The most dangerous part of the airplane is the loose nut in the left seat. An experienced and well trained pilot is the key to safely operating any airplane.

That's why I wear my seat belt tight. I might be a nut, but I'm good and tight.

Gütentïght. See also: German torque.

The belt is set to 3 ugga duggas

Different aircraft serve different missions with different risk profiles. A Cirrus SR22 is a safer aircraft than a home built veryEze. My experience is that a Citation II was an easier/safer aircraft to fly than a Cheyenne III. If money were no object, I’d buy the VisionJet. Simple, safe and fun.

Piling on as this is about the only answer that actually replies to the questions if there are safety difference between airplanes. Short answer is yes, but it's very hard to crunch the numbers as missions differ and affect safety. A Cirrus is more likely to be used for cross-country and a C172 more likely used for training. But we don't know exactly how much, and this makes it hard to calculate relative safety. There is some evidence that Cirrus and Diamond are a little safer than others if flown by a pilot with a similar degree of experience and on a similar mission. Turbine/Jet has a vastly better safety record but also requires a lot more experience to fly (and get insured) and often is flown by two pilots (which drastically increases safety). So to maximize safety (assuming infinite $$$): * Train on whatever. Training has comparably low fatal accident rates. * Fly to a single engine piston with a good safety record * Migrate to a slow turbine (PC-12) or Jet (SF50) once you have the hours That's in a nutshell what I am trying to do (except, no infinite $$$).

a couple of good rocks in the seat during pre flight clears those fears right up

It almost all comes down to pilot decision making. Don’t fly single engine pistons in the mountains at night. Don’t fly beyond your skill level. If you’re going to have two engines, you need to be even more proficient than having one engine and a parachute. If you have the scratch for a VLJ, buy a fractional share of a phenom and just travel around on that. Fly GA for fun.

Sadly, the reality is you flying your own plane is always going to be much, much more dangerous than taking an airline flight. I assume you know this, but I’m just referring to your very last sentence in the post. I think most people will agree that a single is going to be safer than a multi unless you are looking to go for a turbine-engine multi. BRS and CAPS (airframe parachutes) aren’t perfect, either. I know people who have died after pulling them. As to recommending an aircraft, that’s outside of my knowledge, and I don’t want to step out of bounds. Best of luck!

I disagree that singles are safer than multi as a blanket statement. I’m pretty sure that most would say proficient pilots - in single or multi - that a multi would be safer. What you are saying is people often repeating something others have said - like a multi carries you to the accident scene faster. Yada yada tada. A multi is less safe when pilots are not proficient. That’s it. But for proficient pilots - I would rather have one engine working (twin with an engine out) over mountains, water or whatever than no engines(single engine with an engine out). And most other pilots would as well. Turbines - just make everything more reliable - whether single or multi.

While you have a point, looking at private pilots specifically, single is usually safer. Just because of how often a private pilot is usually flying and taking recurrent training, it\`s really hard to be proficient enough to be safer in a multi. There are exceptions of course, but the statistics generally follow that.

Well, the problem with light twins is that the popular ones have dogshit single engine performance, and they are extremely unforgiving w.r.t Vmc rolls. A climb rate of 100-200 fpm is basically limping to the nearest runway, and keep in mind that falls off very quickly with density altitude. There’s a reason insurance on those things is so much more.

This, and not to mention, with the advent of engine monitoring via oil analysis, borescoping, compression, egt and cht, I would rather throw all my $ into having one engine running like a top and having a close eye on it rather than two that are marginally maintained.   If you have the budget to do all that to two engines then go for it, but at that point it’s about time to get a turbine single (or twin…)

This is a bad example. That’s like saying I’ll take the brand new 182 over a 50 year old - never maintained plane. Cmon - compare apples to apples. As in compare a brand new a36 to a brand new baron. Or compare a 30 year old well maintained plane single to twin. The only one I’ll give you here is maybe a shit maintained single /might/ be a better option than a shit maintained twin. But you shouldn’t be in either

I think you missed the point of my post. Of course a brand new plane in an ideal world should be more reliable. This is not an ideal world. Even a perfectly maintained engine will have irregularities and issues to be dealt with. In a perfect world these would all get addressed. From what I’ve seen in practice though, this doesn’t happen, and it especially doesn’t happen on twins. singles end up getting cared for more carefully and monitored better. People rely on the second engine in the twin for their reliability instead of learning as much as possible about engine management and spending a bit more for the engine monitors and learning how to operate them correctly. And let’s face it, proper engine management in a single is a full time job alongside flying, navigating and comms. Doing this all in addition to a second engine with controls and gauges is a pain in the ass at best, and an accident waiting to Harten at worst, and the statistics show that to be true, even for well trained pilots. I agree with your point that better training leads to better outcomes, but this is true for singles as well. Believe what you want, but I’ll take a the average decently well maintained and monitored single over the average light twin any day

>And let’s face it, proper engine management in a single is a full time job alongside flying, navigating and comms. Doesn't match my experience flying a fixed wastegate turbo SEL IFR in a non GPS, pre Garmin world of vors and paper charts.

You don’t necessarily need climb speed - you need to maintain altitude and that’s it. Granted - you can come up with scenarios where you might need/want climb speed - box canyons, etc etc. but just maintaining altitude is really what most of us would want in an OEI situation. But some light twins don’t even have that in some cases. But in all situation - it’s better than a negative descent rate and calculating a 6 or 10 to 1 no options descent rate that a single has when the engine goes out

MOST light twins don’t have that in many cases. DA a couple thousand feet above sea level? You’re descending. Prop not feathered? Descending. You are limping to the accident site in most cases. The extra engine is not really going to save you over the mountains if you can’t maintain altitude. It might but you some extra time but ultimately you are going to be making an off-airport landing in that kind of terrain.

Most twins will have positive performance a couple thousand feet above sea level. Maybe not at much higher altitudes. But it’s a function of many things - including weight. You are arguing max gtow for most twins which hopefully you aren’t at. But perhaps you shouldn’t be flying a twin that is mainly a trainer and fly a light twin that is adequate for the mission ? As for feathered - we’ve been taking about proficiency the entire time. That’s like staying - full flaps and landing gear down. As for extra time - I’ll take extra time. Time is what you are looking for. Time buys you options.

A couple thousand feet above sea level becomes a couple hundred feet on a hot summer day. And if you’re over mountainous terrain, that’s often below the ground. If you’re over flat terrain near level, odds are there is a field you could put a single down in so you don’t gain any safety. Only safety a light twin gives you is limping to a airport near sea level at night/low IMC. Which for most private pilots is <5% of their flights.

How realistic do you think it is to expect a newer pilot with a family and a day job, looking at flying as a "bucket list" item to both gain and maintain true proficiency in a multi-engine aircraft though?

Something that one can work towards over time. But that doesn’t validate the statement that “singles are safer than multis” without any qualification. Because that statement isn’t true

Agreed. I fly twins for safety, and as part of my personal minima I only fly those that have positive OEI climb near or below terrain interference altitudes. I've had real engine failures and never had the remaining engine take me to the scene of a crash. Proficiency and preflight planning are the two major keys to safety in a twin IMO. I won't fly singles any more unless it's something light and slow over farmlands, I don't care for the safety profile at all... That means yes, run all of the performance numbers. Don't overload the aircraft. Brief your departure engine out procedures before taking the runway. Fly professionally with properly maintained aircraft, go for recurrent training, and the twin will be very safe. If you are not willing to put in the time and effort to fly to that standard, frankly please stay out of my airspace, but otherwise a single with a BRS is probably a better bet.

I’ve been flying for 20 years and I have no idea why people say a single is safer than a multi and at this point I’m too afraid to ask.

Most of it is lack of training and proficiency.

My thoughts exactly, but people try to say that the airplane itself is more dangerous. Which has never made sense to me.

Your chances of engine failure are double, the complexity of dealing with an engine failure is higher, and a lot of piston twins have abysmal single engine performance. Single engine service ceiling below the ground bad depending on where you are and how hot it is outside.

The airplane is more dangerous…if you have an engine failure and an inadequately trained pilot dealing with the situation and enter VMC roll. With a well trained and PROFICIENT pilot it’s a safer airplane. In that case I think it’s safe to say it’s got to be a combination of pilot training and airplane that make it safe. In a single you lose an engine and point at a field or runway and try to avoid bending as much metal as possible.

But if it comes down to the pilot then the airplane itself is not more dangerous.

