GA Safety

[cocolos]

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.

 

[Old Geek]

Don't run out of gas. Don't fly into weather. Don't pull the wings off. If the engine fails, fly it down to the ground.

Those are my rules.

 

[DaytonaLynn]

Great wisdom Geek!

 

[NineThreeKilo]

....how can I imitate the airlines and try to get to their standards of safety and airmanship.

Simple

Bust your a$$ and get all your ratings, get that first flying job, second job, third job, get into a regional, lean the acronyms for other acronyms, basically go fly for a living and log 100hrs a month.

As a hobby pilot you will never be as safe as a pro pilot, no matter how many toys you have in the plane, how many laws you scare the feds into passing, or whatever other silliness goes along those lines.

 

[Norman]

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.

You drive California freeways and say GA safety is crap? Ironic!

 

[frfly172]

Fly the airplane ,fly the airplane and always recognize and fly to your abilities.

 

[JHW]

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.

I don't know that at all. And imitating the airlines for personal flying is nonsense. That's like saying we can make motorcycling safer by imitating Amtrak.

I welcome the freedom we have in part 91. For me, personal flying is safe enough and further actions to improve it are likely to take the form of government oppression in the guise of safety theatre.

 

[bnt83]

Airline standards?

Do you know the airplane and things that can easily ruin your day?
For instance,

Taking off on "both" and then burning off the low tank to empty without even checking to see if it runs on the other (more full) tank.

That fuel cap that is just a little loose, let 10 gallons of fuel get sucked out.

Parked the airplane after flight and found a much bigger spot of oil dripped out than usual.

Smell your fuel sample to make sure you didn't get misfueled?

Many (if not most) GA aircraft DO NOT have a handheld fire extinguisher installed, does yours? Do you know where it is the airplane? Do you need to bring your own?

Does the cowl have those stupid tiny oil doors (think later Cessnas) or big ones where you can see most of the engine? Do you really know what you're looking at? Ever grab the mags and stuff to see if they are tight?

Are you flying a Lycoming (I)O-360? The case cracks are common, do you know where to look?


Do you know common critical areas of a prop are in regaurds to foreign object damage?


When you sit ready for takeoff, do you have a plan already formulated if it doesnt go well? For instance, I prefer runways 35 & 32 because there is open fields to land in if it doesn't work out instead of metro which is what you get using runway 17 & 14 at KLNK. But 18 runs about 5000 feet passed the end of 17 so even if 17 is no longer an option on takeoff, I could probably make the last of 18 by scooting over (depending on alt). Even if I run off the end of 18 its flat and airport fire can get there quickly.

Do you listen to the traffic and get an image of where everyone is so you might be able to make an emergency landing on an adjacent runway?

 

[lbrehm02]

Imitate the airlines? LOL have to laugh at that. A lot of people think that airline pilots are the best which is nonsense. Most airline pilots have never seen the real world of flying but have college degrees, can interview well, know someone who can get them a job, military experience in jets. Ever read the NTSB reports where the airline pilots crash and kill their passengers? Being a professional pilot means you take flying serious, know your aircraft and procedures along with your piloting skills. Never get complacent in your flying. Always know your and your aircraft capabilities and never ASSUME anything but double check everything from procedures, charts, position, navaids and always be prepared for the unexpected never panic fly the airplane.

 

[ClimbnSink]

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.

Increase your level of recklessness. You won't get the skills to save your ass from inadvertently doing stupid stuff, unless you intentionally do stupid stuff for practice. You will do stupid stuff, everyone does, airline pilots included. The old pilots that used to do stupid stuff are revered, yet young pilots are supposed to be abstinent. How will they ever learn?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thinking is a good start.

Personally I think acronyms like IMSAFE (even the FAA can't figure out what the last "E" stands for), PAVE and CARE are silly. But that's just because I generally think acronyms an mnemonics are a learning deterrent rather than an aid. The underlying concepts (which get lost in the effort to memorize the acronym) are quite sound.

IMO there's also too much emphasis on the preflight "go/no go" decision to the detriment of the perhaps more important "continue/divert" decision. I'd guess that the bulk of the almost always fatal VFR into IMC accidents are the result of the latter, not the former.

