What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

NTSB To Explore GA Safety

Ron Lee

Ron Lee

Well Known Member
From AvWeb:

"NTSB To Explore GA Safety

The NTSB announced this week that it will hold a two-day forum next month to examine safety issues related to general aviation. "Each year, hundreds of people are killed in general aviation crashes, and thousands more are injured," said board chairman Deborah Hersman, in a news release. "Tragically, the circumstances leading to these accidents are often repeated over and over, year after year. If we are going to prevent future fatalities and injuries, these common causes must be addressed." Last year, the safety board added "General Aviation Safety" to its "Most Wanted" list of transportation safety improvements.

The forum, "General Aviation Safety: Climbing to the Next Level," will take place June 19 and 20 in Washington, D.C. Among the key issues the forum will address are pilot training and performance, pilot access to and use of weather-related information, and aircraft design and certification. Panelists participating in the forum will represent industry, government, academia, and professional associations. Hersman and all five members of the safety board will participate. The forum is open to the public and will be webcast live at NTSB.gov."

Source: http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/2204-full.html#206659

Commentary: The RVFlightSafety.org website contains a wealth of info that could dramatically reduce the RV accident/fatality rates IF FOLLOWED. It is not rocket science. The vast majority of accidents/fatalities are pilot error. For RVs, mechanical issues may be more prevalent than for certified aircraft but even many of those problems are preventable.
 
Among the key issues the forum will address are pilot training and performance, pilot access to and use of weather-related information, and aircraft design and certification.
Click to expand...

I sure hope EAA is watching this.

Panelists participating in the forum will represent industry, government, academia, and professional associations.
Click to expand...

I wish it were more direct that it included aviators.

Dan
 
Just curious, what are the numbers?

"Each year, hundreds of people are killed in general aviation crashes, and thousands more are injured,"

Are there "thousands" injured and "hundreds" killed each year by GA aircraft?
 
looks like thousands

1flyer said:
...Are there "thousands" injured and "hundreds" killed each year by GA aircraft?
Click to expand...


I came up with 1181 accidents with at least one non-fatal injury in 2010. If at least 800 or so involve at least two non-fatal injuries, then yes, thousands.

Or maybe not. It looks like in the db query tool when you select inury "severity = non-fatal" you get results including those with no injuries. Example:
dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/daehuwvgnk03aua1opwhutye1/T05152012120000.pdf

So, with a bit of research it may turn out that injuries are actually in the hundreds per year.

But I wouldn't go around gloating about that.....

Upon further delving into "statistics", it seems Bill may have a point. In 2010 there were the above roughly 1200 accidents. But the query tool only allows you to select "non-fatal" injury severity. Based upon only a small sample of the factual findings, it looks like well less than half of the total reports yield an average of one in the injury summary total for "Minor/None". It would take a bit more work to come up with a real solid number, but I'm going out on a limb and saying it look more like several hundred, not thousands, with "Serious" inuries; at least going by the "injury summary" in the factual reports of the NTSB.

I aplogize for going off ahead of plan...
 
Last edited:
NTSB web site has statistics for 2010:
450 GA fatalities
For comparison there were 672 boating fatalities. Thru the years boating and aviation (GA) fatalities have been similar. Of course exposure rates are different, as they are for highways, where there were 32,000 deaths in 2010.
 
BobTurner said:
Of course exposure rates are different, as they are for highways, where there were 32,000 deaths in 2010.
Click to expand...
"the number and rate of traffic fatalities in 2010 fell to the lowest levels since 1949, despite a significant increase in the number of miles Americans drove during the year." NHTSA. Pretty remarkable given we must be driving, what, 10x the number of miles from 1949?

I'm guessing the NTSB is looking at GA fatalities and seeing no such decline per hour, passenger-mile, what-have-you. Their job IS "transportation safety" so they are carrying out their mission.

I doubt more pilot training will accomplish a thing. It'd have to be technology improvements, which account for the highway safety record. But whatever those improvements might consist of, they would be expensive in GA because they'd have to be retrofitted onto existing aircraft. Not gonna happen, though I would like to see shoulder-harness airbags more widely available. Has anyone put those in their RV?
 
More Training Isn't the Entire Answer, But...

Buggsy2 said:
"the number and rate of traffic fatalities in 2010 fell to the lowest levels since 1949, despite a significant increase in the number of miles Americans drove during the year." NHTSA. Pretty remarkable given we must be driving, what, 10x the number of miles from 1949?