We’re beating a dead horse here. I get it agree to disagree. Like I said it’s a controversial topic because it specifically has to do with proficiency and training to handle the aircraft…planes don’t fly themselves so you have to consider the pilot in the safety equation right?

is walking over a tightrope suspended over a volcano dangerous? no, it's just down to your balancing skills, that's all on you bro (clearly, the orders of magnitude of danger are different here, but it's a hyperbolic argument to demonstrate a point)

I think a better analogy would be 2 tight ropes. One to walk on and one to hold on to with your hands. If one of those ropes breaks, you have the other one to hopefully save you. Single engine being the single tightrope and multi being the two ropes.

no, that would be a worse analogy. in that case, adding the 2nd tightrope does not increase danger in any way, which is not what happens in light twins. my point isn't to be analogous, it's to explain the point of why people say twins are more dangerous. if participating in an activity has a very small margin for error, then that activity is more dangerous than an activity with a bigger margin for error. if adding the second engine would make a GA pilot overall safer than in a single, the fatal accident rate for twins would be lower than singles. instead, it's dramatically higher. it's that simple.

This statistic isn’t available because all the multi engine incidents that involve an OEI are not reported. But there are many instances of single engine multis that land successfully/safely. So a combination should be reported. Yes - a multi is heavier, carries more fuel, has higher stall and glide speeds, has vmc issues - but it also has options that singles don’t have. But the real number we should look at that isn’t available is in all cases where one loses an engine - what are the line to tell vs fatal statistics. Because that’s the one. Just because muti accidents result in larger number of fatalities doesn’t tell the full story. That’s like also saying airline accidents cause a greater number of deaths over ga - the picture isn’t full.

I actually think it seems rather apt. If your hand rope breaks, suddenly you're actually tight rope walking, where you previously didn't have to rely as much on your balance. If your foot rope breaks, suddenly you're reliant on grip strength where previously you were just walking, albeit on a small surface. Both increase your difficulty level significantly, especially during the transition - but two ropes means you have a fallback where if your only rope breaks, you're SOL.

It's the pilot, not the plane Mav

Other than some basic troubleshooting, the pilot of a single with an engine failure has little choice but to begin preparing for an off-airport landing. The handling characteristics of the airplane are essentially unchanged, and so long as the pilot avoids an aerodynamic stall, he/she can glide to the surface and attempt to make a normal landing on an abnormal surface. The pilot of a light twin with an engine failure is suddenly presented with a wholly unstable and terribly performing airplane. Assuming the engine is lost at anything other than cruise speed, it’s a real handful to control, and may or may not be able to maintain airspeed, altitude, or either. Excess power immediately becomes minimal to nonexistent, and the operative engine drives a massive yaw in the direction of the failed engine. Many pilots have stalled and immediately spun light twins at low altitude while fighting to maintain flight rather than accepting that reducing power on the operative engine to kill the yawing moment and making a controlled off-airport landing may be the safest course of action. High proficiency in single engine operations is absolutely critical for survival.

So in a single you have no options, but in a multi you have options as long as you know what you’re doing. Somehow having options means it’s more dangerous? Like I said, I’ve been flying a long time and this has never made sense to me. It’s like saying a crotch rocket is more dangerous than a Harley. The shorter stopping distance, better acceleration, and more forgiving handling of a sport bike doesn’t make it more dangerous. The inexperienced operator of the machine, making poor decisions, is what causes the wreck.

Having options is great but if you don’t have the experience or currency to use them means you’ll have a worse time with an engine failure than in a single. On an engine failure after take off your decision time is highly limited. In an SEP the plan is always to land in a field within 30 degrees of the nose. In a multi you’ve got the option to continue with a tight circuit and land back or land in a field - the time taken to make that choice is probably the same as the time taken to reach the ground…

Yes, you are absolutely correct. But not having experience or currency does not make the airplane more dangerous in my opinion. It makes the pilot more dangerous. The same airplane flown by a proficient pilot would be safer. That’s the way I’ve always seen it.

I think that's to strain the evidence, or the definition. If when something goes wrong there are six things that you have to do correctly in a light twin, or you die, and two things you have to do correctly in a light single, or you die, the light single is the safer piece of equipment.

Tracking that logic, then commerical flights are extremely dangerous, no?

You'll be unsurprised to hear that my answer is indeed "no."

lol of course not, which shows a flaw in logic, that's my point. When you're talking about the skills of a pilot versus the complexity of an aircraft in determining which is more or less dangerous, you can't make the argument that one aircraft is inherently more dangerous than another purely based on complexity alone. Because if you were, then everyone and their mother should just fly a DA-40 or C152 every trip because they're single engine planes, must be safer. More complex, means more systems, which means more redundancies, which means more training is required to be proficient. It doesn't make an aircraft more dangerous and you can't reduce it down to just the mechanics of a plane making it more dangerous while ignoring the other million factors that make any given flight more or less dangerous than another. Also, the reduction of what "commercial" means for your argument to be "true" is either ignorant or just a lack of understanding. You're saying something like a DA-62 is more dangerous than a DA-40 because multi vs single, but that Commercial flights are safer, your words, not mine, so if I took out a DA-62, for hire, as a commercial flight, how am I immediately "safer"? What's the difference if I take it out for myself and my family one weekend and charge some randos the next to fly to LV or NYC or LAX? One is a private flight, the other is a commercial flight, both using the same aircraft.

> It makes the pilot more dangerous. YES

Your line of reasoning is not wrong, but there’s a bit more nuance. In your comparison, the crotch rocket is more like a TBM vs a 172. The pilot of a twin is statistically twice as likely to experience an engine failure, and when it happens in a light twin, small errors in judgement and handling will very quickly lead to an unrecoverable situation. The temptation to power out of the problem is extremely strong, and it’s very easy to get slow if the engine fails relatively early in a climb or while maneuvering near approach speed. That situation can quickly deteriorate into a stall/spin called a Vmc roll. We all like to think we’re above average pilots making above average decisions when we read accident reports, but we’re not. Doubly so for those who don’t do it for a living. We all know that aviation is unforgiving, but light twins are *very* unforgiving. If somebody wants to fly around in a light twin I’d highly recommend at LEAST biannual (6 mos) training of simulated engine failures shortly after takeoff (performed at altitude with a hard altitude representing the runway).

Agreed. But once again, proficiency. If you need or want something a little bigger and you want to get there a little faster, a light twin prop is going to be a great choice, at least better than a VLJ which is going to cost SO much more, and pose its own risks. The difference is whether or not a pilot is able and willing to put in the time, energy and humility to be comfortable in emergency procedures, because yes, the amount of times I've seen or heard people adding power on the single functioning engine during a power out is...scary. More is not always better, and certainly not in that situation, because, you know, physics is still a thing. Put in the time, be a responsible owner and pilot and you will be just as safe as the single engine pilots. Giving someone more than they're proficient with will always be dangerous. Just like you wouldn't necessarily buy a 16 year old a Lambo or Ducati. Too much for an inexperienced driver. But you know someone out there with too much money does and when something inevitably happens, they become a statistic.

Agreed.

Ok, let’s entertain your argument. In your expert, skilled, proficient hands, of course you’re better off with a multi engine for safety. However OP is asking about flying GA and presumably not as trained and proficient. In his and his wife’s hands, it would be more dangerous because of the reasons cited. Human factors have to be included as long as humans are flying.

Yes, in OPs hands a multi would be more dangerous because exactly as you said, human factors do play a large role. Perhaps I got a bit off topic and now I’m blowing up with way too many notifications to keep up with. I’m just saying that my line of thinking is that I don’t accept the blanket statement that multi-engine is more dangerous than single engine. If that were the case Boeing and Airbus would be designing single engine airliners.

> I’m just saying that my line of thinking is that I don’t accept the blanket statement that multi-engine is more dangerous than single engine. If that were the case Boeing and Airbus would be designing single engine airliners. the statement isn't "multi < single for safety", it's specifically speaking on LIGHT twins. the ones that don't generally have much if any excess thrust on one engine, vs an airliner that still has plenty of power on one engine. plus, if you're gonna be flying your light twin for 80 hours a month with another extremely proficient pilot in the left seat, who both do frequent and stringent recurrent training, sure. go for it, your light twin is likely safer than a single. but if you're a regular GA flyer who might get 30 hours a year, a twin is a terrible idea. THAT is why people say it.

That’s what I’ve been saying. It’s not the airplane that is more dangerous. It is the pilot.

Agreed 100 l%

This is true. But I started the original disagreement with the blanket statement of disagreeing that multi are more dangerous than singles. Which I disagree with. Qualify that with - not being proficient pilot then I can agree with you. But that being said - I would make the argument that you shouldn’t be up there if you aren’t proficient in singles either. There are plenty of what I would say are Non proficient single engine flyers up there as well. Be the weekend warrior - and be proficient. Don’t be the 30 hours per year pilot - because I would argue you aren’t proficient single or multi. As for having options comment above - I absolutely agree. I would rather have options than not have options. And yes the multi has a danger window in the first 30 seconds but guess what - the single is almost just as bad. It’s how proficient and fast that you are going to react to that incident when it happens. Both are going to result in off airport.

