NTSB: Fatalities Up 13% In 2014

Dav8or said:
Pilot error. It is almost always pilot error of one kind or another. I imagine that all the same pitfalls occurred, and the increase is proportional among the usual categories.
Click to expand...

I've got a "Control Group" of Cessna 172/210 accidents that I use to compare to homebuilt accidents. Here's the causes and percentages:

Pilot Miscontrol (stick-and-rudder errors): 52.0%
Manufacturer Error: 0.4%
Maintenance Error: 3.7%
Undetermined Loss of Power: 4.8%
Engine Mechanical: 3.5%
Fuel System: 0.9%
Landing Gear/Brakes: 2.2%
Other Mechanical: 1.7%
Fuel Exhaustion: 7.4%
Fuel Starvation: 1.7%
Carb Ice: 1.2%
VFR to IFR: 4.3%
Manuevering at low alt: 3.2%
Inadequate Preflight: 1.1%
Fuel Contamination: 0.9%
Midair Collision: 1.9%
Turbulence/Winds: 0.5%
Loss of Control (Unknown): 0.6%
Taxi Accident: 0.6%
Undetermined: 0.7%
Other: 6.7%

Ron Wanttaja
 
Henning said:
Most VFR into IFR accident are with an IR pilot.
Click to expand...
I looked at my "Control Group" of 172/210 accidents. There were 67 VFR into IFR accidents. I looked for definitive instrument rated/non-instrument rated statements.

Over half (37) involved pilots without an instrument rating.

In 9 cases, the pilot had an instrument rating. In an additional three, the existence of a rating was implied (on an Instrument Flight Plan), flying commercially. Though, of course, one can file IFR without being rated...

On the remaining 18 cases, the Narrative and Probable Causes do not state whether the pilot had an instrument rating. The implication is that they do, but that's probably not the case in some instances.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Henning said:
The "stick and rudder" statistic is interesting.
Click to expand...
It's a hard category to define in a few words, but it's basically cases where the pilot's ability to control the airplane was not up to the task. Overshoots, undershoots, stalls, bad flares/bounces, bad compensating for crosswinds, etc.

Basically, if it's something you can "Second Guess" the pilot on, it does NOT end up in Pilot Miscontrol. Fuel exhaustion/starvation, VFR into IFR, buzzing, etc. all end up in their own "Judgement" categories.

The median pilot total time for my Control Group case is pretty low...about 450 hours. In contrast the Homebuilt accidents have a median pilot TT of 1,000 hours, and a lower percentage of Pilot Miscontrol accidents.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I looked at my "Control Group" of 172/210 accidents. There were 67 VFR into IFR accidents. I looked for definitive instrument rated/non-instrument rated statements.

Over half (37) involved pilots without an instrument rating.

In 9 cases, the pilot had an instrument rating. In an additional three, the existence of a rating was implied (on an Instrument Flight Plan), flying commercially. Though, of course, one can file IFR without being rated...

On the remaining 18 cases, the Narrative and Probable Causes do not state whether the pilot had an instrument rating. The implication is that they do, but that's probably not the case in some instances.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...


I get safety emails from the FAA all the time and remember one on VFR into IMC accidents where they had 60 some percent of them involving IR pilots.
 
wanttaja said:
It's a hard category to define in a few words, but it's basically cases where the pilot's ability to control the airplane was not up to the task. Overshoots, undershoots, stalls, bad flares/bounces, bad compensating for crosswinds, etc.

Basically, if it's something you can "Second Guess" the pilot on, it does NOT end up in Pilot Miscontrol. Fuel exhaustion/starvation, VFR into IFR, buzzing, etc. all end up in their own "Judgement" categories.

The median pilot total time for my Control Group case is pretty low...about 450 hours. In contrast the Homebuilt accidents have a median pilot TT of 1,000 hours, and a lower percentage of Pilot Miscontrol accidents.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...


My interest is in why the loss of control and that it's nearly half. Is it an actual ability/training problem, or mode of human reaction, ie 'disconnecting' and freezing up.:dunno:
 
So, lemme understand this....you are asking 99.5% of the pilot population to comply with more and spend more.....to fix a less than 0.5% problem?

