GA Safety

ronnieh said:
SOME want to believe that. Many recognize the dangers of small aircraft in the hands of low time PP. Others claim they can do things to exclude themselves from the demographic in question.
Click to expand...


We group accidents into categories of total time, equipment, and pilot ratings because these are quantifiable. This gives us only a very generalized picture of the accident pilot's ADM, stick and rudder skill, weather knowledge.

Its easy to see that lower time PP's have lower combined ADM, stick and rudder skill, weather knowledge and that is the reason the accident rate is much worse. So with that, I agree.

I guess what I am getting at, is that there are simple things I can do as a low time spam can driver to lower my risk.
 
Last edited:
But, your demographic is "low time spam can driver." There is nothing you can do to exclude yourself from that, aside from gain a lot of time or a type rating. Presuming you want to keep flying.

Americans really want to believe they are in control of their entire destiny. Alas, it ain't nearly that simple.
 
MAKG1 said:
But, your demographic is "low time spam can driver." There is nothing you can do to exclude yourself from that.
Click to expand...

Certainly. But would you agree the range of currency, ADM, knowledge within the demographic is not at all consistent?
 
Is the cost of GA hurting its safety? shortcuts, currency, maintenance so on and so forth?

The rental i fly in, i spend a lot of time screwing around with a bad mic plug and busted vents, its hotter than doodoo in texas and i fly in controlled airspace so both things distract me from flying but those characteristics seem inherent to any rental and these are just entirely superficial things to what safety groups focus on

but man, a person can do the dumbest things when they're hot and miserable..
 
That post makes me wonder if there are any stats for rental vs. owned accidents.
 
I would like to see the accident rate between ex-military pilots and the those without military experience.
 
jmn444 said:
That post makes me wonder if there are any stats for rental vs. owned accidents.
Click to expand...

I could be way wrong here but given where I rent from, the amount of times the planes fly a day make any "issue" immediately noticeable and considering they have a significant number of flights per day with CFI's in them doing pre-flights with students, I feel like the obvious noticebale things will get caught on rentals.

My CFI's all use to tell me that the safest planes to fly were the ones that flew the most.

None of this applies to what happens after the pilots lifts the plane off the ground though but it's safe to say, that the other thread on this board citing an NTSB report of a plane that went down because it had a rag and bee's hive blocking its engine would be impossible to envision with rentals in my area.
 
HAHAHA! Yeah, i saw that about the other plane.... I just don't understand that, I "preflight" my cars if they sit more than a couple months! that's just NUTS!
 
As Ive been reading this thread something else occured to me, as far as demographics go.

Higher time pro pilots doing dumb chit (mainly in their free time flying), sometimes having a few hours, system failures, ATPs, CFIs, etc under ones belt can lure one into feeling like they can get out of anything, then getting into situations that are dumb and avoidable.
 
LJS1993 said:
I'm not challenging you by any means. However explain your theory that bold doesn't equal unsafe.
Click to expand...
Bold builds skills. The old bold pilots are the best pilots, they went to the edge and figured out how to thrive there. Conservative sunny day weekend flyers are not the safest, move their cheese and they melt down. Nonbold pilots have substandard information processing ability.
 
[Rant on] Do all of the above and then go further. Demand that the FAA let you make your aircraft and your flying safer.

A few years ago they decided to "loosen" the standards for seat belts. It is now possible to use seat belts that meet NASCAR safety standards. Before, you had to abide by the the less safe FAA standards.

The GPS in your new car has more safety features and is 1/10th the cost of the one in your airplane. Why? Because of FAA mandated standards.

Can you put your child's auto car seat into your aircraft legally? Probably not. Why? Because the car seat manufacturer has not applied to the FAA to let you do it.

Can you get ADDS-B in without getting ADDS-B out? No. Why? Because the FAA wants to limit who can get life saving information about traffic surrounding them.

How accurate is your fuel gauge? Why?

Hundreds of improvements to your aircraft are available to those who are home builders, but not to you.

