How will FAA respond to 2015 GA accident/fatality rate?

[wanttaja]

That wasn't the point of bringing up how much people are flying. The point is that it's erroneous to assume that more total accidents equals decreased safety, because the way safety is measured is by calculating the number of accidents per 100,000 flight hours.

The problem is, *how* the number of flight hours is calculated. The process is broken, and too many people are making conclusions on bad data. The Aircraft Reregistration process hosed up the process, but few at the FAA understands that.

Let's examine how the FAA determines the number of hours GA flies every year.

Every year, the FAA sends out a survey to a subset of aircraft owners. Owners are asked to identify the type of aircraft, whether it is active, and, if so, how many hours it was flown the previous year.

A certain proportion of surveys aren't answered. The FAA ignores them (remember this...it's key!). From the rest, they identify what percentage of aircraft of each type is active, and come up with an average number of flight hours.

For instance, in the latest survey results I have (the 2013 survey), the FAA estimated that 84.9% of the fixed wing, piston-powered, GA aircraft with four or more seats are still active, and that they flew an average of 89.9 hours per year.

They then multiply that percentage by the number of registered aircraft, and multiply it by the average number of flight hours to produce an estimate of total flight hours. (For those keeping score, it came to 8,278,343 hours for the fixed-wing, recip-powered, 4+ seaters).

OK, we've got a value for 2013.

But what happens when we repeat the process for 2014? They repeat the surveys, they again multiply it by the number of registered aircraft, and come up with another estimate of total flight hours.

The big problem is, over 12,500 aircraft were administratively removed from the FAA registry during 2014. That's at least five times more than the number of new aircraft produced in the year! So the number of estimated flight hours decreases, and, since the same number of accidents occurred, the accident rate skyrockets!

So, what has happened? Most of the airplanes that were deregistered probably hadn't existed for years and mail to the owners...including surveys... bounced back as undeliverable.

And the bounced-back mail doesn't count....the FAA's estimate of the percentage of active aircraft is based *only* on returned surveys.

So the estimate of the percentage active aircraft is essentially unchanged from 2013 to 2014. But that means that 84.9% of the deregistered aircraft WERE ASSUMED TO BE ACTIVE AIRCRAFT IN 2013.

In reality, most of the 12,500 aircraft were inactive all along. But the survey process has assumed that over 10,600 (12,500 x 84.9%) of them had flown nearly 90 hours the previous year... and thus the computed total number of hours flown decreases by almost a million hours.

And of course, the ACTUAL number of hours flown is, at worst the same.

THAT'S why the accident rate spiked. Not because there were significantly more accidents (though the number does vary), but because the broken process assumed a significant drop in the number of hours flown.

There were 1519 accidents in 2015, and almost 300 more (1806) in 2009. But there were almost 90,000 aircraft removed from the rolls during that time (87,789). A bit over 16,000 were exported, at most ~12,000 were removed due to accidents (and not all crashed airplanes are removed from the database).

Using the FAA's 84.9% active percentage, that means that the FAA's process assumed about FIFTY THOUSAND ACTIVE AIRCRAFT were removed from the rolls over that five-year period.... when the vast majority probably hadn't flown for years. Yet that assumption is used when computing the accidents-per-100,000-flight-hours accident rate.

And THAT'S why "the accident rate has increased."

I attended the FAA/EAA Safety Summit last February; the Homebuilt accident rate "had increased" and the FAA was concerned. Of course, it was all due to the deregistration effort. I've attached some of the charts I showed at the Summit to explain the issue.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[docmirror]

Thanks Ron, I was hoping you would bring some value to the table and you have done so with vigor. My thread is based on simple empirical data, with no stochastic modeling at all. I'm more interested in what the FAA thinks, and what they may do about what their numbers come up with for 2015.

Some niggling thing in the back of my head tells me it's going to be unpleasant for the GA community because they can't be seen to be lethargic. Some number will trip up, bells will go off, lights will flash, media reports will be written and then 'something' has to be done about those little planes.