I'm guessing the NTSB is looking at GA fatalities and seeing no such decline per hour, passenger-mile, what-have-you. Their job IS "transportation safety" so they are carrying out their mission.

I doubt more pilot training will accomplish a thing. It'd have to be technology improvements, which account for the highway safety record. But whatever those improvements might consist of, they would be expensive in GA because they'd have to be retrofitted onto existing aircraft. Not gonna happen, though I
would like to see shoulder-harness airbags more widely available. Has anyone put those in their RV?
Click to expand...

Take one flight test and you've pretty much got a license for the rest of your life. Flight review? You can't fail, and many pilots seek out a "buddy" who will give them the minimum of what's required. Well, I'll practice on my own! Yes, and further ingrain some bad habits you picked up 10 or 15 years ago.
There's a small percentage of pilots that look to continually improve their skills. Most want to do just enough to maintain their "right" to fly. Can technology help? You bet, but even on the highways, the most significant drop in accidents came with a significant increase in training for new drivers. At least that was the case in Michigan. Some of the technology, particularly communication related, is actually causing more accidents.
Whatever the activity, whether flying, driving, machinist, etc., additional training is always of benefit. Frankly, if any safety study results in some mandate, I'd rather it be more and better training rather than more equipment.
Terry,CFI
RV9A N323TP
 
My view is that since poor judgment is the cause in the vast majority of these accidents, technology is unlikely to help nor is BFR-like training. I have heard a phrase "You can stop stupid."

You may or may not be able to stop poor judgment.

I do believe that the RV community can be a trend setter is accident/fatality reduction. That does not require an EFIS, triple comms, 3D terrain or airbags.

It takes an attitude shift. An ability to say no to flying when conditions get bad even if you miss something "important."

Look at the report of the guys (not in an RV) who departed the Las Cruces LOE a few years ago and flew into a thunderstorm cell. Why not leave 30 minutes sooner..or later. Was making his daughters reported birthday event that important that two people ended up dead?

Look at the info on RVFlightSafety.org

Read it, understand where the risks are and don't do the things that will kill you and rates can plummet.

Add in better construction quality control to eliminate that causal factor and RVs can be the safest GA aviation group.
 
I am more concerned about the slaughter on the nation's hi-ways. Seems like the NTSB could spend a couple days looking at that situation also.
 
safety equipment

Ron, Im with you on the "you can't fix stupid" comment. People will always make decisions, and some are bad. I know first hand!

I remember a month or so ago one of the avionics manufactures announced a new system that had a button to push and the auto pilot flew the airplane to the threshold of the closest airport. I thought that was a great idea, but it was hammered by some that felt the pilot should have the skills to pilot the plane themselves.

The discussion caused me to look at the situation closer and see if the new technology to improve safety may in fact cause the "Cirrus" factor to come into play. I take Crestor to lower my cholesterol levels. I have been know to have a large rib eye, potatoes and butter, and think I can get away with it by just taking an extra pill. If I had the technology to just push a button to get me out of trouble, would I be more inclined to get into trouble?

I remember when my daughter was going to college in Utah and wanted to get chains for her car. I told her I didn't want her to have chains because anytime she needed chains, I didn't want her to drive and to wait until the roads were better or call a cab. Did I make it safer for her or did I decrease her safety level because she may take a chance when the roads were "pretty good".

I don't know the answer about technology and how much it would improve safety in aircraft. Does having 4 wheel drive keep me safer in the snow or do I drive faster because I have 4 wheel drive. In reality, I do drive faster in the snow because I have the proper equipment to allow me to drive faster - safely. I believe I was short sighted not wanting my daughter to have chains because the possibility of her getting into a situation where not having them would put her at a much greater risk than if she did have them.

I am grateful for the advances in technology that have the chance to help with general aviation safety. I don't think having a auto-pilot that could save my life if needed is any different than using conservative fuel burn estimates so you are covered if things change and you have that cushion. I hope I wouldn't fall victim to the "stupid" clause, but if there is technology, training, thumping on my head, whatever it takes to save my life, I am all for it. Air bags, stronger seating and crash protection, better restraint systems, reliable engines and other systems, lucky rabbits foot, whatever is available, great.

The more accidents prevented, the better it is for all of us and general aviation has the chance to show real improvement. The numbers are real people.
 