In my opinion, many of the accidents that occur today that are "pilot error" are also "FAA error" because those pilot errors could be mitigated or eliminated if improved aircraft safety were cheaper and allowed. [Rant off]
 
ClimbnSink said:
We've been over this before. For safety to go up, freedom must go down. You want the same safety for GA that student pilots have? Simple, make all pilots get a sign off on from a higher power before every flight. Create some uber GA dispatcher squad that reviews every flight and has the power to say no and safety will go way up.
Click to expand...

The Embry Riddle flight team already does that
 
ClimbnSink said:
That is the oldest lie, plenty of old bold pilots.
Click to expand...

Yep, the old bold thing is a bit of hyperbole. You can be old and "bold" by most folks standards. It is a matter of not taking stupid risks. What is stupid for me in my plane may not be for you in yours. It would be pretty dumb for me to go try and land my plane on a gravel bar today, but there are plenty of guys who do it safely everyday
 
AuntPeggy said:
[Rant on] Do all of the above and then go further. Demand that the FAA let you make your aircraft and your flying safer.

A few years ago they decided to "loosen" the standards for seat belts. It is now possible to use seat belts that meet NASCAR safety standards. Before, you had to abide by the the less safe FAA standards.

The GPS in your new car has more safety features and is 1/10th the cost of the one in your airplane. Why? Because of FAA mandated standards.

Can you put your child's auto car seat into your aircraft legally? Probably not. Why? Because the car seat manufacturer has not applied to the FAA to let you do it.

Can you get ADDS-B in without getting ADDS-B out? No. Why? Because the FAA wants to limit who can get life saving information about traffic surrounding them.

How accurate is your fuel gauge? Why?

Hundreds of improvements to your aircraft are available to those who are home builders, but not to you.

In my opinion, many of the accidents that occur today that are "pilot error" are also "FAA error" because those pilot errors could be mitigated or eliminated if improved aircraft safety were cheaper and allowed. [Rant off]
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly.
 
AuntPeggy said:
[Rant on]
The GPS in your new car has more safety features and is 1/10th the cost of the one in your airplane. Why? Because of FAA mandated standards.

How accurate is your fuel gauge? Why?

Hundreds of improvements to your aircraft are available to those who are home builders, but not to you.

In my opinion, many of the accidents that occur today that are "pilot error" are also "FAA error" because those pilot errors could be mitigated or eliminated if improved aircraft safety were cheaper and allowed. [Rant off]
Click to expand...

a couple of points: The FAA has attempted to make it (slightly?) less expensive to get some safety equipment into certified aircraft by not requiring the spamcans meet the same level of rigor as the airlines. Compare and contrast 25.1309 and 23.1309 (and the related ACs).

There is simply no way that your car GPS has more safety features than a certified aircraft GPS... just consider the pedigree of the software and also the database. How many car GPS boxes out there have RAIM and FDE?
 
Bob Noel said:
a couple of points: The FAA has attempted to make it (slightly?) less expensive to get some safety equipment into certified aircraft by not requiring the spamcans meet the same level of rigor as the airlines. Compare and contrast 25.1309 and 23.1309 (and the related ACs).

There is simply no way that your car GPS has more safety features than a certified aircraft GPS... just consider the pedigree of the software and also the database. How many car GPS boxes out there have RAIM and FDE?
Click to expand...
Features you can get on your auto GPS that you should get (or afford) on your certificated plane's panel-mounted GPS. In some cases, the plane uses a similar, not exactly matching feature.


  • Speed limit display: Right there on the screen, display all the limits that the pilot needs to know such as airspeed and altitude. Display in red if not in compliance.
  • Junction view: For auto, a picture of the exit that shows the lane to be in and the name. For airplanes, an approach view including attitude for landing that helps you to identify the airport and its surrounding vicinity.
  • Lane assist: For auto, GPS shows what lanes you need to be in for an exit or even surface streets. For airplanes, the correct approach to arrive at the downwind on a 45* with or without crossing over the airport. Display correct downwind placement so you can adjust for crosswind and get perfectly lined up.
  • Wide screen: For planes, a larger display mounted in the panel.
  • High resolution graphics
  • Lifetime map updates
  • Voice command
  • Track logging
  • Popup TFR alerts
  • Easy detour or rerouting.
  • Traffic alerts
 
AP, seems like a lot of the things you want are available.

