OMG...they're falling out of the sky!!!!

"part of a massive and growing death toll from small-aircraft crashes."

this IS news to me!
 
"Pilot seats that suddenly slide backward, making airplanes nose-dive when pilots lose grip of the controls"

good grief
 
FlyWithScott said:
"Pilot seats that suddenly slide backward, making airplanes nose-dive when pilots lose grip of the controls"

good grief
Click to expand...

Ah, beat me to it!

LMFAO, I guess they have that "finger tip touch"

I wouldn't line the catbox with that fracking leftist rag.
 
That particular author has a long history of anti-GA articles. One might wonder if there is some vested interest....

IMHO, the author will not be happy until the entire GA fleet is grounded and turned into beer cans. Or every GA manufacturer is treated like car makers forced to recall and fix anything and everything at their expense. Solely my opinion.
 
At least the comments on the article show some intelligence.
 
What a sensationalized story... Thomas Frank and the editors should be ashamed. In 2009 25,000 people died in the US from FALLS! Falls send almost 9 MILLION people to the emergency room every year. There's your story. No, airplanes are far more mysterious and exclusive, and the topic plays to peoples' fears.
I can see it now, Part 1 - Falls from chairs, Part 2 - Falls from ladders, Part 3 - The Trip and Fall.
 
Tom Frank specializes in GA smear stories, and has been writing them for years. I can only assume that this is an editorial decision based on ensuring a constant flow of advertising dollars from the airline industry.

Of course it's just USA today, has anyone ever paid for a copy of it?
 
A load of sensationalist garbage, that. No credibility, seeing that the author is not an aviator, much less a mechanic. But then, the public eats it up because they don't do their own research.

Meanwhile, GM produces millions of vehicles with defective ignition switches that cause fires or engine failures or whatever. But that's OK. We're used to seeing car crashes.

So much caused by pilot error (like refusing to abort a takeoff when the power is obviously lacking), or maintenance (the owner ignores service bulletins, and sometimes ADs). The sliding-Cessna-seat thing? There's been an AD on that for nearly 30 years, yet we still see worn-out seat lock stuff, missing seat stops, busted rails, the works. It costs money to fix, so it doesn't get fixed. That's the manufacturer's problem? And leaking mufflers? What part of "inspect exhaust system, especially mufflers or piping providing cabin heat" don't mechanics get?

Can't someone sue USA Today for publishing slanted, misleading articles? Maybe Flying Magazine needs to write an article titled "Unfit for Journalism."

Dan
 
Last edited:
CT4ME said:
What a sensationalized story... Thomas Frank and the editors should be ashamed. In 2009 25,000 people died in the US from FALLS! Falls send almost 9 MILLION people to the emergency room every year. There's your story. No, airplanes are far more mysterious and exclusive, and the topic plays to peoples' fears.
I can see it now, Part 1 - Falls from chairs, Part 2 - Falls from ladders, Part 3 - The Trip and Fall.
Click to expand...

Uh.. falling out of deadly airplanes.
 
I hate USA Today so much I won't even click on the link. They get ad revenue from that.
 
Comparing GA to airline safety in itself is completely flawed.

Even if the same rules of training and maintenance (and $$$$$$$) were applied to GA aircraft, the safety record of typical GA airplanes still wouldn't match the airlines IMHO.
 
45,000 deaths in aviation in five decades. That's the death toll on the nation's roads in a year. give me a break.
No. Never bought a USA Today and certainly won't be starting anytime soon.
 
They need something in the news to keep the public's mind off another million some cars recalled today by GM. What better way to do it then bring up a small child getting hurt in an airplane. Never mind the thousand of kids killed in cars yearly.

Tony
 
They call it McNews for a reason.
 
I had the USA Today app on my Iphone for a few years.

Until I pulled up that story on it this morning. Sheesh. Goodbye. Makes you wonder just how distorted every other story is that they report on.
 
I have to wonder if Mr. Frank consulted with tort lawyers while he was researching for this article.
 
bnt83 said:
Comparing GA to airline safety in itself is completely flawed.

Even if the same rules of training and maintenance (and $$$$$$$) were applied to GA aircraft, the safety record of typical GA airplanes still wouldn't match the airlines IMHO.
Click to expand...

I agree. Check how many cars on the road compared to aircraft in general aviation. Just in the last weeks, doctor with limited training loses an mu2, another with very little time loses a piper meridium and by luck doesn't take out a house, Then two days ago another VFR pilot takes off in fog and kills himself crashing in the backyard of a House . Instrument training is not sufficient and very poor decisions are made daily by low time pilots, running out of gas, flying into imc, over and over, sane dumb stuff. Airlines are much more selective as to who gets into their cockpits but they do screw up, like the needless Crash on the buffalo approach. Another beginner who should not have been at the controls and a co pilot who was worse. Many many can look good in a sim or with a safety pilot, but alone they fall apart in the clutch.
 