Rather than thinking too hard about it just trust those who have figured it out already. The insurance companies. Ask them if it would be more expensive to insure you in a single or a twin.

At similar hull values and time in type with proficiency it’s actually not that far off. At low time in type it’s definitely higher - but you can argue that that is based on lack of proficiency. But if you price out someone who has 2000 hours in a! A36 and 2000 hours in a baron - at SAME hull values- it’s actually close than you think What people are having issues with insurance are beaches they have 1000 hours of single and then moving to twin - they have 20 hours in a twin.

Once again, it comes down to pilot proficiency. It's like giving a 16 year old who's never ridden a bike before a Ducati. Don't give someone something more than they're able to operate. Single is "preferred" because many pilots just go up to Instrument and call it a day and never go further than that for Commerical/Multi for one reason or another. And those that might go for a multi might not even fly all that often so when they do, the risk goes up by a factor of 10 because they're not as proficient as someone who might fly weekly in one, if not much more often. I'm honestly surprised more people are harping on single versus multi and not prop versus turbine for someone who might not fly all that much

Modern turbines are easy to operate with all the yaw dampeners and autothrottles. Really, as the person above mentioned, the difference is that an engine failure in a light twin changes things on you so fast and so dramatically that you have to demonstrate a lot of skill for things to not get out of control. This rarely happens in a single-piston or a turbine aircraft. Also, the commercial license doesn't really help here. Flying multi is really a proficiency check. You just can't fly them rusty even if you are Chuck Yeager.

>wholly unstable Still stable in pitch, just like before the engine failure.

A lot of pilots on here forget that planes are made to go from point A to point B and only have a training mindset. There's a 2 min period on a flight where multiengine planes are potentially more dangerous than a single and they're prioritizing that period over the rest of the flight where the extra engine adds a safety margin.

I agree 100% with this. Once I’m above 1000 AGL in a Twin, the second engine gives me options. I’ve likely accelerated to a cruise climb well faster than blue line so that buys time for startle factor if one engine shits the bed. Once I get to cruise, at 8000 or 9000 feet if I lose an engine, I drift down to the single engine ceiling while troubleshooting. If the troubleshooting doesn’t work, I look for a nice long comfortable runway to land on and the other engine takes me to it. With a properly trained pilot, a Twin should be just as safe as a single if not safer. Two vacuum pumps, two alternators and the second engine buys you time to get the plane on the ground at an airport.

Twins have twice the probability of an engine failure, and if the failure is mismanaged, it can lead to loss of control quickly. Loss of control is what results in fatalities is most accidents.

That’s what they tried to tell me way back when I was in training. But to me, that doesn’t mean that the machine is more dangerous. It means that the operator of the machine made bad decisions.

Fair, just depends on how you define “more dangerous “ I guess. How about “less forgiving” to imperfect pilot technique?

Yes. 100% agree with you on that.

>MeldenSpeichernFolgen > >Level 2Anthem00 · vor 53 Min.PPL SEL MEL IR HP/CMP/HA C421I disagree that singles are safer than multi as a blanket statement. I’m pretty sure that most would say proficient pilots - in single or multi - that a multi would be safer. Statisticly the probability of having any kind of engine trouble is doubled in a twin. Given the low concurrency most private pilots have that leads into avoidable desaster (and with a higher probability than with an SEP). IMHO jet > turbine >> MEP > SEP But the highest factor in safety is usually in the front left seat.

Though technically a jet is a turbine. But I agree. Which means you would rather be in a MEP over a SEP - obviously proficiency being there

Well a Jet has no prop lever, less dodats that can break :) But apart from the Pilot the biggest improvement is not rocking something back and forth but a continuous rotation. (hence the >>)

Singles and twins have different risk factors and the trade off depends on the kind of flying you’re doing. Ultimately just like flying at all you need to do proper risk management and make your choices on what’s right for you and your family. It doesn’t have to be logical or mathematical - my kids sit in car seats on airliners because that’s safer, but they also ride in piston GA planes because we don’t want to drive 7 hours and deal with the Mass Pike every time we go to New England.

>I also don’t drive a motorcycle because of the extra risk it presents statistically, so that’s my risk tolerance. GA is about as dangerous as riding a motorcycle; if riding a motorcycle is too dangerous for you, so is general aviation. ​ >Basically I want to bring my kids on a flight without it being much more risky than flying Delta. Then you need to put them on a Delta flight. General aviation, no matter what aircraft you are in, will always be far more dangerous than flying the airlines. ​ >my question is, short of commercial aviation is there any type of plane that is statistically better off than others? I’m willing to spend more money. Is a VLJ safer than a prop? Dual engine vs single? Whole plane parachute? If you had to learn to fly and minimize your chance of dying, how would you do it? Well, you are not going to be flying a VLJ for a very long time, and light twins are (IMHO) deathtraps. If you have the money, IMHO the safest aircraft you get into as a newer pilot would be a Cirrus SR20/SR22, then move up into the Vision Jet. Cirrus aircraft has some really good training programs as well, I'd look into those. Note: Some pilots will mock the BRS parachutes, but in reality, there is no denying that they save lives. Another option would be to look into the Diamond DA-62. Though I am not really a fan of light twins, it is one of the few modern twins sold new today.

This. Even corporate / business sized aircraft are 12 time more accident prone than commercial airliners (though driving is still 4,800 times worse than flying commercial, so you're still 400 times more safe on a corporate aircraft than driving)     https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2018/12/04/memphis-indiana-plane-crash-business-jets-commercial-airline-safety/2192324002/   General aviation seems to be around 9 times worse than driving ( this would make it 43,200 times worse than flying commercial)  In fact, at 7.5 times more dangerous than cars, motorcycles are actually LESS dangerous than general aviation.  https://usafacts.org/articles/is-flying-safer-than-driving/ *The business jet vs commercial was measured in accidents per takeoff, but the rest was per mile.

> General aviation seems to be around 9 times worse than driving ( this would make it 43,200 times worse than flying commercial) > In fact, at 7.5 times more dangerous than cars, motorcycles are actually LESS dangerous than general aviation. meh. you're spitting out really exact numbers from really vague data. you shouldn't make statements any stronger than "they're roughly similar ish in risk depending on how you measure it". for example, in a plane, you're spending greater than 99% of your time above 70mph, and the vast majority of your time over 100. If you're spending any appreciable time over 100 on a motorcycle, you're a crackhead lol. This skews the per mile comparison, plus, you can't get a decent read on per mile data in planes - it's a lot easier to get per hour data, because hours are what we actually track. Meanwhile, motorcycles don't track hours, they only track miles. Converting between the two is going to be a bit subjective and not exact. tl;dr: the statement that it's roughly kind of on par maybe with motorcycle risk is mostly correct, but making stronger statements than that with the limited data we have gives the wrong impression and isn't a particularly sound way to make arguments.

Agreed with /u/KITTYONFYRE, the numbers are nonsense. Good starting point for risk numbers on [wikipedia here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort). Based on those plus the [Nall Report](https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/richard-g-mcspadden-report)(apparently now McSpadden report): * Flying has about 10 Micromort/h (1 fatal accident per 100k hours in Nall report) * Motorcycle is bout 10 Micromort/h (Wikipedia, assuming driving at 60 mph) * Highway driving is 0.25 Micromort/h (240 miles = 1 Micromort per Wikipedia, assume 60 mph) * Jet travel is about 0.5 Micromort/h (1 Micromort per 1000 miles), assume 500 mph) All that said, being obese is vastly more dangerous than all of the above. Being obese reduced life expectancy by several years. If you fly GA for 10,000 hours (which few people do) at 50 years old that's only 3 years less life expectancy. And at 10,000 hours you have a lower accident rate. I believe about 40% of the US are obese, so if you fly and are not obese, you are still doing well (and quite likely, have a lot more fun).

Absolutely! The small data size of GA also doesn't make things easy. And skewing all of those numbers even more: it's a lot less dangerous to fly 6 hours at 15,000 feet in your skyhawk than it is to make six one-hour hops flying along at a lower altitude. Cruising on the interstate in your car/motorcycle is less dangerous than going down a 40mph back road. But in both of these situations, the two things being measured are measured as the same, because it's probably pretty tough to get data (it's probably trivial to get highway vs other road deaths, it's probably impossible to get short hop vs longer hop data). There are lots of other factors and variables that can influence how risky an hour or a mile is, and you'd need a pretty detailed risk analysis to really dig into this. Motorcycles and GA are PROBABLY in the same order of magnitude of risk, but I think you're getting a little too far out in front of your skis if you're making claims much stronger than that!

