GA's Safety record and Preventable Accidents

[Bonchie]

I was reading through the latest crashes on the other board. I'm just thinking out loud here.

In the past four days we've had:

1) 2 killed from a pilot catching terrain making low passes over a lake bed
2) 1 killed trying to teach himself aerobatics after being warned not to
3) 2 killed trying to land in the dark at an unlit airport

Clearly, GA has it's risks. Very serious ones that should be respected and that respect should drive your decision making. But how much of GA's (perhaps bad) safety record is skewed by people simply flaunting the most basic of safety parameters and doing things most pilots would never attempt?

GA may never be as safe as driving a car, but it appears you can certainly shrink the gap by simply flying conservatively. So many fatals fall outside the envelope of what should reasonably be attempted on a given flight. Maybe telling a passenger that GA is as dangerous as riding a motorcycle isn't necessarily true for all or even most flights?

Disclaimer: I'm in noway suggesting I couldn't succumb to pilot error or other fatal occurrence even when flying conservatively. Risk will always exist no matter how safe you attempt to fly.

 

[frfly172]

Driving,boating,flying,there will always be people who push the envelope . More regulations are not the answer. More safety training is not the answer either,as those people don't take the training.

 

[cowman]

It's good to get the training and the information out there for those who will listen. If they don't, there's not much you can do about that.

 

[murphey]

Think of it as evolution in action.

 

[Everskyward]

Think of it as evolution in action.

But many of them have already reproduced.

 

[jpower]

I'd really like to see the statistics if you took out these causes:

VFR into IMC
Running out of fuel
Taking off overweight/out of CG
Reckless flying (ie flying low level just because it's cool)

There are probably a few others too.

 

[frcabot]

I was reading through the latest crashes on the other board. I'm just thinking out loud here.

In the past four days we've had:

1) 2 killed from a pilot catching terrain making low passes over a lake bed
2) 1 killed trying to teach himself aerobatics after being warned not to
3) 2 killed trying to land in the dark at an unlit airport

Clearly, GA has it's risks. Very serious ones that should be respected and that respect should drive your decision making. But how much of GA's (perhaps bad) safety record is skewed by people simply flaunting the most basic of safety parameters and doing things most pilots would never attempt?

GA may never be as safe as driving a car, but it appears you can certainly shrink the gap by simply flying conservatively. So many fatals fall outside the envelope of what should reasonably be attempted on a given flight. Maybe telling a passenger that GA is as dangerous as riding a motorcycle isn't necessarily true for all or even most flights?

Disclaimer: I'm in noway suggesting I couldn't succumb to pilot error or other fatal occurrence even when flying conservatively. Risk will always exist no matter how safe you attempt to fly.

Links? I'm not aware of any such accidents in the last four or five days. Just curious.

The NTSB chalks up 70% of fatalities to pilot error / judgment and 30% to mechanical or other. Some are a mix of both like engine failure followed by the pilot's failure to maintain proper glide airspeed leading to a stall or other loss of control. Lots of fatalities are chalked up to pilot error even when it just seems to me that the pilot was a victim of circumstance.

Even if you assume you'd never have a lapse in judgment or accidentally bite off more than you can chew, that still leaves a good number of fatalities due to factors mostly outside the pilot's control. But a big risk is thinking "it couldn't happen to me" or "I'd never make a stupid mistake." I've had a couple hairy landings where although everyone walked away and the plane was fine, I kicked myself subsequently for not doing a go around or landing at an alternate. And I consider myself smart and capable. I had another scary flight where I encountered unforecasted severe turbulence (60 degree roll upsets, 200-300 ft altitude loss/gain in seconds, etc) in severe clear, at night no less. That one certainly woke me up. And the passengers I had been flying have refused to fly since.

I can guarantee you no pilot who has died thought of himself as incompetent or incapable.

 

[acrophile]

I'd really like to see the statistics if you took out these causes:

VFR into IMC
Running out of fuel
Taking off overweight/out of CG
Reckless flying (ie flying low level just because it's cool)

That's the right approach, and such statistics are easy to find. Just look up the Nall Report, or take your own random sample from the NTSB aviation-accident database to get a rough estimate.

It turns out that those causes account for just a small fraction of GA accidents.

 

[Bonchie]

Links? I'm not aware of any such accidents in the last four or five days. Just curious.

Sorry, I was going by the dates on the threads. Two of the three are wrong.

