:( Going back 1 year ago from today 10/13/2015

J

JasonM

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 24, 2012
Messages
1,837
Location
West Virginia
Display Name
Display name:
JM
I have no clue if the past 12 months are any worse than previous spans. It just really feels like this year has been really bad. I count 158 Fatal Accidents in the USA since 1 year ago today. I got this data from a search on ntsb.gov website. Not sure if this search link will work, but if so ( http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/Results.aspx?queryId=ffa195bf-1438-4af0-a33a-fda8c95bae8a )

It felt to me like Beech was in the news a lot and Mooney was the doctor killer, but reality is a bit different.. Here is what I saw.. :sad: RIP :sad:

44 Cessna

39 Piper

18 Beech

5 Mooney

5 Cirrus (1 of which was listed as the one in Frederick MD, which was not fatal for the cirrus. there may be other instances of this for other makes.)

47 other makes..
 

Attachments

  • meta-chart.jpeg
    meta-chart.jpeg
    41.3 KB · Views: 45
To put things in context we need to not only know how many accidents there were in years past, but also the number of flights or miles flown. The internet makes it easy to see every crash, but doesn't always help us put together those numbers in a meaningful way. There may be more crashes, there may also be more flights, and it may just be that you're seeing discussions about more crashes than you did in the past.
 
158 accidents, that doesn't even count the # of fatalities.

regardless of ratios, it's too darn many.
 
10/13/2013 - 10/13/2014 (154 total)

48 Cessna

35 Piper

12 Beech

6 Mooney

1 Cirrus

52 other makes..
 
And these NTSB stats are not complete. I am currently trying to follow 3 fatal crashes that they haven't even published a preliminary yet and they all happened at least 3 months ago. Don't know why the delay.

I agree with eman -- too darn many. When you compare GA to airlines and corporate the answer has to be better training and proficiency.
 
10/13/2012 - 10/13/2013 (169 total)

48 Cessna

40 Piper

18 Beech

7 Mooney

2 Cirrus

54 other makes..
 
10/13/2011 - 10/13/2012 (178 total)

46 Cessna

36 Piper

21 Beech

5 Mooney

14 Cirrus

56 other makes..
 
I mentioned this back in Aug I think with some commentary about what's the FAA going to do after this year's horrible numbers. I don't even know if they are bad or not, but jeez it sure seems like it.
 
docmirror said:
I mentioned this back in Aug I think with some commentary about what's the FAA going to do after this year's horrible numbers. I don't even know if they are bad or not, but jeez it sure seems like it.
Click to expand...

I don't care if the numbers are pretty consistent year-to-year, they are way too high and just can't understand some people's attitude that accept them. We CAN do better and we MUST do better. And please don't anybody start on the auto crashes/fatalities excuse. That's like comparing apples to oranges. GA is a privilege and we need to be mentally and physically prepared to do our very best each and every time we take to the air. We don't need the FAA to set more regs -- we need to take that step ourselves and not give them a reason to horn in restricting our flying privileges any more than they already have.:nono:
 
JM thanks for taking the time to pull those numbers. We seem to be slightly higher than last year, but lower than years before that. Even so with a spread from 154 to 178 over several years that's only a 15% change from best year to worst (in this sampling) and this year is actually towards the low end.

I'm gonna go back to my previous statement about the increased visibility of crashes thanks to the internet making it seem worse than it is. Too many, yes, but not vastly more now than before.
 
old cfi said:
I agree with eman -- too darn many. When you compare GA to airlines and corporate the answer has to be better training and proficiency.
Click to expand...

Well yes. Professional pilots fly a lot and have much more experience. They are also flying better maintained airplanes with more redundancy. Most are also required to get recurrent training. Do you propose we force every private pilot to meet these same standards?
 
old cfi said:
I don't care if the numbers are pretty consistent year-to-year, they are way too high and just can't understand some people's attitude that accept them. We CAN do better and we MUST do better. And please don't anybody start on the auto crashes/fatalities excuse. That's like comparing apples to oranges. GA is a privilege and we need to be mentally and physically prepared to do our very best each and every time we take to the air. We don't need the FAA to set more regs -- we need to take that step ourselves and not give them a reason to horn in restricting our flying privileges any more than they already have.:nono:
Click to expand...

