Cutting GA Accidents Rates In Half

Geico266

Geico266

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
19,136
Location
Husker Nation, NE
Display Name
Display name:
Geico
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
I ran across this article in Kit Planes Magazine by Richard "Van" Vangrunsven founder of Van's Aircraft and the RV series of kit planes. Interesting read on how he feels to cut GA accidents. The only true way to reduce GA accidents is looking at the man in the mirror. A lot of truth in his words.

http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/29_1/exploring/Unusual_Attitude_Safety_is_a_culture_20336-1.html
Click to expand...

How many people are on complete autopilot and drive poorly in cars? 50%? The complacency gets carried over to airplanes too...
 
What? Nobody ever does anything stupid in aviation...


Rojaaaaaah!

Edit: If only there was a law against Flying While Stupid.
 
Geico266 said:
I ran across this article in Kit Planes Magazine by Richard "Van" Vangrunsven founder of Van's Aircraft and the RV series of kit planes. Interesting read on how he feels to cut GA accidents. The only true way to reduce GA accidents is looking at the man in the mirror. A lot of truth in his words.

http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/29_1/exploring/Unusual_Attitude_Safety_is_a_culture_20336-1.html
Click to expand...
OK, but the "man in the mirror" is just you. I think many attitudes and behaviors are personality-driven. It's hard enough to change your own personality and virtually impossible to change someone else's. You can possibly change their behavior if it's within the scope of your authority as in this example from the article.

If you see flying behavior that is unsafe, inconsiderate or just plain dumb—act. Recently, I learned that a member of our glider club had been banned from using the club's private airfield because of his flying behavior. He owned a fast homebuilt and would fly in to use the club gliders. He often demonstrated his own stylized arrival procedure. I witnessed one of these industrial-strength buzz jobs, and agreed that corrective attention was in order. I mention this as an instance where peer pressure was applied effectively. The club's culture simply wouldn't accept reckless flying.
Click to expand...
This pilot may not be buzzing at this private airfield but I'm guessing that buzzing is going on somewhere else.
 
Everskyward said:
OK, but the "man in the mirror" is just you. I think many attitudes and behaviors are personality-driven. It's hard enough to change your own personality and virtually impossible to change someone else's. You can possibly change their behavior if it's within the scope of your authority as in this example from the article.


This pilot may not be buzzing at this private airfield but I'm guessing that buzzing is going on somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Good points...

Darwin segregates the idiots.... With Gravity's help.....:rolleyes:
 
Geico266 said:
I ran across this article in Kit Planes Magazine by Richard "Van" Vangrunsven founder of Van's Aircraft and the RV series of kit planes. Interesting read on how he feels to cut GA accidents. The only true way to reduce GA accidents is looking at the man in the mirror. A lot of truth in his words.

http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/29_1/exploring/Unusual_Attitude_Safety_is_a_culture_20336-1.html
Click to expand...
It boils down to reaching the "unreachables"....those who think they don't need to learn to be safer.:goofy:

Now, how do we identify those folks? and where do we implement the training programs to educate them?
 
Last edited:
The problem that I have found trying to teach crew resource management is that those who need it most, are the least receptive to the training. This is the same issue with GA pilots.
 
From the linked article:

If you see flying behavior that is unsafe, inconsiderate or just plain dumb—act. Recently, I learned that a member of our glider club had been banned from using the club's private airfield because of his flying behavior.

He owned a fast homebuilt and would fly in to use the club gliders. He often demonstrated his own stylized arrival procedure. I witnessed one of these industrial-strength buzz jobs, and agreed that corrective attention was in order.

I mention this as an instance where peer pressure was applied effectively. The club's culture simply wouldn't accept reckless flying.
Click to expand...

Some here say this is not their business. I don't think I agree. But it's been flailed to death around here...so feel free to ignore me.
 
I'd like someone to give me a rational explanation as to why we need to cut GA accident rate in half. (Even though I'm pretty sure the linked article is about cutting E/AB accident rates in half an not all of GA) just because the FAA says so? Because Dick VanGrunsven says so? When we achieve a 50% cut, is that it? Are we then done, or do we then have to try to hit some other arbitrary target?