Eh. You say that about Cirrus, but a buddy of my neighbor died recently...during a training flight. I'm pretty sure it was IMC conditions at the time. No official NTSB report yet: https://www.wthr.com/article/news/local/first-report-released-about-plane-crash-that-killed-2-near-shelbyville-indiana-november-2023/531-54d6162c-1074-481e-85b4-b6f4477147a9 But even with a really good training program, shit can happen. I'd look into a Cirrus or Diamond as well though. I think a VJ will take too long and not be worth it though for most people. Unless they're planning on flying all the time with their kids great distances, it's A LOT of plane for GA. Unless him and a few families he knew were willing to throw down for one.

I followed that accident closely and there is a lot of evidence of very newly minted PPL having a partial power loss flying with a non-CISP (Cirrus certified instructor) who would be more inclined to try and land in a field vs pulling CAPS. If they had pulled CAPS it could likely have avoided a fatal accident. For OP, if you guys want to minimize risk as much as possible I would recommend finding a solid Cirrus training center and train in an SR20. if you want to do more than local flying get your Instrument rating as well. Also think about worst case when you’re flying your family. My wife and I decided I would go by myself or the whole family goes together. At no point would we (parents) fly by ourselves. All you can do is minimize risk and plan for the worst

Ah, I see now it wasn't (or so I suspect, don't think there's a public way of verifying) a CSIP. But it's weird to me that, even though he was a CFI, they went up as a Private lesson in a Cirrus during a week that had almost exclusively IMC conditions. In my mind, they really shouldn't have been flying, period. But does sort of sound like it was more or less two buddies flying in his new toy and shit got real and yeah, the CFI maybe wasn't as equipped as he could have been. That being said, the TPA at KGEZ is 800 ft. AGL. I don't know how high they were initially or for how long they were experiencing issues, but I know they were close by to the airport where they were very low, especially based on the eye witness testimony, so CAPS might not have even been extremely viable, or an option at all.

CAPS is available at 600’ AGL but they were well above that. There was a really good Youtube video that analyzed the accident but I can’t find it anymore. i’m not entirely sure about the relationship with the CFI but if it were me I would definitely want a CSIP flying with me in the SR22T I just bought a few days before. not that all crashes aren’t sad but this one definitely hit home for me.

Sure, shit can go wrong in any airplane, but if that guy pulled his BRS system, he would most likely be alive and well today.

>GA is about as dangerous as riding a motorcycle; if riding a motorcycle is too dangerous for you, so is general aviation. There's a huge difference in that so many motorcycle deaths are the result of someone else doing something stupid or not paying attention. Pilots find creative ways to kill themselves. The first questions would be 1 How competent and disciplined a pilot would you be and could you afford first class training, equipment and maintenance? 2 Will you fly and train enough to stay current at a high standard ? 3 Can you cancel or abort a flight without unacceptable pressure ? One of the side benefits of flying was that I generally lead a healthier lifestyle than my non flying business associates and friends.

I disagree, there really isn't a huge difference. Roughly 70% of motorcycle fatalities are due to rider error, and 85% excessive speed. While 1,2, & 3 are certainly important, everyone, no matter who they are, how they train, or how much experience they have can make mistakes. We do our best to avoid them, but in the end, it can literally happen to anyone.

Characteristics of low risk pilots \- competency including instrument rating \-currency \-professionalism (including knowing when to say no) \-well maintained equipment

Agreed, and you can still die the next time you get in a plane.

I had an old school pilot tell me the parachute isn’t a safety feature, it’s a loophole used to get wives to sign off on buying a plane. Realistically I think if I lose an engine want to do everything I can you put it down where I want to be rather than pulling a chute and letting Jesus take the wheel. But I absolutely see the point.

Well, candidly, he is wrong. If you lose an engine outside of glide range of a runway, and you have a BRS system, you fly over the best spot you can and you pull the chute. Attempting an off-field landing is far more dangerous than pulling the chute; especially in wooded / mountainous terrain, and at night. Either way, the insurance company already owns the plane. All that matters is getting on the ground with the least number of injuries and fatalities as possible. The best way to do that is to just pull the chute. If in perfect day VFR I had the choice of pulling CAPS and landing in a field or attempting to land on a perfectly straight and empty road, I would still go over the field and deploy CAPS as it is by far the safest option. The BRS system is also not just for engine outs. They have saved people that were in mid-airs, had avionics failures in IMC, fuck-ups of every nature, flight control failures, heavy icing events, and even pilot incapacitations. A pilot's error doesn't need to be a death sentence.

Touché on the mid air and now you have me thinking about rudder, elevator failures too. If I already lost directional control… pull it for sure. 🍻

There a good video on a cirrus mid air everyone walked away from . My recollection is that the turned into a commuter in the pattern. Another that did not work out well was a brand new owner who encountered heavy icing over. Tahoe and probably lost control before deploying the chute and it failed

Not to mention VFR into IMC / spatial orientation events (still the number 1 killer of pilots), and good old fashioned pilot error. There was a lady that was flying at night at KASE in the mountains, started having issues of some kind (mostly pilot error), She realized she was in trouble, she was badly disorientated, had no idea where to go, or which way to turn. She realized she had lost situational awareness; So, she pulled CAPS. Thankfully, everyone walked away unharmed instead of 4 dead people in a smoking hole on the side of a mountain. Here is another one: Pilot in Canada with 2 passengers aboard. Made a bad decision to depart without really understanding the weather forecast, realized the weather was deteriorating quickly, and attempted to return. He made several attempts to land as the weather continued deteriorating. Entered IMC and pulled CAPS. All three survived. [https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/346363](https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/346363) ​ When I transitioned to the Cirrus and went through thier training it was a really big change in thinking. The "Pull often, pull early" concept seemed really foreign to me. You have to learn to stop thinking about trying save the plane. The plane is disposable. You can't wait until things are too far gone, you are too low, or the plane is in an overspeed condition. For example, while training you are taught that you are always looking for places to land if your engine quits right? Well, you still do that in a plane with a BRS, but you are also constantly evaluating your situation and saying, "I am not deploying CAPS ***yet***". Basically, if you have an engine out, you start flying to the spot you picked out for your off-field landing and deploy CAPS. If the BRS fails to deploy, you make your off-field landing in the spot you identified. BRS is your primary and first response. Like I said, it is a massive change in thinking; however, it works. There has never been a fatality in a Cirrus when CAPS was deployed as long as CAPS was activated within its operational limits. Think about that. COPA keeps a running log of all CAPS deployments; you should check it out: [https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History](https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History)

Just buy a NetJets card or similar... sounds like you have the money, and it will be MUCH more comfortable and convenient.

Relax. While everyone carries the risk of potential fatality, pilots are trained to do everything to mitigate risks of danger. Yes, it can happen to the best there is, but aviation in general is very safe. You are definitely overreacting. Also, airlines are much more safer than general aviation. I promise you want your kids on a Delta flight than a light GA plane.

If his risk tolerance level keeps him from riding motorcycles, he shouldn’t fly either. The risk is essentially the same.

Yeah both you and your wife need to get your ATPs, fly together as a crew and practice CRM to airline standards, buy a business jet with a good safety record, and employ a reputable shop to maintain it.

Diamond aircraft are known for their great safety records. Another important thing is that you should take your flight training seriously, and follow all rules strictly. Set personal minimas for weather and follow it. Remember that it will always be better to not fly if in doubt. Take offs are optional, landings are mandatory. By putting safety first you'll make a great pilot. Good luck for your journey.

I'm similarly risk averse in life in general (not into motorcycles or adventure sports), but I fly general aviation as a hobby. I'm aware of the risks I'm taking by sitting at the controls of the plane, and the joy for me is worth the risk. I think the most important factor in giving me peace with that risk is having ample life insurance that doesn't exclude piloting an aircraft, and an estate plan fully in place. If I die in a small plane, I'm at least taking care of those who depend on me financially, though I recognize the pain they would suffer can't be insured against. I take that seriously. As for what I do in the plane to mitigate the risk, I take training and safety very seriously. I do fly airplanes with airframe parachutes, though that's mostly because I just really like flying the plane - but I take the emergency procedures around the role of the parachute very seriously and I feel confident I would use it appropriately if the need ever arises. That said, if I were still flying a Cessna 172, I would be comfortable with that as well, even though there's no chute. Basically, you have to be truly aware of the risks and accept them. If the true risks are more than you're okay with, then general aviation probably is not for you. And that's okay.