Well, you had me for a while, but no sir - flying in the NAS is not a privilege. that airspace belongs to me and you, and the use of it is ours by right as long as we agree to the terms and conditions of our current administrators.

Would I like to see fewer accidents? Of course! Am I willing to let the feds further erode the rights of the people to achieve the reduction? Well, not really. Most of who we are killing is ourselves and adult passengers. Very few fatalities on the ground, and very few kids without their parents consent/knowledge. In another thread you mentioned the high amount of training hours being racked up. Doesn't seem like a correlation to fewer accidents now does it? I'll close by admitting I don't have the answers, but draconian regulation on sleep apena, further exams, and mandatory closure of airspace don't seem to be working for GA.
 
Gad, when I hear that "privilege" nonsense, it makes me gag! You fulfill the quaifications, take the tests, pass the checkride, the FAA isn't granting you anything - they don't have a choice, absent a legitimate reason, about issuing your ticket.

Don't run out of gas, don't continue VFR into IMC, and you'll likely due of a non-aviation related cause. . .

The accident "stats" are worthless - no one knows how many GA hours are flown, so no way to tell if the "stats" are better, worse, or the same. Comparing airlines to GA is comparing ocean liners to row boats; sure, training and repetetion matter, but not nearly so much as automation, two person crews, 99% straight and level at altitude, in radar contact, and massive support systems.
 
I used the term privilege in a different way -- meaning that just about all of us that have a pilot's license also have a driver's license but not the other way around. We took the extra steps to earn that privilege. Sorry for any confusion - didn't really spell it out correctly.

High amount of training hours were in relation to the PPL and instrument if I recall correctly. Let's face it, we are never more proficient and competent to handle emergencies than the week we take our check ride. From there, it goes down hill if we do not PRACTICE! Many of these accidents happen to pilots way past that check ride and, no, I want the FAA to stay the heck out of our regs. They've done enough damage already. We need to be honest in evaluating our own ability and go from there. Unfortunately there are those out there that can't see the forest for the trees. In other threads I have strongly urged proficiency over currency in instrument flying. That proficiency has to be carried over to all emergency procedures.
 
StinkBug said:
Well yes. Professional pilots fly a lot and have much more experience. They are also flying better maintained airplanes with more redundancy. Most are also required to get recurrent training. Do you propose we force every private pilot to meet these same standards?
Click to expand...

Have no doubt if the training was implemented, accident rates would go down. How much is unknown. I realize the equipment pro pilots fly beats the heck out of what GA has to offer. I'm not saying all accidents could be prevented but something has to change. The current system isn't working.
 
Sundancer said:
Gad, when I hear that "privilege" nonsense, it makes me gag! You fulfill the quaifications, take the tests, pass the checkride, the FAA isn't granting you anything - they don't have a choice, absent a legitimate reason, about issuing your ticket.

Don't run out of gas, don't continue VFR into IMC, and you'll likely due of a non-aviation related cause. . .

The accident "stats" are worthless - no one knows how many GA hours are flown, so no way to tell if the "stats" are better, worse, or the same. Comparing airlines to GA is comparing ocean liners to row boats; sure, training and repetetion matter, but not nearly so much as automation, two person crews, 99% straight and level at altitude, in radar contact, and massive support systems.
Click to expand...

But don't we owe it to ourselves and our unknowing passengers to maintain that proficiency we demonstrated on that check ride? Running out of gas, VFR into IFR, CFIT, overloaded out-of-CG are all pilot errors. If we eliminated those, that would be a start.

As far as the stats being worthless, I don't care how many hours GA is flying for a comparison. The simple fact is we can't seem to go very long without a fatal crash. Look at the last 2 days. And the Idaho landing could have very easily turned into one if the Interstate hadn't been so handy. Forgot to switch tanks, engine quit, didn't extend gear -- pilot error -- this is what I'm talking about. As far as "99% straight and level at altitude, in radar contact, and massive support systems" GA has all this, too.
 
The accident rate I care most about is my own. So far, it's zero. Could "we" reduce the GA rate, whatever the real number is? Sure, but at what costs, and by how much? We could cut drownings dramatically by outlawing swimming, or requiring a lifeguard for each wader, too.