Can't people just understand that what we do is inherently more dangerous than that that they encounter in daily life an accept it? Can we not accept that as long as we allow human beings to pursue personal flight, there will be deaths associated with it? Does the GA safety record really need to be fixed? We will never in my life time get the GA safety record to match Part 121 ops, or part 135 ops, or even as safe as driving your car. Just the way it is.
 
Dav8or said:
I'd like someone to give me a rational explanation as to why we need to cut GA accident rate in half. (Even though I'm pretty sure the linked article is about cutting E/AB accident rates in half an not all of GA) just because the FAA says so? Because Dick VanGrunsven says so? When we achieve a 50% cut, is that it? Are we then done, or do we then have to try to hit some other arbitrary target?

Can't people just understand that what we do is inherently more dangerous than that that they encounter in daily life an accept it? Can we not accept that as long as we allow human beings to pursue personal flight, there will be deaths associated with it? Does the GA safety record really need to be fixed? We will never in my life time get the GA safety record to match Part 121 ops, or part 135 ops, or even as safe as driving your car. Just the way it is.
Click to expand...

If dying in a plane crash is acceptable to you then have at it, Hoss. Nobody is trying to take away your freedoms.

The vast majority of GA accidents are easily preventable and cutting the rate in half would still be going after low-hanging fruit. I don't know why you're so offended by other people's attempts to not die but I'm all for education and training. I personally enjoy FAA Safety Team events and am more conscientious of factors that affect the safety of my hamburger runs. If there's even the slightest chance that I'm going to be one of the people spared by cutting the rate in half then let's do it. I volunteer to be a survivor.
 
Yuppers. Once you accept someone else's safety frame you are primed to accept all the rules they'd like to pile on in the name of increased safety. And if you have bought into safety frame you will find out in the fine print even one death is one too many.
Dav8or said:
I'd like someone to give me a rational explanation as to why we need to cut GA accident rate in half. (Even though I'm pretty sure the linked article is about cutting E/AB accident rates in half an not all of GA) just because the FAA says so? Because Dick VanGrunsven says so? When we achieve a 50% cut, is that it? Are we then done, or do we then have to try to hit some other arbitrary target?

Can't people just understand that what we do is inherently more dangerous than that that they encounter in daily life an accept it? Can we not accept that as long as we allow human beings to pursue personal flight, there will be deaths associated with it? Does the GA safety record really need to be fixed? We will never in my life time get the GA safety record to match Part 121 ops, or part 135 ops, or even as safe as driving your car. Just the way it is.
Click to expand...
 
ollopa said:
If dying in a plane crash is acceptable to you then have at it, Hoss. Nobody is trying to take away your freedoms.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is exactly what happens when you set arbitrary goals like this. When the "volunteer" program doesn't get the desired results, then follows the regulation.

The vast majority of GA accidents are easily preventable and cutting the rate in half would still be going after low-hanging fruit.
Click to expand...

I don't know how long you have been flying, but in my experience over the 15 years of studying this stuff and watching trends and human behavior is, that the only way you're going to get the accident rate cut in half, is to identify the "low hanging fruit", or "poor" pilots and prevent them from flying altogether. Not so easy.

We all more or less get the same training and we all have the same rules, but some just do it their own way and no amount of safety seminars, or magazine/web articles is going to change their ways. After all, we're all above average pilots, right?

I personally enjoy FAA Safety Team events and am more conscientious of factors that affect the safety of my hamburger runs. If there's even the slightest chance that I'm going to be one of the people spared by cutting the rate in half then let's do it. I volunteer to be a survivor.
Click to expand...

See, you're already doing what helps. You were doing it even before Mr. VanGrunsven wrote his article. The point is, some people naturally gravitate towards a culture of safety and others just don't. Unless you're going to mandate it, it pretty much is what it is. People have been preaching safety for decades with marginal success.

BTW, the safety record has over all gotten better over the last two decades due to changes in training, more education and new technology, but to my point, even though there have been improvements, clearly some don't think it's good enough, so where does it all end? At what point do you declare GA "safe"?
 
Dav8or said:
Actually, that is exactly what happens when you set arbitrary goals like this. When the "volunteer" program doesn't get the desired results, then follows the regulation.
Click to expand...