A third factor is that a lot of the discussion of missionitis tries to pretend that the mission should not be a factor in a go/no go/continue/divert decision. Of course it is! We're human. And a failure to take it into account in evaluating risk/benefit is a big mistake, leading to unrealistic decisions. Accepting that some flight decisions will be based on "will it be fun" and others on "will it be safe" based on the mission allows us the opportunity to, as I said to start, think about what we are doing.

 

[DFH65]

The other night I was reviewing a bunch of NTSB reports just out of curiosity for the last few years and came up with the following unscientific conclusion:

Pilots flying simple planes in VFR conditions at reasonable altitudes within the specs of a plane that is not out of gas rarely have fatal crashes.

You increase your risk with the following (of course some would say this takes all the fun out):

Flying helicopters
Flying Experimental or home built
Flying complex aircraft (without gobs of experience)
Flying IFR (without gobs of experience)
Flying at night (without gobs of experience)
Flying a plane outside the specified limits
Drinking or doing drugs
Doing stupid pilot tricks - Flying low, buzzing people, acrobatics without altitude and experience

Again completely unscientific but some broad generalizations. It could also be said that if you eliminate the list above you eliminate a lot of flying and less flying also leads to fewer fatalities which is also true.

 

[Anthony]

GA safety is crap, we all know that.

Really? I don't see GA airplanes failing out of the sky. I think GA is a pretty safe way to travel especially if you follow some of the simple rules that others have stated in this thread. Most of the safety issue is controllable by the pilot unlike driving on the road in a car which is much more susceptible to the actions of others.

 

[onwards]

I have one rule:

Always work to improve your skills.

It has an obvious corollary:

Whenever possible, when flying try to stretch yourself a little bit so you learn, but don't do anything that makes you very uncomfortable.

Another way of saying it is:

If all you ever do is fly deep in your comfort zone, when the inevitable happens and you are thrown out of it violently, you will most likely die. So try to work on expanding your comfort zone, but do it incrementally and use good judgment.

I suppose I can find a dozen other ways of saying it, but it is my big safety rule. Here is another one: be sensible and keep improving.

 

[Ted]

Don't run out of gas. Don't fly into weather. Don't pull the wings off. If the engine fails, fly it down to the ground.

Those are my rules.

The most useful advice, and addresses most of the fatal NTSB reports. Be intelligent and exercise good decision making.

Simple

Bust your a$$ and get all your ratings, get that first flying job, second job, third job, get into a regional, lean the acronyms for other acronyms, basically go fly for a living and log 100hrs a month.

As a hobby pilot you will never be as safe as a pro pilot, no matter how many toys you have in the plane, how many laws you scare the feds into passing, or whatever other silliness goes along those lines.

The most useless advice. We can always strive to be better, and things do exist we can do to help. Arrogance is not good for safety, though.

 

[Geico266]

Thursday sitting near the green dot on 27 at Airventure 2013 I watched several bad landings, and one guy try to land on runway 9 while where was 5 planes in the pattern for runway 27.

Note to Airventure fly in pilots. Hitting the dot within 250' either side is close enough. Dropping the plane on the dot just to say you "hit the dot" is an embarrassment .

Another brilliant aviator decided to land on 36, came over the top of the camp ground and entered a down wind. Did not know there was a NOTAM.

You just can't fix stupid.

 

[Geico266]

Don't run out of gas. Don't fly into weather. Don't pull the wings off. If the engine fails, fly it down to the ground.

Those are my rules.

 

[Alexb2000]

You're all worthless and weak!






-Neidermeyer er make that 93K

 

[Funkeruski]

Keep the pointy side forward, the dirty side down, and please, stay out of the trees

 

[hindsight2020]

Really? I don't see GA airplanes failing out of the sky. I think GA is a pretty safe way to travel especially if you follow some of the simple rules that others have stated in this thread. Most of the safety issue is controllable by the pilot unlike driving on the road in a car which is much more susceptible to the actions of others.

Bingo. And that right there is the reason I bought a Piper Arrow to cart my family a measly 129NM leg every other weekend, over driving the 3 hour trip on the deathway that is the poor excuse for a road that connects the border craphole we're currently stuck in, to the rest of civilization. For us, flying is worth that considerable expense over driving, because it is that much safer. I never have to purposely lean to the right in the air as I do in the car, expecting the oncoming traffic to fall asleep or be drunk and invade my lane randomly and without a chance to avoid head-on at night, bringing me and my family to an early grave. We've had a dear coworker and his family suffer that fate earlier this year. For me, flying is more predictable, avoidance of hard objects organically less of an issue, and less fatiguing to boot than long range destination driving.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I feel MUCH safer flying over Bay Area traffic vs. driving in it. I see at least one nasty accident on the I-80 corridor a week, and probably at least one fatality every month. I have yet to witness a GA accident over the same route.