It may be heresy, but I'm not seeing that much really does have to change; pilots with a reasonable degree of caution don't run out of gas or fly VFR into IMC. And the ones that do, will more training cure the bad judgement? Maybe to some degree, but enough to matter?
 
Before we decide somethings gotta be done, has anyone see this? Someone looked at historical records for the past 40 years late in 2014, and threw together a quick graph:
Did things really deteriorate since this was made?
Is anything about the depiction flawed?
Now don't think I am against taking steps to make aviation safer, but I do caution against the unintended consequences of such efforts...and want to make sure there really is a worsening problem before we do.

11tn4og.jpg
 
Sundancer said:
The accident rate I care most about is my own. So far, it's zero. Could "we" reduce the GA rate, whatever the real number is? Sure, but at what costs, and by how much? We could cut drownings dramatically by outlawing swimming, or requiring a lifeguard for each wader, too.

It may be heresy, but I'm not seeing that much really does have to change; pilots with a reasonable degree of caution don't run out of gas or fly VFR into IMC. And the ones that do, will more training cure the bad judgement? Maybe to some degree, but enough to matter?
Click to expand...

We could cut drowning by not allowing anybody in the water that couldn't swim. Of course, I'm be facetious but the end result would be the same. Competent swimmers usually don't drown and competent pilots usually don't kill themselves.

The bad judgement fliers will always be there just like the driving while intoxicated get in their cars and drive. Short of impounding their cars that's not going to change. Unfortunately, so will those pilots but hopefully their numbers are fewer and fewer with time. I guess the point that really bothers me is the "things are gonna happen" attitude. Hopefully it doesn't happen to anyone I know. I've already lost 2 I knew to crashes that were not their fault - one midair (run over from behind) and one as a pilot passenger in a helicopter.:sad:
 
old cfi said:
We could cut drowning by not allowing anybody in the water that couldn't swim. Of course, I'm be facetious but the end result would be the same. Competent swimmers usually don't drown and competent pilots usually don't kill themselves.

The bad judgement fliers will always be there just like the driving while intoxicated get in their cars and drive. Short of impounding their cars that's not going to change. Unfortunately, so will those pilots but hopefully their numbers are fewer and fewer with time. I guess the point that really bothers me is the "things are gonna happen" attitude. Hopefully it doesn't happen to anyone I know. I've already lost 2 I knew to crashes that were not their fault - one midair (run over from behind) and one as a pilot passenger in a helicopter.:sad:
Click to expand...

So how exactly do you propose to get rid of these incompetent pilots? Training? Give me a break, every one of these guys can put on a show for a check ride. The problem is the complacency and lack of attention when they are in the wild and if you think we can control that you're high on something good. The best we can do is to keep our own accident rates as low as possible and promote good choices. At the end of the day promote is all we can do though.
 
I'm always curious about one thing during these types of threads. Here it is- what do the people saying the accident rate is too high believe to be a reasonable number of fatal accidents each year? Until that question is answered we are just wasting time circling around the issue. If you believe 157 is too high for a year what's the goal then?

I'll also remind everyone of a quote John Adams said. I'm paraphrasing here a bit because I don't remember the exact wording but it goes like this, "those willing to sacrifice even the smallest of liberties deserve neither that liberty nor any other liberty." I'm not going to say that we should accept fatal GA statistics but I'm not willing to sacrifice my liberty to fly to pretend that this stat can be lowered. It was a worse year for GA but let's not willingly advocate for more regulations.
 
jspilot said:
I'm always curious about one thing during these types of threads. Here it is- what do the people saying the accident rate is too high believe to be a reasonable number of fatal accidents each year? Until that question is answered we are just wasting time circling around the issue. If you believe 157 is too high for a year what's the goal then?.....
Click to expand...


Easy question.......NONE. NO fatalities. That's my goal.
 