The focus on mechanical failures and post crash fires is baffling, since 80%+ of accidents are pilot induced. The fire thing is inevitable when you have aircraft light enough to take off coupled with enough fuel to get anywhere, and impact energies often much higher than car crashes.

This is just BS.
 
bullwinkle said:
The focus on mechanical failures and post crash fires is baffling, since 80%+ of accidents are pilot induced. The fire thing is inevitable when you have aircraft light enough to take off coupled with enough fuel to get anywhere, and impact energies often much higher than car crashes.

This is just BS.
Click to expand...
I think that's the point. The article talks about how the NTSB is quick to classify issues as pilot error without looking at actual mechanical causes. And even where pilot error exists, the survivability is not good and the NTSB and FAA don't really emphasize increasing survivability - like mitigating post crash fires and explosions and so forth.
 
The "do nothings" of this country hate anything but existing. Anything beyond that is seen as a challange to be made illegal.

Guns, planes, boats, 2-stroke engines, 4-stroke engines, lead, diesel engines, 3 wheelers, lawn darts, lawn mowers............. It never ends!
 
n20junkie said:
The "do nothings" of this country hate anything but existing. Anything beyond that is seen as a challange to be made illegal.

Guns, planes, boats, 2-stroke engines, 4-stroke engines, lead, diesel engines, 3 wheelers, lawn darts, lawn mowers............. It never ends!
Click to expand...

There's an opinion grounded in nothing.

I challange [sic] you to provide a source or any supporting data.
 
One thing that the article mentions a couple times without ever backing it up is that general aviation accidents have not decreased over the past 15 years. Just browsing the NTSB accident database shows that he is wrong. Compare just about any month from 1998 to the same month in 2013 and you will see that both the total number of US accidents and the number of fatalities are down significantly.
 
In 2013 alone, there were 1,199 general-aviation crashes -- more than three per day on average -- killing 347 people, injuring 571 and destroying 121 aircraft.

So 1,199 crashes and only 121 destroyed aircraft?
 
Rick Wallace said:
In 2013 alone, there were 1,199 general-aviation crashes -- more than three per day on average -- killing 347 people, injuring 571 and destroying 121 aircraft.

So 1,199 crashes and only 121 destroyed aircraft?
Click to expand...

Well sure. Go look at how many planes for sale that have damage history..even substantial damage but they get repaired and are still flying today. So yeah I can see that stat.
 
So would it be safe to assume there were only 121 deadly crashes in 2013? How often does the plane out survive those on board?
 
People that listen to him were not going to fly anyway. It changes nothing. I never push anyone to fly because I understand about fear and I am not their therapist
 
Bill Jennings said:
Two more articles released today, looks like this will be a whole series.
Click to expand...
One of the Mpls local TV news anchors repeated this BS. I was especially impressed with a quote from the article talking about engines stalling due to known defects in the carburetors.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Can't someone sue USA Today for publishing slanted, misleading articles? Maybe Flying Magazine needs to write an article titled "Unfit for Journalism."
Click to expand...

I'm sure AOPA will get right on that considering all the other issues they're effectively addressing.

:rolleyes2:
 
Rick Wallace said:
So would it be safe to assume there were only 121 deadly crashes in 2013? How often does the plane out survive those on board?
Click to expand...

Umm....I bet not. I just read a story about an rv that crashed and both occupant necks were broken. Lucky to be alive actually and glad they made a recovery. But that could have easily turned deadly and guess what...the plane is repaired. What I'm getting at is I do beleive the plane can out survive its occupants and be repaired to fly again. How often does that happen is hard to say.
 
flytime said:
Yep, they are on it. In fact, the AOPA Facebook page is where I learned of it first.

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...-Today-report-extremely-flawed-AOPA-says.aspx
Click to expand...

So, they put an article on their website and Facebook page that only the choir will see. And that helps how exactly?

flytime said:
a very fine rebuttal in the Huffington Post, of all places...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/unfit-for-publication-how_b_5509253.html
Click to expand...

That is indeed a great article.
 
timwinters said:
So, they put an article on their website and Facebook page that only the choir will see. And that helps how exactly?
Click to expand...

That was my first thought as well. But really, they can only do so much, and making me and other members aware of it is worth something. It generates blowback that USA Today will certainly notice. In the end the reaction to the article will probably draw more attention that the article itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top