Hi,Apologies for the rather unusual topic but was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts to reassure a nervous flier that flying in a Cessna 172 is really safe. As I mentioned in an earlier topic I'm a nervous flier who recently started taking a few trial lessons to see if I could overcome my fear of flying. Have taken 3 lessons and was still pretty scared during the last lesson (although it doesn't seem to get in the way of my flying I can still handle turns, simple climbs and descents ok when under instruction).I think the main problem with my fear is that I still don't believe that flying in a Cessna 172 or light aircraft is safe and I would rather have my feet on the ground. But my dream (like everyone I guess) is to become an airline pilot(!) so I would like to continue with flight training and hopefully get over my fear. I guess my request is simply for any info which someone might have which might be able to change my mind that flying in a Cessna 172 really is safe (have been reading up on how a plane flies and that it's the airframe planing the air so it won't fall but I still get scared!).Any comments etc. welcome.Many thanks,Pierre.

Hi,Apologies for the rather unusual topic but was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts to reassure a nervous flier that flying in a Cessna 172 is really safe. As I mentioned in an earlier topic I'm a nervous flier who recently started taking a few trial lessons to see if I could overcome my fear of flying. Have taken 3 lessons and was still pretty scared during the last lesson (although it doesn't seem to get in the way of my flying I can still handle turns, simple climbs and descents ok when under instruction).I think the main problem with my fear is that I still don't believe that flying in a Cessna 172 or light aircraft is safe and I would rather have my feet on the ground. But my dream (like everyone I guess) is to become an airline pilot(!) so I would like to continue with flight training and hopefully get over my fear. I guess my request is simply for any info which someone might have which might be able to change my mind that flying in a Cessna 172 really is safe (have been reading up on how a plane flies and that it's the airframe planing the air so it won't fall but I still get scared!).Any comments etc. welcome.Many thanks,Pierre.

There are statistics out there-by recollection if I recall correctly (which I probably don't) you have about a chance of dying 1.2 times in 100,000 hours of flying a 172.However, when reading the stats one really has to look into them. For instance the majority of accidents are caused by 1) running out of fuel, and 2) going into bad weather that either exceeds the pilot's or plane's capability. Engine failure or structural failure which is probably what you are worried about happens rarely.If you don't see yourself as doing either (1-2) the odds go down considerably.If you think about it-life is a risk from the time you are born. It is really all how you manage that risk.

Pierre,Yes indeed, like Geofa says "Risk Management" applies to everything in life. You really should be more nervous and afraid in the car going to and from the airport, this is where it is more dangerous to be. (not to try and add to your problems)Keep in your mind that an airplane has been designed to fly and WANTS to fly. I'd think by now you have had the aircraft trimmed to fly hands off, so should know you don't have to hold it up there with your strength or wishful thinking...Pay attention to the preflight check and know what each item really is and what it means to you as a person riding in the aircraft, don't just do a walk around with the instructor and let it go in one ear and out the other, ask questions of the instructor EVERY time you don't know what is going on or what you should be looking at etc. See for yourself that the aircraft is fit for flight and that you will be safe flying in it.Read about all those systems onboard, knowing what they do and when they are used can sure help you when your brain is trying to say you are doing something unsafe and to be scared. I'm betting you are scared and nervous of the unknown and after it's "known" you can relax about what you think MIGHT happen and enjoy what IS happening more.Within the first 8-10 hours of instruction you will feel so much better and have learned and experienced so much more.. keep flying and don't wait too long between lessons either.

Last two posters mention statistics. That's all you've got, but they sure make aviation (general aviation and air carrier) look a lot safer than driving your car.The last poster mentioned being afraid of the "unknown". If by unknown he means other unseen traffic, the aircraft breaking, loosing control of the aircraft, or general fear of falling, then I bet fear of the "unknown" is your problem. In that case they are irrational fears (except traffic, stay diligent in avoiding it) and should be handled as such.Trust me; As a pilot, some of the same fears that would arise in a tin can C152 can show themselves while flying a heavier aircraft. And you have to start small!I should also mention I used to have tiny panic attacks in the plane when I was a student doing solo cross countries. I would be climbing away from the departure airport and suddenly have the urge to push the nose over for traffic. And the horrible thoughts that popped into my head (thanks Mom)! After time those irrational fears left me, and now my only real fear is very low minimums at airports I've never visited.