The fatal accident rate is about as low as we will get it. Zero might be desirable - but is unobtainable in the real world.
A whole host of reasons for that - a prime one being that human bodies do not do well being subjected to 50g or 100g in a sudden stop up against a tree or the ground.
Another being the cussed orneriness and general level of stupid of the average human. A point is case are the planes being brought to my mechanic for the blessed annual event. In about one out of five cases, after a quick look at the plane and the logs, he flat refuses to do the 'annual' explaining to the whining owners that it will cost $20,000 or $30,000 to make their $40,000 airplane actually legal to fly. And he is too old and too tired to put up with the weeping and wailing from them as he does so. He is the only game left in town. The planes he sees have been pencil whipped by the previous mechanics for decades - and he refuses to step into the steaming pile they have left behind.
So what is the outcome? They fly the plane away and go find another pencil whipper 300 miles away to do the blessed event. Any guesses as to why a zero fatal rate is unobtainable? (and this is only one link in the chain)
 
Energy prices went down, so folks flew their airplanes more. More of them came to grief, probably at the exact same rate as the year before and the year before that. Actually, perhaps a bit more since the year before that energy prices were high and they didn't have a ny money to fly their airplane, so they were rusty.
 
Geico266 said:
Interesting article in Kit Planes on how to reduce the number of GA accidents.

http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/29_1/exploring/Unusual_Attitude_Safety_is_a_culture_20336-1.html
Click to expand...

"• To prevent loss-of-control accidents, we need to hone our flying skills."
That would include upset training from competent instructors to expand our envelope enough that we don't find ourselves accidentally outside said envelope.
Of course, it would also mean that instructors should do more than just teach that a slip on final will result in a stall spin - so never do it.

Too much quoting out of the book and not enough understanding.

And, it would mean that power off landings to a spot should be routine so when the fan does quit you don't come up 20 feet short...

​
"• To prevent cowboy accidents, we simply must quit doing show-off stunts."
I would agree that low altitude hot dogging or aerobatics in a non aerobatic capable airplane (more of an issue with homebuilts than factory built) is generally a bad idea. But, again, expanding the envelope just expands your bag of tricks for that one time when you need it.

The problem is: how do you get through to some people? (If you figure that one out - let me know - I could use that here at school.)

​
"• To minimize mechanical problems, we need to become better builders and mechanics."
Homebuilts seem to fall short on fuel / electrical systems - not the "what if someone left a bolt out of the wing" kind of failure that is first on the lips of many. My ride would be prime example.

I think in the factory world, a problem maintenance avoided or 1/4 assed because the real replacement part is either unobtainable or priced like it is. I've seen A&Ps talk about disassembling a rocker switch to clean it up instead of installing a new switch from Mouser... effing nuts.

​
"• As pilots, we must know our airplanes' systems better."
I am amazed at some of the discussions where pilots don't understand basics like how an impulse mag works, or an alternator, or...

​
 
steingar said:
Energy prices went down, so folks flew their airplanes more. More of them came to grief, probably at the exact same rate as the year before and the year before that. Actually, perhaps a bit more since the year before that energy prices were high and they didn't have a ny money to fly their airplane, so they were rusty.
Click to expand...
Somewhat dated (one of these days I will bring it more up to date), but you see trends in accidents that clearly have nothing to do with training or regulation - compare the 150/152 line (dash red - starts out highest) with the 172 line (blue - starts below 150 ends well above):
Annual_Accicent_Rates.jpg
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Somewhat dated (one of these days I will bring it more up to date), but you see trends in accidents that clearly have nothing to do with training or regulation - compare the 150/152 line (dash red - starts out highest) with the 172 line (blue - starts below 150 ends well above):
Click to expand...

Anyone who tracks total aircraft accidents without accounting for attrition generates useless data. Many of those aircraft haven't been made in my lifetime.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
"• To prevent loss-of-control accidents, we need to hone our flying skills."

​
"• To prevent cowboy accidents, we simply must quit doing show-off stunts."

​
"• To minimize mechanical problems, we need to become better builders and mechanics."

​
"• As pilots, we must know our airplanes' systems better."​
Click to expand...

Those were good topics, but do they address the reasons pilots crash (and die in) airplanes? I know it used to be low level loss of control, flight into IMC and running out of gas that caused the majority of accidents. Is that still the case?

In terms of addressing this, I'd look to what the airlines do:

1) Mandatory recurrent training: Every pilot should be required to take training every year with special emphasis on the top 3 topics which are causing crashes. That needs to be substantial, much more than the hour biannual training that we have now. Yes, it increases the cost, I don't believe you'll get safer without pilots spending a little money to fly. Perhaps that training can be reduced for pilots who fly a lot, but I think it's the number one thing that will prevent accidents.