Actual accident dates were 5/31 for the unlit airport and 6/10 for the low pass. The aerobatics one was a pre-lim report being released yesterday.

The NTSB chalks up 70% of fatalities to pilot error / judgment and 30% to mechanical or other. Some are a mix of both like engine failure followed by the pilot's failure to maintain proper glide airspeed leading to a stall or other loss of control. Lots of fatalities are chalked up to pilot error even when it just seems to me that the pilot was a victim of circumstance.

Even if you assume you'd never have a lapse in judgment or accidentally bite off more than you can chew, that still leaves a good number of fatalities due to factors mostly outside the pilot's control. But a big risk is thinking "it couldn't happen to me" or "I'd never make a stupid mistake." I've had a couple hairy landings where although everyone walked away and the plane was fine, I kicked myself subsequently for not doing a go around or landing at an alternate. And I consider myself smart and capable. I had another scary flight where I encountered unforecasted severe turbulence (60 degree roll upsets, 200-300 ft altitude loss/gain in seconds, etc) in severe clear, at night no less. That one certainly woke me up. And the passengers I had been flying have refused to fly since.

I can guarantee you no pilot who has died thought of himself as incompetent or incapable.

I clearly put a disclaimer that I'm not making any such claims. Far be it from me to think I can't succumb to pilot error or have the plane break.

But there is a big difference between arrogance about pilot error that can happen to anyone vs. just not doing stupid things. I don't think it's arrogant or a bad assumption for me to say I'll never try to land at an unlit airport at night. I'll also never go climb a sheer cliff without a safety line or drive 90mph down the highway in the rain.

 

[yakdriver]

You can't regulate stupid. Don

 

[Bonchie]

That's the right approach, and such statistics are easy to find. Just look up the Nall Report, or take your own random sample from the NTSB aviation-accident database to get a rough estimate.

It turns out that those causes account for just a small fraction of GA accidents.

The Nall report just doesn't really give you that information.

It does specify fuel mismanagement (11 fatals out of 214 in the latest report) but the rest is lumped into very big categories.

For example, one fatal where a guy was circling power lines on purpose is listed under maneuvering accidents. Well, it is, but not all maneuvering accidents are created equal obviously and some are a result of reckless behavior. All five aerobatic accidents are included in this category. I'm not saying aerobatics are reckless, but they are clearly avoidable situations by the normal pilot wanting to lower his risk factor.

I guess the only way is to actually go through every NTSB report, as you said.

You can't regulate stupid. Don

I'm not trying to regulate anything. If I gave that impression that wasn't the intention or even the point.

 

[Iv4nK]

Some time ago I took 6 years worth of NTSB reports on Cirrus aircraft and broke them down into categories (some overlapping) and observed the following:

70% of the accidents involved the pilot losing control of the aircraft
17% involved spatial disorientation (sometimes followed by loss of control)
14% involved controlled flight into terrain (mostly preceded by spatial disorientation)
7% involved winds as a contributing factor (usually followed by loss of control)
7% was attributed to mechanical issues (improper maintenance)
4% was down to fuel exhaustion

I don't know how much this translates onto the entire General Aviation spectrum, but since the data happened to be compiled and handy at the time of reading this thread, it might be of some use to somebody.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

70% of the accidents involved the pilot losing control of the aircraft

That's a huge number. What does that mean?
Obviously if you crash you lost control but they don't just spontaneously start doing cartwheels.

Seems like this needs to be broken down by what event preceded the loss of control. Stall, Spin, Bird Strike, Midair, etc...

 

[docmirror]

Unless we want to regulate the liberty out of GA, I think I'll just let things be. Stupid people do stupid things, and sometimes the results are rather predictable. Maybe I'll be one of those stats in the next year, maybe you will, maybe none of us will become that lackadaisical. The fact is, we can and do fly for whatever reason we want in this country, and that liberty comes with a certain responsibility.


Which leads to my favorite cliche which I will gratuitously provide: There are no GA fatalities(or accidents) in North Korea. Do you want us to be like N Korea?

 

[Iv4nK]

That's a huge number. What does that mean?
Obviously if you crash you lost control but they don't just spontaneously start doing cartwheels.

Seems like this needs to be broken down by what event preceded the loss of control. Stall, Spin, Bird Strike, Midair, etc...