Even though I've never been in a Cessna 172 or even flown in real life, what staggering said is very true. If you read my about me page you can see a bit about. Before I found out about Flight Simulator I was SCARED of airplanes and I mean scared like I wouldn't even want to go visit my home country, because of what happened in a certain year. When a plane passed over me I never looked at it, and if a helicopter passed over the house I would be scared. (still a bit scared of helis lol, especially when the pass over the house and sound like they are on the roof or something :(). I was introduced to FSX and never looked back. I study aviation a lot and enjoy it and hope to become a private pilot someday, who knows, maybe I'll even be a commerical pilot. I started last year in Feb. 2008. I did the lessons in the learning center in FSX which are helpful and more advanced than everyone thinks. When you know how a plane operates and what redundancy and safety features it has, it makes you feel like its VERY safe. Now anytime I see something in aviaition I don't know I google it or read manuals, and I'm currently trying to finish the FAA AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual) which as many guidelines that a pilot must follow, which keeps flights safe, and adds a lot to your knowledge of rules and flying.Many planes today have a glass cockpits, and have a traffic display which shows you the altitude they are from you, the distance, and will alert you if traffic is within a certain range heading in direction where you should use caution. Airliners today have TCAS system that tell the pilot the direction, altitude, sometimes heading, and will have a RA (Resolution Advisory?) mode that will tell the pilot in a firm tone to descend, climb, immediately, and will show them how to resolve the problem on the PFD and/or MFD. Air Traffic Controller Radars, have traffic systems, that use many special algorithms to detect if two planes are on a collision course and can tell the controller very very early, before there is even a chance of danger, if two or more planes will get very close. Also don't forget like everyone else says. Today, still over 50% of crashes are caused by pilot error, and if you are on youtube you can see some very stupid mistakes. Here are some very dumb mistakes (not to scare, you but to give you more knowledge, so you know how planes operate, which can also help you and other readers to avoid problems in the future.)There was a Cessna 182 taking of in Venezuela to transport someone to the hospital if I remember correctly, and it definitely looked like it was easily over the MTOW (Maximum TakeOff Weight). The plane tookoff, and because of ground effect (google is your friend) it was able to lift off, but shortly after lifting off it had difficulty climbing, it stayed in the air, but the plane had a high angle of attack and was unable to gain altitude. After a few hundred or thousand feet, the plane crashed into a building.What happened, who could this be prevented?

1. The pilot may have loaded the plane over its limits and/or it could have had an extreme center of gravity
2. The pilot used full flaps on a dirt runway, but for takeoff on a soft or short field 0-20 degrees is the norm, 30 causes too much drag.
3. It seemed like the pilot tried to retract the flaps all at once
4. After the plane left the ground because of ground effect, it was unable to climb, the plane had a high angle of attack, and low airspeed. The pilot should have brought the airplane back down, once he noticed he was unable to climb
5. The pilot could have retracted the flaps slowly.
6. The pilot should have estimated the weight of his passengers and equipment

This is an airliner incident. Eastern Airlines 401.It was a dark night and a plane was about to land in an airport in Florida. The plane was a tri-engine Lookheed L1011, turobfan airplane. The plane was on its descent into the vicinity of the airport when it retracted its gear and the nose gear light didn't come on. The copilot tried to check if the bulb burnt for the nose gear indicator. He took off the plastic cover which protected the light on the landing gear indicator, and couldn't figure out if it was burnt out. He tried to put the plastic cover back on, but was unable (which was said to be very easy to do), the pilot got frustrated and turned the autopilot on. The pilot screamed at the copilot and was distracted from looking at his instruments and told the co-pilot that he doesn't have time for this. The pilot told the flight engineer to go into a compartment underneath the cockpit because it has a window in which you can view if the nose gear was down, but it was too dark outside to see it. The pilot forgot to check his instruments and thought the autopilot would maintain the altitude, and heading, but it did not (I will explain why later). The plane came very close to the ground and was around 1,100 ft I think, but it was too late at that time. The pilot was unable to recover control and the aircraft crashed... Luckily there was someone frog hunting in the everglades and witnessed it and went to the scene to see the crash. There was some people still alive fortunately, and a search and rescue team arrived. The bad thing was the crashed in a swamp with lots of bacteria, and since the victims were cut and bruised it was easy for things to go inside them. The people that got the bacteria had to be put in a pressurized oxygen chamber to kill the bacteria and they were fine after that :(. Moving on....What happened, how could this be prevented:

1. The pilot was disctrated and everyone in the plane was focused on the same problem, no one monitored the intruments or flew the plane
2. The pilot lost his temper which is pretty bad if its over a stupid landing gear light
3. The pilot did not attempt to fly past an airport and see if the tower or anyone could see a nose gear. Even if its dark, its better to be safe than sorry.
4. I am not sure about how the lights are position on the L1011, but the pilot could have turned the landing gear lights on and if there was one attached to the nose, you would be able to see and know the gear is down by looking for lights.
5. The air traffic controller was on the phone, and ignored the warning sign about the aircraft approaching terrain
6. The pilot either activated the CWS (control wheel steering) part of the autopilot, or he nudged the yoke disengaging the autopilot. If CWS was on that meant the plane would not hold the altitude. I think on the L1011 if a plane was disconnected from autopilot and would not give you an aural warning.
7. The crew failed to hear the warning sounds that tells the plane it is approaching terrain (GPWS).

