Accident Rates for Common GA Aircraft

[James331]

Define landing gear issues, you also including the pilot not dropping the gear, or the gear not being maintained properly?


Come on guys, don't BS a BSer, you guys just made this so you could get a new plane "honey, we need to trade in our PA28 for a SR22, its like 300% safer, and you want is to be "safe" right"

 

[Fearless Tower]

Comparing a subject against itself is not valid for statistical analysis.

One in eight Boeing 777's fatal accidents can be attributed to hitting a seawall on landing. Does that teach us anything about how a 777 compares to other aircraft?

Perhaps, but let's be real here. As it relates to another recent thread here, insurance companies like 777s much more than 210s.

 

[gsengle]

Define landing gear issues, you also including the pilot not dropping the gear, or the gear not being maintained properly?


Come on guys, don't BS a BSer, you guys just made this so you could get a new plane "honey, we need to trade in our PA28 for a SR22, its like 300% safer, and you want is to be "safe" right"

That would be cool except his data showed the opposite. Probably best to stick with that older trainer....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wanttaja]

Comparing a subject against itself is not valid for statistical analysis.

One in eight Boeing 777's fatal accidents can be attributed to hitting a seawall on landing. Does that teach us anything about how a 777 compares to other aircraft?

"One in Eight" as in 12.5% of all Cessna 210 accidents, not a single accident in eight accidents. The actual for the Cessna 210 is 30 accidents out of 240, from 1998 through 2015. For the Bonanza, it's four out of 305, and there are nearly four times as many Bonanzas.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

Define landing gear issues, you also including the pilot not dropping the gear, or the gear not being maintained properly?

Mechanical issues only. I tally pilot-related ones separately, they're included in a "System Mismanagement" sub-category that covers stuff like wrong flap settings, not using trim properly, etc. If the NTSB specifically calls out a mistake by the maintainers, I list "Maintenance Error" as the accident initiator but flag the landing gear as the affected component. The 210s had 30 cases of landing gear mechanical failure where the NTSB did NOT call out the maintainer, and an additional three where they did.

EDIT: Note correction a few posts down.....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Fearless Tower]

I love it when pilots think they are smarter than insurance companies...

 

[wanttaja]

"One in Eight" as in 12.5% of all Cessna 210 accidents, not a single accident in eight accidents. The actual for the Cessna 210 is 30 accidents out of 240, from 1998 through 2015. For the Bonanza, it's four out of 305, and there are nearly four times as many Bonanzas.

Realized that the Bonanza database was 36-models only, and the totals change a bit. There are 3412 Bonanza 36s in my January 2017 FAA registration database, not nearly four times as many as 210s, as I originally posted.

As it turns out the fleet sizes of the 210s vs. Bonanza 36s is actually fairly close. Here's a breakdown of the number of accidents since 1998:

The Bonanza 36 has a higher rate of pilot miscontrol...this is basically airmanship, not judgement. The ironic thing is that gear problems are the second-leading cause of accidents with the 210, at least using the categories that I use.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[denverpilot]

Come on guys, don't BS a BSer, you guys just made this so you could get a new plane "honey, we need to trade in our PA28 for a SR22, its like 300% safer, and you want is to be "safe" right"

Considering he's admitted that his own analysis proves the experimental he flies is one of the least "safe" aircraft he could have chosen, probably not.

 

[bluerooster]

....The Bonanza 36 has a higher rate of pilot miscontrol...this is basically airmanship, not judgement. The ironic thing is that gear problems are the second-leading cause of accidents with the 210, at least using the categories that I use.

Ron Wanttaja

Given the way the 210 gear operates, vs the way the Bo.36 gear operates. It's understandable.

 

[FloridaPilot]

Realized that the Bonanza database was 36-models only, and the totals change a bit. There are 3412 Bonanza 36s in my January 2017 FAA registration database, not nearly four times as many as 210s, as I originally posted.

As it turns out the fleet sizes of the 210s vs. Bonanza 36s is actually fairly close. Here's a breakdown of the number of accidents since 1998:

The Bonanza 36 has a higher rate of pilot miscontrol...this is basically airmanship, not judgement. The ironic thing is that gear problems are the second-leading cause of accidents with the 210, at least using the categories that I use.

Ron Wanttaja

Can you show me the accident rates for the Cessna 182 Not the retractable?

 

[steingar]

Thanks for all your effort.

+1 to that. I do have a question for you Ron. In analyzing Mooney M20c accidents for the last decade I found two things. One was nearly all the fatals occurred out west or in mountainous zones, there was only one in the East. And on gear up accidents whatsoever. The latter has me interested. Are there fewer gear up accidents in Mooneys with a Johnson bar (a, b, some c & e models)? I could believe it, that gear swing is an event.