Look if you have a fear of regulation that's your own issue. Regulation is not the only means by which you can try to accomplish a goal and it's not what is being proposed here. Everyone is in agreement that you can't regulate away poor decision making. The FAA is trying to affect a culture of safety via voluntary training and seminars, and even "Van" said you can't fix this with more regulation. Leave your slippery-slope for the SZ, please, and re-frame the concept as "reducing the GA accident rate without introducing regulation."

Maybe you're right that there's a certain percentage of people so intent on taking heaps of risk and who can not be persuaded to save their own lives, but that is no reason to not try to foster a culture of safety and/or treat pilot culture as a subculture apart from American culture. I don't think it matters how how safe we become -- there's no good reason to stop trying to persuade people to be safer pilots for everyone's sake.
 
What are you new guys going to tell yourselves after you've experienced better, more experienced, more safety conscious pilots then yourself screwing the pooch? Most of the dead pilots are regular safety conscious conservative guys that had a bad day. The stupid human stunt type pilots are a small part of the carnage totals. The vast majority of dead pilots are the same as us, for mental comfort we try to put them in some outgroup after their number comes up. Our odds are their odds, we are just luckier, til we ain't.
 
denverpilot said:
Probably Gastons. ;)
Click to expand...
Absolutely!

Actually when I'm doing a "runway inspection" I'm as focused, or moreso, than just about any other time I'm flying.

I'm likely safer than when I'm not completely focused and pull a stupid pilot trick at altitude...

...which I've done.
 
Dav8or said:
I'd like someone to give me a rational explanation as to why we need to cut GA accident rate in half. (Even though I'm pretty sure the linked article is about cutting E/AB accident rates in half an not all of GA) just because the FAA says so? Because Dick VanGrunsven says so? When we achieve a 50% cut, is that it? Are we then done, or do we then have to try to hit some other arbitrary target?

Can't people just understand that what we do is inherently more dangerous than that that they encounter in daily life an accept it? Can we not accept that as long as we allow human beings to pursue personal flight, there will be deaths associated with it? Does the GA safety record really need to be fixed? We will never in my life time get the GA safety record to match Part 121 ops, or part 135 ops, or even as safe as driving your car. Just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Why? Because we are not the only ones impacted by our crashes. If you were flying alone in the world, nobody at home and nobody on the ground under you, then I would say you could do whatever you wanted. To ignore how your unsafe flying might cause pain, suffering or death to others is selfish, immature and outside the culture of flying. Beyond that, I find it personally offensive, but I am willing to grant that your question was meant to invoke discussion, not to excuse stupid pilots.
 
I'm reminded of the saying "we've met the enemy and he is us". On this board we say someone post a youtube video of aircraft flying a what many (yours truly included) felt were dangerously low altitudes. Yes they were lauded by many participants. So long as we glorify needlessly perilous behaviors, they will continue unabated and the accident rate will not change one iota.
 
ollopa said:
Maybe you're right that there's a certain percentage of people so intent on taking heaps of risk and who can not be persuaded to save their own lives, but that is no reason to not try to foster a culture of safety and/or treat pilot culture as a subculture apart from American culture. I don't think it matters how how safe we become -- there's no good reason to stop trying to persuade people to be safer pilots for everyone's sake.
Click to expand...
Could we persuade you to change your attitude into one of more risk-taking and disregard for rules? Now think of how hard it is to change people's attitudes in the other direction. The FAA has been trying for decades but it's a preaching to the choir situation. Those who attend safety seminars etc. do it voluntarily. You can really only promote a "safety culture" when you have some authority and control over what happens, such as within companies where there are consequences for non-compliance. Unless you want to give the FAA more authority and personnel to crack down in a big way, there will be these people around. Plus, as someone else mentioned, many accidents, even those which are pilot error, happen because someone who is a reasonable pilot had a bad day.
 
steingar said:
I'm reminded of the saying "we've met the enemy and he is us". On this board we say someone post a youtube video of aircraft flying a what many (yours truly included) felt were dangerously low altitudes. Yes they were lauded by many participants. So long as we glorify needlessly perilous behaviors, they will continue unabated and the accident rate will not change one iota.
Click to expand...