Dude....you need to turn in your badge. :yes::goofy::D
RotorAndWing said:
The Practical Test Standards are a minimum. In order to gain certification one must meet the minimum requirement demonstrated to an examiner.

Fairly clear concept, agree? Now ask the question, how many GA pilots feel they can take a checkride tomorrow for their ratings and pass it? I think the answer you'll find is shocking.

Better recurrent standards is not "onerous". A typical GA pilot will go out and spend $1000 on a new headset, but bellyache at having to spend that same amount to maintain currency and make himself a better, and safer pilot.
Click to expand...
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
So, lemme understand this....you are asking 99.5% of the pilot population to comply with more and spend more.....to fix a less than 0.5% problem?

Dude....you need to turn in your badge. :yes::goofy::D
Click to expand...

I haven't carried a "badge" in a while..........

So asking pilots to comply with a minimum standard is too much to ask? :rolleyes2:
 
RotorAndWing said:
I haven't carried a "badge" in a while..........

So asking pilots to comply with a minimum standard is too much to ask? :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

If it costs more than 25¢, it will be resisted to the ends of the earth, but then again, for non commercial ops, there's no real justification to hold them to any standard at all. FRs are good enough for the insurance industry to accept so the losses must be considered "reasonable". People should be allowed to kill themselves and family/friends by stupidity.
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
I haven't carried a "badge" in a while..........

So asking pilots to comply with a minimum standard is too much to ask? :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
the BFR should take care of that.....I just did an IPC a few weeks ago and that was no small cake walk.

But if you think having to play stump the chump with E6B wind correction usage and compass correction error stuff is gonna make us safer....what ever. :rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
the BFR should take care of that.....I just did an IPC a few weeks ago and that was no small cake walk. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Most BFR's are done by a "buddy" CFI or on a hamburger run. A lot of IPC's wouldn't even meet regulatory or PTS standards.

While there are a few GA types that take training and standards seriously, the larger group just views it as an intrusion on their hobby.

Checkout_my_Six said:
.

But if you think having to brush up on the E6B wind correction usage and compass correction error stuff is gonna make us safer....what ever. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Please show the quote where I made such a statement.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Most BFR's are done by a "buddy" CFI or on a hamburger run. A lot of IPC's wouldn't even meet regulatory or PTS standards.

While there are a few GA types that take training and standards seriously, the larger group just views it as an intrusion on their hobby.



Please show the quote where I made such a statement.
Click to expand...
Well then....focus on the problem vs. creating a new one. :rolleyes2:

If the BFRs and IPCs are not to standards.....then that's a problem.
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
Well then....focus on the problem vs. creating a new one. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

That's what I've done in my postings on this thread, I have suggest some fixes to the problem. You see my solutions as "creating a new one".

So far you've suggested.......nothing. Maybe your solutions are just adding cute emoticons behind every one of your statements.

Checkout_my_Six said:
If the BFRs and IPCs are not to standards.....then that's a problem.
Click to expand...

Ya think?
 
Henning said:
My interest is in why the loss of control and that it's nearly half. Is it an actual ability/training problem, or mode of human reaction, ie 'disconnecting' and freezing up.:dunno:
Click to expand...
Combination, I think. Good pilots having bad days, average pilots experiencing a situation they'd never encountered, bad pilots having their chickens come home to roost.

A couple of years back, I did a breakout of Pilot Miscontrol for Experimental Amateur-Built world:

miscontrol.jpg

All it, no doubt, could be helped with increased training. But I think your typical fly-for-fun pilot isn't going to cotton to the additional expense.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I'm not seeing why any of this is a "problem" under Pt 91. :dunno: Everybody dies.
 
making everyone retest with a DE every couple years is not a viable solution.....good luck wit dat.:rolleyes:
RotorAndWing said:
That's what I've done in my postings on this thread, I have suggest some fixes to the problem. You see my solutions as "creating a new one".

So far you've suggested.......nothing. Maybe your solutions are just adding cute emoticons behind every one of your statements.



