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

D

docmirror

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
12,008
Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
I have no idea if it's high, or if it's just normal, and I'm not going to go hunt it down. Seems to me to be higher than normal.

I'm betting some time in Nov or Dec we're going to see some action with 'renewed emphasis on GA pilot instruction, certification, and health' or similar.

What say you? Even if the numbers aren't that bad, I have a feeling something is coming from the FAA this fall to hit the GA community.
 
The government works at a snail's pace. If the conversation occurred today, implementation would be 4 years down the road. There's also a presidential election around the corner with a likely change in politics, so you can bet the FAA leadership has their minds on other things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
One year to me is one data point and shouldn't be acted on without more data points to identify if it's a trend or a one-off year.

I'm not the FAA though...
 
josephbelt01 said:
The government works at a snail's pace. If the conversation occurred today, implementation would be 4 years down the road. There's also a presidential election around the corner with a likely change in politics, so you can bet the FAA leadership has their minds on other things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Agreed most of the time. But if an agency can justify a large budget increase by making something 'safer', it's possibly for a crat to move at lightning speed when money is the subject.
 
Remember the FAA is there to help you,not to worry.
 
think NTSB.....not FAA. FAA is regulatory where the NTSB is really the "safety" organization.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
think NTSB.....not FAA. FAA is regulatory where the NTSB is really the "safety" organization.
Click to expand...
Yes, but nobody worried about what the NTSB will do. They make recommendations and the FAA decides whether or not to take any action.
 
They will ether do nothing, or pass heavy handed regulations, which sadly would have made zero diffrence in "saftey" anyway.
 
James331 said:
They will ether do nothing, or pass heavy handed regulations, which sadly would have made zero diffrence in "saftey" anyway.
Click to expand...
Less time between re-currency training and stricter flight reviews or Wings Prgoram stuff seems to be what they are pushing for right now.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Less time between re-currency training and stricter flight reviews or Wings Prgoram stuff seems to be what they are pushing for right now.
Click to expand...

Won't change anything, sadly the American people will sell their own mothers for the illusion of "saftey" and "security".
 
James331 said:
Won't change anything, sadly the American people will sell their own mothers for the illusion of "saftey" and "security".
Click to expand...
Sure it Could. A whole lot of the accidents final nail in the coffin is loss of control of some sort. That means degraded actual flying skills - stall / spin entry and recovery practice and recognition for instance. Proper recurrent training with emphasis on the areas like that might make a difference.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Sure it Could. A whole lot of the accidents final nail in the coffin is loss of control of some sort. That means degraded actual flying skills - stall / spin entry and recovery practice and recognition for instance. Proper recurrent training with emphasis on the areas like that might make a difference.
Click to expand...

I've been an advocate for better recurrent training and higher standards to reduce accidents, but have been attacked for bringing that up because it may infringe on someone's rights as a pilot.

What's the old saying about leading a horse to water?
 
RyanShort1 said:
Sure it Could. A whole lot of the accidents final nail in the coffin is loss of control of some sort. That means degraded actual flying skills - stall / spin entry and recovery practice and recognition for instance. Proper recurrent training with emphasis on the areas like that might make a difference.
Click to expand...


It's not some flight review, it's currency and decision making. If you force folks to log X hours a month you're going to kill GA, which the FAA could care less about.

Fact is it's not raining aircraft, the sky isn't falling, and adding more pages into the FAR won't make unsafe pilots safer, REAL saftey is more dependent on the person than anything.
 
Insurance companies think it would make a difference. I found out this week that my insurance company for the 172 would accept the Open Airplane pass / fail yearly check ride in liu of a CFI checkout. That tells me the higher standard and known testing quality of the checkout is apparently as good or better than some FBO checkouts in their mind. The fact that it is pass / fail is also positive to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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?
 
That's the bigger elephant and the real concern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Is there any source of data that gives the number of accidents for either year-to-date or the past twelve months?

If there actually are more accidents than there used to be, could it be a byproduct of people flying more, due to the reduced fuel prices and improvement in the unemployment rate?
 
Last edited:
Is there a common theme that's led to these accidents? Without that they can't really address a solution.
 
Would people consider it offensive if the FAA required say 2 to 4 hours of dual time per year to stay current, possibly in lieu of a BFR? As a licensed professional the state requires I do a certain amount of continuing education per year to keep my license. I think this would be reasonable.
 