While I'm not against fact-supported, and well documented improvements in training to gain a lower rate, I can't for the life of me accept any kind of further required regulatory increase. I think there needs to be a carrot laid out like deferred 3rd class med for someone who keeps up their currency, or something similar. But just to make more rules about flight hours, or book hours, or taking an online course, seems to be the way it's going to go, and all without much solid evidence to back it up.

 

[James331]

Why do you think that? Their budget is down, they barely have enough resources to cover their real mission, airline safety, and the political mandate is to loosen the reigns on GA, not tighten them. I think things will be status quo except maybe increase the educational emails and presentations.

I hope you're right.

 

[RyanShort1]

Now that makes sense Ron!!!

 

[wanttaja]

Thanks Ron, I was hoping you would bring some value to the table and you have done so with vigor. My thread is based on simple empirical data, with no stochastic modeling at all. I'm more interested in what the FAA thinks, and what they may do about what their numbers come up with for 2015.

Some niggling thing in the back of my head tells me it's going to be unpleasant for the GA community because they can't be seen to be lethargic.

Plus, the "Performance Management" goals for key FAA personnel is tied to the accident rate. If it goes up, they need to be seen "taking action to correct it."

When I gave the homebuilt presentation at the Safety Summit in February, I told the FAA guys that the de-registration issue was the reason for the increase in the overall rate as well. They seemed only moderately happy...because while they (hopefully) believed me, they faced trying to explain the problem to THEIR bosses.

The problem basically arises when people take two or more disparate, unrelated statistics and try to tie them together. The FAA Survey people are probably well aware of the effect of the de-registration process on their data, but it would be far more of an involved process to apply any sort of correction.

But then, someone ELSE ties it to the NTSB database. They see a single number generated by the NTSB, and of course the FAA survey data is "Official," and the result is some lousy statistics generated. In almost all cases, they don't even bother to identify their data sources... so you can't really tell why their numbers are goofy.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Palmpilot]

Suddenly the situation is much clearer - THANK YOU, Ron!

 

[RyanShort1]

So statistics don't lie... or maybe the GA safety stats have actually been worse all along and we didn't know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wanttaja]

So statistics don't lie... or maybe the GA safety stats have actually been worse all along and we didn't know.

Well...statistics don't lie, but like any tool, their accuracy depends on the users.

In my opinion, we aren't seeing cases where folks are manipulating the data to make their pet points. Opportunities for innocent mistakes abound, and if someone doesn't understand *how* a certain statistic they're using was generated, it's possible they're miss-using it.

The FAA estimations of the number of annual flight hours is a classic example. EVERYONE wants their accident rates in terms of accidents per 100,000 flight hours. But they most don't understand how the number is generated, and thus since it's "An official figure from the FAA" it cannot be wrong.

But, as I explained above, they are messed up by the re-registration process... and will be until NEXT year's figures come out (first full year beyond the first re-registration cycle).

Ron Wanttaja

 

[luvflyin]

What I'm trying to figure is what is enough? At what point does the FAA consider the accident rate acceptable, and to what expense in time and money will they go to achieve their benchmark?

There's certainly a relationship between training and lower accidents, I think we all agree. But - where does the FAA set it's line in the sand? How much is enough, and how much is too much? As I've been fond of saying, N Korea has a perfect GA safety record. Zero accidents, zero fatalities. More training, the right kind of training, testing, certifications, check rides, anything else?

I doubt very much if there is some hard number that is "the acceptable rate." If there was and that got leaked, the Media and Legal professions would be licking their chops so fast they might drown in their own drool. Time will tell if the "rate" is up. Time will tell if there is a "recurring" theme. The "benchmark" I think is ultimately going to be set in the Court of public opinion. I smell change in the air. Some new regulations may be on the way and they will have been written in blood. Ya don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

 

[RyanShort1]

Well...statistics don't lie, but like any tool, their accuracy depends on the users.

In my opinion, we aren't seeing cases where folks are manipulating the data to make their pet points. Opportunities for innocent mistakes abound, and if someone doesn't understand *how* a certain statistic they're using was generated, it's possible they're miss-using it.