2) Use 2 pilot operations. I don't want to mandate 2 pilots, but I believe CRM training and 2 pilots in a cockpit can be a great safety advantage - the PF and PM concept is used in the airlines for a reason.

I also advocate that pilots who lose their medical should be able to fly with other pilots who lose their medicals as a required second crew member...the odds of two pilots having a problem at the same time is even lower than single pilot operations in almost every case.

3) More formalized flight planning? I'd hate this, but it would work.

What else?
 
Last edited:
Dr. O said:
The fatal accident rate is about as low as we will get it. Zero might be desirable - but is unobtainable in the real world.
A whole host of reasons for that - a prime one being that human bodies do not do well being subjected to 50g or 100g in a sudden stop up against a tree or the ground.
Another being the cussed orneriness and general level of stupid of the average human. A point is case are the planes being brought to my mechanic for the blessed annual event. In about one out of five cases, after a quick look at the plane and the logs, he flat refuses to do the 'annual' explaining to the whining owners that it will cost $20,000 or $30,000 to make their $40,000 airplane actually legal to fly. And he is too old and too tired to put up with the weeping and wailing from them as he does so. He is the only game left in town. The planes he sees have been pencil whipped by the previous mechanics for decades - and he refuses to step into the steaming pile they have left behind.
So what is the outcome? They fly the plane away and go find another pencil whipper 300 miles away to do the blessed event. Any guesses as to why a zero fatal rate is unobtainable? (and this is only one link in the chain)
Click to expand...

And yet, while the inevitable pencil-whipping is always a concern, precious few aircraft accidents are the result of mechanical failures. It's mostly stupid pilot tricks that are killing us.

Don't fly without gas. Don't fly in weather for which you are not trained, competent and equipped. Don't fly at the edge of the air except for takeoff and landing. That takes the overwhelming majority of critical events out.
 
bflynn said:
1) Mandatory recurrent training: Every pilot should be required to take training every year with special emphasis on the top 3 topics which are causing crashes. That needs to be substantial, much more than the hour biannual training that we have now. Yes, it increases the cost, I don't believe you'll get safer without pilots spending a little money to fly. Perhaps that training can be reduced for pilots who fly a lot, but I think it's the number one thing that will prevent accidents.

2) Use 2 pilot operations. I don't want to mandate 2 pilots, but I believe CRM training and 2 pilots in a cockpit can be a great safety advantage - the PF and PM concept is used in the airlines for a reason.

What else?
Click to expand...
1. Make it mandatory for yourself. It's called free will, and it might be best to see to your own skill level, and let the rest of us see to ours. When the slugs and dummies make a smoking hole, you can feel smug and self righteous, without having imposed your concept of uber-safety on others.

2. I don't want another pilot in my plane - and I don't care if it improves safety. I don't want to be safer, and I don't fly to be safe; I fly because I like flying.
 
No doubt there are lots of factors that directly or indirectly relate to causes of accidents. And those factors are hard, if at all possible, to get from the ntsb's repository.

I've been occasionally reading thought some of the reports as well and, without hashing out any stat charts, what I noticed is that "many" of the fatal accidents happened in phases of flight in which the airplane is close to the ground and requires most attention to maneuvering. I suppose that's not surprising, is it.

Some things a pilot just cannot control, but most often, the pilot flying can prevent that wing from unintentionally stalling. No matter what (engine failure, plane on fire, etc.), fly that wing until there's no more room.

(I recently read the report on a plane that crashed on a rail road track, next to my home airport. The pilot kept the plane flying after the engine chocked: the plane was totaled, but he was mostly unhurt. It turns out the investigators found the leftovers from an insect stuck in some part of the carburetor. But kept that thing flying for as long as he had room, and survived).

EDIT: I'm prolly 'talking' to myself here, but that the number values of crashes in a particular calendar time, by themselves, don't mean much. We often hear of "reducing the rate of crashes". Well, to get a rate we need a numerator (representing the number of crashes) and a denominator (like hours flown, etc.), and there must be a 'meaningful' relationship between these two. It is possible that even though there are more crashes in a year than the prior one, the actual rate could have gone down. My silly point is that some number of accidents in a calendar period with no other relevant variable, doesn't help us much in understanding if the rate of accidents has gone up, down, or stayed the same.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top