 

[hindsight2020]

You're all worthless and weak!






-Neidermeyer er make that 93K

Oh certainly. His delivery was rather gratuitously incisive and perhaps a bit self-righteous. Besides, Colgan and Asiana illustrate why airline pilots are indeed another batch of complacent buffoons in the absence of really good automation and a second pilot. I work with airline pilots who are military Reservists (aircrew, but NOT military pilots) and it's pretty eye-opening how ham handed they are in the sim. They also tend to be the type of airline pilot that hasn't sat on a piston airplane, let alone fly one, for decades, and tend to speak dismissively of the idea of flying GA airplanes as a bona fide skill-building event. Buffoons abound in all segments of aviations. Weekend warriors are simply working with the least capable equipment is all.

Outside delivery though, his point still remains very much valid and that is that recency and recurrent training, plus a regimented flow, are indeed the cornerstones of more predictable outcomes, in this case the notion of SAFETY not related to endemic systems reliability or lack thereof. The problem for the hobby pilot is getting the money and discipline to incorporate that level of "drudgery" into his flying budget in order to closely mimic that outcome.

 

[pj500]

I heavily encourage you to go read the AOPA's NALL report, faasafety.gov, and other industry aviation safety articles and recent communications to pilots about safety. Don't get me wrong, what's being said here are always good things to be keenly aware of (most right, some wrong); but if you truly want to improve safety you have to address the current leading causes of fatal crashes. Flying today is almost twice as safe as it was 25 years ago, but the record has not improved in the last 10 years. Why? The low hanging fruit was addressed. Drunk pilots are not flying. We've keenly become aware and are avoiding VFR-into-IMC issues to a much greater degree but it remains a problem. However, basic maneuvering skills, CFIT, pilot currency, and loss of control have been stubbornly difficult to address.

Like it or not, the vast majority (and I'm talking 80+% provable, 95%+ actual) of accidents are pilot error. A wing is not going to fall off, and engines seldom explode. The aviation community has been good at addressing these mechanical issues. You need to focus on the pilot issues.

Let's face the facts, GA is not a "safe" activity in the best of days. Fly non-commercial GA 50 hours a year for 40 years, and you have roughly a 2-5% chance of buying the farm, depending on what you fly. Let's see... per hour... flying C-172, equivalent risk of driving a car 18 hours... C-182, 29 hours, GA average, 46 hours. Avoid that piston twin and experimental, they are substantially worse than the GA average. Pick your type wisely, a diamond da-x0 is nearly twice as safe as a C-182, and nearly 3-4 times as safe as a Cirrus. Motorcycle safety is somewhere between the C-182 and GA average, as a point of reference. All assume vehicle fleet average of 27.5mph. And forget that don't jump out of a perfectly good airplane comment... more skydivers perish in jump plane crashes than the jumps themselves...

The good news? Unlike other activities, you are nearly 100% in control of your own safety choices. Mid-airs are very rare. You skills, currency (do _you_ get 1 hr of hard practice/pattern work in each month?), and decision making decide how safe you want to be. Take the hobby seriously, and it will reward you well.

You'll never have the airline level of safety, but you can try to bridge the gap. They fly many hours a month, have professional training, redundant pilots to check decisions, set procedures, weather equipment, turbine reliability, professional dispatchers, and fly between specific and known airports. However, you can try to bridge the gap to commercial safety rates.

The Top 10 Leading Causes of Fatal General Aviation Accidents 2001-2011
1. Loss of Control Inflight
2. Controlled Flight Into Terrain
3. System Component Failure – Powerplant
4. Low Altitude Operations
5. Unknown or Undetermined
6. Other
7. Fuel Related
8. System Component Failure – Non-Powerplant
9. Midair Collisions
10. Windshear or Thunderstorm

 

[MAKG1]

...

Flying complex aircraft (without gobs of experience)

...

