71% of accidents caused by pilot error

Challenged

Challenged

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,901
Location
Louisiana
Display Name
Display name:
Challenged
I have been wondering lately about the mechanical safety of general aviation, so I decided to pull some numbers from the NTSB(*edit*, originally posted as FAA) and figure out the percentage of accidents that are not due to pilot error.

The data I used from the NTSB is attached, for the curious. Of the 3,103 GA accidents between 2007 and 2009, 904 of them were not due to pilot error: 29%. That number isn't completely correct, however, as I lumped the "Other" and "Unknown" categories into the "Not Pilot Error" numbers, which isn't going to be accurate.

If we were all perfect pilots and never made an error, I would guess that flying GA would be far safer than driving? By how much?

defining_accident_events_2007-2009.png
 
Last edited:
I use to kick back and read NTSB reports at work when I had time to kill. The majority of the reports I read, probably around the number you're stating at 71%, was pilot error.

Most of it was controlled flight into terrain or an issue dealing with IMC which is odd cause according to your chart there it looks like if those two issues were addressed more during training and pilots were more aware of what to do in an IMC situation, LIKE TURN AROUND, or make that no go decision, it might save some lives.

I would how defined those numbers were.... Like were the 250 killed from a loss of control in flight part of the 45 who unintentionally flew into IMC or the 16 who had a midair collision you know.

Kind of makes you feel bad though to know that 15 people died from other situations not related to the more popular known issues that are listed which probably include medical reasons. Very sad.
 
Challenged said:
If we were all perfect pilots and never made an error, I would guess that flying GA would be far safer than driving? By how much?
Click to expand...
So, you're saying that no auto accidents are a result of "driver error".

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rolleyes:
 
I don't think GA will ever be as safe as driving, but you got to go somehow. I like what Jay said in one of his posts:

"Some people think they are getting off this planet alive"
 
There are plenty of engine failures that are pilot related as well, most pilots I meet are clueless as to proper engine management.
 
Mafoo said:
I don't think GA will ever be as safe as driving, but you got to go somehow. I like what Jay said in one of his posts:

"Some people think they are getting off this planet alive"
Click to expand...

I don't personally know anyone that died in a GA accident. Half of my graduating high school class is dead from driving accidents.
 
I guess this is more just a curiosity numbers game on my part. I do imagine myself to be more in control of my safety when I am flying rather than driving, which is somehow comforting to me. As pilots some things are certainly out of our control, but there's nothing impossible, or even terribly difficult about checking my fuel before every flight, or making proper radio calls, or being disciplined about making good approaches, etc..
 
Challenged said:
If we were all perfect pilots and never made an error, I would guess that flying GA would be far safer than driving? By how much?
Click to expand...

As Tim Winters points out, most auto accidents are due to driving errors, so you would be comparing perfect piloting with imperfect driving.

The following is an older Australian paper that examines cross-modal accident rates:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36229/cross_modal_safety_comparisons.pdf

For GA to have the same rate as ground vehicles, the GA rate to ground rate would need to be less than 1/(1-.71) = 3.45. As you can see in that study, the estimated rates vary, depending on the normalization and methodology used. The lowest rate relative to autos appears to be 4.15.

So even with perfect piloting the accidents caused by mechanical problems would appear to keep GA more dangerous than imperfect road drivers.
 
THE 80-20 ratio has been around since O&W and never seems to change. If you simply eliminate the biggies (drunk, buzzing, VFR into IFR, fuel exhaustion, convective) you can easily reverse your personal accident potential.
Challenged said:
I guess this is more just a curiosity numbers game on my part. I do imagine myself to be more in control of my safety when I am flying rather than driving, which is somehow comforting to me. As pilots some things are certainly out of our control, but there's nothing impossible, or even terribly difficult about checking my fuel before every flight, or making proper radio calls, or being disciplined about making good approaches, etc..
Click to expand...
 
Challenged said:
I guess this is more just a curiosity numbers game on my part. I do imagine myself to be more in control of my safety when I am flying rather than driving, which is somehow comforting to me. As pilots some things are certainly out of our control, but there's nothing impossible, or even terribly difficult about checking my fuel before every flight, or making proper radio calls, or being disciplined about making good approaches, etc..
Click to expand...

Yea. The two biggies are before you even start the plane (or get to the airport).

Weather and fuel
 
It's funny to me that the FAA has waged an all-out war on runway incursions, when if they would instead focus on teaching pilots how to read their gas gauges, they'd have a much bigger impact on accident statistics.
 
Actually, relying on gas gauges might be a lot of the problem. You should know how much fuel you depart with and how much you have used at any moment of the flight.
Let me add that these figures are skewed torward the safety side with corporate aviation lumped in. If you pull out all corporate turbine and examine just single and multi engine piston aircraft it would be scary. Sometimes you just have to a reward/risk, be careful and accept that it is statistically quite dangerous. Like one said you are not going to get out of this life alive.
 
