Accidents Rates by Time in Type

Bryan Wood · #1 01-06-2006, 06:12 PM

A co-worker attended an AOPA safety seminar last night and brought me a brochure from the class today. Thought this might be of some interest to the group. These are pilot total time in type and the percent of accidents for different levels of experience in aircraft type.

0 - 100 hours 41.6%
101 - 200 hours 14.5%
201 - 300 hours 8.9%
301 - 400 hours 2.3%
401 - 500 hours 3.6%
501 - 600 hours 4.4%
601 - 700 hours 2.5%
701 - 800 hours 1.5%
801 - 900 hours 2.3%
901 -1000 hours 2.3%
1000 plus hours 13.2%

There is no information given for the time frame that this information comes from listed, or how recent it is. At first glance they don't seem to add up to 100%, but I haven't bothered to check, just listing the numbers as they appear. Doesn't it seem odd that once you get 1000 hours in type you seem to forget how to fly? What's that all about?

Regards,
Bryan 9A

Kyle Boatright · #2 01-06-2006, 06:20 PM

The guy with >1,000 hours may, in fact have 20,000 hours. If he has one accident between 1,000 and 20,000 hours, he falls into the last category. That doesn't mean he's more accident prone, just that he has spent more time in the left seat and has more exposure to accidents.

If you looked at the accident rate per 100 or 1,000 hours, it would be FAR lower for people with lots and lots of hours.

Bob Axsom · #3 01-06-2006, 07:00 PM

I think you should look at this as saying the first 100 hours of flying are the most dangerous because the pilots are just learning how to fly. Then the rate tapers off as pilots gain a little experience and appreciation of the things that cause accidents. As the magic "I know everything about flying this airplane and the box it came in" milestone of 500 hours rolls around a little carelessness sets in and the rate increases again. Then it tapers off until the really big milestone of 1,000 hours comes into view and there is a mild rise to a plateau of 2.3% until the pilots have completed 1,000 hours where well over 80% of the accidents that happen, have happened. Trying to make any more out of it than that is a waste of time I believe. You have to be careful all the time and the more time you have the more careful (not scared) you become.

Bob Axsom

gmcjetpilot · #4 01-06-2006, 08:16 PM

Statistic are interesting

I guess you can draw some conclusion? By liars figure and figures lie.

Like was pointed out if you have 20,000 hours you are clearly prone to more flight hours and potential for accidents.

Clearly flying is dangerous, and accidents can happen to anyone at anytime. Any carelessness or complacency regardless of hours as a pilot can result in less than a successful flight.

AOPA has spent some time calculating this info and it is interesting. Type of flying, age, equipment and type and reason for the accidents would illuminate even more insight. All I know is if I am not careful, conscientious, vigilant, maintain my plane and fly within mine and the planes limits I can become a statistic any time and on any day.

Because of the recent tragic mine worker accident in PA, the news has posted the most dangerous jobs. I was surprised to hear airline pilot was one of the top dangerous occupations, even though airline flight is the safest mode of transportation. Hummmmmm George

Bryan Wood · #5 01-06-2006, 08:20 PM

Bob,

The interesting thing about these numbers was that they didn't refer to total time for the pilots, but rather total time in type for the planes involved in accidents. It's probably a good bet that they are closely linked, but there wasn't enough information to know for sure. Point well taken on the first 100 hours in type being a higher risk. That number jumps out so dramatically from the other numbers that I moved on to the 1000 and over crowd wondering what the explanation could be for that. At the very least it kind of explains why insurance costs so much for new RV pilots, or new retract pilots, etc.

Doug, if you see this how about setting up an area where we can input our hours, insured hull values, etc. and how much we are paying for insurance. This would be nice for all of us to see how competive differing companies are, the rates for different RV's including the nosewheel tailwheel thing, and the various thresholds for pilot total time. How much does an instrument rating bring down the insurance, or is that a misconception? This insurance thing seems to be an area that many have questions on and with our sheer numbers we could really nail it down.

Bryan 9A

Ironflight · #6 01-06-2006, 10:19 PM

I look at so many risk figures and probabilities in my work that I have learned to look more at how the data is presented than the numbers themselves. My first thought (like everyone's) when I saw this was that most (close to half) of the accidents happen with less than 100 hours in type. Then I noticed what looked like as an anomaly above 1000. Then I looked at how the scale is changing - after 300 hours, it is essentially flat at 2-4%, and I bet it is asymptotic to zero above 1000. No surprise!

Can't wait to get past the 100 hour mark in my -8! I've got 70 now - whew, I'm almost safe!

Paul

alpinelakespilot2000 · #7 01-06-2006, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan Wood

Doug, if you see this how about setting up an area where we can input our hours, insured hull values, etc. and how much we are paying for insurance. This would be nice for all of us to see how competive differing companies are, the rates for different RV's including the nosewheel tailwheel thing, and the various thresholds for pilot total time. How much does an instrument rating bring down the insurance, or is that a misconception? This insurance thing seems to be an area that many have questions on and with our sheer numbers we could really nail it down.

Bryan 9A

A second for Bryan's idea, Doug.

rv8ch · #8 01-07-2006, 06:37 AM

Quote:

0 - 100 hours 41.6%

I'll bet the first 100 breaks down something like this:

0-10 hours 25.1%
10-100 hours 16.5%

DeltaRomeo · #9 01-07-2006, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan Wood

Bob,

Doug, if you see this how about setting up an area where we can input our hours, insured hull values, etc. and how much we are paying for insurance. This would be nice for all of us to see how competive differing companies are, the rates for different RV's including the nosewheel tailwheel thing, and the various thresholds for pilot total time. How much does an instrument rating bring down the insurance, or is that a misconception? This insurance thing seems to be an area that many have questions on and with our sheer numbers we could really nail it down.

Bryan 9A

As an temporary solutions, what do you think about just adding a line to your autosignature? Like this....

RV-X TT in type XXX PPSEL
Nationair. $X,XXX/yr $XX,XXX hull coverage

...would be easy to update yourself and it would be applied to all threads you've ever done.

Just thinking....

D

PS: Great formation flight this morning. The air was 48F, no clouds, light wind. Good fun.

John C · #10 01-07-2006, 04:41 PM

The numbers could be normalized further. For example, if there are 20 times more active pilots in the the 0-100 range than in the 900-1000 range, the accident rates would be about the same for both groups. The "in type" qualification is interesting. A 10,000 hour pilot with 20 hours in type should be much safer that the "average" 20-hour-in-type pilot. Just be careful with first impressions with these kinds of numbers. Regards, John.