How does that increase your risk of a fatality?

Gear-up landings are obviously much more likely when the gear actually goes up, but those seldom result in injury to people. The airplanes often don't fare too well, but the people get up, swear, walk away, bend over and fork over cash.

The difference between a 182Q and a 182RG is the gear. All the other controls and procedures are the same. Same deal with a 177B and 177RG or 172N and 172RG. The performance numbers are significantly different (mainly at the higher speeds and altitudes), and the V-speeds are slightly different (not enough to prang a landing if you use the wrong one and pay attention otherwise).

 

[DFH65]

How does that increase your risk of a fatality?

Gear-up landings are obviously much more likely when the gear actually goes up, but those seldom result in injury to people. The airplanes often don't fare too well, but the people get up, swear, walk away, bend over and fork over cash.

The difference between a 182Q and a 182RG is the gear. All the other controls and procedures are the same. Same deal with a 177B and 177RG or 172N and 172RG. The performance numbers are significantly different (mainly at the higher speeds and altitudes), and the V-speeds are slightly different (not enough to prang a landing if you use the wrong one and pay attention otherwise).

Again just going by a quick glance at the reports may be I am all wrong it just seemed to me, again unscientific, that many of the planes involved in fatal accidents were high end singles and multi-engine planes. The fact that they were complex aircraft may not of had anything to do with the accident, it could have been the type of activity undertaken in complex aircraft. Again I was dealing at a glance in generalizations.

For example I could say don't fly a PA-28 because I happened to notice there were a lot of accidents in PA-28s well there are a whole lot of PA-28s flying so in and of itself it doesn't tell you much.

 

[Alexb2000]

I heavily encourage you to go read the AOPA's NALL report, faasafety.gov, and other industry aviation safety articles and recent communications to pilots about safety. Don't get me wrong, what's being said here are always good things to be keenly aware of; but if you truly want to improve safety you have to address the current leading causes of fatal crashes. Flying today is almost twice as safe as it was 25 years ago, but the record has not improved in the last 10 years. Why? The low hanging fruit was addressed. Drunk pilots are not flying. We've keenly become aware and are avoiding VFR-into-IMC issues to a much greater degree but it remains a problem. However, basic maneuvering skills, CFIT, pilot currency, and loss of control have been stubbornly difficult to address.

Like it or not, the vast majority (and I'm talking 80+% provable, 95%+ actual) of accidents are pilot error. A wing is not going to fall off, and engines seldom explode. The aviation community has been good at addressing these mechanical issues. You need to focus on the pilot issues.

Let's face the facts, GA is not a "safe" activity in the best of days. Fly non-commercial GA 50 hours a year for 40 years, and you have roughly a 2-5% chance of buying the farm, depending on what you fly. Let's see... per hour... flying C-172, equivalent risk of driving a car 18 hours... C-182, 29 hours, GA average, 46 hours. Avoid that piston twin and experimental, they are substantially worse than the GA average. Pick your type wisely, a diamond da-x0 is nearly twice as safe as a C-182, and nearly 3-4 times as safe as a Cirrus. Motorcycle safety is somewhere between the C-182 and GA average, as a point of reference. All assume vehicle fleet average of 27.5mph. And forget that don't jump out of a perfectly good airplane comment... more skydivers perish in jump plane crashes than the jumps themselves...

The good news? Unlike other activities, you are nearly 100% in control of your own safety choices. Mid-airs are very rare. You skills, currency (do _you_ get 1 hr of hard practice/pattern work in each month?), and decision making decide how safe you want to be. Take the hobby seriously, and it will reward you well.

You'll never have the airline level of safety, but you can try to bridge the gap. They fly many hours a month, have professional training, redundant pilots to check decisions, set procedures, weather equipment, turbine reliability, professional dispatchers, and fly between specific and known airports. However, you can try to bridge the gap to commercial safety rates.

The Top 10 Leading Causes of Fatal General Aviation Accidents 2001-2011
1. Loss of Control Inflight
2. Controlled Flight Into Terrain
3. System Component Failure – Powerplant
4. Low Altitude Operations
5. Unknown or Undetermined
6. Other
7. Fuel Related
8. System Component Failure – Non-Powerplant
9. Midair Collisions
10. Windshear or Thunderstorm

I will never place any faith in GA statistics even if they agree with my opinions. 95% of the GA fleet sits in hangars or tie downs, rarely moving. Those that can, mostly move on perfect VFR days to go to a pancake breakfast somewhere. When we can track every aircraft 100% of the time, then we can derive all kinds of information about safety.