Last edited:
Challenged said:
I guess this is more just a curiosity numbers game on my part. I do imagine myself to be more in control of my safety when I am flying rather than driving, which is somehow comforting to me. As pilots some things are certainly out of our control, but there's nothing impossible, or even terribly difficult about checking my fuel before every flight, or making proper radio calls, or being disciplined about making good approaches, etc..
Click to expand...

You are, but at the same time, the consequence of error has a higher likelihood of being fatal. Anymore that doesn't really concern me either, actually, it hasn't in a very long time...:rofl::rofl::rofl: Thing is I've crashed so much stuff in my life with no serious injuries, never broke a bone except a few ribs here and there which amount to just a few days pain; I'm basically a fatalist solo, when I have passengers I'm more careful incase it's their day to die I don't want to get tangled up in it. What I do is assess my risks, get rid of as many of them as I can and accept the rest as cost of doing business.

What I don't do is half assed, half assed gets you killed every time, you'll find it in at least one of the six links in the accident chain. That's why I feed a high performance twin and I spent more in Avionics than the airplane; with more to come. I do that because I do much of my personal flying at night, I prefer it. So let's look at the risk and we see right away that running out of fuel is the big culprit to cut out, and through basic time and engine management discipline confirmed by a flowscan that is tied to a GPS, I have that one covered. Next biggie is going to be spacial disorientation/situational awareness and CFIT. This is where Av Shiloh cost me a lot of money giving me "free IPCs"; not so free when you're doing it behind SVT glass and realize that you can't keep flying at night and in IMC with the warm fuzzies without it. So, almost there, all the gear but the unlock chip for the SVT, likely I'll trade/sell the 430w get a GNS 750 and the transponder for it. That's why I went 430 an kept the old GTX320 TXP because I knew that a better new architecture was within a year or so of release, so I got the base gear in the mean time.

Knowing these requirements before buying the 310 because of 15 years owning 3 planes including a Turbo Travelair for over 10, when the 310 along in the condition it was in with 50 & 250 on the engines and 12 years of restoration just completed, I bought it and put a panel in it and flew it around for a year and 100 hrs. During those hours I would zero thrust one on every third approach and landing, a long standing habit, I even secured an engine at 25' over the water to find my climb rate under the conditions. In all that time I didn't become a statistic because I didn't make what I feel we're errors in judgement and accepting what I consider inadequate equipment for the mission of traveling across the country at night, with the exception of deicing equipment which will come. In the mean time I avoid conditions conducive to. The biggest errors we as pilots make are errors of self delusion, aviation requires you be honest with yourself because I promise there will come the flight when you say to yourself, "Well, I think you just got yourself killed." If you have been honest with yourself about your all around mission abilit and capability, you might just survive to say it again.
 
Last edited:
livitup said:
It's funny to me that the FAA has waged an all-out war on runway incursions, when if they would instead focus on teaching pilots how to read their gas gauges, they'd have a much bigger impact on accident statistics.
Click to expand...

Every so often it seems that the regulatory agencies get a bee in their bonnet abut something, and harp endlessly on it. They'd do much better if they objectively reviewed the training syllabi and shored up areas in which pilots are making mistakes. They could also require a biannual groundschool where some of the most common accidents are covered. You learn much from the mistakes of other folks.

When it comes to engine failures, for instance, carburetor ice is at or near the top of the list of factors, for carbureted engines. That says that the pilot does not understand the phenomenon and therefore has little idea how to recognize and handle it.

I read a few years ago that about 19% of accidents were attributable to mechanical failure, and much of that was due to either a lack of maintenance or a mechanic's mistake. There are very few unforeseeable catastrophic failures. These machines are well overbuilt.

Dan
 
You might want to check the number of fatalities that have occurred before you make that call.

livitup said:
It's funny to me that the FAA has waged an all-out war on runway incursions, when if they would instead focus on teaching pilots how to read their gas gauges, they'd have a much bigger impact on accident statistics.
Click to expand...
 
And everyone accepts the NTSB determination without question?
 
livitup said:
It's funny to me that the FAA has waged an all-out war on runway incursions, when if they would instead focus on teaching pilots how to read their gas gauges, they'd have a much bigger impact on accident statistics.
Click to expand...

The worst airline accident in the the world was a runway incursion.
 
Running out of gas doesn't kill nearly as many people as runway incursions, as others have noted.

Runway incursions are a stupid pilot trick that let you kill people in OTHER airplanes as well as your own, so I can see why the FAA has a focus on this.
 
Even when I'm cleared to taxi across or take, I always look up both ways, I have seen some close calls working at LGB.
 