Speed limits? Do you have a lot of problem exceeding speed limits in the planes you fly?

Junction view and lane assist, I will just have to plead ignorance. I do not know what that means to aviation.

The panel mounted GPS's I have used have as big a screen as I would want. There is a limit to the amount of panel space available in aircraft.

Resolution is pretty good. Not sure how that would help safety. However the MFD's have very good resolution, IMO.

Updates. I am sure if you could live with three to four year old information as in auto updates that might could be arranged. The map updates for my Garmin auto do cost and actual data only comes out every few years. I think getting new data every 30 days might never be free.

Voice command and track logging, that would be interesting.

Detours and re-routing. Again I plead ignorance. Perhaps an example?

TFR's, Yep, got that in the units I have used.

Traffic, yep, got it and precipitation, and lightning also.
 
ronnieh said:
AP, seems like a lot of the things you want are available.
Click to expand...
Are they available for a cost similar to the cost in a family car?

Speed limits? Do you have a lot of problem exceeding speed limits in the planes you fly?
Click to expand...
Well, there are 2 sides to speed limits. In an aircraft, going too slow is more of a safety hazard than going too fast. Nevertheless, for airspeed we have one indicator, with markings from the earliest days of aviation to indicate VNE (red line) and VNO (maneuvering speed).

Junction view and lane assist, I will just have to plead ignorance. I do not know what that means to aviation.
Click to expand...
I tried to explain how that might apply to aviation. "For airplanes, an approach view including attitude for landing that helps you to identify the airport and its surrounding vicinity." "For airplanes, the correct approach to arrive at the downwind on a 45* with or without crossing over the airport. Display correct downwind placement so you can adjust for crosswind and get perfectly lined up."

The panel mounted GPS's I have used have as big a screen as I would want. There is a limit to the amount of panel space available in aircraft.

Resolution is pretty good. Not sure how that would help safety. However the MFD's have very good resolution, IMO.
Click to expand...
Understood. I would not mind being able to pull out my ADF and substituting the type of display I could get on a tablet.

Updates. I am sure if you could live with three to four year old information as in auto updates that might could be arranged. The map updates for my Garmin auto do cost and actual data only comes out every few years. I think getting new data every 30 days might never be free.
Click to expand...
How about reasonable cost? How about automatic?

Voice command and track logging, that would be interesting.
Click to expand...
My panel mounted GPS is integrated into my comm radio. How hard would it be to integrate voice recognition so that I can do my Captain Kirk simulation, "Computer, change flight plan to include the route change from ATC."

Detours and re-routing. Again I plead ignorance. Perhaps an example?
Click to expand...
See previous.

TFR's, Yep, got that in the units I have used.
Click to expand...
Even popups?

Traffic, yep, got it and precipitation, and lightning also.
Click to expand...
How much did all of that cost you? Is it certified IFR?

Certainly, if you are satisfied with the safety allowed by the FAA through both regulatory denial or financial denial, then you are as safe as you want to be. The FAA does not need to change and any errors are yours alone.

However, my contention is that many of the pilot errors we see today could be mitigated by using the types of technology currently available to car drivers today if only they were allowed and affordable.

Just the other day, I saw an advertisement on TV for a system you can put on a car that alerts the driver if s/he is impaired and needs to stop and get some sleep. How many lives could that save in aircraft? Would it be legal to install on a plane?
 
dell30rb said:
Somebody needs an ipad!
Click to expand...
But, if install an iPad in my panel, the FAA automatically deems the entire aircraft unairworthy and grounds it. Certainly that does not encourage adding safety to my flight.
 