Some other dumb pilot errors:*VFR pilot flying into IFR conditions*Flying VFR when visibility is less than 3 statue miles*Not flying 500 below a cloud, 1,000 above, or 1,000 horizontally (depends on airspace)*Not checking for traffic when flying IFR, or not checking traffic, just because you have VFR flight following (The ATC expects the PILOT to watch out for himself, on if his workload permits will he/she then warn you)*Not doing preflight checks*Not checking your weight and balance, which is a very common factor (There are some youtube videos of planes crashing after takeoff, because of weight and balance, slope of runway, etc)*Not checking density & pressure altitude*Not going around when its too late, and forcing a plane to land (There was a plane in the carribeans that crashed in the sand after he/she landed too late)*Ignoring traffic warnings*Not going through checklists*Not using Sectional charts*Not using airport diagrams, approach and departure charts which can give you important information such as elevation of surrounding terrain.*Taking off in low visibility, sometimes at night, sometimes near mountainsAnd the list goes on and on.....That's why as a pilot you have to make sure you are not lazy or assume something will work, you always ALWAYS should check critical info such as weight and balance and density altitude...Remember, be calm when flying, because a pilot that is scared, will have more trouble flying. Read manuals for aircraft, read FAA handbooks, study how things work, always ask questions, they will help you. If you don't know what something is, research it. :( Have fun, and happy flying! B)

When things go wrong, that's where the difference really is.Experiencing when things go wrong, and learning how to react correctly to overcome the problem... that is the critical difference.Since all of that is more or less the 'unknown', because let's face it, you can't put someone in a real aircraft and take them into a life-threatening situation for training... it's a major fear factor.However, hour upon hour upon hour of simulation training dealing with just these things can ingrain what's called 'motor memory' where you will instinctively react and adjust to these situations out of reflexive memory. It can save lives.Other than that danger of the unknown... A C172 is no more dangerous than an SUV on a highway, perhaps even less so.

Other than that danger of the unknown... A C172 is no more dangerous than an SUV on a highway, perhaps even less so.

yup, i feel way more safe in the air in my C172, then driving home on the 405 in Los Angeles on a raining day. Pilots generally follow rules up there and it feels organized. People on the road going 75mph in a huge SUV, talking on the cellphone and messing w/ their iPhones....now that's scary!I've only witnessed one minor "accident" at my airport; but i've seen dozens of serious car accidents happen right in front of my eyes (not caused by me lol)...one came within inches of wiping me out w/ him (and it turned out fatal for the other driver). -feng

Good post Gman, thanks

Good post Gman, thanks

No problem, and just another message to the original poster. If your plane just has an engine failure or something suddenly, which is very very rare in an airplane if you maintain it properly, then you can glide it for a pretty good amount of time depending on altitude. Most engine failures in a C172, attempt landing on a golf course, on a highway, in a field, etc and the 172 handles it just fine, and most of the time there will be little or no damage! Plus the 172 is an excellent glider, unlike heavier planes, so that is the plus side of having a lighter aircraft. If you think about it the 172 isn't really too light of a plane, because of LSA (Light Sport Aircraft), most of these have 80HP engines, and I forgot what the weight requirements are for LSAs, but they are def. lighter than a 172. LSA aircraft are also perfectly safe. Lets put it this way. If you do what you are supposed to do, then you should not have a problem flying at all through your whole experience. One commercial pilot has been flying for very long time and flew 747s, and the worst she has encountered after flying a 747 for over 20 yrs is a broken VHF knob.... Which is something you can ignore. I know you can still tune most knobs without the plastic thing covering. You can also use Com 2 or 3, and there are many other redundancies.

NoType of Flight..............................................Fatalities /1M flight hours Airliner (Scheduled and nonscheduled Part 121)..................................4.03 Commuter Airline (Scheduled Part 135)............................................10.74 Commuter Plane (Nonscheduled Part 135 - Air taxi on demand).........12.24 General Aviation (Private Part 91)........................................... ........22.43 http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htmThe road fatality rate in the US in 2008 was 1.27/100M miles http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx Assuming an average speed of 100 mph for general aviation, the its corresponding fatality rate would be 22.45 fatalities/100M miles. Even if the average speed was 200 mph the it would still be very much higher - 11.26 compared with 1.17 for roads which is ten times higher.