The FAA estimations of the number of annual flight hours is a classic example. EVERYONE wants their accident rates in terms of accidents per 100,000 flight hours. But they most don't understand how the number is generated, and thus since it's "An official figure from the FAA" it cannot be wrong.

But, as I explained above, they are messed up by the re-registration process... and will be until NEXT year's figures come out (first full year beyond the first re-registration cycle).

Ron Wanttaja

Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out that if the FAA's re-registration process right now is weeding out aircraft that actually have been idle for longer still - then probably there were less flight hours in years before, too, but because of the sample data and results, the appearance might have been more hours in the fleet.

 

[jspilot]

Less time between re-currency training and stricter flight reviews or Wings Prgoram stuff seems to be what they are pushing for right now.

I have a part time gig as a hockey ref. I've had it since high school( about 16 years.) Even to officiate "little Johnny's" weekend hockey game I must attend an annual training seminar, take a test, attend online seminars and so forth. However, if I were to fly "little Johnny" in a 172, I only need a BFR which usually consists of a few trips around the pattern and maybe some PPL maneuvers.

I hate going to the training for the officiating, but it does add to the illusion of competency amoungst the officiating community. It does not make a lot of sense to me that pilots only ever have to pass a test once and then have a lifetime ticket. It's amazing, the freedom and I don't want to sacrifice that, but we do need to be realistic. It's not asking us that much to take an online recurrent seminar, even if it's just on the regulations.

 

[James331]

I have a part time gig as a hockey ref. I've had it since high school( about 16 years.) Even to officiate "little Johnny's" weekend hockey game I must attend an annual training seminar, take a test, attend online seminars and so forth. However, if I were to fly "little Johnny" in a 172, I only need a BFR which usually consists of a few trips around the pattern and maybe some PPL maneuvers.

I hate going to the training for the officiating, but it does add to the illusion of competency amoungst the officiating community. It does not make a lot of sense to me that pilots only ever have to pass a test once and then have a lifetime ticket. It's amazing, the freedom and I don't want to sacrifice that, but we do need to be realistic. It's not asking us that much to take an online recurrent seminar, even if it's just on the regulations.

?

Every two years you need to complete a BFR, got to manage to complete all your other currency stuff to, be it night, IFR, tailwheel, etc.

 

[RotorAndWing]

?

Every two years you need to complete a BFR, got to manage to complete all your other currency stuff to, be it night, IFR, tailwheel, etc.

And how many BFR's are done on a Saturday morning "hamburger run" with a buddy CFI to "take care of the BFR signoff" routine?

James is not required to perform a BFR because his company provides him with recurrent training which is an approved program and monitored. He also receives an annual .293/.297/.299 check ride which is mandatory and standardized as well as being administered by a company check pilot who is a designee of the FAA, and he accomplishes a 6 month .297 check which is standardized.

A lot of GA pilots (Part 91) never see training again once they get their license.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

A lot of GA pilots (Part 91) never see training again once they get their license.

Well....when yer good, yer good.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

And how many BFR's are done on a Saturday morning "hamburger run" with a buddy CFI to "take care of the BFR signoff" routine?

So, like, requiring that it happen every 6 months instead of every 2 years will, like, totally change this? (Assuming that this is happening.)


FWIW, exactly zero of my flight reviews (even going back to the days when they actually were actually called "biennial flight reviews") were done on a Saturday morning "hamburger run"...

 

[steingar]

I hate to break it to you gentlemen, but flying an airplane is not rocket science. Most of the airplanes we fly were built in yesteryear and aren't all that particularly difficult to fly. Most accidents are because the pilot developed bad habits, not because he or she forgot how.

 

[RotorAndWing]

So, like, requiring that it happen every 6 months instead of every 2 years will, like, totally change this? (Assuming that this is happening.)

It has more to do with the quality of the check rather than the frequency. The flight reviews as written now are basically on the honor system.

FWIW, exactly zero of my flight reviews (even going back to the days when they actually were actually called "biennial flight reviews") were done on a Saturday morning "hamburger run"...

Good for you.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

btw.....I don't eat hamburgers.