After looking over this thread, all I can say is WOW!

If folks only posted what they know for a fact to be true, and only opined on subjects they knew about, this thread would sure be much shorter.
 
I don't know about the whole GPS bit, though they are expensive for what they do, but the primary attitude instrumentation angle chaps me pretty good. The fact that my price of entry to legal AHRS in my certified spam can is 10AMUs is counterproductive to the propelling of safety among the demographic of low-recency recreational pilots that comprise the majority of single engine piston aircraft owners. Needle ball airspeed is for the birds. Experimentals have shown 10AMUs doesn't have to be the price of entry for safe primary attitude instrumentation.

More than the GPS, I would like to see the certified AHRS units come down in installed price to that of experimental setup. That would be a huge leap in safety for the average weekend warrior, above and beyond what any GPS could do.
 
AP, I may have mis understood your OP. Cost is a consideration. Also, I can not nor will I defend Garmin's price structure. I will point out that the market is very small for their aviation products and the liability is very high. I have no idea of their profit margin but, I suspect there is a lot more profit on non aviation products. Also, I am not sure I want the standards reduced. On a night approach into a mountainous airport to near minimums with blowing snow moving at more than two miles a minute I want to know the unit is somewhat dependable. That is just me.

Back to the speed limits I think the ASI also shows Vso and Vs1. Most aircraft are also equipped with an aural warning that the speed is getting too slow. Would not be a tremendous problem but every make and model would have unique speeds. Perhaps allow the pilot to program custom speeds for his aircraft. What kind of warning do you want? Again, just me but, does not seem like a big deal.

AP, I know this is going to ruffle your feathers. I honestly do not want to do that. Your opinion is worth as much as anyone's. However, if a pilot is having trouble knowing how to get into the traffic pattern at an uncontrolled airport the money might be better spent on some remedial training. Every entry is unique. Surface winds, traffic, more than one runway, the different situations are many. This just seems like very basic airmanship. If you are entering the pattern VFR at an uncontrolled field I would rather your eyes be outside rather than fiddling with a GPS. I don't remember ever having a detour while flying. I have deviated due to weather, even changed my mind on a destination. I am not sure what additional information I would need. Again I will just plead ignorance.

OK, cost and automatic updates. Cost is a relative term. Every 56 days all of the info, enroute, IAP, and DP is completely updated. All of this info has to be gathered and put into a proper form to down load. Again the market is vey small. Maybe a boycott of Jeppesen is in order. Automatic? Takes about 10 minutes. You do want to be in control of the actual download don't you. I would rather initiate it. Perhaps you mean you want the updates done without removing anything from the unit. Perhaps by satellite? Probably should have just said no comment.

Voice recognition, fine. Not sure what the software would cost to develop for this. Voice recognition is getting better. Perhaps someday.

Pop up TFR's. Heck FSS can't get that info. Not sure where Garmin would have access to that info. Seems more like a government with too many regulations. Might be easier to do away with TFR's, just kidding. TFR's has fortunately had little impact on me. For the VFR pilot for sure pop up TFR's are a pain.

Of course it is certified IFR. Cost, you have got to be kidding me. In the last airplane I flew way more than my house cost.

AP, you make some valid points. I am only pointing out that the changes you want are not simple. They certainly will not be cheap. Just removing all or many of the standards might have unintended consequences. I like the bells and whistles as much as the next person but, basic airmanship should not be replaced by electrons, IMO.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Features you can get on your auto GPS that you should get (or afford) on your certificated plane's panel-mounted GPS. In some cases, the plane uses a similar, not exactly matching feature.