Ya think?
Click to expand...
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
making everyone retest with a DE every couple years is not a viable solution......:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So you are saying once an initial check ride is passed, the pilot does not need to maintain a level of competency or a minimum standard ever again?

Really?

Was your IPC done IAW the Instrument PTS? Or did your Instructor just "wing it" and call it good to go?
 
RotorAndWing said:
So you are saying once an initial check ride is passed, the pilot does not need to maintain a level of competency or a minimum standard ever again?

Really?

Was your IPC done IAW the Instrument PTS? Or did your Instructor just "wing it" and call it good to go?
Click to expand...
It was a pen an ink deal....and I bought him lunch. :idea::D

Maybe it's just me....but, my BFRs and IPCs are done in days....not hours. The IPC started with review of this....and a day or so later we flew for several hours shooting various approaches, partial panel, and emergency procedures. How'z dat? :yikes:
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
So you are saying once an initial check ride is passed, the pilot does not need to maintain a level of competency or a minimum standard ever again?

Really?

Was your IPC done IAW the Instrument PTS? Or did your Instructor just "wing it" and call it good to go?
Click to expand...

No, what he's saying is a DE ride is not required. Seriously though, the number is low enough that the cost/benefit ratio of increasing the standards. With Pt. 91 ops it's a matter of personal responsability rather than professional.

Besides, there aren't enough DPEs out there to cover being able to do every FR and IPC out there, it just isn't feasible. Even the airlines have their own internal check airmen for recurrent stuff.

As you point out, the main problem is that the standards are not adhered to already, why do you think that changing the standards will change anything? Unless the FAA wants to ramp up and be providing these services, or approve more DPEs, your proposal is not physically feasible, and ramping up the FAA examiners even to the point of supervising the required level of DPEs is not economically feasible. That's before we even get into the $400-$750 each DPE will charge being not politically feasible. The losses incurred are within the realm of "acceptable losses" to the insurance industry, until they exceed that point, there will be no change.
 
Last edited:
Two pilots with the exact same airplane. Both were trained and examined by the exact same people. Both fly in the exact same area.

One pilot flies twice a week and the other once a month. Which one would you say is most likely to have an incident?

-or-

Both pilots fly 50 hours a year. One pilot does 50 one hour flights and the other does 25 two hour flights. Which do you think is more likely to have an incident?

-or-

One pilot flies twice a week and averages 100 hours a year, but only does the minimum BFR. The other flies every other month and averages about 25 hours a year, but he gets a flight review every year. Which do you think is more likely to have an incident?

My bet in these scenarios that the guy that flies frequently is the safer bet. I don't know if there are any stats to back that up though. I am against any more regulation on GA pilots to address this perceived problem, but if the Feds feel they just gotta regulate, then it should be based on current experience rather than calender dates.
 
Henning said:
No, what he's saying is a DE ride is not required. Seriously though, the number is low enough that the cost/benefit ratio of increasing the standards. With Pt. 91 ops it's a matter of personal responsability rather than professional.

Besides, there aren't enough DPEs out there to cover being able to do every FR and IPC out there, it just isn't feasible. Even the airlines have their own internal check airmen for recurrent stuff.

As you point out, the main problem is that the standards are not adhered to already, why do you think that changing the standards will change anything? Unless the FAA wants to ramp up and be providing these services, or approve more DPEs, your proposal is not physically feasible, and ramping up the FAA examiners even to the point of supervising the required level of DPEs is not economically feasible. That's before we even get into the $400-$750 each DPE will charge being not politically feasible. The losses incurred are within the realm of "acceptable losses" to the insurance industry, until they exceed that point, there will be no change.
Click to expand...

Personal accountability, nothing more.

As demonstrated in this thread, the shear mention of tighter standards among GA is met with resistance. Asking (requiring?) CFI's to adhere to regulatory and PTS standards is unheard of.

Pogo said it best, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
 
weilke said:
- the 'general aviation census'. A campaign of postcards sent to random airmen which are promptly discarded by 90%. The 10% that are returned contain unverifiable information.
Click to expand...

Good summary. I like the intent behind the GA survey. The trouble is, the conclusions are gossamer-thin, and when others stretch them to provide some additional data, they tend to break.