 

[wanttaja]

Can you show me the accident rates for the Cessna 182 Not the retractable?

I can do some minor rate checking on other aircraft without too much effort, but my full-blown analysis is very time-consuming. Nothing in the cause determination is automated; I read each individual accident report and come to my own assessment as to the main cause (I don't rely on the NTSB's probable cause). As you might expect, this is very time-consuming... there have been over 1100 Cessna 182 accident since 1998. Reading all those accident reports is also very depressing, if you catch my drift.

In any case, my primary interest is homebuilts. Most of the GA aircraft I've done in the past have either been to provide a Control Group to compare homebuilt accidents, which is why I have Cessna 172 and 210 results. The other GA aircraft I've done have either been to try get better examples of comparisons to homebuilts (the Bonanza 36 data was intended to compare against the Lancair IV), from curiosity (Cirrus), or from an owner's group (PA-28s). Otherwise, the personal motivation isn't there.

I may do the Cessna 182 in the future, but not soon.

+1 to that. I do have a question for you Ron. In analyzing Mooney M20c accidents for the last decade I found two things. One was nearly all the fatals occurred out west or in mountainous zones, there was only one in the East. And on gear up accidents whatsoever. The latter has me interested. Are there fewer gear up accidents in Mooneys with a Johnson bar (a, b, some c & e models)? I could believe it, that gear swing is an event.

Looking for specifics like these are a bit easier than my standard analysis process. Let me see what I can do.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[FloridaPilot]

I can do some minor rate checking on other aircraft without too much effort, but my full-blown analysis is very time-consuming. Nothing in the cause determination is automated; I read each individual accident report and come to my own assessment as to the main cause (I don't rely on the NTSB's probable cause). As you might expect, this is very time-consuming... there have been over 1100 Cessna 182 accident since 1998. Reading all those accident reports is also very depressing, if you catch my drift.

In any case, my primary interest is homebuilts. Most of the GA aircraft I've done in the past have either been to provide a Control Group to compare homebuilt accidents, which is why I have Cessna 172 and 210 results. The other GA aircraft I've done have either been to try get better examples of comparisons to homebuilts (the Bonanza 36 data was intended to compare against the Lancair IV), from curiosity (Cirrus), or from an owner's group (PA-28s). Otherwise, the personal motivation isn't there.

I may do the Cessna 182 in the future, but not soon.


Looking for specifics like these are a bit easier than my standard analysis process. Let me see what I can do.

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks Ron,

Okay let me ask you this, (No research involved) I'm a low time pilot, (Under 100 Hrs) If you had to recommend an airplane to purchase that would provide the best safety, (From your experiences) which one would it be?

 

[wanttaja]

Okay let me ask you this, (No research involved) I'm a low time pilot, (Under 100 Hrs) If you had to recommend an airplane to purchase that would provide the best safety, (From your experiences) which one would it be?

Nothing loaded in THAT question.

The basic answer is that I haven't looked at every single type, and the definition of "best safety" will vary.

The SHORT answer, though, of the planes I've looked at: The plot shows the "Average Fleet Accident Rate", basically the number of accidents vs. the registered examples of that type. It includes all the GA types I've studied. This is brand-new analysis, done in support of a series of articles I've been asked to do.

Ron "Let the screaming commence" Wanttaja

 

[gsengle]

Nothing loaded in THAT question.

The basic answer is that I haven't looked at every single type, and the definition of "best safety" will vary.

The SHORT answer, though, of the planes I've looked at: The plot shows the "Average Fleet Accident Rate", basically the number of accidents vs. the registered examples of that type. It includes all the GA types I've studied. This is brand-new analysis, done in support of a series of articles I've been asked to do.

Ron "Let the screaming commence" Wanttaja

Do you have the fatals chart for comparison?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FloridaPilot]

Nothing loaded in THAT question.

The basic answer is that I haven't looked at every single type, and the definition of "best safety" will vary.

The SHORT answer, though, of the planes I've looked at: The plot shows the "Average Fleet Accident Rate", basically the number of accidents vs. the registered examples of that type. It includes all the GA types I've studied. This is brand-new analysis, done in support of a series of articles I've been asked to do.

Ron "Let the screaming commence" Wanttaja

Heh, you are right it was a loaded question but I wasn't trying to corner you at all. I'm just doing my own research to compare notes. I actually appreciate the work you do!