  • Speed limit display: Right there on the screen, display all the limits that the pilot needs to know such as airspeed and altitude. Display in red if not in compliance.
  • Junction view: For auto, a picture of the exit that shows the lane to be in and the name. For airplanes, an approach view including attitude for landing that helps you to identify the airport and its surrounding vicinity.
  • Lane assist: For auto, GPS shows what lanes you need to be in for an exit or even surface streets. For airplanes, the correct approach to arrive at the downwind on a 45* with or without crossing over the airport. Display correct downwind placement so you can adjust for crosswind and get perfectly lined up.
  • Wide screen: For planes, a larger display mounted in the panel.
  • High resolution graphics
  • Lifetime map updates
  • Voice command
  • Track logging
  • Popup TFR alerts
  • Easy detour or rerouting.
  • Traffic alerts
Click to expand...

ah, you mean convenience features. Your list doesn't have safety features. (hint: which risks need those convenience features for mitigation?) The airspeed stuff is available on FMS displays... I sure don't need the airspeed stuff in my little cherokee.
 
When I read a NTSB report or news story about a GA accident, my first question is how the pilot would have reacted or responded to a similar event (or hypothetical "what would you do if?") question during a flight review on the day prior to the event.

I'm convinced the pilots would have provided a proper answer that would have prevented well over 90% of the accidents. It's not that pilots don't know about accident causes and the steps to prevent them, it's simply that they don't do what they know when the chips are down. Impulsivity "yeah, the gages say empty but there's enough to get home" and other numb-nuts decision-making always seem to lurk just below the surface.
 
Bob Noel said:
ah, you mean convenience features. Your list doesn't have safety features. (hint: which risks need those convenience features for mitigation?) The airspeed stuff is available on FMS displays... I sure don't need the airspeed stuff in my little cherokee.
Click to expand...

wabower said:
When I read a NTSB report or news story about a GA accident, my first question is how the pilot would have reacted or responded to a similar event (or hypothetical "what would you do if?") question during a flight review on the day prior to the event.

I'm convinced the pilots would have provided a proper answer that would have prevented well over 90% of the accidents. It's not that pilots don't know about accident causes and the steps to prevent them, it's simply that they don't do what they know when the chips are down. Impulsivity "yeah, the gages say empty but there's enough to get home" and other numb-nuts decision-making always seem to lurk just below the surface.
Click to expand...
My first question is how could the accident have been prevented without simply pointing blame at the pilot? What could have been done to make the pilot's job easier or the situation safer?

Let's think about auto safety, which has made phenomenal gains over the last several years. Here are the areas that are being processed now. Are these convenience factors or safety factors? Are the equivalent being worked on for aircraft?


  • Forward collision avoidance and mitigation: safety technologies that provide a warning of an impending forward collision and/or automatically brake or slow the vehicle.
  • Vehicle Communications: vehicle-to-vehicle communications and infrastructure to get your vehicle talking with the traffic and environment around it.
  • Distraction: framing the issue, safety consequences, goals, research initiatives including both technological and behavioral approaches.
  • Vehicle based alcohol detection
  • Child restraints and booster seats
  • Rear visibility
  • Stability control for larger vehicles
  • Fuel economy standards and alternative fuels
  • Safety risks of batteries
  • Rear seat occupant protection
  • Head restraints
Let's look at that last one, head restraints. I have a mid-1970s C-172. One of the first things I noticed about it was that there were no headrests. This was brought home to me when I was on a jury for a whiplash victim and the extent of injury was seen in x-rays and physical pain. So, I asked about getting head rests. There were holes in the top of our standard seats that appeared to be made for slip-in of the mid-70s auto headrests. It would be a simple matter of finding some in an auto junkyard and slipping them in. Would that make the aircraft safer in a crash? Possibly. Would it be OK? Well, of course not. That would make the aircraft unairworthy.

Have you had a discussion lately about the advisability of replacing your old filament landing light and taxi light with new LED lights? After you get through talking about all the great features such as longer life, greater illumination, smaller voltage draw, then you have to go on to discussing whether you can just replace your existing bulbs with the new safer ones or whether you have to jump through expensive paperwork hoops to stay legal.

