They also weren't talked about at the local auto repair center or sevice station that I also don't spend several hours each weekend at catching up on whatever gossip is being tossed about there.
And that's the problem with anecdotal surveys, and conclusions about wide-ranging topics based upon personal recollection and experience. It simply isn't a valid research method.

[eichenberger]

Anecdotal surveys make for fun arguments, as opposed to the serious ones. Nobody's ever wrong in this type of discussion.
I'm a lawyer who does mainly aviation work, but also some other stuff thrown in.
Looking at my list of current active cases, it breaks down this way:
9 airplane accident cases, total of 9 deaths, and 6 serious injuries which could easily have been fatal.
6 auto/truck cases, no deaths, 4 serious injuries and 4 moderate, none of which were near fatal.
All of the other stuff I'm doing right now doesn't currently involve accidents in modes of transportation.
That's informal too, but accurate.

[GAHorn]

Who brought the airplane death cases to you?
Would it be correct to say that an analysis of the relative merits of safety between the two modes of transport is unrelated to the number and types of law suits in the case file of an individual attorney?
Wouldn't it be more likely that an aviation-death case be brought to an attorney practicing aviaiton related law, than would be auto-deaths? Wouldn't auto-death cases be more likely to be brought to an attorney specializing in that field?
Are the cases mentioned wrongful death cases? Or product liability? Or neither?

[Joe Dickey]

I recently read that health care professionals are directly responsible for over 120,000 deaths per year!!!! Maybe the real problem is getting mildly sick or hurt....then going to the doctor!!

The comments regarding safety features in cars are right on....they are modern and reliable, due in part to demand which makes them safer than GA planes.....Does Volvo make a 170? If they do, I'll bet it has an efficient engine too!!

Not to make a general statement and run or offend anyone....but the bulk of deaths I was familiar with while I flew Part 135 in Homer, AK in the mid/late 80's were due to planes that were 50+% over gross/ VFR into IMC with VFR legal airplanes and just plane (intended) STUPID stuff!! I did Bristol Bay herring spotting ONCE and survived (still better than being shot down)!! Watched a guy in a C-185 with 3 moose hunters, their gear, a camp and two weeks food/booze. He tried three times and when he wasn't able to get the tail off the 6,000 foot runway, he thought maybe he should make two trips instead.

In most cases.....it's not cars or airplanes that kill people.........

[Watkinsnv]

Well the kind of flying that we do in our C-170s is sport or recreational. So I tend to look at the enjoyment (freedom) I get out of flying. You can ride a motorcycle on or off road, drive fast cars and sports cars, drive a variety of amphibious vehicles, scuba dive. There are snow mobiles, skiing, snowboarding. They’re risks involved in any of the above hobbies. I enjoy flying and I except all the risks that go with it. Where I don’t ride a motorcycle because I’m not willing to put myself at risk in that way anymore. I have given a lot of first time rides to people. And I total agree with George about keeping the rider informed and calm so that they can enjoy the experience of flying, and I end up enjoying the flight even more. I always ask the person to ask or tell their significant other that they intend to go flying. Because some come back and tell me that their forbidden to ever go flying. Where the family often is involved in many other of the above risky hobbies. How I get to the airport can vary in risk. How I drive can vary in risk. So to make along story shorter people die traveling in or on anything. I had a long deceased relative killed falling off a wagon and being run over by it. I have voted to ignore the statistics on what kills people Lance

[David Laseter]

[knesbitt]

Well I fall into the category that believes it is much safer to fly. For those that think it is safer to drive you might want to consider more training in your airplane.
Ken Nesbitt N3407D

[N1478D]

Well I fall into the category that believes it is much safer to fly. For those that think it is safer to drive you might want to consider more training in your airplane.
Ken Nesbitt N3407D

Is it safer to stay indoors than to venture outside? Of course it is safer to never leave your home! Who would want to live their lives like that? Sadly, there are a few who are inflicted with a phobia that prevent them from living a normal life and they never leave their homes. The rest of us accept the risks and go outside.

Is it safer to never cross to the other side of a street? Of course it is. But then again, most of the time life is better if we cross the street once in a while. For those who do not believe it is more dangerous, they do not even look both ways before they cross the street. Sometimes they make it, sometimes they don't - then they get hit by a vehicle. The rest of us know there is danger and risk but we manage it by looking both ways and only cross the street when it is safe to do so.

Is it safer to be on the ground or up in the air? Of course it is safer to be on the ground. Some of us do not admit that and bury our heads in statistics and old wives tales. Some of us recognize the danger and risks and only go up in the air when it is safe to do so. When is it safe to do so? With proper training, properly maintained aircraft, etc., etc. It is much better to admit that there is danger and risk so the proper actions can be taken than to bury one's head in the sand and say that there is no risk. Also, it is much more honorable to your passengers to truthfully tell them that there is danger and risk. Let them make the decision as to wether you have properly managed that risk as pilot in command. You wouldn't want the person who doesn't look both ways to lead you across a busy street if you were blindfolded would you?

There is risk and danger in flying an airplane. It is much better to admit that, and to do what it takes to make that risk a non-event - like crossing a street when there are not any cars coming vs crossing when cars are coming, than to not properly manage it and fly in inappropriate weather, an engine about to sieze, not enough fuel on board to make the next airport, etc. The point being - we need to always think about safety! To do that, we have to be able to admit to the risks. Once we do that, we can properly manage them.

[David Laseter]

[CAS]

I read a statistic once that said 78% of people die IN BED.

Makes you think, doesn't it!

[flyguy]

Figures do lie and "Liars" figure. That quote doesn't have much to do with this survey/discussion but most of these posts havn't really addressed the core of cause of the majority of both auto and aircraft accidents, resulting in death of the operator and/or his pax.

