Accidents giving GA a bad name

PPC1052 said:
Oh, I didn't mean anything of substance. Nor was I trying to argue with your points. I was just trying to be funny.
Click to expand...

hahaha I did laugh when I read it but wasn't sure the whole context. Sorry about that.
 
How many airplane mfgs advertise their 5-Star safety ratings and talk about crumple zones and crash tests? Airplanes are built as light as possible and therefore have fewer safety features when you land them in the woods, rocks and weeds. Cars are practically meant to be wrecked.
 
Other than the crashes themselves, one of the things that is really starting to annoy me is the language used in the media.
Instead of saying "Plane crashes into house." a recent headline read: "Pilot crashes plane into house."
Which indicates intent, not an accident.
This goes above and beyond the "Elderly pilot, flying without a flight plan, narrowly misses school full of children by 33 miles."
Just my kvetch for tonight.
 
A_Valkyrie said:
I don't know if it is because of all the flying facebook groups I am in or what, but it seems that I have been seeing crash after crash report show up on my feed. I am not sure if that is just how things are or if this summer has more crashes/fatalities than usual. This is especially true with Oshkosh having multiple accidents and even fatalities with an airplane enroute.

While I feel bad for those who have lost loved ones first and foremost, I also feel it reflects poorly on GA as a whole. I am afraid people will see it as dangerous or something that needs tighter restrictions. This hits especially close to home because a friend of mine interested in aviation will not fly because of safety worries.

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

If a news channel spent all day listing the flights that got to their destination safely, would you watch it? People are drawn to the sensational. If accidents were to diminish, the news media would make up the difference.
 
midcap said:
I think if we all flew as much as we drove out vehicles, our safety record would be much better also.
Click to expand...
Ding! Ding! Ding! Bonus Round! This has been my argument for years. Simply lowering the cost of Avgas to an affordable cost would seriously lower "our" accident rate. Pilots fly more-because they can afford too. Less accidents-because pilots are staying current and proficient.
 
You can be current and proficient and still do bone headed things like run out of fuel and fly into weather you cant handle.
 
simtech said:
Yeah but think, compared to auto accidents aviation accidents rarely happen so it's news worthy. We are all immune to seeing auto accidents. Now granted they do always mess up the details and try to make it worse than it is sometimes.
Click to expand...
Quite true. I saw a car accident today at Smuggler's Notch, VT. Well I heard it happen, we were hiking down from Sterling Pond and heard this horrible scraping sound on the highway below. We arrived on the scene minutes later and saw the car tipped on its side, with several windows broken. The driver had lost control after hitting a rock wall close to the highway, probably taking the curves way too fast. There were two in the car and they were, miraculously, not seriously injured from what I was told. Yet as far as I can tell, the story does not seem to have made any of the local news channels. If it had been an airplane making an off-airport landing, even with no damage or injuries, you can bet the story would have made the news.

It's the old news adage about who bites who. Unless someone is killed and a major highway is closed, car crashes are dog bites man, meh. Airplane crashes, man bites dog. News! :cool:
 
I've heard it said that statistically, general aviation is slightly safer than motocycle racing. That is not much reassurance, but it is misleading to look at all of general aviation as a single activity prone to the same risks. If you spend some time reading through the NTSB reports, including looking at the overall number of accidents (which is much harder to do now that they have redesigned the monthly lists to only show 10 per page as the default), a number of things will be apparent:

1) There were WAY more accidents and fatalities 20, 30 or 40 years ago than there are now. Fewer people flying now? Or safer now? Probably both.
2) A large number of accidents can be attributed to poor judgement (poor judgement is for other pilots, not you or me, right?)
3) A similarly large number of accidents are from types of flying that YOU and I don't do, i.e. crop dusting, helicopters, aerobatics, bush flying, etc. (even a professional pilot can find categories of flight that he or she does not practice)

The takeaway for me is that the flying that I do (primarily daytime VFR, albeit over water, mountains and trees of the Pacific Northwest) eliminates many of the risks that I read about in the statements of probable cause. And a whole other set of risks can be reduced by simply flying safely and within the limits of my aircraft and piloting skills. Those things taken together with the trend for general aviation becoming safer still into the future, and I am reassured to understand that the odds for me to survive this crazy and wonderful hobby of mine are really not so bad.
 
it seems that I have been seeing crash after crash
Click to expand...