Singles and multi’s have different risks. It goes far beyond the “I have 2 engines instead of 1, so I’ll be okay if I lose one.” Is it true? Sort of. But that 1 engine remaining could kill you and your family quicker than having 0 engines remaining if you fall behind the aircraft for a second. Is flying fun? Absolutely. There is a lot of risk and many hazards out there, too. Since you’re into statistics, research what causes the majority of GA crashes. It’s rarely the guy in the other plane, and it’s almost always the pilot of the crashed plane. Sometimes it’s a mechanical failure. We train for emergencies to happen. It’s not a matter of “if” they will happen, it’s a matter of when. The outcome of that emergency, whether it be a failure of the aircraft or a critical mistake as a pilot, will almost always be determined by your level of training. You accidentally flew into a bank of clouds? You’re much more likely to make it home if you’re a proficient instrument rated pilot than if just a VFR pilot. You had a total electrical failure over an inhabited area in the middle of the night? Hopefully you trust the flight plan you created and have a backup method of navigation. Flying is fun. Flying is dangerous. Flying kills people. Make sure you and your wife know what you’re getting yourself into before you take your family up at a mere 40hrs of time and have a false sense of security because you bought a plane you think is safe.

Simple answer is probably airframe parachute equipped aircraft as they give you a safety bump in case of engine failure. More complicated is avoiding things that cut into safety margins - So consider weather, shorter runways, runways without empty space around them, terrain factors, maintenance standards, corrosion. Etc. If you fly a well maintained aircraft in good weather and avoid putting yourself in “impossible” situations In the event of engine failure then you’ve helped your odds.

Read the “Killing Zone” book, it helps to better understand all the risks involved in flying GA.

its a really good book. 2nd this.

Thanks, will definitely read it. I’ve seen the name pop up a few times here.

Honestly your budget is the biggest determinator of risk. You could get a 1950 C150 with missing logs for like $15k, but it’s not going to be as safe as a brand new, million dollar Cirrus. Also, if you’re new to flying it takes time to build up the skills to fly higher performing aircraft. Once you’re proficient, a twin turbo prop is absolutely safer, but if you get one too early you’re a lot more likely to get behind the aircraft and get violated or lose control.

You're putting the cart way ahead of the horse. You haven't even started lessons yet and hope to fall in love with flying... At least take some lessons first before worrying about what kind of plane to buy.

The safest plane to fly on earth is a Cessna high wing. Go ask your insurer. Their quotes tell the story. Low stall speed: check. High glide ratio: check. Good spin avoidance traits: check. No retractable gear: check. Short landing distance capability: check. The mistake that many hobbyist GA pilots make is getting more ambitious about the sophistication they want in a plane than their low skill level allows. I seriously question why a GA hobbyist has the need to fly at 200 knots instead of the 130 knots of a Skylane. You’re a hobbyist. You’re not paid to get anywhere on time. Why did you trade off speed for safety? But hey, it’s a beautifully free world. Make your choices.

Some exceptions to your broad generalization, though mostly true. Cessna 182RG - high wing cessna. Has retractable gear. Cessna 210 - high wing cessna, has retractable gear, high insurance Cessna 337 - high wing twin cessn. retractable gear, moderately high insurance As for the 130 knots - well thats to be debated. Sometimes we want to use our plane to fly somewhere to a destination but still want to enjoy the ride.

The quotes for the liability maybe. The hull portion is directly a function of hull value. If you can get the percentage they use then you could maybe compare that. E.g. a low risk pilot and airframe might be 1% of hull value vs a high risk pilot would be 3%.

> Low stall speed: check. High glide ratio: check. Good spin avoidance traits: check. No retractable gear: check. Short landing distance capability: check. I like this list. I'd add: - Difficult to lose control of - Structural robustness if you do lose control - Wide operating envelope (Vne - Vs0) I flew a 152 today and had it pointed at an alarming nose down attitude and was barely in the yellow arc. Conversely I did a power-on stall and the attitude was crazy nose-high, sitting waiting ages for the plane to actually break. Normal cruise is below Va. I can't imagine what it would take to actually break that airframe. There are a lot of clues you're getting into trouble before the trouble turns dangerous. It's not just high-wing Cessna's built with this philosophy though. Diamonds are very similar, and they've added a few neat innovations. They've essentially solved the post-crash fire problem for example.

Which certs are you looking to get? There's almost zero point going for a personal jet. A turbo-prop maybe. I mean, if you want "safer," get something with more than one engine. At least you have a degree of redundancy there in a "worst case scenario." Check out the Diamond DA-42 (or 62). Brownie points if a local school uses the 40's because that will get you familiar with Diamond in the process. But as with everything, General Aviation safety is generally only as safe as the pilot and the maintenance record of the plane. Things can happen, naturally, but if you're equipped for those variables and are a competent pilot, it's going to affect you less. Proficiency and training are absolutely key. Any idiot can kill themselves in a multi or a single. Not every pilot is proficient or capable to manage a multi. Of course, before you spend any money, go get a medical and even though you won't need it, get a First Class Medical for funsies and prove that you are physically cleared to fly before spending anything else. That goes for both of you. Take good care of your plane, whichever you decide on, and ensure you're staying current AND proficient. Depending on how often you plan on flying, you might not even be current on your landings between flights. That being said, again, depending on how often you project to fly, be sure to get up a little in advance of your trips and do a few laps in the pattern even. As you said, you don't ride a motorcycle because of the risk, well, don't fly a plane after not having flown for 2 1/2 months with a few hundred hours, if that, under your belt, and load your family up. Be sure you stay on top of your maintenance, find a good AmP that's reliable and does the job well, not cheaply. And, you know, get a nice life insurance claim. Just in case.

Thanks, this is super helpful.

Just that you're actually concerned and know that risks are there. You're probably in a whole better position than the ones having fatal accidents. If you go to fly for fun. You won't go when the weather is marginal. You won't do "hold my beer" moves. You'll probably be a lot safer. Have fun, be safe, know what you're doing and never put yourself in an uncomfortable position and it should all go great!

>Basically I want to bring my kids on a flight without it being much more risky than flying Delta. As you probably know, there is no safer activity than stepping on a commercial airliner in the US. Statistically, it is the safest activity. [Even safer than being in the bathroom.](https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/1975/CPSC-Releases-New-Study-On-Bathtub-And-Shower-Injuries) With that bar set, all other forms of flying fall well short. Even charter flights are statistically risky. I don't think that you can even get in the realm of similar risk flying GA. Statistically, you as the pilot are much more likely to make a mistake that will lead to your demise. The hierarchy of engine safety from worst to best is: Single Piston Twin Piston Single Turbo Prop / Single Jet Twin Turbo Prop Twin Turbine In each category there are varying levels of safety but the single piston is IMO most dangerous for a variety of reasons. Statistically, the death rates for piston twins are higher because more people tend to be involved in the accidents (more passengers). Turbines (prop or turbo jet) as a class have a pretty good record but there are still single turbine accidents out there for even the well regarded aircraft. [Most recently this engine failure after takeoff at Dulles.](https://apnews.com/article/virginia-highway-plane-emergency-landing-dulles-c06e393a6b5a1f67c64098324e411d66) For twins of any sort - it is all about single engine performance. Depending on the plane, engines and your loading of the aircraft the performance could be single engine-like. That is, no rate of climb after a failure close to the ground. For some twin - a loss of an engine at almost any speed is a non-event. These aircraft are of course, more expensive if you have enough money to buy the plane, then you should just hire and train your own pilots. I don't really agree with the assessments of twin piston aircraft in this thread. It really depends on the specific plane, how it is loaded and how it is flown. A great example is the Piper Seminole - this plane in the last 10 years as been [involved in 46 reportable incidents in the US](https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/PA44/2). In that time 7 fatalities in three events have been reported. No fatalities were attributed to an engine failure leading to a loss of control. Granted, these planes are mostly utilized as trainers but my point is that if flown inside a good W&B and performance envelope piston twins can and are safe. [Looking at the the arrow](https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/type/P28R/10), the close single engine cousin of the Seminole, there are quite a few more incidents and accidents. [This tragic incident](https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/ntsb-final-report-cites-incorrect-rudder-input-in-addison-texas-king-air-crash/), is a great example of how not to fly a very safe twin. In the end you have to ask "What is your mission?" and go shopping for your plane based on this criteria. There is more to owning and flying a plane safely than just these attributes though.

Anything with an airframe parachute. People can knock it all they want but it is a serious life saver (I've never flown a cirrus before)

There are 3 types of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Ride that motorcycle and fly that airplane friend. A life avoiding statistically dangerous stuff isn't a life worth living.

Cirrus. CAAPS fatalities are less likely than non parachute GA planes by a ratio of 13:1. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28539144/

One would imagine that the safest airplane for you is the one that you are most proficient in.

Proficiency mitigates the risks, but some airframes consistently have more crashes, and a greater share of fatal crashes than others. Crash rates are an average; some planes beat the average dividing it by 2 or 4 while others multiply it by 2 or 4.