One of the survey results is an estimate of what percentage of aircraft on the FAA registry are active. These values vary only slightly, year-to-year. They do this for various groups, such as recip aircraft, recips with less than four seats, four or more seats, turbine aircraft, homebuilts, etc.

Others take that percentage, multiply it by the survey's estimate of total annual flight hours, and then multiply it by the number of aircraft on the FAA registry to estimate the total annual flight hours. They then compare the results to previous years, and across aircraft groups.

But starting in 2010, the FAA started a process to help eliminate inactive/non-existent aircraft from the registry. Over the next three years, they sent, basically, bills to all registered aircraft owners. If the owner didn't exist any more, or if they ignored the letter, their aircraft was removed from the registry.

Notice the similarity to the Survey process? The same kind of people who had ignored/didn't receive the Survey questionnaire were the same folks who ignored/didn't receive the FAA reregistration mailing.

So over the next several years, the Survey's prediction of the number of active homebuilt aircraft didn't change significantly. It rose from 55% to almost 60%, while the homebuilt registrations actually dropped by almost 25% (about 7800 aircraft).

The overwhelming proportion of those 7,800 were already inactive. Less than 3% of owners had canceled registrations restored. But that wasn't reflected in the FAA Survey results.

So if someone doesn't UNDERSTAND the limitations of the Survey data, and how deregistration isn't reflected, they can come to some erroneous conclusions.

For instance, that the homebuilt accident rate took a huge jump. It's about the same number of accidents, but (using the Survey's unchanged percentage of active aircraft in a deregistration era) the number of aircraft dropped drastically. And thus, the computed accident rate skyrocketed. It's a false indication...there are actually the same number of *active* homebuilts.

And you try to talk to those generating the bad results, and all they say is, "But my data is based on the FAA registry and the official FAA Survey....."

Gahhh.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Good summary. I like the intent behind the GA survey. The trouble is, the conclusions are gossamer-thin, and when others stretch them to provide some additional data, they tend to break.
Click to expand...

Another example. According to the FAA Survey, Jay Honeck now flies half as much, due to trading-in his Piper for an RV-8.

It's got to be true: It's in the official FAA Survey!

Ron Wanttaja
 
My aversion to adding more to the PPL standards comes from the well worn path of regulation which never ends. Look no further than the Berlin questionaire now required for sleep apnea in private pilots. The FAA said they were going to use the AMEs to diagnose SA. The congress got off its lazy ass for 10 seconds and scotched that idea(maybe because they are fat old men?). No prob, the FAA does an end run around the word 'diagnose' and changes it to 'evaluate' and report.

Here's the kicker, if you are BMI over 32 you will have to jump through extra hoops. You will be required to do more to get your medical, and added to that, in this case there is zero direct evidence of any SA event ever causing an accident in the history of GA.

So, a solution is put in place for a fault that doesn't exist. In the case of fatal GA accidents there is no question a correlation between training and accidents. Absolutely. So - what is the end game of the FAA? If there is some acceptable level of accident rate, what is that rate? What is the acceptable level of fatalities in GA? What steps, cost, intrusion is suitable to achieve that merit based statistic(s)?

Like I said, if you want no GA fatalities, then have no flights. If you want to have lots of fatalities, allow anyone, anywhere to fly anything. There is some metric, somewhere in the middle ground which is deemed acceptable. I do NOT trust the FAA/DOT/fedguv to determine the ultimate acceptable rate of fatal GA accidents on their own. At some point the pilot is the arbiter of his own destiny, and if he fails, oh well, rarely do they kill anyone else, and even more rare do they kill, injure or do property damage to others. And even in that rare case where they do, the overwhelming percent of the pilot population has liability insurance.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Personal accountability, nothing more.

As demonstrated in this thread, the shear mention of tighter standards among GA is met with resistance. Asking (requiring?) CFI's to adhere to regulatory and PTS standards is unheard of.

Pogo said it best, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Click to expand...