TMetzinger said:
Running out of gas doesn't kill nearly as many people as runway incursions, as others have noted.

Runway incursions are a stupid pilot trick that let you kill people in OTHER airplanes as well as your own, so I can see why the FAA has a focus on this.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Once you have the potential to threaten now what is it, 600 lives? That comes under major FAA mandate. Solo you can pretty much get away with anything and keep flying as long as you stay away from high profile fields.
 
Good post! This is why the NTSB is breathing down the FAA's neck regarding GA safety. There are looking at the numbers and thinking a lot of this stuff is preventable.
 
ronnieh said:
Actually, relying on gas gauges might be a lot of the problem. You should know how much fuel you depart with and how much you have used at any moment of the flight.
Click to expand...

Obviously. I was just being snarky. I trust a stopwatch and the fuel flow gauge more than the fuel gauges on most rental 172s anyway.

wabower said:
You might want to check the number of fatalities that have occurred before you make that call.
Click to expand...

According to the GA accident statistics that started this discussion, RIs have caused 1 fatal and 75 non-fatal accidents. Fuel starvation has caused 21 and 202. I'd bet that the ratio is inverted for airline operations. You know what that tells me? The knowledge a PPSEL needs is different than the knowledge a ATP needs. Good thing we have different training and testing for those two certs. :)

Henning said:
The worst airline accident in the the world was a runway incursion.
Click to expand...

TMetzinger said:
Running out of gas doesn't kill nearly as many people as runway incursions, as others have noted.

Runway incursions are a stupid pilot trick that let you kill people in OTHER airplanes as well as your own, so I can see why the FAA has a focus on this.
Click to expand...

Henning said:
Exactly! Once you have the potential to threaten now what is it, 600 lives? That comes under major FAA mandate. Solo you can pretty much get away with anything and keep flying as long as you stay away from high profile fields.
Click to expand...

To all three of these comments, remember, we are talking about GA accidents here, not certified carrier accidents. sure a 777 running into an A320 on its landing roll-out is going to kill hundreds. But a 172 running into a DA-40 is going to kill 8 maximum. I don't think a 172 running into an Airbus is going to kill anyone on the jet. Yes, half the fatalities in a GA vs. GA incursion are going to be "innocent bystanders" who did no wrong, but I just don't see the justification for making such a big deal about it. It's a "Special Emphasis Area" on the PP oral, but fuel management isn't? :dunno:

Of course, 1 fatality due to runway incursion is 1 too many. These are entirely preventable accidents. But so is fuel starvation. Incursion avoidance is important and should be taught and tested on. But if these statistics are accurate, they show that RIs are not as big as a deal in GA

/rant
 
But your initial rant challenged the FAA's emphasis on RI's and did not differentiate between 121 and 91 ops. Then you tried to run and hide behind the PPL/ATP issue. When the FAA sees big numbers you can assume they are going to react assertively.

livitup said:
Obviously. I was just being snarky. I trust a stopwatch and the fuel flow gauge more than the fuel gauges on most rental 172s anyway.



According to the GA accident statistics that started this discussion, RIs have caused 1 fatal and 75 non-fatal accidents. Fuel starvation has caused 21 and 202. I'd bet that the ratio is inverted for airline operations. You know what that tells me? The knowledge a PPSEL needs is different than the knowledge a ATP needs. Good thing we have different training and testing for those two certs. :)







To all three of these comments, remember, we are talking about GA accidents here, not certified carrier accidents. sure a 777 running into an A320 on its landing roll-out is going to kill hundreds. But a 172 running into a DA-40 is going to kill 8 maximum. I don't think a 172 running into an Airbus is going to kill anyone on the jet. Yes, half the fatalities in a GA vs. GA incursion are going to be "innocent bystanders" who did no wrong, but I just don't see the justification for making such a big deal about it. It's a "Special Emphasis Area" on the PP oral, but fuel management isn't? :dunno:

Of course, 1 fatality due to runway incursion is 1 too many. These are entirely preventable accidents. But so is fuel starvation. Incursion avoidance is important and should be taught and tested on. But if these statistics are accurate, they show that RIs are not as big as a deal in GA

/rant
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
But your initial rant challenged the FAA's emphasis on RI's and did not differentiate between 121 and 91 ops. Then you tried to run and hide and hid behind the PPL/ATP issue. When the FAA sees big numbers you can assume they are going to react assertively.
Click to expand...

Actually, I based my initial rant on the fact that we were discussing GA accidents and using data specifically on GA accidents; an analysis of "3,103 GA accidents". I didn't think 121 operations would be part of the discussion. I'm not running anywhere, I just don't thing incursions are as significant a cause of GA accidents as fuel management. And I think it should be equally easy to teach and evaluate a GA pilot's knowledge of the two. And I wonder why the FAA has decided to take a special interest in evaluating a PPL applicant's knowledge of incursion avoidance, when running out of juice causes 23 times more fatalities.
 