What is the death rate of low flying compared to fuel exhaustion or night VFR flight? The enemy is gravity and bipedal brain wiring. If you accept the 'more safety is needed' argument you lose.
 
It's easy to blame the pilot and say that will never happen to yourself because you are a good pilot with good training. Problem is, the same guy who just killed himself and his family while burning alive said the same thing last week. We are human, we make mistakes.

I knew a chief instructor that was as good a pilot as you will find who came within an inch of killing himself and his passenger. It was pilot error, and the only lapse in judgment I have seen in his entire career. To say they got lucky is an understatement.

There have been many pilots better than you or I that have had one lapse in judgment that ended in their untimely demise. To go even further, if something happens outside of your control like a mechanical failure/bird strike etc. then you have a situation where it is even more difficult to make the exact right decisions and actions. High hour experienced pilots still stall and spin right into the ground after an engine out.

Good thing is, we absolutely can lower our risks to an extent by having good training and making good decisions.

I think safety and the realities of flight should be discussed often and at length. I know I have learned a lot through internet and forum interactions and honestly some things have stuck in my head that might not have if I hadn't participated.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
Why? Because we are not the only ones impacted by our crashes. If you were flying alone in the world, nobody at home and nobody on the ground under you, then I would say you could do whatever you wanted. To ignore how your unsafe flying might cause pain, suffering or death to others is selfish, immature and outside the culture of flying. Beyond that, I find it personally offensive, but I am willing to grant that your question was meant to invoke discussion, not to excuse stupid pilots.
Click to expand...

So I'm guessing that even just one GA fatality per year is too much, right? My point isn't to be callous, or dismissive of the need for safety education, but rather to except reality. Piloting your own airplane all by yourself as an amateur is one of the most potentially dangerous most of us will ever do, yet it can seem deceptively simple and easy. You either are the type to take the risk seriously, or you're not.

If you consider the relative strength and health of GA today, the needed changes to get the accident rate cut in half would have diminishing returns. Baring some miraculous new technology, government regulation and/or government oversight is the only way to get there. The thing is, the FAA knows this too and that's why they are refraining from more regulation right now. In an attempt to get the accident rate to half, they are more likely to get half the pilots to quit, or never start. That's not what GA, or the FAA needs right now.

Dick VanGrunsven in his article actually was talking about attempting to get the accident rate for E/AB planes cut in half, not GA as a whole, but the same problems exist there as for all of us. You either see flying as risky and take it very seriously, or you don't. You either see GA as a big community, or you see yourself as an individual doing your own thing. The people who fall into the later categories have already tuned out all the safety zealots. They're doing their own thing.

Looking at the history of aviation, the accident rate for GA is actually quite good now and the last ten years have been the best it has ever been. That's why I find it kind of ridiculous that some should demand we cut the rate in half with no good plan to do that other than- "Don't be stupid pilot. Do the right thing." Like I said, every pilot is an above average pilot and no pilot ever does something that they don't consider safe to do (Except the ones that are intentionally committing suicide for all you pedants out there.) and yet...
 
Phoenix said:
What is the death rate of low flying compared to fuel exhaustion or night VFR flight? The enemy is gravity and bipedal brain wiring. If you accept the 'more safety is needed' argument you lose.
Click to expand...

Every accident analysis I've ever read listed low flying as a major cause. Fuel exhaustion has crept up too. Used to be the most common cause of accidents was pilots blundering into IMC. Don't know if that's still the case.
 
Dav8or said:
So I'm guessing that even just one GA fatality per year is too much, right?
Click to expand...

You might be surprised, but yes. Just one GA fatality per year is too much. Just one accident is too much. If we only had one incident, I'd take it.

That doesn't mean I expect we will ever achieve that standard, but it should be the one we strive for. Otherwise, what level is OK....10 people killed per year? 100? 10,000?
 
bflynn said:
You might be surprised, but yes. Just one GA fatality per year is too much. Just one accident is too much. If we only had one incident, I'd take it.

That doesn't mean I expect we will ever achieve that standard, but it should be the one we strive for. Otherwise, what level is OK....10 people killed per year? 100? 10,000?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you understand. Zero fatalities is simple to accomplish, thank you for pleasantly agreeing to your grounding.:lol:
 
bflynn said:
You might be surprised, but yes. Just one GA fatality per year is too much. Just one accident is too much. If we only had one incident, I'd take it.