 

[James331]

I hate to break it to you gentlemen, but flying an airplane is not rocket science. Most of the airplanes we fly were built in yesteryear and aren't all that particularly difficult to fly. Most accidents are because the pilot developed bad habits, not because he or she forgot how.

What R&W said is correct about my situation, however the above appears to be correct, I think many of these accidents are the results of poor decisions, which many pilots wouldn't make with a CFI/DPE/etc in the right seat. You're never going to take the human factor out, sorry.

I'd rather have more risk than have our GA system turn into something like many other countries have.



Plus if the Feds are so concerned with safety why do they tie our hands when it comes to putting modern SV, fully coupled APs, ADSB, AHRS, WAAS, flight directors, fuel totalizers and computers, etc into our certified aircraft without needing to take a mortgage our on our homes.

They gave SV GPS to quite a few operators in AK and the accidents went down, I'd say the risk of not requiring a first born and the horn of a unicorn to certify a PFD out weighs the minuscule chance it goes TU. I haven't read about many experimentals falling out of the air due to their glass panels or APs taking a crap, absolutely zero when compared to VMC -> IMC or CFITs in certified planes.

I'd wager fixing our cantankerous certification process would help much more than messing the BFRs in a pointless attempt to eliminate humans making dumb choices.

 

[RotorAndWing]

What R&W said is correct about my situation, however the above appears to be correct, I think many of these accidents are the results of poor decisions, which many pilots wouldn't make with a CFI/DPE/etc in the right seat. You're never going to take the human factor out, sorry.

I'd rather have more risk than have our GA system turn into something like many other countries have.



Plus if the Feds are so concerned with safety why do they tie our hands when it comes to putting modern SV, fully coupled APs, ADSB, AHRS, WAAS, flight directors, fuel totalizers and computers, etc into our certified aircraft without needing to take a mortgage our on our homes.

They gave SV GPS to quite a few operators in AK and the accidents went down, I'd say the risk of not requiring a first born and the horn of a unicorn to certify a PFD out weighs the minuscule chance it goes TU. I haven't read about many experimentals falling out of the air due to their glass panels or APs taking a crap, absolutely zero when compared to VMC -> IMC or CFITs in certified planes.

I'd wager fixing our cantankerous certification process would help much more than messing the BFRs in a pointless attempt to eliminate humans making dumb choices.

Filling the cockpit full of gee wiz boxes won't help unless the pilot is trained and understands the systems along with their limitations.

Better education in Aviation Decision Making and Threat and Error Management will go a long way in reducing accidents. In your job it's mandatory training, in part 91 it's optional. Which sector has the worst safety record?

 

[James331]

Filling the cockpit full of gee wiz boxes won't help unless the pilot is trained and understands the systems along with their limitations.

Better education in Aviation Decision Making and Threat and Error Management will go a long way in reducing accidents. In your job it's mandatory training, in part 91 it's optional. Which sector has the worst safety record?

Agreed.

But it's hand and hand.

Training could improve, but without turning us into some European GA chit show, however this should come along with letting some tech into the panels of the fleet.

If this was as easy to install price and paper works wise in a 172N as a RV, you'd see students being trained on it and safey would improve.

I see zero reason certified aircraft arnt allowed these types of tools, especially when for $2k you have a entire panel which could be even be installed in a 7ECA.

When the FAA spews pages and pages of rules for "saftey" but ignores this type of low cost tech for the majority of the fleet, their words ring hollow for me.

 

[docmirror]

The proof of the regulatory hurdles is in the history of shoulder harness retrofit. At first, the FAA was rigidly enforcing their testing mantra with new harnesses. So, very few planes built in the 50s got them installed. Their reasoning was, a poor harness is worse than NO harness at all. Finally after a few deaths that were preventable with a harness of any kind, they issued a memo(reversed themselves) and said harnesses had to be workmanlike, and properly attached, but they would approve them on a 337. Then more started to be installed, and other mfg started to make kits, and gee wiz - people died less from trauma due to having something, anything installed.

As for the electronics, I'm of the opinion that anything installed that will offer better SA is always a gain. Even if you never ever crack the book on how to use it. If it's on, and showing some kind of graphical representation of the terrain/height/attitude or a combo, that's better than a 3 inch round ball with a blue top and a black bottom. But oh no, the ball with blue and black is 'certified' and the 3000 times better electronic box is not 'certified'.