14m6whw.jpg
 
We B humans, and though all accidents are preventable, some are inevitible. Unless you want to become a fanatic about safety, and suck the joy out of flying.

As far as accident rates in GA, it's noise - no one knows how many hours GA really flies, so published rates are just SWAGS.

Same with NTSB; take their numbers with a big grain of salt for GA; their probable cause findings vary from solid findings to unsupported speculation.

So, eff the media and the pseudo-stats, and eff worrying about (or even thinking about) our "image". Most of us aren't stupid, suicidal, or totally self-deluded, so we won't be flying into school yards, or raining down in bloody chunks on the church. When it dies happen on occasion, the talking heads will use it to sell some cars and windows, and then forget about it. . .
 
The drooling masses think all small aircraft and choppers and "dangerous" no matter what, nothing new, keep in mind these are the same drones who gladly sell their own mothers for the illusion of "saftey"
 
Norman said:
It doesn't help that the media makes a big to-do over aviation accidents while glossing over the carnage on the highways.
Click to expand...

Well, FAA constantly asking for billions and claiming stuff like ADS-B is making us all safer in the press honestly doesn't help anything either. You don't hear them say "it's getting better, so our budget is fine".

SoCal RV Flyer said:
If only pilots would have a little more common sense and follow these simple rules:
(preaching mostly to the converted, I know)
  • Don't fly into thunderstorms.
  • Keep an eagle eye on airspeed/AOA in the pattern; make shallow turns; sterile cockpit in pattern/landing phase.
  • Announce positions in the pattern/near the airport with accuracy.
  • 1/2 hour reserve fuel at the bare minimum!
  • Don't get complacent about w/b and max gross weight.
  • Eyes outside, whenever possible.
  • Be fanatic about maintenance and inspections.
  • Fly within your personal limitations as far as crosswinds, runway length, etc.
  • If VFR, have a plan if you should find yourself in IMC.
Agreed, "plane falling from the sky" gets far more play on the local news than some poor sap who ends up as a car crash fatality.
Click to expand...

And none of those hit the number one accident cause, loss of control, except "fly within your limitations" and really you want to push those with training, not just stay within them.

More pilots simply have poor aircraft handling skills (often backed up with generally poor assumptions like "I'm safer landing faster in a crosswind"), and can't keep the silly things under control, than any other cause of accidents.

Often those aren't the fatal ones, but breaking airplanes happens constantly due to bad/forgotten/never learned base stick and rudder skills.
 
I think most here are in denial. Indeed an inexperienced general aviation pilot, flying a light single engine piston airplane, is not the safest mode of transportation known to man.

I believe the statistic cited here on POA that GA flying is about as safe as riding a motorcycle is correct.
To compare it to a car is just silly.

Airlines on the other hand are extremely safe; likely the safest mode of transportation.
 
There were 35 fatal house fires in the U.S. Last week.

I'm sleeping in the yard from now on.
 
Kritchlow said:
I think most here are in denial. Indeed an inexperienced general aviation pilot, flying a light single engine piston airplane, is not the safest mode of transportation known to man.

I believe the statistic cited here on POA that GA flying is about as safe as riding a motorcycle is correct.
To compare it to a car is just silly.

Airlines on the other hand are extremely safe; likely the safest mode of transportation.
Click to expand...

This is generally true. IMO these statistics are skewed because GA accident rates lumps all GA flying together. If you pull private pilots flying single engine aircraft out of the mixture you will find it is more dangerous than riding a motorcycle. Corporate flights with professional pilots flying turbine aircraft skew the figures making GA look safer than it is. As noted above most (not all) on a site like this are in denial. I have ridden motorcycles most of my life, which is a LOT <grin> of years. I have never tried to fool myself. Riding street bikes is dangerous, real dangerous compared to driving a car. Coming up through the ranks I never tried to fool myself. Single engine piston aircraft (include light twins in this) are dangerous. This does not mean I should not have ridden bikes or flown, just that I accepted the danger. I have not been in a piston plane in many years, and plan to keep it that way. I choose to no longer take the risk. The wife and I also recently sold our bikes, no longer willing to take the risk. My $.02 worth.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
14m6whw.jpg
Click to expand...