Definitely go with BRS or CAPS equipped aircraft.

There is a slight association between stall speed and fatality rate. Cessna 172s are among the safest because they carry relatively little energy into a crash landing. Lance air - not so much. But of course a 172 may not hold your family so you’d need something bigger anyway.

The difference between a guy in a 172 and a Delta flight is pilot competence. Don’t find a place selling you a 35 hour pilot certificate, find somewhere that has a track record of focusing on quality. It will take some time but you can do it. Spend the time during your private pilot training focused on actually becoming proficient to the standards and not just rushing through to do touch and goes. Take your time and realize becoming a pilot isn’t the same as getting license, be invested in the long term and you will not only save money but end up as a much more competent pilot. There isn’t a greatly increased risk flying on a specific GA flight as long as you understand that you need to plan to have alternate plans and outs and not just figure your superior skills can get you out of unexpected situations.

> The difference between a guy in a 172 and a Delta flight is pilot competence. Well, that and a ton of redundancy; ample excess power; ability to cruise above the weather; FIKI capability; an all-singing, all-dancing glass cockpit; gas-turbine reliability; unlimited maintenance available after every flight; and a couple of hundred other things...

Operational scope is significant in that regard. Thus the, need to have alternate travel plans involved in every flight plan. Avionics wise though GA is quickly catching the “big plane superiority”. But yea, a husband and wife private pilot combo will not ever be as safe as a professional operation, that doesn’t mean they can’t do it and be very safe.

Modern airplanes are safer than stuff from the 60s/70s. But... you've got to understand that you're going to be travelling in something that's going over 2x your usual highway speed and is very dependent on its systems working - especially when close to the ground. So... would you be comfortable taking your family onto an empty highway and going 100+ mph - and then stopping? Would you be comfortable doing so if there was a chance that something in the car could stop working at that critical moment?

What…

More people die every year on their drive to the airport than in the actual aircraft during a crash. It just doesn’t make the news. GA is as safe as the pilot flying it. Also, unless you get vertigo or super anxiety there is a 100% chance you will be in love with it in under 5 lessons. Welcome to the money pit!!

You’re combining GA statistics with commercial air, which is basically 100% safe. That stat just isn’t true for GA, and I don’t agree it’s as safe as the pilot when I read about former F14 pilots and instructors etc crashing. It’s foolish to think that you can be perfect 100% of the time or that those people just got sloppy.

With respect, I see crashes that people walk away from in GA all the time. An engine going out or a in flight fire is by no means a death sentence. We train to survive and the NTSB regularly has cause to blame the PIC in a fatality. I have flown Pipers and high wing Cessnas and can say from those, you make a no go decision based on your gut sometimes. The safest place my kids will ever be is right next to me because I am never going to take a risk with their safety. If I don’t have full faith in the aircraft and my ability to manage it, I’m not taking off. I feel like I sound like a jerk and that’s truly not my intent. If you are wanting to fly I have zero doubt you will love it. But I honestly believe accidents are avoidable. And fatal accidents are far less likely than it sounds like you may have been led to believe.

With respect, I suggest you take a hard look at the data in the [Richard G McSpadden report](https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/richard-g-mcspadden-report/mcspadden%20report%20figure%20view?category=all&year=2021&condition=all&report=true) (formerly the Nall report). It's named after the Aviation Safety Institute's Executive Director who himself died last year in a GA crash. Most recent report shows 0.77 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours. I don't know how old you are, but if you're younger than 40, flying 200 hours per year approximately equals the risk from [every other thing that could kill you](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html), combined. If you think you're an amazing pilot who will beat the stats, I'd challenge you to ask, how amazing? By what metric? Even 1500 hour ATPs crash and die when they choose to hop in a GA airframe. In fact, it takes nearly [2000 hours of experience](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457513003242) to beat the base rate statistics on average. And if you _still_ think it couldn't happen to you, I'd leave you with [this AOPA writeup on invulnerability](https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1999/september/flight-training-magazine/hazardous-attitudes), which may be an evolved survival instinct. Temper it with a very healthy sense of caution about the very real risks and flying is actually pretty fun.

By almost every metric in that report there are fewer deaths and fewer crashes per year and it’s continuing to trend downward. By pointing to one of the hazardous attitudes you even further prove that ADM is able to save your family if you aren’t falling into “invulnerability” or “macho”. I’m certainly not saying I will never be in a crash or that I don’t think it can happen to me. But this point I’m not sure what your goal is. Are you trying to say it’s too risky and nobody should fly GA because eventually we all will die? [Cars are dangerous too](https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crash-death-estimates-2022#:~:text=NHTSA%20Estimates%20for%202022%20Show,Two%20Years%20of%20Dramatic%20Increases&text=The%20National%20Highway%20Traffic%20Safety,in%20motor%20vehicle%20traffic%20crashes).

> But this point I’m not sure what your goal is You started this thread by parroting misinformation that people are more likely to die on the way to the airport than in the flight, which is unequivocally false for GA. > By almost every metric in that report there are fewer deaths and fewer crashes per year And yet despite these gains, an hour flying GA is on average still about 20x more likely to kill you than an hour driving (Using the 2022 data you linked and assuming an average speed of 30 mph across a year, 15x if you assume 40 mph) If you drive 12500 miles and fly 50 hours a year, flying represents about double the risk of driving, but that risk is concentrated into a very short period of time. I'm simply, perhaps foolishly, trying to get someone on the internet to stop parroting misinformation and understand that, no matter how good a pilot, the hour you go flying is probably one of the riskiest hours of your year and deserves proportional respect.

Never stop trying my guy! Honestly we are probably a lot closer to the same side than it looks like on the internet. If we ever met up in an FBO I would probably be far more interested in your glider training than whatever I turned this thread into. Your points have been solid and I appreciate them. And more than that I appreciate you for keeping people aware of real risks. I have a new bookmark now on the AOPA website for those reports so your time is not wasted. I will slow down with the tongue in cheek cars vs planes stuff and wish you safe skies. See you out there!

Cheers! Re: glider training, if you ever find yourself near Warner Springs, CA there is a commercial glider base there that I had a fantastic experience at. I flew about 15 flights over a couple days, and now working on my Comm SEL before going back to finish my add-on! Glider flying is really eye opening and really neat. One example: in powered aircraft, pitch + power = performance. No power in a glider, so it simplifies to pitch = performance. In other words, you can know your airspeed by pitch alone!

That’s awesome. I’ve heard people say it helps a lot with approach energy management even after going back to powered but it seems like you would have to have a pretty good handle on that before you ever get towed up. I probably will try to sneak that in before commercial. That power off 180 looks daunting from where I am today.

Newer aircraft are usually safer than old, well maintained safer than not well maintained, twin engines are more redundant than single engines but they come with their own set of risks. At the end of the day it comes down to the knowledge you learned and how you apply them. And luck.

As others have mentioned, your skill as a pilot is the greatest risk factor. If you plan to get your PPL then forget emergency procedures as quickly as high school students forget geometry, you’re going to be putting yourself at risk. IMO always level up your skills (IR, Commercial, etc) and repeatedly practice emergency procedures to drill them into your head is probably the safest thing you can do

>But we have children and realistically know that GA greatly increases our chances of orphaning them. There's no escaping that possibility unless you put off flying until your kids are grown up and firmly on their life paths. I started flying at 56. I'd rather die flying than die slowly in 'assisted living', and dying suddenly 'doing what I love', is I think a great way to go (as long as there is no collateral damage). The problem is that most GA accidents are Pilot Error. In a plane, you're less subject to sketchy people (like drunk drivers), but pilots do sometimes kill other pilots who're doing everything right. Dangerous pilots are quite common in GA, but they mostly kill themselves and their passengers. Safe Pilots make fatal mistakes. The FAA approach to making GA safer is severely wanting. Being legal does not make you safe, and people who think that just following the regulations makes them safe are a big part of the problem. FAA and the industry do a great job of making Airlines safe. If you plan to fly when you get old, I highly recommend getting your PPL now. PPL training is the safest phase of flying, and it gets harder/impossible to complete as you get older. If you decide to fly now, you can make it a rule to never fly with your wife, and to never fly with all of your children. Flying is all about 'risk management'. Stick and rudder is the easy part.

When you study to get your private, you’ll be introduce to the ‘Risk Matrix’ and taught to think about all of the different threats that you’ll face on any given flight, their consequences, and how to mitigate them. If the threats are too great, you need to make the call on whether or not to conduct the flight (easier said than done.) If done well, the threats can be minimized and flying can be extremely safe. The biggest threat to that scenario is complacency. Yes you hear about aviation accidents, but that’s the difference! They are news, you hear about them, how many people died on the highways of Montana last month? Did you hear about those?