Stewartb said:
Is there a common theme that's led to these accidents? Without that they can't really address a solution.
Click to expand...

It would also help to have data showing that there is actually a problem to be solved.
 
Undo the changes that made the number of accidents go back up to the 2013 level?

The big question is why were accidents down in 2014?
 
Price of gas went down. People flew more, either because the price of the gas they were putting in their planes was less, or more likely they were spending less money on transportation and has more for flying. More flying, more crashes.
 
docmirror said:
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?
Click to expand...

The FAA doesn't make that determination, nor can they draw any lines in anyone's sand. It's the American people who do that. If the FAA banned GA (which is the safest thing to do) and everyone just had a "F' you" attitude and flew anyway, you'd see the FAA change the rule back and slink back into their little corner of government.

You want safety, never leave your house, don't interact with other people, collect welfare so you don't have to risk work place injuries, drink only filtered water and eat only soylent. :lol:

I'm OK with the chance I may not live to be 100, I'll be the reckless guy who dares to eat red meat, drink from a hose, fly GA, skydive, drive impractical cars, light fireworks for the 4th, camp, have a few drinks once in a while, and really enjoy the human condition.
 
James331 said:
The FAA doesn't make that determination, nor can they draw any lines in anyone's sand. It's the American people who do that.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but no. We aren't a democracy, thank goodness because if we were, GA would already be outlawed by the 'people' (get rid of those little planes, they are dangerous!).

The FAA is charged and chartered to make that determination by law in a republic. If they can justify draconian training requirements and expensive, and questionable technologies to solve mid-airs, they can do pretty much anything they want. The public doesn't have much of a voice, and if they did I'm sure it wouldn't go well for GA.

I didn't read the rest.
 
Not so much, the people are the ultimate deciding factor, it's just numbers.


Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. Civil disobedience is sometimes, though not always, defined as being nonviolent resistance.
Click to expand...

If the masses decide they don't like a law, ignore it, the law will change.

It's like driving cattle, you can direct them which way you want them to go, most times sure, but if the heard decides they all want to go one way, you get out of the way, or you get trampled.
 
James331 said:
If the masses decide they don't like a law, ignore it, the law will change.

It's like driving cattle, you can direct them which way you want them to go, most times sure, but if the heard decides they all want to go one way, you get out of the way, or you get trampled.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like the drug laws. You're right the laws will change. They'll get more draconian with time. Drinking laws, trade laws, enviro laws, etc.

There is one great, massive law change that repealed prohibition. As far as the rest, well - sit down with the federal register for some light reading sometime.
 
docmirror said:
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?
Click to expand...


"Safety culture" pushes the notion that zero accidents (which leads to zero tolerance rules) is the only acceptable number.

drotto said:
Would people consider it offensive if the FAA required say 2 to 4 hours of dual time per year to stay current, possibly in lieu of a BFR? As a licensed professional the state requires I do a certain amount of continuing education per year to keep my license. I think this would be reasonable.
Click to expand...


Offensive? No. Why is everything about being offended these days?

"Effective" is the measurement that should be applied, and "efficient". If they institute it and the accident rate doesn't change significantly, it should be re-visited. But that's not how rule making works in a culture based on zero tolerance of other's actions.

steingar said:
Price of gas went down. People flew more, either because the price of the gas they were putting in their planes was less, or more likely they were spending less money on transportation and has more for flying. More flying, more crashes.
Click to expand...


This.

docmirror said:
Yeah, like the drug laws. You're right the laws will change. They'll get more draconian with time. Drinking laws, trade laws, enviro laws, etc.



There is one great, massive law change that repealed prohibition. As far as the rest, well - sit down with the federal register for some light reading sometime.
Click to expand...


Jury nullification is the ultimate savior of our Republic in the long run because laws don't have mandatory sunsets and a forced re-evaluation of the law.

Rulemakers and those tasked with upholding rules and want to have the ultimate say in their interpretation (judges), HATE that. Especially ones that legislate from the bench.

Thankfully the option is there if The People choose to utilize it.
 
To be honest, it's VERY telling about just how well the thought processes work on this board, that the presumption is that there was a problem in the first place.

Debate all you want about a problem you don't know exists. It just has no relation to reality.
 
James331 said:
Not so much, the people are the ultimate deciding factor, it's just numbers.