As much as I like to stick my head in the sand regarding how safe this hobby is and use this chart as an example of such, I think it's really misleading.

It looks like it hasn't been updated in about 6 years and that the last time it was, it was trending upwards. I'd be curious to see an updated version. Obviously we saw a steep decline in incidents in the 50 or so years following GA's initial introduction... pilots became better trained, standards got put in place, planes got safer, etc. I'd actually rather isolate the statistics for the accident rates post 1980.
 
flytime said:
I've heard it said that statistically, general aviation is slightly safer than motocycle racing.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. It depends on whether you travel to get somewhere (miles matter), or if you travel for leisure (hours matter):

Miles:
Fatal accidents (fatalities) per 100M miles:
  • GA: 7.46 (13.1)
  • Motorcycles: 38.8 (38.8)
  • Driving: 1.32 (1.47)
  • Commercial Air travel: 0.05 (1.57)
Hours:
Fatal accidents (fatalities) per 1M hours:
  • GA: 11.2 (19.7)
  • Motorcycles: 15.5 (15.5)
  • Driving: 0.528 (.588)
  • Commercial Air Travel: 0.2 (6.5)
So depending on whether you're looking at fatal accidents or fatalities, you're about the same off as a motorcycle in terms of hours, but you're MUCH better off with GA in terms of miles.
 
The GA statistics might be more meaningful if they would break them down into specific categories. ie: Part 91 piston, Part 135, medevac, and corporate aviation. for starts.
 
Norman said:
The GA statistics might be more meaningful if they would break them down into specific categories. ie: Part 91 piston, Part 135, medevac, and corporate aviation. for starts.
Click to expand...

Drunk pilots, sober pilots, pilots making in-flight youtube videos... lots of great ways to break up the data ;)
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
As much as I like to stick my head in the sand regarding how safe this hobby is and use this chart as an example of such, I think it's really misleading.

It looks like it hasn't been updated in about 6 years and that the last time it was, it was trending upwards. I'd be curious to see an updated version. Obviously we saw a steep decline in incidents in the 50 or so years following GA's initial introduction... pilots became better trained, standards got put in place, planes got safer, etc. I'd actually rather isolate the statistics for the accident rates post 1980.
Click to expand...

There's updated data out there to an extent.

Fatal accidents continue to decline in GA. Even in the past decade. 2013 was the safest year in decades with only 389 fatals. That's about where updated data stops right now. It takes years to finalize each year I guess.
 
ronnieh said:
This is generally true. IMO these statistics are skewed because GA accident rates lumps all GA flying together. If you pull private pilots flying single engine aircraft out of the mixture you will find it is more dangerous than riding a motorcycle. Corporate flights with professional pilots flying turbine aircraft skew the figures making GA look safer than it is. As noted above most (not all) on a site like this are in denial. I have ridden motorcycles most of my life, which is a LOT <grin> of years. I have never tried to fool myself. Riding street bikes is dangerous, real dangerous compared to driving a car. Coming up through the ranks I never tried to fool myself. Single engine piston aircraft (include light twins in this) are dangerous. This does not mean I should not have ridden bikes or flown, just that I accepted the danger. I have not been in a piston plane in many years, and plan to keep it that way. I choose to no longer take the risk. The wife and I also recently sold our bikes, no longer willing to take the risk. My $.02 worth.
Click to expand...

It's actually the opposite. Single engine, private pilots make the stats safer.

Multi-engine fatal rates are twice that of single engines. Skewing things. Crop duster fatals add a few as well. Corporate crashes tend to kill larger numbers at one time, adding to the stats. And the big one is that 1 out of every 10 fatals continues to happen in Alaska, many from commercial operations (as loosely as that may be defined in Alaska sometimes), really adding to the numbers. This despite only accounting for 3% of hours flown.

There was a great study done A few years back that broke down all the different accidents and categorized them. Wish I still remembered the name of it.