I am not suggesting that vigilant and well-trained pilots will ever need any safety equipment that is not there already. Nor am I suggesting that vigilant and well-trained drivers need them either. What I am saying is that FAA regulations actively discourage new and innovative safety features that will aid those who might become "pilot error" statistics. What is allowed at all is incredibly expensive.
 
To the OPs original question, I believe that the reason US airlines have such a good safety record is because they follow rigid processes and procedures that prevent them from departing on a flight if:
They aren't properly equipped, properly trained, properly maintained, properly briefed, reasonably well rested and reasonably healthy, etc and that following those procedures is actively monitored and enforced.

There is a lot of overhead to all that that many people don't find convenient too.

I also think the US air traffic system is well engineered, the result of probably millions of hours of very credible engineering research and development.

The great thing is that anyone can obtain access to almost all of that same information to benefit from it themselves if they have the time money and cognitive ability to understand it. You wont get it by watching TV or surfing you tube videos, and it will not be spoon fed to you (unlike the huge body of nonsense pushed at you every minute of every day buy the media and population of flim flam artists to relieve you of your money), but its available.
 
cocolos said:
GA safety is crap, we all know that. How can I improve my ADM, knowledge and skills? Recurrence training? More ratings? Flying more? I plan on doing all of the above but in the meanwhile how can I imitate the airlines and try to get to their standards of safety and airmanship.
Click to expand...


GA in general, will never be as safe as the Airlines because overall it is much more demanding than the Airlines will ever be, as the panels of highly experienced pilots and others compiling the Nall Report have concluded year after year.

Fly 2x/ week or more, fly to FAA Commercial pts, get IFR rating if possible or at least start lessons, use check lists always and read some Nall Reports or their summaries on what to particularly guard against.

Do not ever be reckless, rather, seek advanced flight training to expand your personal skills envelope via proper knowledge and personal practice. Aviation is exciting enough doing things the right way!

Increase your safety odds through high levels of personal proficiency.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
GA in general, will never be as safe as the Airlines because overall it is much more demanding than the Airlines will ever be
Click to expand...

Demanding is the wrong word. There is no way a hobby pilot has a more demanding environment or skill set to operate in. A hobby pilot has options, lots of them. If the weather is bad, don't go. If the aircraft is not equipped for the mission, don't go. If the pilot is not proficient, don't go.

Trying to compare airline pilots with hobby pilots is not even close. Two entirely different worlds.
 
Try the best and try to have best training sessions. To become BEST OF ALL
 
dell30rb said:
Somebody needs an ipad!
Click to expand...

AuntPeggy said:
But, if install an iPad in my panel, the FAA automatically deems the entire aircraft unairworthy and grounds it. Certainly that does not encourage adding safety to my flight.
Click to expand...

dell30rb said:
yoke mount
Click to expand...
You see, there is my point. Look at the lunacy we go through to work around outdated rules.

How is a yoke mounted iPad that throws off the balance of my primary control safer than screwing the thing to the panel? How is it safer to stick it to a window, obscuring view out that window, and potentially falling off once we climb high enough to reduce airpressure against the partial vacuum holding it on?

Why not just put it on the panel? or in the panel? Because the FAA won't allow it.
 
AuntPeggy said:
You see, there is my point. Look at the lunacy we go through to work around outdated rules.

How is a yoke mounted iPad that throws off the balance of my primary control safer than screwing the thing to the panel? How is it safer to stick it to a window, obscuring view out that window, and potentially falling off once we climb high enough to reduce airpressure against the partial vacuum holding it on?

Why not just put it on the panel? or in the panel? Because the FAA won't allow it.
Click to expand...


You do know that there are inspectors who immediately default to "you can't" and then those say "maybe let me research that"?

The AOPA Sweeps Debonair has a panel mounted iPad.

I've seen many jets with COTS galley equipment (consumer over the counter electronics) such as microwaves, coffee makers, CD players, iPad & iPhone docks etc. I've also seen engineering data packages that approve them. So just because someone says "can't" I'm inclinde to say they are FOS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top