Hello(!),Just to say merci for the replies etc. I will hopefully book another flight this week and see how it goes. The funny thing is I quite enjoy flying in an airliner, making an approach over London or in Nice, France etc. Hopefully if I tell myself that small airplanes are really no different to airliners in terms of they both have horizonal and vertical stabilisers at the back, both fly by the same means etc. I'll be a bit less scared and start to enjoy flying places in small planes and gliders etc.Many thanks and will try to keep you posted on how it goes (hopefully for the better!),Pierre.

NoType of Flight..............................................Fatalities /1M flight hours Airliner (Scheduled and nonscheduled Part 121)..................................4.03 Commuter Airline (Scheduled Part 135)............................................10.74 Commuter Plane (Nonscheduled Part 135 - Air taxi on demand).........12.24 General Aviation (Private Part 91)........................................... ........22.43 http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htmThe road fatality rate in the US in 2008 was 1.27/100M miles http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx Assuming an average speed of 100 mph for general aviation, the its corresponding fatality rate would be 22.45 fatalities/100M miles. Even if the average speed was 200 mph the it would still be very much higher - 11.26 compared with 1.17 for roads which is ten times higher.

From the Nall report for 2007=probably the most comprehensive report one can get (for US operations):http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/08nall.pdfThe fatal rate for 2007 was:1) The rate for fatal accidents was 1.18 per 100,000flight hours 2) Nearly half of all weather-related accidentsresulted from pilots attempting to continueVFR flight into instrument meteorological conditionsHere is the 10 year trend-notice the difference between total accidents and fatal:http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/gatrend.pdfI didn't have time to find the specific report on the 172 but 1.2/100,000 should be pretty close.From reading the report and examining the stats if you are a pilot that will not be flying in weather above your abilities, will not run out of fuel, will not be doing buzzing of friends, check your fuel, the statistics go down even further. that year were roughly a little under 500-40,000 for car drivers.Deaths from Ga flying in a typical year in the US are about 500-cars are about 40,000.You can order an aopa safety guide from them or sporty's which will be very comprehensive. Also Aviation Consumer's Used aircraft guide documents the accident issues.I have the Aopa safety guide on the Beech 33/36 (Bonanza's and A36's) and the "Serious accident" rate is 1.88 per 100,000. Expect a 172 much lower, but with a higher level of fuel exhaustion, vfr into ifr, etc. probs.By the way-these stats come from the FAA's 100,000 standard hour of measure.

Oh Geof... you can't argue with 'mgh'... he is the one person who knows absolutely everything. :(

From the Nall report for 2007=probably the most comprehensive report one can get (for US operations):http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/08nall.pdfThe fatal rate for 2007 was:1) The rate for fatal accidents was 1.18 per 100,000flight hours 2) Nearly half of all weather-related accidentsresulted from pilots attempting to continueVFR flight into instrument meteorological conditionsHere is the 10 year trend-notice the difference between total accidents and fatal:http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/gatrend.pdfI didn't have time to find the specific report on the 172 but 1.2/100,000 should be pretty close.From reading the report and examining the stats if you are a pilot that will not be flying in weather above your abilities, will not run out of fuel, will not be doing buzzing of friends, check your fuel, the statistics go down even further. that year were roughly a little under 500-40,000 for car drivers.Deaths from Ga flying in a typical year in the US are about 500-cars are about 40,000.You can order an aopa safety guide from them or sporty's which will be very comprehensive. Also Aviation Consumer's Used aircraft guide documents the accident issues.I have the Aopa safety guide on the Beech 33/36 (Bonanza's and A36's) and the "Serious accident" rate is 1.88 per 100,000. Expect a 172 much lower, but with a higher level of fuel exhaustion, vfr into ifr, etc. probs.By the way-these stats come from the FAA's 100,000 standard hour of measure.

There is no real difference between our figures. This is not surprising because they both come from the same source - NTSB.The Nall Report gives 1.18 fatal accidents/100000 flight hours. It also states there were 252 fatal accidents with 449 fatalities. Adjusting for this gives 2.102 fatalities/100000 flight hours and 21.02 fatalities/1M flight hours. The small difference between that and the figure I quoted of 22.43 fatalities/1M flight hours is possibly because the NAll report is for 2007 but my figure was for the period 1998 to 2007. The Nall reports hows a generally falling trend in accident rates over that period.

Oh Geof... you can't argue with 'mgh'... he is the one person who knows absolutely everything. :(

I'd rather know absolutley everything than so little that I was reduced to making silly contributions like yours to the discussion!