For example I know a guy with a beautiful 1980's Mooney he bought new. It sits in his hangar waxed and perfect. It only leaves for its annual. Does this mean it's safer to own a Mooney for 30 years than a Cirrus for 5?

 

[jspilot]

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.

I don't understand how you can make a blanket statement that GA safety is "crap"- thereby implying that the entire industry does not value safety and then go on to ask a message board mostly made up of general aviation pilots advice on how to imitate airlines???? Does anyone else see the flawed logic here. Shouldn't you be asking airline pilots this question?

I'll just add that just like the airlines, the plane and the people inside are only as safe as the pilot flying. Education and practice are the two keys. Uneducated, out of practice pilots have to be the most dangerous in the sky.

 

[MAKG1]

For example I could say don't fly a PA-28 because I happened to notice there were a lot of accidents in PA-28s well there are a whole lot of PA-28s flying so in and of itself it doesn't tell you much.

There are MANY different PA-28s. Warriors and Arrows aren't likely to be used by the same populations.

 

[Ted]

I spend a lot of time reading NTSB reports. It keeps me aware of what others have died while attempting, and gives me an idea of what I should therefore consider avoiding. I think this is very useful to see what really kills people.

I never will claim my safety flying GA will be equal to or better than airline safety. But I can make it as safe as I can, and I'm comfortable with that.

 

[DFH65]

I know this will be surprising but it turns out if you try flying a stolen plane without a license near power lines while high on Meth your chances of survival are lower.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120205X10150&key=1

 

[pj500]

How does that increase your risk of a fatality?

Gear-up landings are obviously much more likely when the gear actually goes up, but those seldom result in injury to people. The airplanes often don't fare too well, but the people get up, swear, walk away, bend over and fork over cash.

The difference between a 182Q and a 182RG is the gear. All the other controls and procedures are the same. Same deal with a 177B and 177RG or 172N and 172RG. The performance numbers are significantly different (mainly at the higher speeds and altitudes), and the V-speeds are slightly different (not enough to prang a landing if you use the wrong one and pay attention otherwise).

We largely just have just numbers to go by. I guess that leaves the "why" to analysis and interpretation, I'm not aware of any research that addresses the "complex vs non-complex" view separate from the type view, but I'd welcome any you are aware of. It's no doubt in certain types you do see higher accident rates, without a corresponding increase in fatals, and sometimes, vice versa.

The 172/182-rg pool is so small that I am not aware of any statistical data regarding their accident rate which is easy to compare to the 172/182 non-rg data (roughly .56, and .87 fatalities per 100k hours of operation), respectively, much better than the GA average, might I add.

I can't really say they are any more dangerous in the RG form.

Keep in mind its been decades since the NTSB has done any per-type accident rate research that I am aware of. This is something I would encourage them to do as I personally feel the type and design of an aircraft you fly is as measurable a way to improve your safety as the piloting skills of the pilot him/herself. None the less, these numbers are fairly current and are most commonly gathered by someone manually tallying up NTSB records and comparing against the blue book fleet average hours in service per year.

Some things to keep in mind though, is as a whole, complex aircraft tend to be faster, have less forgiving stall characteristics, etc. This is not solely because they are complex, but because of the general attributes of that aircraft (welding the gear, removes the "Complexity")

Additionally, there's the human factor. Certain types of complex aircraft tend to attract more a recreational, low-time, undertrained pilot.

Others, like the 172-rg, often gravitate to flight schools needing a complex trainer and see heavily supervised and (safer) flying.

And finally others (182-rg), might attract more of a cross country traveler, where unfamiliar airports, get-home-itis, and weather are more likely to play a role.

And despite this, some very non-complex airplanes like the J-3 cub are fairly dangerous.

But is that solely due to the airplane being complex alone? Probably not. It's often mission profile of the craft and personnel factors.

Just food for thought.

 

[pj500]

I know this will be surprising but it turns out if you try flying a stolen plane without a license near power lines while high on Meth your chances of survival are lower.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120205X10150&key=1

Between meth, suicide, drugs, and having sex while flying, the NTSB has seen it all. It's still a very small factor of annual crashes.