Flying single engine, private pilot in the lower 48 is actually markedly safer then the overall stats show. Stay out of hard IMC and it gets even safer.

Then you have other mitigating factors. I know it's in vogue and the humble thing to do to say "well, it can happen to anyone." No, flying over gross can't happen to anyone if you actually check it. Flying into bad weather can't happen to anyone if you actually plan well before takeoff and make conservative no go decisions (that's nearly half of GA accidents right there).

By just saying "it can happen to anyone," we are actually encouraging being complacent IMO. As if there's no truth to the value of risk management in flying. No, there's actually a ton you can do to not be the "anyone" in many situations. And they almost all start on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Norman said:
The GA statistics might be more meaningful if they would break them down into specific categories. ie: Part 91 piston, Part 135, medevac, and corporate aviation. for starts.
Click to expand...
And here I thought I posted a link to the Nall report...
 
azure said:
It's the old news adage about who bites who. Unless someone is killed and a major highway is closed, car crashes are dog bites man, meh. Airplane crashes, man bites dog. News! :cool:
Click to expand...
Bingo.

On the other hand - one that did make the news locally was a semi truck that went over the edge of the Rouge River bridge - the paper said he dropped 100 feet, but I think it was more like 50 or 60 at that particular point - the truck and trailer were flattened like a pancake, but the driver walked away... http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...ns-falls-through-rouge-river-bridge/87502874/
 
FloridaPilot said:
I really wish it was that "Cut and dry" but pilots with 1,000's of hours die as well. Airplanes break as well for no good reason especially upon take off.

Do you think it's possible that the FAA can't determine the real cause of an accident so they will just label it something?
Click to expand...

That doesn't make his list any less true.

Pilots with 1000s of hours can get complacent and over confident, ignoring the things he listed. And they do. Like the idiot trying to fly hard IMC in the mountains with his IPads synthetic vision.

And mechanical failures cause a tiny fraction of fatal crashes.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Bingo.

On the other hand - one that did make the news locally was a semi truck that went over the edge of the Rouge River bridge - the paper said he dropped 100 feet, but I think it was more like 50 or 60 at that particular point - the truck and trailer were flattened like a pancake, but the driver walked away... http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...ns-falls-through-rouge-river-bridge/87502874/
Click to expand...
Bonchie said:
It's actually the opposite. Single engine, private pilots make the stats safer.

Multi-engine fatal rates are twice that of single engines. Skewing things. Crop duster fatals add a few as well. Corporate crashes tend to kill larger numbers at one time, adding to the stats. And the big one is that 1 out of every 7 fatals continues to happen in Alaska, many from commercial operations (as loosely as that may be defined in Alaska sometimes), really adding to the numbers. The news never reports crashes in Alaska for some reason.

Flying single engine, private pilot in the lower 48 is actually markedly safer then the overall stats show.

Then you have other mitigating factors. I know it's in vogue and the humble thing to do to say "well, it can happen to anyone." No, flying over gross can't happen to anyone if you actually check it. Flying into bad weather can't happen to anyone if you actually plan well before takeoff and make conservative no go decisions (that's nearly half of GA accidents right there).
Click to expand...
Don't forget the idiots in the pattern with no radio or refuse to use it! those who say that simply watching for others is good enough. You can't get any dumber! Most in airs occur near the airport with one aircraft overtaking another. ( tUff to see thru the bottom of an airplane! ) or the 172 driver thinking 1500 feet, five miles out is just fine and to add insult , remains silent. On and on.
 
denverpilot said:
Well, FAA constantly asking for billions and claiming stuff like ADS-B is making us all safer in the press honestly doesn't help anything either. You don't hear them say "it's getting better, so our budget is fine".




More pilots simply have poor aircraft handling skills (often backed up with generally poor assumptions like "I'm safer landing faster in a crosswind"), and can't keep the silly things under control, than any other cause of acciden
Click to expand...

denverpilot said:
Well, FAA constantly asking for billions and claiming stuff like ADS-B is making us all safer in the press honestly doesn't help anything either. You don't hear them say "it's getting better, so our budget is fine".