Exactly, regardless of the standard set, it still is a matter of personal accountability as to adhering to those standards. If that is going to cost money or effort, there will always be an outcry from those who have to expend the money or effort. Most people try to get by on the minimum they can regardless what they do and the minute you tell them they need to do more, they start screaming about their rights and how they shouldn't have to do anything they don't want to and how they are being oppressed, so Pt. 91, why bother?:dunno:

I think the FAA has it worked out ok to the limits of practical ability; they strictly govern and enforce standards for commercial operations where unaware people are paying for a service and have the right to expect a level of service suitable for the operations being sold them and the insurance liability potential is unlimited. None of these conditions apply to Pt 91 operations, so it's perfectly acceptable to let people decide what standard to hold themselves to since policing the minimum standard is an economic impossibility.

If people don't care that they are barely competent, it's impossible to raise that level of concern, and trying to force it is counter productive. This isn't just a matter of aviation either, look at the childhood vaccination topic, same thing. You just can't make people do what they don't want to, they have to want to do it for it to be effective.
 
wanttaja said:
Another example. According to the FAA Survey, Jay Honeck now flies half as much, due to trading-in his Piper for an RV-8.

It's got to be true: It's in the official FAA Survey!

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
That's laughably dumb. Although the RV is much faster, and we therefore COULD fly less, it simply doesn't work that way for GA flying.

GA flying is dictated by two things:

1. Time available to fly.
2. Mission.

This is quite the opposite of commercial flying, of course, which is all mission-oriented. As a result, since our primary limitation is time available, we simply end up traveling farther.

Aside from that issue, I'm still trying to figure out why people see the GA fatality rate as a "problem" that needs "solving". Why does anyone actually care if people want to kill themselves in aviation?

I'm not laying awake nights worrying about you riding your motorcycle into a brick wall -- why do you care if Joe Blow crashes his spam can into a forest? Everyone that has ever lived has died (so far, anyway!), so what's it to you if they die in a little airplane instead of their bed?

I understand that government types always see more rules as the "solution", but first there must be a "problem". In my opinion, the GA fatality rate is nothing more than a mildly interesting statistic.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Aside from that issue, I'm still trying to figure out why people see the GA fatality rate as a "problem" that needs "solving". Why does anyone actually care if people want to kill themselves in aviation?
Click to expand...
The more people that die in plane crashes, the worse we look to the general public :dunno: more regulations for stupid kneejerk reasons by people who don't know anything about aviation.

Jay Honeck said:
So what's it to you if they die in a little airplane instead of their bed?
Click to expand...
I have to share the sky with those people and I don't want to be crashed into while in MY bed.

Playing devil's advocate. Not that I completely disagree with you either.
 
overdrive148 said:
The more people that die in plane crashes, the worse we look to the general public :dunno: more regulations for stupid kneejerk reasons by people who don't know anything about aviation.


I have to share the sky with those people and I don't want to be crashed into while in MY bed.

Playing devil's advocate. Not that I completely disagree with you either.
Click to expand...

What are the current odds of dying when a GA plane crashes through the roof of your house, or hits you while you are sunbathing?

Can those odds even be measured?

Now, how many people die in the shower every year?

Risk assessment in America is appallingly bad. This just isn't a problem that needs solving.
 
overdrive148 said:
The more people that die in plane crashes, the worse we look to the general public :dunno: more regulations for stupid kneejerk reasons by people who don't know anything about aviation.


I have to share the sky with those people and I don't want to be crashed into while in MY bed.

Playing devil's advocate. Not that I completely disagree with you either.
Click to expand...

Not possible, you can't get lower than what the general public thinks about GA.
 
Henning said:
Not possible, you can't get lower than what the general public thinks about GA.
Click to expand...
Not true.

I own a business that capitalizes on the public's romantic view of flying. By and large, the public has a very positive view of GA.

Unfortunately, due to ignorance and misinformation, most of them look at flying as some sort of unattainable super power. By the time they leave our hotel, we have dispelled many of these myths.
 
RotorAndWing said:
A typical GA pilot will go out and spend $1000 on a new headset, but bellyache at having to spend that same amount to maintain currency and make himself a better, and safer pilot.
Click to expand...


Because the new headset is something you want, but "having to spend" on anything is going to rub most people the wrong way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top