If the masses decide they don't like a law, ignore it, the law will change.

It's like driving cattle, you can direct them which way you want them to go, most times sure, but if the heard decides they all want to go one way, you get out of the way, or you get trampled.
Click to expand...

Take NYs Safe Act where we had to register so called assault weapons. Compliance with the law was abysmal the majority of NYers simply thumbed their noses at it. However the state continues to push more draconian laws and could careless whether you complied or not because they just made you a felon and if you eventually screw up and end up in one of the union run prisons they are so proud of all the better.
 
steingar said:
Price of gas went down. People flew more, either because the price of the gas they were putting in their planes was less, or more likely they were spending less money on transportation and has more for flying. More flying, more crashes.
Click to expand...


So if the prices have come down and the pilots can afford to fly more but those increased flying hours mean decreased safety then we have unproficient pilots jumping into planes they aren't safe to fly because of regressed skills. If they can't afford to fly them then surely they could've afforded two hours of recurrent training and not be dead. I think it's a false economy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
docmirror said:
Yeah, like the drug laws. You're right the laws will change. They'll get more draconian with time. Drinking laws, trade laws, enviro laws, etc.

There is one great, massive law change that repealed prohibition. As far as the rest, well - sit down with the federal register for some light reading sometime.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

The masses didnt take the foolish outlawing of pot seriously, nor did many care, now many states made it legal, be it with a walk in walk out card, or just outright, now it's just a mater of the other states falling into line.




denverpilot said:
"Safety culture" pushes the notion that zero accidents (which leads to zero tolerance rules) is the only acceptable number.




Offensive? No. Why is everything about being offended these days?

"Effective" is the measurement that should be applied, and "efficient". If they institute it and the accident rate doesn't change significantly, it should be re-visited. But that's not how rule making works in a culture based on zero tolerance of other's actions.




This.




Jury nullification is the ultimate savior of our Republic in the long run because laws don't have mandatory sunsets and a forced re-evaluation of the law.

Rulemakers and those tasked with upholding rules and want to have the ultimate say in their interpretation (judges), HATE that. Especially ones that legislate from the bench.

Thankfully the option is there if The People choose to utilize it.
Click to expand...
:yes: :yes: :yes:
VERY on point.
 
The FAA had an aggressive safety campaign in Alaska a few years ago following a couple of very bad accident years. They focused on weather, we got weather cams, hunting W&B, we got lots of remote area ramp checks, and proficiency, we got lots of training reminders. The results were good. Most folks in the FAA have a genuine interest in aviation, contrary to the internet talk.
 
Stewartb said:
The FAA had an aggressive safety campaign in Alaska a few years ago following a couple of very bad accident years. They focused on weather, we got weather cams, hunting W&B, we got lots of remote area ramp checks, and proficiency, we got lots of training reminders. The results were good. Most folks in the FAA have a genuine interest in aviation, contrary to the internet talk.
Click to expand...



Plus giving SV setups to operators and introducing a safety culture and insurance bennies for all those who implement it, they also had people building this safety culture who actually worked in the conditions.
Works

It wasn't some dumbarse who didn't know what he was talking about and was trying to play hard handed ruler and handing out rules with zero tolerance.
Doesn't work
 
Obama will declare Martial Law, and order all GA aircraft grounded, thereby saving us all from a fiery death.
 
RyanShort1 said:
So if the prices have come down and the pilots can afford to fly more but those increased flying hours mean decreased safety then we have unproficient pilots jumping into planes they aren't safe to fly because of regressed skills...
Click to expand...

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. So if the number of accidents went up by 20%, and the number of flight hours went up by 20%, that would indicate that there had been no change in the level of safety. An increase in the number of accidents only implies decreased safety if the accident number goes up by a greater percentage than the number of flight hours does.
 
Shepherd said:
Obama will declare Martial Law, and order all GA aircraft grounded, thereby saving us all from a fiery death.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, President Trump will abolish the FAA for not rerouting all the instrument procedures away from his house.
 
docmirror said:
I have no idea if it's high, or if it's just normal, and I'm not going to go hunt it down. Seems to me to be higher than normal.

I'm betting some time in Nov or Dec we're going to see some action with 'renewed emphasis on GA pilot instruction, certification, and health' or similar.

What say you? Even if the numbers aren't that bad, I have a feeling something is coming from the FAA this fall to hit the GA community.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top