So, the FAA will once again eventually 'learn' it's mistake again from the harness fiasco. Or - maybe they won't. The mfg of these wiz-boxes are getting smarter. They are becoming fully self contained with only a 12V adapter needed to provide better SA, and then they slap a label on it 'not a primary flight display' and sell it to cert plane owners who velcro it right over top of the DG and AI. Vast improvement, with infinitely greater info and if the vac goes out, you are still back to the T&B and have lost nothing. If the elec goes down, and the screen goes blank, pull off the velcro and go 'old school'.

The FAA is not doing the next gen of pilots and plane owners any favors by dragging their feet on modernization of the cockpit through excessive cost certification.

 

[Everskyward]

If this was as easy to install price and paper works wise in a 172N as a RV, you'd see students being trained on it and safey would improve.

Do you think so? I don't know.

I'm not convinced that fancy boxes improve safety, especially for low-time VFR pilots. Even for higher-time IFR pilots, the box needs to be set up correctly for it to work properly, and I think it could easily become more of a distraction than an aid. Yes, with proper training and currency they are a great thing. The other problem is that not all boxes work alike and if you are a renter or fly different avionics you will need to learn the complexities of each unit individually.

 

[James331]

Do you think so? I don't know.

I'm not convinced that fancy boxes improve safety, especially for low-time VFR pilots. Even for higher-time IFR pilots, the box needs to be set up correctly for it to work properly, and I think it could easily become more of a distraction than an aid. Yes, with proper training an currency they are a great thing. The other problem is that not all boxes work alike and if you are a renter or fly different avionics you will need to learn the complexities of each unit individually.

YES.

The proof of the regulatory hurdles is in the history of shoulder harness retrofit. At first, the FAA was rigidly enforcing their testing mantra with new harnesses. So, very few planes built in the 50s got them installed. Their reasoning was, a poor harness is worse than NO harness at all. Finally after a few deaths that were preventable with a harness of any kind, they issued a memo(reversed themselves) and said harnesses had to be workmanlike, and properly attached, but they would approve them on a 337. Then more started to be installed, and other mfg started to make kits, and gee wiz - people died less from trauma due to having something, anything installed.

As for the electronics, I'm of the opinion that anything installed that will offer better SA is always a gain. Even if you never ever crack the book on how to use it. If it's on, and showing some kind of graphical representation of the terrain/height/attitude or a combo, that's better than a 3 inch round ball with a blue top and a black bottom. But oh no, the ball with blue and black is 'certified' and the 3000 times better electronic box is not 'certified'.

So, the FAA will once again eventually 'learn' it's mistake again from the harness fiasco. Or - maybe they won't. The mfg of these wiz-boxes are getting smarter. They are becoming fully self contained with only a 12V adapter needed to provide better SA, and then they slap a label on it 'not a primary flight display' and sell it to cert plane owners who velcro it right over top of the DG and AI. Vast improvement, with infinitely greater info and if the vac goes out, you are still back to the T&B and have lost nothing. If the elec goes down, and the screen goes blank, pull off the velcro and go 'old school'.

The FAA is not doing the next gen of pilots and plane owners any favors by dragging their feet on modernization of the cockpit through excessive cost certification.

Bingo.



Go IMC as a VFR pilot with SV and a flight director, common sense says you're much more likley to survive, especially with flight director and or a full 2 axis AP at your command,

when you're debating stretching your range to get to a airport with cheaper fuel (few got bit by this one), go direct to on the GPS, and the system says based on your onboard fuel, fuel flow and ground speed, you ain't going to make it, you're less likley to try,

if something happens to you it's easier for a pax to hit the AP, tap a few keys, say help on the radio and have the plane fly to a airport and shoot a approach on it's own.


Plus having AFFORDABLE full ADSB is good (when the govt doesn't jam it ).


And this is from a guy who learned to fly in a no electric taildragger, who has his students fly a few patterns without looking at their panel, etc.