 

[Skylane81E]

Part of my decision making is to stop and consider what the NTSB report would say if I crashed.

If it would say "pilots failure to..." and you folks would call me an idiot while reading it I skip that option.

So in the end I fly VMC, with sufficient fuel, avoid low altitude buzzing and stay within the airplanes envelope. If I stick to those rules (minus the VMC once rated and proficient) I expect to die of old age long before a plane kills me

 

[pj500]

I will never place any faith in GA statistics even if they agree with my opinions. 95% of the GA fleet sits in hangars or tie downs, rarely moving. Those that can, mostly move on perfect VFR days to go to a pancake breakfast somewhere. When we can track every aircraft 100% of the time, then we can derive all kinds of information about safety.

For example I know a guy with a beautiful 1980's Mooney he bought new. It sits in his hangar waxed and perfect. It only leaves for its annual. Does this mean it's safer to own a Mooney for 30 years than a Cirrus for 5?

The statistics are adjusted for annual fleet hourly usage by type, so that case should be accounted for. It's not an exact science, but say those Mooney guys sell their planes, it reflects in the averages. It is fairly accurate. Might I add, a Mooney is statically more safely operated than a Cirrus per hour of hobbs. Why is this? I don't know. Might it be the airframe is more forgiving and less accident prone? Or is it a more aged, experienced, and conservative pilot group? Who knows. But it's not per plane, so it's not based on usage.

GA really has lots of smart people and money developing statistics and safety research. Compare that to other "risky" activities (like motorcycle safety), where this data is largely neglected for decades. I think it reflects societies views of GA as necessary to maintain and advance America's business and aviation sectors, and not as a purely recreational activity, but that's a personal opinion.

 

[Skylane81E]

My take on the complex vs simple plane accidents.


I would expect more crashes in Bonanzas or other similar high performance complex planes than in, say, a cub. Not that a cub is safer, but what do you do in a cub? Fly around on a nice sunny day with low winds? Compare that to a more typical bonanza mission. Probably not many cubs flying night IFR on a schedule, probably a few Bo's doing that though...

 

[ronnieh]

To the OP. This question comes up on a regular basis on this forum. In broad general terms there are two types of people. There are those like Hindsight that simply deny the facts. They declare that the statistics do not apply to them. They declare the activity safe and that is the end of the discussion.

Then there are people like the OP that recognize the hazard and want to know what if anything can be done. PJ500 makes some very good points. Back to Cocolos's question. Not much you can do, it is an inherently dangerous activity. In fact if you were to separate part 91 corporate turbine aviation out of the GA category it would look much worse.

Trying to copy the 121 operators have little merit for two reasons. Equipment and training. On equipment, there are just too many single point failures in the light SE. For example, a belt can break causing loss of all electrical. Not a big deal if you are day VFR. Vacuum pumps, and the list goes on. It is not all about having the second engine, for me the lack of redundant systems on most SE piston is what keeps me out of SE airplanes.

Then there is training. I see on this board a call to practice stalls and spinning. Really? Those of you flying turbine aircraft, and especially ATP flying 121 when is the last time you did spins in the company aircraft? Or for that matter have you done spin training in the sim lately? The problem, Cocolos is it is two different worlds. Read Jeff's post # 7. (I might have used an example other than Amtrack:wink2

Simply nothing you can do about the difference in the equipment. Also I am not aware of any simulators for the typical single engine Piper or Cessna. That level of training simply does not exist.

In the corporate world I had to go every year for three days of sim training. Many do it every 6 months just like 121. But we did not practice stalls, spins, or partial panel. We did see every manner of equipment failures. I am not sure if I ever got to make an approach with both fans running. We practice handling emergencies we might actually see. Nobody in their right mind is going to pull an engine 50 feet off the runway in a real plane. In the sim it happens at the most inopportune time more than once during the three days. Do mistakes happen? Of course, look at Asiana. Look at Air France. So yes mistakes are still made but at a much lower rate. Very few activities are 100% safe. It is good to strive for that goal.

