Much is made of the safety of GA flying compared to driving a car. I have spent some time thinking about this as I observe myself and others as they both drive and fly. Im probably wrong to think this, but I greatly suspect that if my loved ones and I die in a light aeroplane crash, then in all probability I will have ’effed up to cause it…Conversely, If I and my loved ones die in a car crash, I highly suspect that it will be because someone else ’effed up to cause it.
Don’t worry, you will get the same perception if you crash on with a racing lambo vs a family renault?
The public will tolerate you to fly with one glass of wine after all who did not have one before driving after lunch :)
Much is made of the safety of GA flying compared to driving a car. I have spent some time thinking about this as I observe myself and others as they both drive and fly. Im probably wrong to think this, but I greatly suspect that if my loved ones and I die in a light aeroplane crash, then in all probability I will have ’effed up to cause it…Conversely, If I and my loved ones die in a car crash, I highly suspect that it will be because someone else ’effed up to cause it.
Yes I think that is the main difference between flying, and just about everything else we do in terms of transport.
That’s why comparing accident stats is meaningless. In flying, you largely control the odds. In driving, motorcycling, etc, you are exposed to others.
I have flown with my family, but I think there will be more resistance to that now that my son is a little older. In any case, I’m well out of currency and proficiency at the moment and would never take them up in this state. But for me personally, my aircraft ownership has always been driven by the desire to be as safe as possible. Hence the moves to twins and turbines etc. If there had been an option for a parachute, I’d have that too. But also for peace of mind. The perception of safety (true or not) reduces the stress factor on me as a pilot.
I think an interesting thing that hasn’t been mentioned here is money. How often do people take shortcuts to avoid paying the approach fee? Go into a smaller airport without instruments because the landing fee is cheaper? Go over the mountains because it’s direct so costs less? Don’t update the GPS monthly because it’s expensive? Indeed, don’t train for an IR at all because of the cost?
Now my view is that this applies to almost zero people who post here, but I bet it does to a lot of those who become statistics.
I think an interesting thing that hasn’t been mentioned here is money
I would hazard a guess that people short on money and time – the average run of the mill PPL like myself – are probably much less at risk of crashing simply due to limited exposure to the “risk of flying” and due to risk compensation, i.e. flying rather shorter and less complicated trips.
You’re probably right about people being short on money but not time being at a higher risk…
Within UK GA there is a large community – loudly evident on social media at every opportunity – which has made avoidance of landing fees over £5/£10 into an art form 
This does seem to feature in decisionmaking, leading to the Strasser Scheme which while being a good initiative (Charles Strasser is a great bloke) is hard to understand as being described as a “potentially lifesaving measure” since the landing fees being saved are in most cases less than the cost of getting back home from the airport. And the really pricey airports (e.g. Gatwick EGKK) never signed up to it.
However, France has a “similar but much more generous scheme” so perhaps this really is a big factor in decisionmaking.
MedEwok wrote:
You’re probably right about people being short on money but not time being at a higher risk…
i have always flown my aeroplane, W&B permitting with full fuel tanks. I never saw the point leaving large empty capacity in the tanks. Therefore I always knew my range. I still sit and watch folks stick 15 litres a side in. I sat a few weeks ago and watched an idiot run out of fuel as he came onto the parking apron. He was 50 mtrs from his parking space. He had to be pushed onto the space. I actually refused to believe it until someone put a fuel tester to the vents and nothing came out. This was not reported to anyone. I did sit and wonder just how often, other than the habitual aeroplanes falling out the sky with no fuel, that this actually happens.
MedEwok wrote:
I would hazard a guess that people short on money and time – the average run of the mill PPL like myself – are probably much less at risk of crashing simply due to limited exposure to the “risk of flying”
I think you’re wrong. Safety in aviation is very much a matter of currency and the less you fly, the less currency you have. The usual mitigation strategy which you cite, i.e. flying shorter and easier sorties does, IMHO, actually increase risk in the long term, as you are less and less exposed to situations that require decision making. If all you do is to fly 10 hours a year on gin-clear days with no wind then I would suggest your risk is actually going up and not down.
I did sit and wonder just how often, other than the habitual aeroplanes falling out the sky with no fuel, that this actually happens.
People rarely actually run out but often get closer than you think. The classic case is G-OMAR (google for the AAIB report) where some other “classic” factors came into play e.g. pressure from instructors to not put in too much fuel. This is where the school/club environment doesn’t always serve people well.