WRT to technology and reduced highway fatalities: it's clearly technology, not training, that's reduced the deaths. First seat belts and interior improvements thanks to Ralph Nader. Then anti-lock brakes, airbags, and a number of improvements to highways. It would be interesting to examine the number of accidents, and number of deaths per 100k accidents...my guess both have dropped a lot but more so the latter.

To be sure we now have distracted driving (texting while driving). Drunk driving still happens but after years of lobbying by MADD the penalties are higher. The point being it's been decades of tech and external (legal) fixes to the auto/highway system that's brought down the casualty rate. Training has little effect.

Applying this to aviation, the same principles work. Compare GA with airline flying, the latter far safer. And the latter has far better technology and far better training, but the training is mandatory. How many of us would still be flying if their training was required of us? Very few for sure.
 
rockwoodrv9 said:
I remember a month or so ago one of the avionics manufactures announced a new system that had a button to push and the auto pilot flew the airplane to the threshold of the closest airport. I thought that was a great idea, but it was hammered by some that felt the pilot should have the skills to pilot the plane themselves.
Click to expand...

I was one of those that hammered it. Not so much for the safety aspect though, rather, it added a feature at considerable cost that had little to do with previous features in the product I wanted (automating some parts of flight operation, and reducing the number of switches on the panel). As for the additional safety it provided, I compared its cost and safety benefit with other safety uses of the money: more training, shoulder air bags, etc. and thought their improvement didn't have a good marginal B/C ratio.
 
Buggsy2

I understand your problem when the new version came out and replaced the previous one with more than you wanted. It may have been an error to not offer both models, but at least they are trying to improve their products.

I agree with you that technology is the way auto, airline, truck, boating, and even motorcycle riding, has improved their safety records. I think that increasing structure strength and possibly an air bag system would be a good start. Training and pressure from fellow pilots to not do stupid things and not be afraid to tell a friend they should reconsider plans if things are not right.

On a post yesterday about a flight to San Jose, a guy posted that a "red flag" came to him after reading the guy was no allowing an extra day to get where he had to be. We all know that could cause a person to push a go-no go choice. When I read it, my first thought was the poster was overstepping his place and it wasn't his business to butt in. The guy didn't ask for opinions on safety, but what was a good way to get there. As I sit here now I realize how stupid I am for thinking that way. It takes balls to say something that could offend someone and question their judgment. Changing our thought process is probably the best way to improve aviation safety.

On a side note, I lived in Cameron Park from 1963 -2007 - up where Mike S lives. As I sit here in Colorado, a nice 65 degrees, light breeze, and beautiful view of the mountains, I don't miss the Sacramento Valley heat of the summer at all! I was out there last week for a few days visiting family and it is nice to be back in the mountains.
 
rockwoodrv9 said:
On a post yesterday about a flight to San Jose, a guy posted that a "red flag" came to him after reading the guy was no allowing an extra day to get where he had to be. We all know that could cause a person to push a go-no go choice. When I read it, my first thought was the poster was overstepping his place and it wasn't his business to butt in. The guy didn't ask for opinions on safety, but what was a good way to get there. As I sit here now I realize how stupid I am for thinking that way. It takes balls to say something that could offend someone and question their judgment. Changing our thought process is probably the best way to improve aviation safety.
Click to expand...

That guy was probably me. Just as I was one guy of several who cautioned the guy with less than 20 hours and wanting a high performance plane that he was perhaps on the path to be a statistic.

It does not take much time to know that there are pilots here with incredible experience and skills (piloting and/or construction). It does not matter if you have 20,000 hours or 62 hours. Making the right decision should be a primary objective of RV pilots...at least those who prefer to live a long flying life.

Some people drool over the wonders of technology like 3D terrain. I view it as fluff. It looks neat but as someone who flies in the Rockies, I have no need for it.

Autopilot? Great fatigue reducer in my opinion.

FADEC? Would not have it on my plane.

My biggest asset is being willing to pause or cancel a trip due to weather. I suspect that 50%-75% of my long cross countries have been impacted by weather.
 
Ron Lee said:
That guy was probably me.
My biggest asset is being willing to pause or cancel a trip due to weather. I suspect that 50%-75% of my long cross countries have been impacted by weather.
Click to expand...

Ron, anytime you are in my part of the company, I would welcome meeting you to discuss flying - smart flying. Lunch on me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top