The 2007 Nall Report is Out

MacNab · #1 12-21-2007, 07:35 AM

See it here: 2007 Joseph T. Nall Report

JonathanCook · #2 12-21-2007, 09:09 AM

Four people hurt by propeller strikes in 2006 sounds very low to me. (page 21 of the report) I wonder if some of these accidents go unreported?

JonathanCook · #3 12-21-2007, 09:54 AM

On page 20 there is a picture of N58RV.

w1curtis · #4 12-21-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonathanCook

Four propeller strikes in 2006 sounds very low to me. (page 21 of the report) I wonder if some of these accidents go unreported?

A prop strike, like a gear-up is an incident, NOT and accident.

Build9A · #5 12-21-2007, 11:52 AM

The Nall Report list of aircraft includes the Experimental category. Of the total US fleet, the report says there are 2972 aircraft in the Experimental category. Am I missing something or is the Nall report? That # has got to be wrong, but they repeat it in text and graphs. Can anyone shed any light on this? Did I miss that it is reported in 100s of aircraft, that would seem to be more accurate.

MacNab · #6 12-21-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by w1curtis

A prop strike, like a gear-up is an incident, NOT and accident.

Not if you walk into one while it's turning; that's what they are referring to.

rvbuilder2002 · #7 12-21-2007, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Build9A

The Nall Report list of aircraft includes the Experimental category. Of the total US fleet, the report says there are 2972 aircraft in the Experimental category. Am I missing something or is the Nall report? That # has got to be wrong, but they repeat it in text and graphs. Can anyone shed any light on this? Did I miss that it is reported in 100s of aircraft, that would seem to be more accurate.

I glanced through the report and didn't see any data listing #'s of registered aircraft (in any catagory). Where is that located?
In the USA there are in excess of 25000 aircraft with experimental C of A's.

Build9A · #8 12-21-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002

I glanced through the report and didn't see any data listing #'s of registered aircraft (in any catagory). Where is that located?
In the USA there are in excess of 25000 aircraft with experimental C of A's.

I agree with you, as I had thought that there were about 25-30,000 in the Experimental category.

Check the appendix, Page 24 -- Figure 35.

JonathanCook · #9 12-21-2007, 08:30 PM

It does not look like the totals add up. Maybe that is a clue to why the number of experimentals are low.

gmcjetpilot · #10 12-21-2007, 10:07 PM

Well that proves it, once again, if your not a dumb *** you are 79% less likely to not get killed. Also pilots should learn how to land well.

I find it interesting, the more experience you get, the less likely you're to get into an accident, until you really get lots of experience and become dumb. Than you have fatal accidents at a worse rate than new private pilots? One problem with the stats is annual hours flown by ATP's, which tends to more. Not sure if they accounted for that?

SE: 706 total/118 fatal (fleet 43,584 including fixed/retract)
Retract: 174 total/59 fatal
Multi: 93 total/39 fatal
Experimental 126 total/40 fatal Experimental. (47% growth in 10 years, fleet 2,972)

It would seem that the fleet of SE factory planes (many which are hanger or ramp queens) have a better accident rate than the Experimentals. I would also say Experimentals fly way more as a fleet per plane and less sit. The experimental trend is on an up tick. Keep in mind AOPA is not PRO experimental. In general AOPA, is AMSA - Aircraft Manufacture Sales Association. Kit planes are the ugly red headed step-child to the big dogs and AOPA. Think of how many kit sales means less factory sales. AOPA has and never will be a big promoter of kit and armature built planes. They only got behind the LSA - light sport planes because that's industry, manufactures. Not saying they are against, just that their traditional membership, including manufactures, is not really in line business wise with homebuilt do it yourself planes.

AOPA's report is always interesting and was encouraged that weather and fuel management accidents are down (from historic highs) but maneuvering and landing

what the heck? WHY SO MANY maneuvering and landing accidents? Geee, I'm not saying it can't happen to me, I darn well know it could, knock on wood, but that's a really embarrassing sad stat. What can I say, practice more? Keep in mind they can't report the accidents/incidents that are not reported. Also the +4,000 hour pilot rate does not include the hours flown per year. You would think more total hours, the more they fly?

"Liars figure and figures lie"

It's hard to draw conclusions but its good to remind yourself accidents happen and MOST OF THEM HAPPEN BETWEEN THE EARS OF THE PILOT.

That is humbling. "Fate is the hunter" and your destiny is in your own hands, when you fly. Even if you do it all right "s**t happens".

Takeoffs are optional but landings are mandatory."