TMetzinger said:
Running out of gas doesn't kill nearly as many people as runway incursions, as others have noted.

Runway incursions are a stupid pilot trick that let you kill people in OTHER airplanes as well as your own, so I can see why the FAA has a focus on this.
Click to expand...

Please review the chart posted in the very first post.

Then tell me what the numbers are and their source that supports the assertion runway incursions killed more people in any year or span of years in the last 30 years than were killed by running out of gas. It may be true (I doubt it though) but everyone seems to be a little shy on numbers and heavy on assertion.

Tenerife happened 35 years ago. It killed 583 people. By comparison the posted chart claims 250 fatalities due loss of control in flight over a 3 year period. At that rate that would yield over 2900 fatalities from that cause alone over a 35 year period. Add in VFR into VMC and CFIT and your looking at over 4300 fatalities.

A likely solution to poor airmanship is more practice. More practice costs money. Private pilots are buying all the practice they think they can afford. Therefore no amount of NTSB or FAA preaching or studies or regulations will ever be as valuable to safety as reducing the cost of aviating. So say I.

The NTSB and FAA are searching for solutions to GA safety under the street lamp where the light is better rather than going into the dark alley where the solution really lies because they already know they don't like the answer.
 
As pointed out previously, they really don't give a rats about whether you take yourself out due to fuel exhaustion. They care a lot if you take out a bunch of others when you your 91 beater pulls out in front of a plane-load of 121 passengers or a rich campaign donor in his private jet.

livitup said:
Actually, I based my initial rant on the fact that we were discussing GA accidents and using data specifically on GA accidents; an analysis of "3,103 GA accidents". I didn't think 121 operations would be part of the discussion. I'm not running anywhere, I just don't thing incursions are as significant a cause of GA accidents as fuel management. And I think it should be equally easy to teach and evaluate a GA pilot's knowledge of the two. And I wonder why the FAA has decided to take a special interest in evaluating a PPL applicant's knowledge of incursion avoidance, when running out of juice causes 23 times more fatalities.
Click to expand...
 
Jim Logajan said:
By comparison the posted chart claims 250 fatalities due loss of control in flight over a 3 year period.
Click to expand...

FYI: That's 250 accidents. it doesn't say how many people died in each, just that at least one did.
 
wabower said:
As pointed out previously, they really don't give a rats about whether you take yourself out due to fuel exhaustion. They care a lot if you take out a bunch of others when you your 91 beater pulls out in front of a plane-load of 121 passengers or a rich campaign donor in his private jet.
Click to expand...

That's one possible answer to my question, and quite possibly even the correct answer. :yes:
 
livitup said:
P.S... no, it isn't. :)
Click to expand...

The OP's figure is from this NTSB document (not FAA):

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/ara1101.pdf

According to it turbulence encounters were the most common accident events for Part 121 ops. Here is what it says about ground collisions (note the number of actual runway incursions):
The next most frequent event, particularly for narrow body and small jet aircraft, were ground collisions between aircraft or between aircraft and ground vehicles, such as tugs and baggage carts. There were eight ground collision accidents involving 12 Part 121 aircraft. Only 5 of the 12 aircraft involved in ground collisions were moving under their own power, 2 were standing and 5 were being pushed or towed by tugs. Only one of these accidents resulted in a serious personal injury, but 10 of the 12 aircraft were substantially damaged. Instrument meteorological conditions were reported for only one of the ground collision accidents.​
 
I wouldn't give the NTSB numbers much faith. You could be on your takeoff roll, perfectly aligned with the centerline when an earthquake happens and the earth opens up right across the runway, swallowing your plane whole in the blink of an eye.

The NTSB would rule: "The primary cause of the accident was the pilot's inability to maintain separation from the newly opened fault. A contributing factor was the pilot's delayed response in applying brakes to react to the hole."
 
SkyHog said:
Oh - some examples:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120812X03834&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120609X71211&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120531X11644&key=1

Or pretty much any example of a plane encountering an unexpected wind gust of any severity RIGHT at the moment of touchdown. Not much can be done, but god forbid the NTSB properly classify anything as an unavoidable accident.
Click to expand...

While I'm inclined to agree that the NTSB has a bias toward finding PIC as the probable cause when other causes seem more reasonable, when I entered only the word "deer" in the keyword search field, the random samples I found of collisions with deer didn't blame the pilot.
 
Interesting. Lifetime to date I have known 5 people who died in auto accidents. I knew four who died in plane crashes before finishing sophomore year in college and many more since.

Sac Arrow said:
I don't personally know anyone that died in a GA accident. Half of my graduating high school class is dead from driving accidents.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top