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

[docmirror]

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.

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.

I thought I did.

I sensed an anti-tech theme at work. So, trying to get a straighter answer, like from the FAA.

 

[Stewartb]

Little boxes are wonderful if the operator is trained in how to use them and has the skills to apply the information the boxes provide. I believe my attitude has been consistent on that point. I have SV with my GDL-39 3D and Garmin Pilot app. It's a nice reference to back up what I see. It is not intended (by me) to replace my own VFR minimums. If I fly into a cloud I'll use the instruments I was trained with to execute an escape. I may have a safety pilot go up with me while I fly the SV under the hood for some training. Maybe after a few sessions I'll consider it a useful instrument. Until then it's a toy.

 

[steingar]

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

A decent AOA indicator could probably keep a lot of them out of grief. The problem is simple. You never know the result of the experiment before you try. I just think it unlikely that new equipment that increases situational awareness is going to lead to more crashes. But no one knows until the experiment is attempted, which is likely to be never with the hidebound agency that controls aviation in the US.

The really sad thing is the only way the FAA looks good is in comparison to the regulatory agencies of other lands. The reason things look good here is they look so bad elsewhere. Sad.

 

[docmirror]

The FAA thought that restricting harnesses to only those that were fully tested to failure limit destruction would help save lives. So, that was the standard they started out with.

They were wrong.

 

[James331]

A decent AOA indicator could probably keep a lot of them out of grief. The problem is simple. You never know the result of the experiment before you try. I just think it unlikely that new equipment that increases situational awareness is going to lead to more crashes. But no one knows until the experiment is attempted, which is likely to be never with the hidebound agency that controls aviation in the US.

The really sad thing is the only way the FAA looks good is in comparison to the regulatory agencies of other lands. The reason things look good here is they look so bad elsewhere. Sad.

It has been, plenty of experimental are flying with these systems, I see only gains in safety.

 

[jsstevens]

It has been, plenty of experimental are flying with these systems, I see only gains in safety.

I'm actually for more tech and easier certification, but noting the part I highlighted above: How are you measuring "gains in safety"?

John

 

[Everskyward]

I'm actually for more tech and easier certification, but noting the part I highlighted above: How are you measuring "gains in safety"?

John

It would be interesting to see if airplanes equipped with AOA indicators have fewer stall/spin accidents than airplanes which are not. I think that most of the stall/spin accidents happen because the pilot is not paying attention. The airplane stalls and their startle reflex causes them to pull back. If they are not paying attention to the airspeed indicator what makes anyone think that they would be paying attention to the AOA indicator.

That's not to say that the AOA indictor isn't useful in other situations.

 

[steingar]

It would be interesting to see if airplanes equipped with AOA indicators have fewer stall/spin accidents than airplanes which are not. I think that most of the stall/spin accidents happen because the pilot is not paying attention. The airplane stalls and their startle reflex causes them to pull back. If they are not paying attention to the airspeed indicator what makes anyone think that they would be paying attention to the AOA indicator.

That's not to say that the AOA indictor isn't useful in other situations.

Airspeed isn't what gets you into a stall, AOA is.

 

[docmirror]

Airspeed isn't what gets you into a stall, AOA is.

Her point is, if you ignore one, you're likely to ignore the other. Some of the installs I've seen put it right up on the glareshield to the left of the panel.

 

[Everskyward]

Airspeed isn't what gets you into a stall, AOA is.

But there is a relationship between airspeed and stall and we have been taught to monitor the airspeed for that reason. I don't think people stall because they don't know that the airplane stalls at a higher airspeed when the wings are loaded. I don't think they are paying attention at all.

 

[jspilot]

?

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.

But maintaining currency does not guarantee you are currently flying correctly or by the regs. Simply flying around the pattern 3 times making full stop landings than certifies you to fly passengers at night on a cross country flight. You are current yes, but maybe you have not flown cross country at night in 5 years and can't quiet remember the minimum altitude for the area you are crossing, you have not looked at a chart in a while and don't remember that information is right there, better yet, you can't locate yourself on the chart because it's night time and all the familiar land marks are not there. You keep flying and go too low and hit a mountain. Sure those 3 full stop landings really worked there.

The theory behind the USA hockey training program( the organization that runs amateur hockey in the U.S. and certifies officials) is that at least by requiring a yearly test and seminars they are making sure their officials open up the rule book once a year. Now us pilots don't need to open the rule book each year, but the theory that we should immerse ourselves in flight safety once a year to a pre-determined standard, seems, an analogous, measure the FAA or NTSB could take and I would not bat an eye, of course with the stipulation that my liscense is not on the line.

 

[Palmpilot]

But maintaining currency does not guarantee you are currently flying correctly or by the regs. Simply flying around the pattern 3 times making full stop landings than certifies you to fly passengers at night on a cross country flight. You are current yes, but maybe you have not flown cross country at night in 5 years and can't quiet remember the minimum altitude for the area you are crossing, you have not looked at a chart in a while and don't remember that information is right there, better yet, you can't locate yourself on the chart because it's night time and all the familiar land marks are not there. You keep flying and go too low and hit a mountain. Sure those 3 full stop landings really worked there...

That's an awfully extreme scenario.

 

[jspilot]

That's an awfully extreme scenario.

Ok so they remember the information is right there but can't locate themselves on the chart( as I said further in my post)... That seems extremely likely to me.