The buttonolgy on these things is also far better and easier to lean on compared to the certified units.




So, not just yes, but HELL YES, making this stuff accessible to the whole fleet, old 150s and half mil SR22s alike, would help folks, it would make us safer without a doubt.

 

[Stewartb]

Electronics don't improve safety in many cases. In fact they may cause accidents that would otherwise be avoided. It's been demonstrated in the past. When moving map GPS became available VFR pilots lowered their minimums for go/no-go decision making and it caused accidents.

 

[Everskyward]

To a point I do.

Go IMC as a VFR pilot with SV and a flight director, common sense says you're much more likley to survive, especially with flight director and or a full 2 axis AP at your command,

But you need to know how to use those things. Has there been any research putting people in a full motion sim and seeing if they can maintain control of the airplane more successfully using the display vs. an attitude indicator?

when you're debating stretching your range to get to a airport with cheaper fuel (few got bit by this one), go direct to on the GPS, and the system says based on your onboard fuel, fuel flow and ground speed, you ain't going to make it, you're less likley to try,

Or they may be more confident of their fuel situation and cut it closer. I see some room for error in the fact that the beginning quantity needs to be set correctly. If you're not starting with full tanks that may be difficult. It's my impression that these systems are based on fuel flow and not improved probes such as capacitance units in the tanks.

if something happens to you it's easier for a pax to hit the AP, tap a few keys, say help on the radio and have the plane fly to a airport and shoot a approach on it's own.

Again, I think "tapping a few keys" is an oversimplification. Sit a non-pilot down with one of these units and try to get them to program an approach without looking at them? Not to mention the fact that ATC doesn't know how all these units work.

Sorry not convinced these units would improve safety to a measurable extent.

 

[James331]

Electronics don't improve safety in many cases. In fact they may cause accidents that would otherwise be avoided. It's been demonstrated in the past. When moving map GPS became available VFR pilots lowered their minimums for go/no-go decision making and it caused accidents.

Ask the working pilots in your home state.

Capstone

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/air...ne-Heating-Up-in-Alaska_757.html#.VfmEZmK9KSM

But you need to know how to use those things. Has there been any research putting people in a full motion sim and seeing if they can maintain control of the airplane more successfully using the display vs. an attitude indicator?

Not exactly.

Even if you arnt a pilot you can see the hill, and can see the top is red, red obviously isn't good.

This vs a blue and green circle with a little chevron in it with no features of where you are and zero resemblance of what's outside.

Just right there that's a huge CFIT and IMC loss of control preventer, even if you can't figure out any other function.

 

[wanttaja]

Go IMC as a VFR pilot with SV and a flight director, common sense says you're much more likley to survive, especially with flight director and or a full 2 axis AP at your command.

If we accept this as true, what benefit will be received?

Continued VFR into IMC is a very minor fraction of the total accidents (Surprisingly, an even lower percentage of the fatal ones). Less than 4% of the Cessna 172s; less than 6% of the PA-28 (fixed gear). Just over 1% for the homebuilts.

The problem isn't hardware; it isn't even judgement. It's the failure of the stick-and-rudder skills...60% of the C-172 accidents. Other than full-authority Fly-By-Wire control systems, you probably aren't going to beat that with technology.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[docmirror]

Given there are some folks who will use tech devices to increase their risk levels. You can't change human nature, and a certain segment will always be there. But the undisputed facts are that syn vision displays, and HUD systems are just plain better than the blue/black ball and a rotating gyro compass. Even by someone never trained on them, like me, I can get 50X the information with a glance than I can with the blue/black ball.

What's more, as I understand them, they are pre-programmed with alerts for CFIT, and you have to actually disable those alerts to make them stop.

Slowing adoption of new tech because of human nature is a losing proposition. It's been proven time after time after time in the auto industry where airbags and ABS let people take more risks. The fatality rate still goes down, even if used by dumbazzes. This false restriction on 'it will kill you if you don't know it' is the same old side-show Bob sleigh of hand. And I'm an old stick and rudder guy who started in a TW plane with no gyros at all.

 

[Stewartb]

Ask the working pilots in your home state.