I haven't went that far into the details to categorize them to that detail, but events such as bird strike or midair collision were not counted as loss of control. The way I saw it was, it was categorized as L.O.C when the sole cause of the incident was the pilots mismanagement of the controls. Small percentage of L.O.C. incidents were caused by VFR into IMC or spatial disorientation (presumably at night) but most are simply pilots losing control during takeoffs, landings, go-arounds, traffic patterns, etc.

As I said, it's a relatively small sample and could very well be biased since only Cirrus aircraft were sampled (I can't actually remember what I did the analysis for) but I've recently weeded through 10 years worth of PA-30 Twin Comanche accidents and loss of control on a technically sound aircraft seemed like quite a large chunk of the accidents out there.

 

[Bonchie]

Managing risk is a pilot's most important task. Flying should be a safe means of getting from point a to point b; allowing for exceptions of the recreational variety -- but risk avoidance and management skills remain extremely important. If you take all comers, GA is probably as safe as motorcycles, but safety increases with experience and pilot training. Though the accomplished aviator bears a statistically lower risk, most realize that they are far from infallible and they fly accordingly. Teaching good judgement is an essential and often difficult part of flight training, and the attitudes and behaviors contributing to bad decision-making have been extensively documented. Some accidents arise from circumstances reasonably outside of a pilots control, and each and every aviator keeps his mind prepared with "what-if" scenarios. Zero risk is unattainable in any form of transportation (did you know that elevators are the safest mode of conveyance?), but as pilots it is our earned privilege to operate at the lowest levels of risk that we can achieve. Safety is no accident.

That's kind of what I was getting at and as aviators we have a large amount of say in just how safe we are compared to driving, riding a motorcycle, or even boating.

To the other post two spots above this one, again, this thread had nothing to do with regulations or having more of them. It was just about how safe GA can be characterized as, depending on how conservatively you fly, while still acknowledging risk will always be there.

 

[docmirror]

"GA's Safety record and Preventable Accidents"

North Korea has a perfect safety record WRT GA. In a society putatively built on liberty, how would one go about preventing something sans regulation? If education is the answer, how do we get pilots educated? Regulate training? Ever heard of the days before the BFR? Tailwheel endorsements?

 

[Palmpilot]

I find myself wondering how many pilots take unnecessary risks because they don't know how bad GA's safety record is. How many still believe that "the most dangerous part of the trip is the drive to the airport," not realizing that that only applies to airline travel? I would bet that the FAA could bring about SOME improvement by making sure pilots are aware of the real statistics comparing flying and driving. They could publish such a comparison, update it every year, and make it required reading both for initial pilot training and for BFRs (or using the Wings Program to substitute for a BFR).

 

[Bonchie]

"GA's Safety record and Preventable Accidents"

North Korea has a perfect safety record WRT GA. In a society putatively built on liberty, how would one go about preventing something sans regulation? If education is the answer, how do we get pilots educated? Regulate training? Ever heard of the days before the BFR? Tailwheel endorsements?

Just forget it. Nowhere in any of my posts, including the OP have I made any case for preventing these accidents. That wasn't the point.

The "preventable accidents" in the title was about how they affect the safety record and how that in turn affects the characterization of GA's safety. It had nothing to do with actually preventing those accidents from happening. If someone wants to try to land at an unlit airport, that's on them. But their addition to the statistics doesn't apply to most pilots.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Either they are all preventable accidents or none of them are. I make my own choices and am OK with the carnage.

 

[Alexb2000]

If you want to prevent a personal accident, forget those time builder airline bound CFI's.

Get some old, retired, extra mean, SOB, that will shoot it to you real straight. Tell him you want to be safe enough to carry mother Teresa, the Virgin Mary, and his grand daughter, across the country in IMC. When you fly good enough to eliminate all his doubts, you're good to go.

One thing about pilots: We can never trust our opinions of ourselves.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Some pilots just suck at processing flying stimulus. An ole timey CFI can't save those people from themselves. And the accident record clearly shows all of us are capable of giving in to the temptation of stupidities siren.

If you want to prevent a personal accident, forget those time builder airline bound CFI's.

Get some old, retired, extra mean, SOB, that will shoot it to you real straight. Tell him you want to be safe enough to carry mother Teresa, the Virgin Mary, and his grand daughter, across the country in IMC. When you fly good enough to eliminate all his doubts, you're good to go.

One thing about pilots: We can never trust our opinions of ourselves.