Thank you,

FP

 

[FloridaPilot]

I also noticed Diamond aircraft wasn't on the list is it because they are not popular?

 

[wanttaja]

Do you have the fatals chart for comparison?

I haven't broken out that data. It's certainly in my databases, but I haven't done to work to identify them, extract the values, and plot them.

It does highlight my comment about how peoples' definition of "safety" varies. It is a good point, for sure.

My process does compute the "fatality rate" for individual types. This is the percentage of accidents that include at least one fatality.

Cessna 172: 14%
Cessna 210: 20%
Piper Cherokee (PA-140, 161, 180, 181): 19%
Bonanza 36: 33%
Cirrus: 34%

Median pilot total time for fatal accidents:

Piper Cherokee: 356
Cirrus: 815
Bonanza 36: 1300
Cessna 172: 454
Cessna 210: 1392

I also noticed Diamond aircraft wasn't on the list is it because they are not popular?

It's not there for the same reason Mooneys, Aero Commanders, Stinsons, Fairchilds, Rockwells, Cessna 205s, and other types aren't: I haven't run the analyses. As I've said, my primary interest is homebuilts.

Diamonds have a relative small fleet size, in the US. I count 750 DA-40s, for instance, vs. almost 5000 Cirruses.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Hank S]

+1 to that. I do have a question for you Ron. In analyzing Mooney M20c accidents for the last decade I found two things. One was nearly all the fatals occurred out west or in mountainous zones, there was only one in the East. And on gear up accidents whatsoever. The latter has me interested. Are there fewer gear up accidents in Mooneys with a Johnson bar (a, b, some c & e models)? I could believe it, that gear swing is an event.

Gear ups will rarely make the NTSB accident database, due to the FAA's definition of "accident."

My M20-C was geared up in 2003, I believe, by the previous owner. At Sun n Fun, after he was cutoff on the ground; he started back towards Lake Parker but was instructed to make right traffic instead and change from the taxiway to the runway, which used a different frequency, and to keep his speed up for the P-51 behind him . . .

Before I bought the plane, I checked into it, it's not in the Accident database, but after some searching I found it in the Incident database. No, I don't recall where that is, but Ron may know.

P.S.--my Mooney has electric gear.

 

[jordane93]

I love it when pilots think they are smarter than insurance companies...

Henning would be able to settle this

 

[FloridaPilot]

Henning would be able to settle this

Miss that guy, I haven't heard from him in a LONG time.

 

[Vance Breese]

Thank you for all the work you do Ron.

I enjoy your analysis a lot and often it gives me something to think about.

I fly a particularly dangerous type of experimental aircraft and teach people to fly it.

I feel a large part of my job is to teach a culture of risk mitigation and your thoughtful approach to statistical analysis helps me with that task.

 

[wanttaja]

I do have a question for you Ron. In analyzing Mooney M20c accidents for the last decade I found two things. One was nearly all the fatals occurred out west or in mountainous zones, there was only one in the East.

Depends on what you consider "Mountainous."

State vs. Fatal Accidents for Mooney M20C, 1998-2016:
CA : 4
CO : 3
GA : 2
ID : 1
MS : 1
OR : 1
TN : 1
TX : 1
UT : 2
VA : 1
WA : 1
WY : 1

And on gear up accidents whatsoever. The latter has me interested. Are there fewer gear up accidents in Mooneys with a Johnson bar (a, b, some c & e models)? I could believe it, that gear swing is an event.

Quickie attempt to extract "failure to extend" accidents. The model number is followed by the number of cases from 1998-2016, followed by the number examples of the model registered at the start of 2017.

M20B : 1 : 110
M20C : 2 : 1417
M20D : 1 : 103
M20E : 2 : 936
M20F : 1 : 787
M20J : 3 : 1462
M20K : 4 : 814
M20M : 2 : 216
M20R : 1 : 415
M20TN : 1 : 126

As ever, results can be affected if I set up my filters wrong.

Hank mentions that gear-up accidents don't always make it into the database, but this should give an opportunity to compare models. I've also been told that not all Cirrus CAPS-use cases end up in the record, too.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[steingar]

Depends on what you consider "Mountainous."

State vs. Fatal Accidents for Mooney M20C, 1998-2016:

I think this bears out my own analysis. I recall the TN on was being flown into a mountain. Majority of those are indeed out west, and the eastern ones are in mountainous states. The outlier would be MS.

Quickie attempt to extract "failure to extend" accidents...

And this proves me wrong. Same number in electric versus Johnson bar. My hypothesis must be that because of my short stature the bar was far more difficult for me than others. Hence for me it is quite an event, and not easily forgotten (though never say never...). For others perhaps it isn't any different than flipping a switch, and more easily forgotten.

