Another GA hack job by Thomas Frank, USA Today

Fear mongering to sell his book again eh?
 
I think both them are Blank in their heads.
 
Hmm. My daughter had 2 kids in her HS class end up dead in a car wreck a couple weekends before graduation. They were in a car with a kid that graduated the year before, hit a tree and were on fire. A passerby pulled one out, got third degree burns of his own in the process, but couldn't get the other two out. I didn't see a story in USAToday from Blank about those dangerous cars.
 
Who doesn't believe there is a problem with post crash fires in aircraft?

I believe there is, in just about every airplane that has ever been built and carries liquid fuel.

Just hitting a dear on takeoff will rupture the fuel tanks on pretty much anything, seen it on a Lear 35A. No it didn't burn but the potential was there. Same as a 560XL that had the aft trunion pin fall out.

Falcon 50, 900, 2000 was hit with an AD in recent years to increase the dry bay space around the landing gear fittings because accidental overloading of this area was causing fuel leaks, accomplished via invasive structural rework around 500 man hours.

You don't think that's a problem?

Wet wings like a Mooney is basically a pop can full of gas, just like every other wet winged airplane. What's Mooney reputation in regards to fuel leaks?

I'm not an engineer but not blind to the facts either.

Not to mention the Concorde...
 
Last edited:
I doubt highly flammable liquids can be carried in rapidly moving containers without some degree of risk.
 
J-3 cubs with gas tank on your lap. Burn baby burn. So what, everybody knows little airplanes are dangerous, burning to death is part of the deal.
 
I read the article. It focuses almost exclusively on FAA's reluctance to require better fire protection by design in light aircraft. I'm not sure I have a huge issue with that as long as the requirements are workable.

What else this dude may have written about GA, I have no idea.

Rich
 
I fear post-crash fires more than anything in GA, and I would love to see improvements made in this area. On the other hand, physics is physics, and when any vehicle filled with a highly combustible liquid collides with another object at high speed, a fire is a likely result, whether the vehicle is an airplane, car or whatever.

What I disagree with is Mr. Frank's sensationalistic reporting style that has a consistent and strong anti-GA bias. But I guess that's what gets the clicks.
 
colojo said:
I fear post-crash fires more than anything in GA, and I would love to see improvements made in this area. On the other hand, physics is physics, and when any vehicle filled with a highly combustible liquid collides with another object at high speed, a fire is a likely result, whether the vehicle is an airplane, car or whatever.

What I disagree with is Mr. Frank's sensationalistic reporting style that has a consistent and strong anti-GA bias. But I guess that's what gets the clicks.
Click to expand...

Aircraft are designed on a very thin margin. Adding additional fire protection will cost weight...and we all know that in a single-engine, weight is a commodity more precious than gold!
 
This chart on goes to 2011 but gives a chilling trend in ATV accidental deaths which as of the late 2000's was puisng 800 - 900 per year. I am sure they are higher now as ATV continue to grow in popularity.

http://www.atvsafety.gov/stats.html

BAN THEM!
 
I'm all for safer aircraft but I don't want to get priced right out of being able to fly them either.
 
Anthony said:
This chart on goes to 2011 but gives a chilling trend in ATV accidental deaths which as of the late 2000's was puisng 800 - 900 per year. I am sure they are higher now as ATV continue to grow in popularity.

http://www.atvsafety.gov/stats.html

BAN THEM!
Click to expand...
Dude they already have. Ever read the age limits, or read up on land use laws for ATVs at least in 'civilised' Northeastern states. Pretty much a defacto ban and they want more. NH is an exception and has made ATV parks and does quite well on ATV tourist money.
 
cowman said:
I'm all for safer aircraft but I don't want to get priced right out of being able to fly them either.
Click to expand...


There is the issue. It is not uncommon at all to see planes that are 40 years old out there. It costs so much to buy a new modern aircraft that most people simply can't afford them. The certification process is so expensive as it is that GA is simply limping along. I frankly see the already high level of regulation as counterproductive. Would new uncertified avionics really be less safe than the 40 year old certified radios in my plane?
 
Well, lets say an enterprising mech/aero engineer comes up with a retrofit fuel cell for many popular GA planes. Take the 172 for example. The current tank is an aluminum box inside the wing. I'm guessing that the tank weighs about 11Lbs total. Using a modern fuel cell, the weight may go up only slightly, lets say 15Lbs for 21 gallon tank. 8lbs was just lost from the useful load.

Now, getting it certified. I would guess it needs to be tested by smashing a few planes, and monitoring the results. Sounds like maybe $100k for 3 used planes, and maybe another $40k for the tank builds. This one from Summit sells for $600 plus shipping; http://www.summitracing.com/parts/abt-sa126a/overview/

Lets say the aviation version is only 5x as expensive or $3000 per tank and two tanks or $6000. Now it needs to be braced, and fitted with a filler. Wondering about installation, but I'll go with 30 hours for a simple older 172. At $100/hour that's another $3000.

So, just some off the cuff numbers we're at $9000 for two tanks, plus the STC cost, call it a round $10,000 out the door flying. For planes with bladder tanks, a complete wind disassembly is required and the cost is going to go way up for install. Yikes.

Sure, I'd like some better fuel protection. Who wouldn't? How much would this reduce the post crash fires? How much is the right amount? I'd like to know some real numbers.
 
My letter to the editor:

It must be hard for Thomas Frank to live in mortal fear of general aviation aircraft. All those crazed pilots buzzing about just looking for a chance to kill themselves and everyone else on the planet.
Why didn't you drag out more pictures of mutilated and incinerated women and children? Something must be done! After all, with nearly 600 fatalities in 21 years we are practically tripping over the bodies.
The sad truth, Mr. Frank, you are just another Chicken Little running around, screaming "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" in order to get a paycheck.
In the report "Improving Survivability In Motor Vehicle Fires" by Digges, Gann, Grayson, Hirschler, Lyon Purser, Quintiere, Stephanson and Tewarson, The facts are this: There are 287,000 motor vehicle fires every year. There are 3,000 injuries, and more than 500 fatalities, every year. Conservatively that is 10,500 lives since 1993.
How about a more disturbing problem, fires in the home. In 2013 there were 487,500 structure fires, causing 2,855 civilian deaths, 14,075 civilian injuries, and $9.5 billion in property damage.(National Fire Protection Association)
Mr. Frank, find another drum to beat. Find a real problem, to angst over. If you are trying to shake down someone for a payday, take on the auto manufactures and the home builders.
As a long time general aviation pilot, I can honestly say I'm more worried about the drive to the plane than I am about burning to death in the plane.
 
This hits pretty close to home, unfortunately. Last month, two very good friends of my father died when the airplane caught on fire and then crashed. I really hope they died in the crash, and were not burned to death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top