 

[Alexb2000]

Some pilots just suck at processing flying stimulus. An ole timey CFI can't save those people from themselves. And the accident record clearly shows all of us are capable of giving in to the temptation of stupidities siren.

You're right some will never get it. IMO, let the kamikaze pilots do what they do. Many pilots "think" they are good until someone REALLY puts them to the test. When these short comings are made obvious, then the smart ones will fix it. I flew with a CFI for a year that had nothing but praise. Then I flew with a salty old cargo dog that had a list of things I needed to work on. I fired the first guy and told the second I wanted to fly everyday, no holds bared, only the highest standards, until he would have no doubt about about me flying his family in a any weather. After I said that, his list was twice as long. He didn't think could take the criticism. I learned a lot and probably need to go do it again. We don't know what we don't know sometimes.

 

[docmirror]

I fired the first guy and told the second I wanted to fly everyday, no holds bared, only the highest standards, until he would have no doubt about about me flying his family in a any weather. After I said that, his list was twice as long. He didn't think could take the criticism. I learned a lot and probably need to go do it again. We don't know what we don't know sometimes.

I started training with 'that guy'. He was an active top gun pilot at Miramar, and he moonlighted on the side. The best/worst CFI anyone could as for. Not just that, but we started out in a Citabria. I sweated plenty, but I'm happy for it every time I fly.

 

[wanttaja]

I'd really like to see the statistics if you took out these causes:

VFR into IMC
Running out of fuel
Taking off overweight/out of CG
Reckless flying (ie flying low level just because it's cool)

There are probably a few others too.

Here's most of the Cessna 172 accidents from 2001 through 2010...knock yourself out. The four causes you list total about 11% of the accidents.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

"Mishandling the aircraft" That is somewhat vague.

 

[wanttaja]

"Mishandling the aircraft" That is somewhat vague.

My usual term is "Pilot Miscontrol". Basically, it refers to cases where the pilot's stick-and-rudder actions caused the accident vs decision-making. Stalls, ground loops, under shoots, etc.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

My usual term is "Pilot Miscontrol". Basically, it refers to cases where the pilot's stick-and-rudder actions caused the accident vs decision-making. Stalls, ground loops, under shoots, etc.

Ron Wanttaja

Okay. Man, that's a lot.
I always felt the NTSB is quick to jot down "Pilot Error" but maybe it is that prolific.

 

[wanttaja]

Okay. Man, that's a lot.
I always felt the NTSB is quick to jot down "Pilot Error" but maybe it is that prolific.

My process actually produces lower "Pilot Error" results than the NSTB does.

The NTSB will list the probable cause as Pilot Error if, in the investigator's opinion, the pilot should have been able to safely land the aircraft. So if the engine throws a rod when the plane is 2,000 feet over an airport, but the pilot undershoots/overshoots/stalls on base-to-final turn, the PC will be "Pilot Error," with the engine failure being a contributing cause.

I started analyzing the NTSB accidents to try to drive out major mechanical issues that affect homebuilts. I felt some mechanical problems were being "lost" in the "Pilot Error" designation. So my method attributes the accident to "Engine - Internal" rather than Pilot Error.

I've always lumped the Pilot Error cases under one category. Last year, I got interested in the breakout of Pilot Error, and went through my 15-year homebuilt accident database, reviewed the Pilot Error cases, and split them out into eight or nine subcategories. Haven't done that for the Cessna 172, yet (I use the 172 as a "control group" to compare homebuilt accidents to).

If you are an EAA member, access the April 2014 issue of Sport Aviation; I covered the results of my Pilot Error studies, there.

Otherwise, I'll post the raw numbers tonight. Plenty of debate as to how relevant they'd be to the 172...especially the ground loop data.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

If you are an EAA member, access the April 2014 issue of Sport Aviation; I covered the results of my Pilot Error studies, there.

Otherwise, I'll post the raw numbers tonight....

And here they are. The value is the percent of Pilot Miscontrol accidents.

Stall/spin: 21.1%
Wind: 22.0%
Takeoff Directional: 5.5%
Landing Directional: 15.5%
Flare/Bounce: 11.5%
System Mismanagement: 6.6%
Misjudged Approach: 7.5%
Other: 10.3%

Note that this is a combination of simple aircraft as well as some high-performance types that challenge the pilots. Also is a mix of taildraggers and nosegears.

Ron Wanttaja