So Cocolos what can you do? Some here will have better advice than me but, I will throw out a couple of things. Do fly often. Do participate in recurrent training that is available. A flight review every two years is pretty skimpy. Being proficient with slow flight, NEAR the stall speed is good. You need to know how to avoid a spin, not how to do them.
Get proficient at balked landings. Make sure you know the performance capabilities of the plane concerning high, hot, heavy operations. Those of you who fly SE at night perhaps go up to altitude away from the home airport and do a simulated engine failure and see if you can get it to a runway or even a safe place to land. I have seen several on here say that is no big deal. Try it sometime. For the IR pilot, shooting the approach should be the easy part. If you own your plane consider some back up systems. Might be as simple as a hand held that will plug into your headset. Perhaps a back up AI, electric or redundant vacuum systems. For me partial panel to an approach to minimums is not adequate back up.

Cocolos, keep asking the questions about safety. I think that is better than sticking your head in the sand and declaring an inherently dangerous activity, safe.

 

[pj500]

Part of my decision making is to stop and consider what the NTSB report would say if I crashed.

If it would say "pilots failure to..." and you folks would call me an idiot while reading it I skip that option.

So in the end I fly VMC, with sufficient fuel, avoid low altitude buzzing and stay within the airplanes envelope. If I stick to those rules (minus the VMC once rated and proficient) I expect to die of old age long before a plane kills me

I certainly agree; but was have to ask ourselves: General aviation by far is self-selecting and chooses a group of successful, goal oriented, and intelligent people. To this point, I'm sure many of the people you read about, would have written a post just like yours. But why does it continue to happen?

If we remove the 20% of idiocy in the accident reports, we still have 80% of a problem.

Flying in perfect VMC and not running out of gas removes another small percentage of the problem... but the majority of it is still there.

 

[pj500]

My take on the complex vs simple plane accidents.


I would expect more crashes in Bonanzas or other similar high performance complex planes than in, say, a cub. Not that a cub is safer, but what do you do in a cub? Fly around on a nice sunny day with low winds? Compare that to a more typical bonanza mission. Probably not many cubs flying night IFR on a schedule, probably a few Bo's doing that though...

Actually, a fair bit of cubs see back country / bush flying, with its inherit risks, due to its STOL capabilities. It certainly hurts the average.

I do not have current data for the cub past late 1970s, but I will suggest it's more dangerous than that bonanza, or at least it was in the 1970s... the last formal NTSB fatal per hour per type report I'm aware of. Later private sector reports concentrate more on more popular types.

 

[pj500]

Two comments I've heard so far:


"Education and practice are the two keys. Uneducated, out of practice pilots have to be the most dangerous in the sky. "

"Outside delivery though, his point still remains very much valid and that is that recency and recurrent training, plus a regimented flow, are indeed the cornerstones of more predictable outcomes, in this case the notion of SAFETY not related to endemic systems reliability or lack thereof. The problem for the hobby pilot is getting the money and discipline to incorporate that level of "drudgery" into his flying budget in order to closely mimic that outcome. "

I wholeheartedly agree. I personally believe today, there are the the #1 thing we can do to improve safety.

Education: 2% of pilots had a passed a phase of FAA Wings. Of those, roughly 1% of accidents were by wings members. The research data is poor, but the idea is solid.

Practice: By and far, loss of control, CFIT, and basic airmanship are the leading cause of fatals today. Practice make perfect. Not boring holes in the sky, but maneuver/pattern work.

 

[hindsight2020]

To the OP. This question comes up on a regular basis on this forum. In broad general terms there are two types of people. There are those like Hindsight that simply deny the facts. They declare that the statistics do not apply to them. They declare the activity safe and that is the end of the discussion.

I think you misunderstood my position. I'm not denying the data, I'm simply highlighting that it's being taken out of context. The number one reason for the higher fatality per capita is the idiot, not the tractor engine. Don't be an idiot, then the statistics no longer reflect your operating reality.

I sincerely don't believe that operating these tractor engines is more dangerous than driving among the sea of fellow idiots on the road. Being underflown/undertrained is the causal factor for the GA fatalities in my reading of said statistics, not mechanical failure. As such, I simply suggest that removing yourself from that demographic invalidates the data. As a passenger, sure, you're still bound by the statistics, but as an operator you can make it safer than riding a motorcycle in passenger vehicle traffic by incorporating a regiment of re-currency training and flight time recency, whether you pay for it out of pocket or you get it from your day job (I fall in the latter). That's the jist of my position.