Thank you so much for carrying out this analysis. These are actually very good things to know.

 

[GLMS_NC]

Hours flown is key and must be shown. Many Ciri are flown for business. Bonanza' more for fun, for example.

 

[gsengle]

Hours flown is key and must be shown. Many Ciri are flown for business. Bonanza' more for fun, for example.

You sure about that? I wouldn't guess any higher pct of Cirruses than Bonanzas would be flown for business purposes, and maybe the opposite. Would be interesting if you have such stats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tspear]

You sure about that? I wouldn't guess any higher pct of Cirruses than Bonanzas would be flown for business purposes, and maybe the opposite. Would be interesting if you have such stats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anecdotal. Look at planes by type flying durring the week and the weekend. Cirrus flies more then Bonanza both times but the ratio is even more lopsided durring the week.

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk

 

[wanttaja]

Hours flown is key and must be shown. Many Ciri are flown for business. Bonanza' more for fun, for example.

Well, according to the FAA, a Cirrus flies an average of 94.5 hours per year, while a Bonanza flies 94.5. A Cessna 172 flies 94.5 hours a year, as does a Piper Warrior. A Vans RV-10, on the other hand, flies an average of 47.2 hours/year.

That's the only official data we get, it's from the FAA General Aviation Survey. Yet, of course, it's what's normally used to compare accident rates.

According to the survey, less than 50% of the hours flown by single pistoned-engined aircraft with four or more seats are for personal use. It's over 80% for homebuilts.

As Tim says, anything else is purely anecdotal. Years ago, I was flying my little open-cockpit wooden single-seater about 40 hours a year, same as my co-worker with a Bonanza.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[tspear]

Well, according to the FAA, a Cirrus flies an average of 94.5 hours per year, while a Bonanza flies 94.5. A Cessna 172 flies 94.5 hours a year, as does a Piper Warrior. A Vans RV-10, on the other hand, flies an average of 47.2 hours/year.

That's the only official data we get, it's from the FAA General Aviation Survey. Yet, of course, it's what's normally used to compare accident rates.

According to the survey, less than 50% of the hours flown by single pistoned-engined aircraft with four or more seats are for personal use. It's over 80% for homebuilts.

As Tim says, anything else is purely anecdotal. Years ago, I was flying my little open-cockpit wooden single-seater about 40 hours a year, same as my co-worker with a Bonanza.

Ron Wanttaja

Here is a macob way to get some data.
Get hours on the plane and the age at the time of the ntsb report. This will give you an average per year.

Same can be done using classified ads.

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk

 

[wanttaja]

Here is a macob way to get some data.
Get hours on the plane and the age at the time of the ntsb report. This will give you an average per year.

That's actually a feature of my accident database: It calculates an average hours/year based on the manufactured year of the aircraft and the date of the accident. I get 185 hours/year for Bonanza 36, 248 hrs/year for Cirrus, 272 hrs/year for 172s, and 132 hrs/year for 210s.

I'm not too confident in its accuracy, though.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Skip Miller]

Here is a macob way

macabre? -Skip

 

[tspear]

macabre? -Skip

Lol, that is what I get for doing a quick reply on my phone...

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

That's actually a feature of my accident database: It calculates an average hours/year based on the manufactured year of the aircraft and the date of the accident. I get 185 hours/year for Bonanza 36, 248 hrs/year for Cirrus, 272 hrs/year for 172s, and 132 hrs/year for 210s.

I'm not too confident in its accuracy, though.

Ron Wanttaja

What's the 182 number if you don't mind? (Not worried about accuracy, just looking at ratio to others.)

 

[wanttaja]

What's the 182 number if you don't mind? (Not worried about accuracy, just looking at ratio to others.)

I get 157 hours per year for the 182. This is a rather iffy procedure, though, since the year of manufacture of the aircraft is not included in the accident database. I cross-reference the FAA Registry database using the N-number for a lookup, and there are potential issues.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[denverpilot]

I get 157. This is a rather iffy procedure, though, since the year of manufacture of the aircraft is not included in the accident database. I cross-reference the FAA Registry database using the N-number for a lookup, and there are potential issues.

Ron Wanttaja

It's okay. Understand. Thanks Ron.

(I had a feeling it would be higher than some of the others. Some of that is they're right on the edge of that speed where they can be used for real travel but they won't get there quite as fast as a real traveling machine. An extra hour or two on longer business or pleasure long range flights adds up over a year to about 20-30 more hours, is what I was guessing.)