And none of those hit the number one accident cause, loss of control, except "fly within your limitations" and really you want to push those with training, not just stay within them.

More pilots simply have poor aircraft handling skills (often backed up with generally poor assumptions like "I'm safer landing faster in a crosswind"), and can't keep the silly things under control, than any other cause of accidents.

Often those aren't the fatal ones, but breaking airplanes happens constantly due to bad/forgotten/never learned base stick and rudder skills.
Click to expand...

Unless you fly a tail dragger.
 
GA flying is way way down from thirty - fourty years ago which has a lot to do with accident rates. . But then flying old crates fourty fifty years old with poor or little correct maintenence adds to the numbers.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
GA flying is way way down from thirty - fourty years ago which has a lot to do with accident rates. . But then flying old crates fourty fifty years old with poor or little correct maintenence adds to the numbers.
Click to expand...

Overall numbers of crashes yeah, but it's a misconception that it accounts for the drop in deaths.

2013 saw 1.05 fatals per 100,000 hours flown (current stats stop there as they lag several years behind). That's the lowest ever recorded. It was much, much higher 30-40 years ago and even 10 years ago. That's a stat not dependent on total number of flights or GA fleet size.

GA is safer then it's ever been. I didn't say it's safe, but the progress isn't statistical skewing. It's actually real.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Don't forget the idiots in the pattern with no radio or refuse to use it! those who say that simply watching for others is good enough. You can't get any dumber! Most in airs occur near the airport with one aircraft overtaking another. ( tUff to see thru the bottom of an airplane! ) or the 172 driver thinking 1500 feet, five miles out is just fine and to add insult , remains silent. On and on.
Click to expand...

That drives me nuts. Was coming into an airport the other day in the pattern to land based on the winds. Announced and right before base, here comes a crop duster taking off the opposite way and zooming out straight toward me.

I get it. Crop dusters are supposedly great pilots, can do no wrong in some people's eyes, etc. but it's 2016. Get a handheld.
 
It's the lowest only because far fewer GA aircraft are flying. Statistics can be made to show anything. Your eyes usually don't lie. Go to any small , medium size airport. Where there used to be action all one sees is fourty fifty year old aircraft tied down outside, rarely flown , looking real bad. I was there and watched it. Far different than than it was. In addition , at most of these type airports , no new hangars have been added and the ones that remain are in questionable condition. Yes, of course there are exceptions.
 
We are all diffrent, diffrent risk assessments, diffrent abilities, what's a deadly scenario for one might be a normal day at the office for another.

End of the day, regardless of the mode of transportation or recreation, stupid kills, lazy kills, doesn't much matter what you're doing, some activities just speed up the process.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
It's the lowest only because far fewer GA aircraft are flying. Statistics can be made to show anything. Your eyes usually don't lie. Go to any small , medium size airport. Where there used to be action all one sees is fourty fifty year old aircraft tied down outside, rarely flown , looking real bad. I was there and watched it. Far different than than it was. In addition , at most of these type airports , no new hangars have been added and the ones that remain are in questionable condition. Yes, of course there are exceptions.
Click to expand...

That stat is not dependent on total flights or fleet size. It's based on fatalities vs. actual hours being flown.
 
In my years as a teacher I have heard it all from the younger generation. These are college students by the way. None have ever been in a ga aircraft but almost all have an uncle or grandfather who flew. The only thing they think airplanes do is crash, they think it is dangerous as hell to fly. Most do not have a clue how an airplane works aside from the wing makes it fly.

The only exposure the majority of people have to ga is the news when one crashes.
It is only going to ge worse for ga I'm afraid, this new generation has zero interest in things that involve them getting off the couch and putting the phone down. How are they going to make a decision to spend enormous amounts of money to get their ppl and then spend enormous amounts of money on an airplane when they have no desire to getvoff their butts.
Our oldest boy just turned thirteen, as of now he wants to be a video game reviewer and tester on YouTube ! In his mind he is going to make large amounts of money doing this. I had to have a few sit downs with him to explain supply and demand principles in the workforce. We tried to get him into aviation and he said that flying would be boring! He did perk up when I told him what kind of money an airline Capt. Can make. Oh well, the world needs all kinds I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top