panhandler1956

panhandler1956

Well Known Member
With the renewed scrutiny on the amateur-built category safety record, I struggle with the overall lack of investigative energy applied to GA crashes in the United States (not just experimentals).
The discussion some months ago on the RV-7 that crashed in Canada and the ensueing report from the Transportation Board of Canada (like our NTSB) really drove this home for me. This report is extremely detailed and well done.
See report here: http://www.vansairforce.net/safety/G-GNDY.pdf

I think if they want to improve A-B safety in the U.S. one area would be to improve their (NTSB) investigation process so we can learn from the mistakes of other....
Slapping 'pilot error' on the top of a preliminary report and calling it good ain't cutting it!
 
You make a good point. It is obvious that the investigation report that you refer to is much better than what we typically read here in the U.S. It occurs to me that our NTSB has the ability to provide detailed reports, if there is a famous person or some other circumstances are involved.

I would like to see more consistency applied in the criteria used to probe each aircraft investigation. "Pilot error" is used too often and is too generic, IMO.
 
You Must Be Looking At A Summary

U.S. Accident reports are typically very detailed. Most people just want to look at summary information. If I recall correctly, the summary of the accident in Canada listed pilot error as the cause, which is generally the case on a high percentage of U.S. Accidents as well. If you're interested in details, here's a typical full report- nearly 100 pages long.
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/AAR1104.pdf

Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP
 
That's it. Great report!

terrykohler said:
U.S. Accident reports are typically very detailed. Most people just want to look at summary information. If I recall correctly, the summary of the accident in Canada listed pilot error as the cause, which is generally the case on a high percentage of U.S. Accidents as well. If you're interested in details, here's a typical full report- nearly 100 pages long.
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/AAR1104.pdf

Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP
Click to expand...

Terry,
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Unless I'm missing something, going through the database from the last 5 yrs on the NTSB site yielded one non-turbine crash report (Cirrus that hit the building in NY) and it was high profile. They have the talent to do such things, but it just seems like it doesn't get consistently applied - unless I'm not looking in the right spots. I'm willing to be educated.
 
accidents

NTSB generally delegates homebuilt accidents to FAA. I know of one high profile AB fatal where one FSDO person, assisted by an EAA chapter representative, investigated the accedent. Bottom line, the airplane ran out of fuel on takeoff on a first flight, accident report says engine failure for undetermined reasons. Not really the NTSB's fault, they don't have the staffing and the FAA, in many cases, doesn't have the training.
 
Cost/Benefit

panhandler1956 said:
Terry,
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Unless I'm missing something, going through the database from the last 5 yrs on the NTSB site yielded one non-turbine crash report (Cirrus that hit the building in NY) and it was high profile. They have the talent to do such things, but it just seems like it doesn't get consistently applied - unless I'm not looking in the right spots. I'm willing to be educated.
Click to expand...

You're correct - they have the talent to do great, detailed mishap investigations - they just don't have the budget to pay for enough of it. All a question of budgets and government spending. Mishap investigation is costly - heck, I have been on mishap boards that took ten people two months to come up with a report when the proximate cause was well known - that costs significant tax dollars in salaries and support. Doing a good job means digging for the root cause, and that takes more time and effort to get it right. When you start doing the math on what such an investigation costs, the pragmatist has to start weighing costs versus benefits to the public (since it is public money).

I am not saying that they shouldn't investigate more (especially if they are going to use the results of "sketchy" investigations to drive policy), just pointing out that to a large extent, the NTSB and FAA don't have the budget to do this every time, and private, "no one else involved" investigations are low on the priority list. Sure is a shame that high-visibility players seem to get the resources ....
 
Things have changed, A LOT!

Five years ago, it most GA aircraft had steam gauges and so did most E-AB?s. Now many new certified aircraft and almost all new E-AB?s have glass, which include data recording capability.

It would have been difficult for the Canadians to have performed such a detailed analysis had the accident aircraft had steam gauges.

I believe the NTSB & FAA will do a more detailed job on GA and E-AB?s now that most everyone is flying with a GPS that records flight data, including older certified aircrafts. Not to mention the amazing amount of data available from modern Engine Management Systems (EMS) and Electronic Flight Information Systems (EFIS), if they survive.
 
For what it's worth, the situation in Canada isn't much different. Having assisted on a couple of AB accident investigations here, I am aware of the decision process that goes into whether they spend a lot of time on an AB accident.

In general, it comes down to the ROI of doing the investigation. There are only so many investigators, and only so much time to do the investigations. Accidents involving commercial operators (where the general public is more exposed to the risk) are prioritized higher than a single AB where only the pilot is injured. So when there haven't been any commercial accidents, and an AB plane crashes, they can take the time to produce a detailed report like the one for C-GNDY linked to above.

When they're busy though, they have to focus on where they can save the most lives, and that means the largest airplanes that carry the most people more often.

I mentioned that I have assisted on a couple of investigations. That came about by chance, after the fatal crash of a fellow flying club member's airplane. The TSB was busy at the time, so I contacted them and asked if I could take a look. They got permission from the family and instructed the local authorities to give us access to the wreckage. I looked at everything and wrote a report, which I sent to my contact at the TSB. They reviewed it, agreed with my findings, and I submitted the report to our national org's magazine (Rec Flyer) for publication.

If you're looking for more detail in some incidents, this might be an option in the US too... Get to know someone at the NTSB, and see if this kind of arrangement might work.
 
There is some work going on

The FAA, GA division is undertaking a more thorough investigation of the collected accident data since 2001. This work is being done by the GA JSC (General Aviation Joint Steering Committee). See here - http://www.cgar.org/Meeting_2011/GA JSC Activity Update.pdf The process will be to assign 10 or so accident reports to individual members of the JSC working groups. These members are typically volunteers who are familiar with the type of aircraft involved in the accidents. The reports are being screened for completeness and the results categorized for further study.

The process is slow but is ongoing. The aim is to improve the data, and validate conclusions drawn from the reports. Not sure when the results will be forthcoming.

Fly safe!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.