Capstone

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/air...ne-Heating-Up-in-Alaska_757.html#.VfmEZmK9KSM

But you need to know how to use those things. Has there been any research putting people in a full motion sim and seeing if they can maintain control of the airplane more successfully using the display vs. an attitude indicator?

Not exactly.

Even if you arnt a pilot you can see the hill, and can see the top is red, red obviously isn't good.

This vs a blue and green circle with a little chevron in it with no features of where you are and zero resemblance of what's outside.

Just right there that's a huge CFIT and IMC loss of control preventer, even if you can't figure out any other function.

I've asked lots of working pilots in my home state. They've been trained to use their equipment and in their areas the equipment offers an improvement to what they had prior. That doesn't mean John Q. Public in a beater Champ is automatically a better pilot the day he buys an iPad and a SV app. Training is still the best answer to accident prevention. That's true regardless of equipment and in fact is probably more true with the addition of equipment.

 

[RyanShort1]

If we accept this as true, what benefit will be received?

Continued VFR into IMC is a very minor fraction of the total accidents (Surprisingly, an even lower percentage of the fatal ones). Less than 4% of the Cessna 172s; less than 6% of the PA-28 (fixed gear). Just over 1% for the homebuilts.

The problem isn't hardware; it isn't even judgement. It's the failure of the stick-and-rudder skills...60% of the C-172 accidents. Other than full-authority Fly-By-Wire control systems, you probably aren't going to beat that with technology.

Ron Wanttaja

Exactly. Loss of control is the final nail in the coffin. I'm personally for relaxing the very standards for better equipment, but maintaining more precise aircraft control in demonstrable maneuvers that we can test is something that should not be overlooked.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James331]

Ask the working pilots in your home state.

Capstone

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/air...ne-Heating-Up-in-Alaska_757.html#.VfmEZmK9KSM





I've asked lots of working pilots in my home state. They've been trained to use their equipment and in their areas the equipment offers an improvement to what they had prior. That doesn't mean John Q. Public in a beater Champ is automatically a better pilot the day he buys an iPad and a SV app. Training is still the best answer to accident prevention. That's true regardless of equipment and in fact is probably more true with the addition of equipment.

Better pilot, of course not.

Less likley to nail a hill, yes

Has access to more info, yes

Can see a engine failure before it's a failure with the nice monitors, yup



Guys.... are you telling me without your training, you can't see the hill in that picture? Really?

Exactly. Loss of control is the final nail in the coffin. I'm personally for relaxing the very standards for better equipment, but maintaining more precise aircraft control in demonstrable maneuvers that we can test is something that should not be overlooked.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That same system has a built in AOA with stall warning.


But on a non tech side, I'm all for brining back spin training, and I am a huge proponent of building your foundation in gliders or tailwheel

 

[Stewartb]

You miss the point. If the little box lowered the pilot's no-go threshold that pilot is entering into dangerous conditions. Seeing the TV screen and flying out of IFR conditions are very different. Read the spatial disorientation thread. Guys who know what to do still are capable of doing it wrong. Guys who don't know what to do? Those are the ones we read about. Increasing their numbers doesn't sound like a solution.

 

[docmirror]

Ask the working pilots in your home state.

Capstone

I've asked lots of working pilots in my home state. They've been trained to use their equipment and in their areas the equipment offers an improvement to what they had prior. That doesn't mean John Q. Public in a beater Champ is automatically a better pilot the day he buys an iPad and a SV app. Training is still the best answer to accident prevention. That's true regardless of equipment and in fact is probably more true with the addition of equipment.

You seem to be trying to paint this as either/or. Training - good. No question. Technology - bad?

Why not some of both? If a guy buys a new whiz-bang it's a safe bet that most of them will actually get trained on it to some extent. Heck, they just shelled out $800-5000 for a new gadget, it makes sense they would at least figure out more than how to turn it on. So one begets the other, not either/or.

Now, I've granted that it will possibly lead to greater risk taking, and that goes back to human nature. Doesn't better training also lead to greater risk taking? A pilot that gets well trained on short/soft field ops - hey, no surprise they want to go out and test that training the in real world on short/soft fields. greater risk... yup

 

[Everskyward]

Guys.... are you telling me without your training, you can't see the hill in that picture? Really?