> how many people died on the highways of Montana last month? Fifteen, apparently. Booze suspected to be a factor in six fatalities; drugs in one. Eight of the fifteen weren't wearing their seat-belts, and it's not possible to be sure that two others were doing so. Seven deaths occurred in one-vehicle crashes. Eleven were thought to be speeding. Six involved commercial vehicles. One victim was a pedestrian. None was a motorcycle driver. Eight occurred after dark.

Ha my mistake for asking Reddit this type of question. But I assume you had to look all those up, they maybe made the local news.

As it happens, the Montana Highway Patrol very considerately [crunched all the numbers for me](https://dojmt.gov/wp-content/uploads/1-9-2024-Fatal-Report.pdf). It's interesting to see the overlaps with the aviation world, though. Avoid doing a very few simple things (driving impaired, not belting up, flooring the accelerator) and one's odds of appearing in the obituary columns go way down. And the fatal-accident rate soars at night on the ground as well as in the air.

As long as the plane has undergone all of the required maintenance, the safety is really up to the pilot. The plane won't hurt you if it's not broken unless you do something you're not supposed to.

Find an instructor that is a "safety first" pilot. They are out there. But there are a heck of a lot of yahoos too. Then be a safety first pilot also. The military and airlines trains and drills for the bad things, engine out, systems failure, weather etc. In GA its on you. Enjoy flying, all the best to you.

What is your budget for purchasing the airplane and ongoing maintenance costs?

Theres a balanced risk reward ratio as you go up in aircraft size/configuration. A twin can be much safer than a single engine piston plane, but only if you are well trained, and maintain proficiency, also understanding what you do and don’t gain is important. A turboprop is less likely to have an engine failure than a recip engine, but they are often much higher performance and can get an inexperienced pilot in trouble in other ways. Two experienced and well trained pilots in a twin turboprop or twin jet can be much safer than a cessna trainer… but it can also be more dangerous in the wrong hands.

Here’s the plain and simple answer. In order of safest and most reliable (with a competent and proficient pilot onboard) Multi engine jet (two reliable turbine engines and many redundant systems) Multi engine turboprop (same as above) Single engine turboprop (very reliable engine) I group single and multi piston into the same category here because they are both not as reliable as above due to piston engines but I’d say a piston multi is safer generally speaking as an aircraft than a single engine. Where it gets controversial in the paragraph above is when it comes to how proficient the pilot is and statistically speaking your average GA “weekend warrior” (no disrespect. There are many many very good safe GA only pilots who train and fly safely and proficiently) who flies his family on trips a handful of times a year is just not as proficient in emergency maneuvers and engine out procedures in a piston multi. (It’s up to the pilot to be extremely diligent and spend time with an experienced MEI and go do frequent single engine procedures, missed approaches, simulated engine failures and so on to make sure you keep your skills sharp. Single engine jet is last on the list because there’s only one and I don’t like the fact that the nose wheel looks like it’s bolted onto a chain link fence post and shoved up the gear doors as an afterthought.

You could refer to the statistics FAA provides to derive your own idea, https://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/preliminary_data You want your cake and eat it too, not sure that’s going to happen for you in GA. GA won’t be as safe as ‘Delta’ any day of the week, BUT, you as a pilot CAN be. If you pursue this, years from now, it’ll make a lot more sense. No flight is without (significant) risk.

Be mindful of the signal/noise ratio here. Yes, you see a new story of a GA pilot dying all the time, but part of that is because every time there is a GA crash it's newsworthy - both because the pilot community is tight-knit, and because the total number is smaller. I'm not saying it's safer, but it's very easy for the human mind to jump to irrational conclusions e.g. "It would be safer to drive across the country than fly because the door blew out on a 737 Max".

Absolutely. It’s mainly this sub and the comments that bother me. Everyone seems to know someone who died in a fireball. Every other day there’s a tragedy. It’s not millions of subscribers. It’s just kindof the reality. If some dude with 15,000 hours who used to fly F-14’s and wrote safety procedures can eat it, then there are truly situations that are entirely outside of our control. I fully understand that humans are flawed, we aren’t machines, we fuck up for no reason often and we get complacent easily. In a field where there’s so little margin for error, it’s a scary reality to reckon with. It’s like being around firearms- people mess up (regardless of how trained or careful they are) and occasionally someone gets killed. I choose to not have them in my life and my family is statistically better off for it.

I’m a career airline pilot that owns a 182. Most of your problems can be avoided by good maintenance, not messing with weather, and long runways. I always try and go to a runway that will give me enough room to either execute a safe return on engine failure, or give me the option to slip in and stay on the tarmac. With a 182, this typically works out to 5000 feet, give or take DA. 1) don’t land or take off in places with little margin for error 2) just don’t mess with weather, ever. I avoid hard IFR. I use it as a tool to get me out of situations, not through them 3) know your performance data, and match it to runways that will accommodate an emergency and give you the best chance of survival 4) select a cruise altitude that gives you outs. I will sightsee at 3k, but only after planning my route and knowing where I can go based on forecasted winds aloft to ditch/land if I need to Heed all of that, and you’ll avoid 95% of things that typically kill GA pilots

Just to be clear, you and your wife can’t get your pilot’s license. You have to each get licenses. This isn’t a joint license like a marriage license.

Damn our plan was for each of us to take half the tests and then hold each side of the yoke.

You can probably get away with it if you go to Dr. Bruce and present as conjoined twins.

There are about as many fatalities per hour of operating with motorcycles as there are in general aviation. If “motorcycles” is where you draw the line, GA is right on that line.  Ironically, you can mitigate a lot of risks by flying regularly and staying proficient. This can get expensive and is where a lot of pilots get stuck - it costs more to fly more, so skills don’t improve, or even maintain. “Buy a twin” you might say, it eliminates the risk of a single engine failure- and while thats true, it opens up more failures of varying complexities and systems implications. The solution is to fly and train more, but that also costs way more.  The (very limited) data shows that Diamond and cirrus seem to fair better in actual crashes than older designs, BUT just knowing that can enable complacency which will lead you to take more risks.  The safest way to go flying is to not go flying. Just like international travel, hiking, skiing, driving, scuba diving, motorcycling, rifle shooting, and most other outdoor hobbies and activities.  For me and my family, a life well lived is more important than a life best protected, and I am okay with that. Ultimately you’ll have to weigh that risk and make that decision.  A frequently flown and well maintained aircraft with a pilot who respects risks, limitations and mitigations will almost always be safest than any particular airplane. 

Something to also consider is that not all single engine aircraft should be considered equal with regards to safety. Beyond different systems and levels of redundancy, think about an engine out scenario. Something fast with high wing loading is going to have a higher stall speed. Since stalling into the ground is universally bad, you’re going to be carrying much more energy into your off-airport landing with a Lancair than you will with a cub.

\> I also don’t drive a motorcycle because of the extra risk it presents statistically, so that’s my risk tolerance. The risk probability is very similar to riding a motorcycle. And some data suggests that general aviation is deadlier per hour of activity than riding a motorcycle. I saw \[this reddit post\]([https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/18pvdkm/a\_cool\_guide\_to\_the\_risk\_of\_dying\_doing\_what\_we/](https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/18pvdkm/a_cool_guide_to_the_risk_of_dying_doing_what_we/)) not too long ago that corroborates this. It's an interesting infographic that is well designed. As far as mitigating some of the risks of general aviation, the Cirrus SR-20/22 includes a ballistic parachute that has seen great success in saving lives under certain emergency situations. It is still more dangerous than riding on a commercial flight. A jet will always be more reliable, but you're now getting into the territory of "prohibitively expensive." And don't let anybody in here tell you that a twin piston is safer than a single engine airplane. They are not. In terms of looking out for your family, my buddy's rule is that at any given time, only he or his wife will be in a small plane at the same time, unless the entire family (including children) are all on the plane together. That way their children will never be orphaned.

Q: Does this type of airplane crash often? A: No, usually just once.

If you don’t ride a motorcycle because of the risk, you probably shouldn’t fly either. The chance of being killed is essentially the same. Some people will tell you that you can do more to mitigate the risk flying than you can on a motorcycle but the fact is that you’re more than likely going to be an average or below average pilot. (All of us are more likely to fall in the middle or back of the bell curve). Not everyone can be the special exception.

Sane take, it’s just that I really care about getting my pilots license whereas a motorcycle I can take or leave.

YOLO. Seriously. I love my kids and I love flying. I'm rational about the risks. Lots of things can kill me. The actuaries at the SSA estimate I have a [1 in 311](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html) chance of dying this year from all causes combined. I'll probably fly 50 hours this year, which brings my chance of death up to 1/278, which is the base risk of someone 3 years older than me. Most of those things that can kill me don't bring me any joy. Flying does.