In the last five years as a volunteer firefighter/first responder I have never had to extricate a body from an airplane crash. I have done it over 15 times in those five years, right here in Sabine Parish, Louisiana! Those are less than half of the total traffic fatalities we've had here in this parish during the same peroid. Louisiana has a dismal record for keeping drunk drivers off the road. They have chosen to keep a 55mph speed limit on all but divided hiways but even that hasn't reduced our fatalitie rates.

In almost every case, there are two glaring factors that cause an accident. STUPIDITY OR A DRUNK OPERATOR! The individuals who died were not always the operator and that is where the statistics fail to put blame. Alchol related deaths are high on the list of cause, but just plain stupidity accounts for a good number. We all have heard "Pilot Error" over and over but if you look at the NTSB accident reports carefully, most aircraft accidents are directly attributable to "STUPIDITY" under the guise of "Pilot error".

Pilots usually have an ego that exceeds that of average the automobile operator. He/she also has training that far exceeds that of the ground bound "Joe" (no offence Joe) that gets to drive his 2000# misssile down the hiway, just inches away from his clone in the oncoming lane. Drunk or sober, pilots should be better equipped to handle situations that would stretch the abilities of normal automobile drivers. Therefore, the extreme training that aviators get should result in minimal crashes and deaths. Here is the problem as I see it. Many of us pilots let 'EGO' rule when "training" and "clear thinking" would demand correct choices. Some choose to fly fatigued or with altered senses, ie; by being drunk or drugged (medicinal or other) beyond the reasonable FAA or personal standards. Poor planning, flight into IMC beyond the skill level and equipment on board, exceeding "alternate" fuel range, and many other stupid acts cause most accidents. These factors should not be glossed over and called pilot error then forgotten.

The crash of an airplane will result in a larger number of fatilities than an auto wreck with the same number of occupants because of structural strength and environment that an airplane operates in. If the structure of automobiles was the same as in planes then the car crashes would expose the escalated levels of poor performance. There is no accurate way to level that playing field.

I am human and I make mistakes but if I kill myself or a passenger in my plane it will most likely be that I made a stupid choice. I have had several friends and people I knew personally, die in airplane crashes. The people athat I knew very well, in almost every case, used poor judgment and got killed for it. On occasion, someone should possibly have died in an incident, but didn't, myself included. I may have posted about an experience I had some years ago on a crisp November night. The trusty C145 on my '52, swallowed a valve and only by some "plane" luck (pun intended) and a small amount of skill on my part, I managed to get us back to a safe landing on an airport! The only questionable judgement on my part might have been doing "Single Engine Night Operation".

Mechanical failures are the one thing that a pilot has very little control over. Deaths caused by an aircraft making a forced landing due to a mechanical failure, are far less than those caused by "pilot error". I have a friend, still alive by the grace of God, who lost an engine in his 14-19 Bellanca, at night, over the forests of Maryland. He survived the crash because of the strentgh of the "roll cage" construction of that old airplane and his ability to manage the last few seconds of flight before impact. Deana has a cousin, former DAL captian, now retired, who had a Citabria on lease-back for a while. He had just had the engine majored at an FBO's shop on Hooks field in Houston. He was "flying it in" (and because of demands on his time, doing it at night) when the main shaft oil seal failed, dumped all the oil in short order and seized up the engine. He put it safely into a field in the dark. A suvivor! Or was he just "plane" lucky? Luck is good but usually smiles on those who are not intentionally stretching the limits.

My son was killed on his mototcycle when a STUPID driver turned left immediately in front of him! The driver's comment: "Well I saw him out there then just forgot about him"! Good thing he wasn't a "Pilot"!!! but then maybe he was!

As Joe indicated, I hope this thread takes some of us back to the books and encourages us to be sure of the limitations of both the aircraft and the pilot. Old "bold pilots are getting scarcer by the year as are the classic airplanes they destroy.

PS: David, hitting another guy head on, when both are driving at "stall" speed is a 120 mph crash!

[GAHorn]

Joe asked, "Is it safer to be on the ground or in the air."
Just to keep things stirred up, and to irritate Joe,......

Hey, Joe! Even those who fly in airplanes, suffer higher death rates on the ground than in the air.

[N1478D]

Joe asked, "Is it safer to be on the ground or in the air."
Just to keep things stirred up, and to irritate Joe,......

Hey, Joe! Even those who fly in airplanes, suffer higher death rates on the ground than in the air.

Hey George, so glad to see you. I'm less irritated now that you are back!

Yep, the ground hurts, but they had to get up in the air in the first place for that to happen! You know the old saying "It's much better to be on the ground wishing you were up there, than up there wishing you were on the ground!"

People even SPIN dance on the ground without fatalities!

[GAHorn]

Ok, Joe. Let's get specific.
We all know for a fact that in the fog (clouds) you took your airplane to an indicated 160 mph in the air and survived.
Try that while driving on the ground in the fog and then convince us that that flying isn't safer.

[N1478D]

George, niether one of those scenerios have much of a chance of survival. Kind of wish I had something capable of doing 160 MPH on the ground though! I'd probably just point to it and explain that it CAN go 160 MPH, those days of actually going out and doing it are a few years back.

On the drving vs flying safety debate, thanks for the help in pointing out the differences. Cars HAVE brakes. So, even if you entered the fog inadvertenly, you could apply brakes and slow down to lessen the impact when driving. The brakes in an airplane don't do much good at altitude. Instead of slowing down to increase survival rate, it is possible to speed up instead. In a car you would never accidently be going 160 MPH in the fog!