If you are a VFR pilot why are you even in the position that you need the picture to see the hill?

I'm not anti-technology and I'm not against making certification easier. I'm just not convinced that this technology will improve the safety record to a measurable extent. I see it being touted as a panacea.

 

[Stewartb]

You seem to be trying to paint this as either/or. Training - good. No question. Technology - bad?

Why not some of both? If a guy buys a new whiz-bang it's a safe bet that most of them will actually get trained on it to some extent. Heck, they just shelled out $800-5000 for a new gadget, it makes sense they would at least figure out more than how to turn it on. So one begets the other, not either/or.

Now, I've granted that it will possibly lead to greater risk taking, and that goes back to human nature. Doesn't better training also lead to greater risk taking? A pilot that gets well trained on short/soft field ops - hey, no surprise they want to go out and test that training the in real world on short/soft fields. greater risk... yup

No, that's not what I said. Using your example? Just because a guy buys a set of Bushwheels doesn't mean he's ready to go land on a 300' sandbar. But guys that are capable of operating on that sandbar use Bushwheels. Those guys get training and subsequently they gain experience. Crawl before you walk, walk before you run. The equipment isn't the whole answer. Without training and experience the equipment may increase the risk by adding incentive for untrained pilot. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you. It makes perfect sense to me.

 

[James331]

You seem to be trying to paint this as either/or. Training - good. No question. Technology - bad?

Why not some of both? If a guy buys a new whiz-bang it's a safe bet that most of them will actually get trained on it to some extent. Heck, they just shelled out $800-5000 for a new gadget, it makes sense they would at least figure out more than how to turn it on. So one begets the other, not either/or.

Now, I've granted that it will possibly lead to greater risk taking, and that goes back to human nature. Doesn't better training also lead to greater risk taking? A pilot that gets well trained on short/soft field ops - hey, no surprise they want to go out and test that training the in real world on short/soft fields. greater risk... yup

If you are a VFR pilot why are you even in the position that you need the picture to see the hill?

I'm not anti-technology and I'm not against making certification easier. I'm just not convinced that this technology will improve the safety record to a measurable extent. I see it being touted as a panacea.

Why bother with any instrument training for VFR PPLs? between night ops, and smoke/mist/un forecast/chit happens. For that matter why train for engine failures, why put yourself in a situation you need to glide a airplane.

It's really a uphill argument to say that making more modern, cheaper, easier to use and easier to install instruments in the cockpit is some how a BAD thing

 

[Everskyward]

Why bother with any instrument training for VFR PPLs? between night ops, and smoke/mist/un forecast/chit happens.

I think individuals accept a certain level of risk, and when technology lessens the risk, they have a tendency to push their own limits further to match what the perceived risk level was previously. We have seen this in some threads where people are touting the benefits of their new SVT. This is one of the reasons why I don't think more of these units in airplane will change the accident rate significantly.

Note that I'm not saying the technology is bad or not useful. But we are talking about the accident rate here.

 

[docmirror]

No, that's not what I said. Using your example? Just because a guy buys a set of Bushwheels doesn't mean he's ready to go land on a 300' sandbar. But guys that are capable of operating on that sandbar use Bushwheels. Those guys get training and subsequently they gain experience. Crawl before you walk, walk before you run. The equipment isn't the whole answer. Without training and experience the equipment may increase the risk by adding incentive for untrained pilot. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you. It makes perfect sense to me.

I don't think it's appropriate to change the factors of my post, and then apply those changes to your scenario. Training <> equipment and equipment <> training.

If you consider that having a fancy display in the plane provides absolutely no gain in safety, then say so. If it provides some measure of increased SA when power is applied and the screen is up for the pilot to use, then say that. If you want to dither on about more training standards go ahead, I'm with you as long as it's optional. Once training is mandated, it's no better or worse than mandating new equipment. Some will be better, some will not. But - at least the fancy equipment will not ground you like not getting a flight review will.

 

[Stewartb]

I thought I did.