Pelton's Editorial in Feb Sport Pilot

[wabower]

Interesting stuff regarding GA safety record. Anybody else read it?

 

[Geico266]

Interesting stuff regarding GA safety record. Anybody else read it?

Link?

 

[wabower]

It came in the mail.

Link?

 

[Everskyward]

When I went looking for a link the first thing that showed up on Google was this thread.

But I finally found it...

http://www.sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/201302#pg3

 

[kyleb]

I read it, but missed anything interesting. He discussed some fatal accident figures, the fact that GA's fatality rate is worse than virtually all other modes of transportation, and concluded by saying that EAA is putting together a safety committee to conduct extensive research.

My sense is that all the research in the world is gonna point out about a half dozen things:

Don't run out of gas.
Don't fly VFR into IMC.
Don't do stupid stuff.
Do a good preflight.
Make sure the airplane and mission are within your capabilities.
Always leave yourself an out.

I don't know what the point is of doing more research on this stuff. The answers are pretty clear. Execution is the problem, and the fact is, aviation is unforgiving compared to other modes of transportation/recreation. A bad mistake in an airplane gets you killed, whereas the airbag in your Honda might just save you.

I counted about 25 pages of safety preaching in the issue. I'm done with being preached at over safety. The rules for survival are simple. I understand and follow them.

What was your take?

 

[Jim Logajan]

Interesting stuff regarding GA safety record. Anybody else read it?

By the way, the article is also available online here:
http://www.sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/201302?pg=3#pg3

It was the first thing I read when I got that issue. I'm afraid didn't see anything in it of any particular note. I do recall being annoyed by it at the time; for two reasons.

First, Pelton wrote:
"General aviation safety is now in the spotlight because, despite the positive improvements, our record is terrible compared to safety gains in other modes of transportation. Highway safety—including motorcycle riders and even pedestrians—has shown a tenfold improvement since the 1950s."

I think I was annoyed because prior to reading his editorial I was aware of the statistics here:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/stats/safety.html
1950: 46.6 accidents/100k hours; 5.1 fatal accidents/100k hours.
2009: 6.86 accidents/100k hours; 1.33 fatal accidents/100k hours.

Improvements by factors of 6.8 and 3.8, respectively.

Here is a quick check of his claim of a tenfold improvement for highway safety:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
1950: 7.24 fatalities/100 million v.m.t.
2009: 1.14 fatalities/100 million v.m.t.

An improvement by a factor of 6.35.

So highway fatal accident safety improved by a factor of around 6.35 versus general aviation's 3.8. I would not characterize the 3.8 as "terrible" considering the amount the government spends on both modes per normalization factor is unknown. For example, if the government spent about twice as much per mile driven as it did per hour flown, then that might account for the differing rates of improvement in the two transportation modes.

His source of statistics may indeed show a factor of 10 - not saying his claimed number is wrong; but his failure to present the alleged "terrible" ratio for GA really makes for poor homework.

The other point that annoyed me was this:
"The FAA fiscal year begins on October 1, and in October and November there were 55 fatal GA accidents. By Christmas there were at least 25 more fatal crashes. The spike in fatal accidents may be an anomaly, but if this trend continues, the year could finish with well more than 300 fatal accidents, which would undo almost all of the safety gains made over the
past 20 years."

There may also have been an anomaly in the number of hours flown such the accident rate per hour is unchanged. That and the law of small statistical population is bound to show an occasional anomalous variation. Again, if he had done some homework by reviewing those 80 crashes and looked for any common factors and reported that, then his editorial might have actually been useful.

 

[kyleb]

The other point that annoyed me was this:
"The FAA fiscal year begins on October 1, and in October and November there were 55 fatal GA accidents. By Christmas there were at least 25 more fatal crashes. The spike in fatal accidents may be an anomaly, but if this trend continues, the year could finish with well more than 300 fatal accidents, which would undo almost all of the safety gains made over the
past 20 years."

That data added zero to his editorial. Not sure why he bothered. Maybe October and November had incredible flying weather. Maybe October and November are always like that because everyone North of the Mason/Dixon flys as much as possible, knowing December-February will be write-offs. Who knows, but it wasn't good writing.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

My sense is that all the research in the world is gonna point out about a half dozen things:

Don't run out of gas.
Don't fly VFR into IMC.
Don't do stupid stuff.
Do a good preflight.
Make sure the airplane and mission are within your capabilities.
Always leave yourself an out.

I don't know what the point is of doing more research on this stuff.

Maybe it should be behavioural research on how to get pilots to avoid screwing up those half dozen things. Seems that despite all the research done, no one's come up with a way to convince all the pilots to stop screwing those things up.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

His source of statistics may indeed show a factor of 10 - not saying his claimed number is wrong; but his failure to present the alleged "terrible" ratio for GA really makes for poor homework.

In fairness, people's eyes tend to glaze over when you throw a bunch of numbers at them. Saying it's a tenfold improvement probably gets his point across clearer than a bunch of numbers that show the same thing after the reader does some calculations.

 

[Geico266]

Some of the problem is not being able to cross train in the plane you are building as experimentals cannot be used for hire. Builders rely on buddies with similar planes and go around the patch 2-3 times and call it good. There needs to be CFIs training in experimentals that can run a new pilot through the paces prior to flight in a purchased or home built experimental. I think they are working on or have changed this rule, but it comes too late for many.

The EAA is working on several safety suggestions, but until then Kyle B has it right. .... No stupid pilot tricks.

 

[tinerj]

Don't run out of gas.
Don't fly VFR into IMC.
Don't do stupid stuff.
Do a good preflight.
Make sure the airplane and mission are within your capabilities.
Always leave yourself an out.

I used to read accident reports to my wife who is not a pilot, but has flown all over the US with me in a C150. I'd read just a key sentence -- after encountering strong headwinds -- and she'd immediately respond -- he ran out of gas.

Or, the weather report at the destination airport was for three mile visibility and 1500 feet ceilings -- he flew VFR into IMC.

While buzzing his girlfriends home -- yeah. In fact, one of the popular weather forecasters in St. Louis was also a pilot and did just that with the expected result.

 

[bbchien]

I think Jack misses the mark entirely. Yes engineering is vital. But the real killer is not having this attitude:

"I will extract a lifetime of enjoyment and utility and not ben metal nor hurt anyone"

vs. the much more common:

"Hey lets go have some fun!"

Now, you can have fun, but you can obviously see that the second pilot is not thinking long term.

Kyleb is right, no stupid stuff, please, but what the real improvement will be is to make the second group of pilots see it the first group's way. And we AREN'T excluding fun. It's just a world apart from "Dagger Flight 6".

From the first attitude flows SAFETY.

 

[ClimbnSink]

I thought motorcycle accidents are way up in the last few years. Article claims they are down. Rah rah go safety.