That doesn't mean I expect we will ever achieve that standard, but it should be the one we strive for. Otherwise, what level is OK....10 people killed per year? 100? 10,000?
Click to expand...

Well, that was the question I was asking. How many is OK? If you're actually going to be honest about it, you have to admit that a certain amount of people are going to crash every year and of those, some will die. The only way to prevent that from happening, is to prevent all pilots from flying. So at what number can we say we are doing a good job?

The number fluctuates up and down every year, but it has mostly been on a downward trend and it's the trend that really matters, not the number. IMO, we can say we are doing a good job when we have struck a balance between accomplishing the goals of GA (and here I really mean private pilots and personal aircraft ownership), with as much regulation needed that can keep us in check, but allow us to achieve those goals and a downward accident trend. If the long term trend shows the accident rate stagnant, then we are just doing OK. If the long term trend is going up, then we have a real problem.

As individual pilots, we can always work to be safer pilots and we can always encourage those around us to think about safety and if you really want to help, you can contribute money to the various air safety foundations. If you have ideas on how to make us better pilots, do as Van did and share them. My beef is with people stamping their feet, declaring that we as a community are screwing up and demanding we must make improvements to meet an arbitrary goal.
 
The pilot community is not static and you can't just say "We've reached all the people with open ears and there's no more point in advocacy or training, so we're ending it."

New pilots get licensed every year and old pilots have experiences that cause them to reevaluate their habits. You can't force people to be receptive to ideas but it makes a lot of sense to have the resources available for those that want to survive to fly another day.

You don't just stop education because somebody declares we're at "good enough." At the very least you have to keep it going to maintain the current level of safety.
 
10% is acceptable. Cull the herd.
 
ollopa said:
You don't just stop education because somebody declares we're at "good enough." At the very least you have to keep it going to maintain the current level of safety.
Click to expand...


There's no data to correlate that much of a direct relationship. To prove it, let every pilot go an extra two years without a BFR. What will happen?

If every pilot has a pilot induced accident during those two years, your assertion is correct. Obviously, it will not be.

Continuous education has an effect but not as strong a one as you believe.
 
Where is the juxtaposed threads thread? I want to see this thread next to the one about the guy who hot fueled and hot oiled his Arrow single-handedly. :D
 
ollopa said:
The pilot community is not static and you can't just say "We've reached all the people with open ears and there's no more point in advocacy or training, so we're ending it."

New pilots get licensed every year and old pilots have experiences that cause them to reevaluate their habits. You can't force people to be receptive to ideas but it makes a lot of sense to have the resources available for those that want to survive to fly another day.

You don't just stop education because somebody declares we're at "good enough." At the very least you have to keep it going to maintain the current level of safety.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating stoping training, or education. I'm just saying I don't believe we need to go overboard and try to double down our efforts and get diminishing returns. I think we're doing pretty well considering all factors. [WARNING. ABOUT TO MAKE REFERENCE TO CARS, SO SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD NOW! Imagine if the NTSB made reports on every single car crash and fatality. Imagine what you might read.

Here in my home town, a guy wanted to save $10 on a boat launch fee to launch his jet ski, so he decided to launch at a nearby dirt bank with his 4x4. This area is located next to railroad tracks. He for what ever reason, left his truck and trailer on the tracks. No doubt to prep the boat for launch. Amtrak blows it's horn, guy runs to move the truck- BAM! the guy and his truck are sailing through the air and land in the water. The truck lands right next to a woman that was floating on an inflatable minding her own business. Two people medivaced, one by truck, one by helicopter, the jet ski ended up on the railroad tracks and I have no idea where the trailer went.

Good times on the Delta!
950136_630x354.jpg


People are people and you can't save them all. Unless we are willing to require IQ tests and psych evaluations for pilot candidates, you are going to have a notable percentage of dumbassery in the pilot community. Then there are also those that just have dumb luck, like the guys that got run over by an F-16. Nothing they could do and they weren't screwing up.

It's really not that bad and there is no need to give up training, education and trying to better one's self. There is also no reason to go overboard and try to fix something that isn't doing that bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top