NTSB releases safety stats

The NTSB this morning released the report on aviation fatalities in 2011.

Half-empty: General aviation accidents reverse downward trend.

Half-full: Accident rate per flight hour decreased

Full: Number of GA flight hours increased.

General aviation accidents, which continue to account for the greatest number of civil aviation accidents, reversed their downward trend over the previous two years increasing from 1,439 in 2010 to 1,466 in 2011. However, there were 263 fatal general aviation accidents in 2011, down from 268 in 2010. General aviation fatalities declined from 454 in 2010 to 444 in 2011. While the number of general aviation flight hours increased in 2011, the accident rate per flight hours decreased from 6.63 in 2010 to 6.51 in 2011.

I think this is a positive trend.

Full: Number of GA flight hours increased.

Click to expand...

I'm curious as to how this number is derived.
On ~95% of my flights, I never talk to anyone and land at non-towered airports.

DanLandry said:

I'm curious as to how this number is derived.
On ~95% of my flights, I never talk to anyone and land at non-towered airports.

Click to expand...

My guess would be the annual General Aviation survey the FAA does.

I think it is more interesting if you look at percentage changes:

2010 2011 % change Description
1439 1466 1.88% Total accidents
268 263 -1.87% Fatal accidents
454 444 -2.20% Fatalites
6.63 6.51 -1.81% Accidents per flight hour

So, fatalities are 2% lower, while total accidents went up 2%. While this may be positive, it is probably statistically insignificant, and can't really be called a "trend" with only two years worth of data.

My point is, while it is positive, I doubt it represents any real change.

Tim

tea leaves; not significant

There is no clear trend in this data. Many, many unknowns.

If we want to avoid being regulated out of our aircraft, the big, unambiguous numbers must drop in an indisputable trend. If that can somehow happen while hours flown increase, which sounds nice, we're good. Otherwise, the other option will obtain.

The average voter and her congressman don't give a hoot about us. A couple more high profile disasters and we are done.

These guys are correct... The FAA is on a rampage to improve safety... In their world that means reduce accidents and fatalities... They see the most effective way to improve these numbers is by reducing flying....

In the Warbird world they are starting to interpret our operating limitations differently. This makes it more and more difficult to operate these airplanes, and the EXP/Exhibition ops limitations read a lot like ours EXP/Amateur built.....

We need a concerted effort in the EXP/Amateur built industry to improve safety....

The low hanging fruit is Buzzing, Low Level Acro, Weather, Running out of gas, and poor building/maintenance.....

There is no reason why a C-172 is any safer than an RV, but the facts are that it is. What is the difference? The biggest difference is the attitude of the Aviators....

All of us need (myself included) need to look at the risk in our operation and look at the short list and make certain we are not participating in those activities... I do not claim to be a Lilly White Christian here, I am certainly a sinner. I have done most of the above, but all of us have to clean up our own house, and the work on the culture at our home drome.....

They plan to reduce the number of accident by any means necessary....

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
F-1 EVO

I hope Doug's message finds its way to VAF's front page, Facebook, Twitter, and the email inbox of every pilot you know.

RVFlightSafety.org has most of the info needed to dramatically reduce RV accidents/fatalities.

NTSB E-AB first flights study

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2012/120522.html appears to be a basic count of non-complex data. I didn't see any comparison of first flights involving pilots who received familiarization in type. Comparing the 2 NTSB studies in this thread I draw the conclusion that not much effort is going into these CYA reports that would make a difference in actually saving lives. Instead, the flavor seems to be developing a case for greater regulation, which would be self-serving to NTSB.

Dennis Snyder
Mooney M20J N201HV

Doug,

172's are safer than RV's statistically, just as they are safer than light twins.
Why?
"Speed kills".
Slower, draggy airplane gives a pilot who has done something he shouldn't have more time to escape, and, if he does hit, a greater chance to survive.

Realistically, flying an RV or a twin requires more from a pilot, especially in terms of judgement and risk management, if you want to reach safety levels comparable to a 172. How we get there, I haven't a clue.

speed kills

I agree up to a point, but why are so many of the fatal accidents low speed aircraft. Look at the last few days, Titan Tornado, glider, powered parachute. The airplanes that are just slightly out of the ultralight category have a very high accident rate. The low speed doesn't seem to help there. I don't think the stall/landing speed of the RV is an issue compared to a 172.
What is an issue is airplanes like the Lancairs, Glasair III, etc. These are VERY high wing loading airplanes and a lot of the people who can afford them probably should not be flying ANY kind of airplane.
When one attempts a first flight in a high performance, high wing loading aircraft, runs out of fuel at say 200' on takeoff, and attempts to return to the runway, does this REALLY have anything to do with the fact it was an EAB first flight. This was a very experienced pilot, should have been fully capable of a safe first flight. A widely publicised accident from a few years ago.