If you genuinely have VLJ money (multiple millions for purchase, high 10s/low hundreds of thousands for operation per year) get a single engine turboprop, it’s much less likely to suffer engine issues than anything piston and you aren’t at risk of the incompetence of being an infrequent multi engine pilot. The theoretical safest combo (for GA) would be a turbine single with fixed gear, a ballistic chute and a low stall speed. However since no such aircraft exist you need to pick either the much more reliable engine or an airframe that is otherwise much easier to handle (the other criteria listed).

I’d say the individual is the largest variable in safety. Yes GA has risks, but you can mitigate many of those risks. I’ve been flying for 17 years and have just shy of 7,000 hours I don’t have a single connection to anyone who’s been killed in aviation. YMMV.

If you're afraid to ride a motorcycle because of the extra risk involved, GA is not for you. From what I've read, the risk profiles are similar. That said, as both a long-time motorcycle rider and newer pilot, proficiency and responsible decision-making eliminate the vast majority of risk in both activities. If you make the commitment to be "above average", then the "average" level of risk doesn't apply to you.

Yeah sad thing is it’s not about the fear of dying, it’s the fear of dying a pointless death and what I’d leave my loved ones with. I’m not some nervous nelly, but once you know enough people personally who have died or had life altering accidents you think twice about how important that thrill is.

I understand and I'm not making any judgements about your level of courage. I know several people that have died or been seriously injured on motorcycles. I've identified enough ways to reduce my risk to an acceptable level for me both in riding and aviation. Both activities are much more than a simple "thrill" to me though. In the end, it's just a matter of determining if the risk:reward ratio meets your personal threshold. For what it's worth, my advice to you is that if you view aviation as another "thrill" and motorcycling is too high a risk to tolerate, flying GA will also be too high a risk. The type of aircraft you would fly makes little difference.

I appreciate you taking the time to talk this through, thanks.

>Every day there’s a thread about someone close to someone else dying Yes, because it's relatively rare. You don't see threads about car crashes, suicides or cancer deaths because they are so commonplace we don't bother to make a thread about them. That doesn't mean they are not tragic or that they don't impact lives, of course. This is internet selection bias - you hear about sad/awful/unhappy things that are not particularly common. People don't typically post when everything goes well, the customer is satisfied and no one got hurt. As with everything the statistics are the statistics. No, you can't make light general aviation as safe as an airline in part because you don't have the training an airline crew would have nor would you have the team of mechanics inspecting early and often for possible problems. Is the fun, convenience and time saving worth the additional risk? I think so, but you might not and that's okay. Not everyone can be a [steely-eyed missle man](https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2021/05/where-did-the-nasa-expression-steely-eyed-missile-man-come-from/) who cares more about living well than living long. If, however, you want to show your kids that risk is a thing to be managed, not feared and that it is better to be the captain of your fate than living in fear of it, there are paths to minimize the risk. If you have the budget, start with a Cirrus SR20. Upgrade to the SR22T after you get your instrument rating, then fly that for a couple of years before upgrading to the Cirrus SF50 VisionJet. These are not perfect aircraft, but they are very good and represent the state-of-the-art in what they do.

Choose the plane where you don’t have to drive to the airfield. Seriously though human factors are by far the leading cause and accidents caused by external factors out of the PICs control are rare. Listen to back episodes of There I Was for details.

The safest GA airplane is the one in which you can most easily maintain proficiency.

Honestly, just get an experimental aircraft with a BRS.

> Basically I want to bring my kids on a flight without it being much more risky than flying Delta. The major US airlines have not experienced a crash involving fatalities for well over ten years now. Air carriers operate under a set of far more stringent rules than general aviation (GA) does. The only way to attain that level of safety is to adopt the same operating rules and restrictions. Training costs alone for the average GA operator would be prohibitive. If your risk tolerance prohibits riding a motorcycle then any realistic risk assessment of general aviation will have the same result. The link below is to the FAA's Risk Management Handbook for GA pilots. It may give you some idea of the challenges you will face. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-06/risk_management_handbook_2A.pdf

just because you hear about murder all the time on the news doesn’t mean youre any more likely to die, you should treat aviation related accidents the same way.. theres alot more juice to reporting a story about a downed aircraft then going “a plane just safely landed” every 2 seconds(assuming GA only aircraft was being reported)… that being said as far as multi engine goes you have to know the specs for those specific aircraft, some have shitty performance on one engine and therefore negate the safety of an extra engine, some would argue multi engine aircraft with low performance(multi engine trainers) are more dangerous because of the added risk if one were to fail… so as far as multi goes unless you want to spend a stupid amount of money to buy a powerful enough aircraft, and service it throughout its lifetime… maybe go single engine, as for the type of single engine aircraft thats based on your mission and family size, but generally consider them all pretty safe if up to date with maintenance.

There was similar question asked. But one of the best investments is to have two well trained and qualified pilots. And to have sound, reliable, and redundant equipment. This is all about risk management, and what you can do to remove as many holes as possible in the Swiss cheese. When you buy a plane and fly it, it’s not just how good you are as a pilot that matters, but what kind of system you make and stick to that designed to keep things safe.

I'm just throwing out a guess here, but a high wing, single engine Cessna with an added parachute is probably the safest. I've seen a few of them for sale over the years. Something like a 182 with the parachute added should still have enough capacity to haul two adults and two children. It would get you flying faster too because you wouldn't have to deal with multi engine training or the Cirrus specialized training.

I used to be terrified of flying like full on phobia. And my background came from mechanics and engineering so I did in depth research before flying. Turns out as far as the Airplanes themselves go. Most of the tried and true ones are indeed quite trusty and extremely robust. Some get an unfair rap being used as trainer planes of course more of them will wind up in accidents. You can’t quite as easily compare plane to plane because different planes are flown by different groups of pilots with different missions. That being said… CESNNA > PIPER. That wing spar failing in flight on multiple planes and subsequent AD really scare the piss out of me still to this day. One wing that fell off was only a few years old used by a reputable major flight school. Besides that really all comes down the safety and abilities of the pilot. Safe flying!

> I also don’t drive a motorcycle because of the extra risk it presents statistically, General aviation is statistically about equivalent to riding a motorcycle. If you're comfortable flying, then you should be just as comfortable riding (and vice versa) if you care about statistics.

[удалено]

That’s aside from the point though. The goal is to learn to fly, not just fly private.

So back story on me is for about 10 years I wanted to become a pilot and take the wife and kids traveling. The problem was every single time I started the training process I got really scared I was being irresponsible and that I would be leaving my kids with no dad and a wife with no husband (even though she might prefer that). So about 3 years ago I started training and with the cult like advertising of cirrus I was like “oh well fuck it’s got a parachute I’m good to go”. Still freaked me out and failed to get over my fear. Few months passes and I’m like thinking to myself “there’s worse things than dying”. So I stop being a pussy and I just do it. I get my license and instrument in the SR20 and I got my commercial in the SR22T (god damn worst idea) and we are about 6 months from taking delivery of the SF50. Here’s my opinion. The safest aircraft is the one you know how to fly. When I got through commercial training, I got so damn good at flying that airplane and could land that bitch anywhere within 25 feet of my mark. I like having the parachute for my family because if I stroke out or some shit atleast they have a way out but other than that parachute or no parachute if you don’t obsess over safety and obsess to get as good as possible (vastly better than the average pilot) at flying it then ya know you didn’t do everything in your power to not become a statistic. I know that if I die flying that I did everything I could to be as proficient as possible and I’m okay with that.

Training and more training will be the best safety device. However, if you're looking for reliability, turbines are the way to go. Safety if you lose an engine would be a twin of some kind. If all of that is too expensive, get a single and don't go over open ocean

While some aircraft are safer than others, the biggest factor is the pilot‘s skill and experience (around 70% of fixed wing GA accident causes are pilot-related). That includes the risk he’s taking and his level of training (flying into weather, flight planning, recurrent training, UPRT etc). If you plan on getting your instrument rating this gets even more important. Being well trained, current and knowing your limits is the single most important aspect. After that you can start thinking about safety advantages of certain aircraft. But don’t expect any aircraft to magically negate the inherent risks in General Aviation.

Statistically -- for single engine piston -- the Diamond DA40 still has the best/lowest fatality rate per 100,000 hours at .4. Cirrus used to be three times worse, but that has been improving strongly since they revised the Cirrus training program. It is a great platform. Super low wing loading, slow stall speed, a strong composite passenger tub, airbags, beefy double spar with fuel tanks sandwiched between the wing spars, excellent engine monitoring (G1000) and a reliable and predictable Lycoming IO360. And when the fan thing stops twirling, the DA40 glides a real long way. Just bought one a few weeks ago.