Is the number one cause of accidents/injuries low visibilty?

[rbhankins001]

It seems to be a recurring theme . . . maybe I'm wrong. What does the forum say???

I'm a fairweather flyer (that doesn't mean I'm not going to get an IFR just in case though!) and never HAVE to be anywhere that bad. I prefer to wait it out.

So what do you guys thing is the leading contributor to accidents involving major damage and injuries??? (Please don't say pilot error )

??

 

[wabower]

If the only two causes of accidents (on a macro scale) are mechanical failure and pilot error and we know that most accidents aren't caused by mechanical failure, what answer would you like for us to provide?

It seems to be a recurring theme . . . maybe I'm wrong. What does the forum say???

I'm a fairweather flyer (that doesn't mean I'm not going to get an IFR just in case though!) and never HAVE to be anywhere that bad. I prefer to wait it out.

So what do you guys thing is the leading contributor to accidents involving major damage and injuries??? (Please don't say pilot error )

??

 

[nosehair]

I'm a fairweather flyer . I prefer to wait it out.

So what do you guys thing is the leading contributor to accidents involving major damage and injuries??? (Please don't say pilot error )

I won't say 'pilot error', just those who prefer not to wait it out.

Seriously, bad weather is the leading leading cause.

Wait it out, or get seriously seriously trained to be able to handle the very worst of it.

 

[DavidWhite]

VFR into IMC seems to be a reoccurring theme. It's very unfortunate that people let "getting there on time" cloud their decision-making.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I think the ASF has good stats on this.

 

[rottydaddy]

It's not the poor vis, it's the pilots... if I'm not mistaken, "pilot-related" mishaps are most common among fatal VFR accidents, and in that subgroup continued flight into not only legal IMC but just plain poor vis conditions is the #1 pilot-decision-related cause of fatal accidents.

Flight into weather unsuitable for the plane, pilot, mission, or all three is also the leading cause of fatals among instrument-rated pilots.

Poor vis may be tempting when it's a bit cruddy but you are doing fine at first ("gee, this isn't so bad- what's the big deal?"), but if you miss the chance to make the right call and end up in stuff you can't handle, it's your own damn fault. Pilot error... sometimes starting the plane and deciding to go is the error that kills. The other factors, even equipment malfunctions, are just stage props, to set the scene. But it's always a comedy of human errors that leads to the tragedy.

I believe the number one cause of any airplane-bending accident, injuries or no (meaning a larger number of accidents than vis-related mishaps), is adverse wind conditions (during takeoff and landing)... but again, if you just don't try to land in that crosswind, the crosswind is no threat to you.
The weather is not your enemy, unless you're a fool... the cleverest humans with the best gear can easily be defeated by weather. It's not your friend, either... it's just the weather, and it will never care about you or your plans. But it cannot plot, scheme or reason, whereas we can. We can decide, for example, to not make that trip, or land at that airport.

If I ever land in a crosswind or gusts that I should know will leave me off the runway with a damaged airplane, somebody smack me unless there was an onboard fire, structural damage, or not a single drop of fuel left.

As for flight into IMC, I would really have no excuse at all... as the OP said, nothing is more important than getting on the ground in one piece!
The greatest peril any pilots face is their ability to deceive themselves about that, IMHO.

 

[ronnieh]

Rob, one of the things that causes a lot of problems is the IR pilot that has the rating for "just in case". I suspect that is one of the most dangerous pilots out there. If you are not current AND proficient the IR rating will be of little use other than getting you killed.
Nosehair, there is not enough training in the world to allow you to fly in the worst of it.
I do agree that weather is the number one killer of low time pilots, VFR and IFR. You must know both your limitations and your plane's limitations and be able to discern the conditions that may exceed either limitation.

 

[wanttaja]

In my ten-year database of Cessna 172/210 accidents, "Continued VFR into IFR conditions" accounted for about 4.7% of the total accidents (64 of 1371). Fuel Exhaustion or Fuel Starvation accounted for almost twice as many accidents.

However, VFR into IFR accounts for 20% of all fatal accidents (49 of 237).

(The database does not include training accidents).

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Dave Siciliano]

If you want to avoid an engine failure, at ABS (American Bonanza Society) this year, Tom Rosen cited this:

Best,

Dave
=======================

91 % - 9 out of 10 – ENGINE FAILURES were FUEL RELATED in the 10 years ending last year

Tom Turner gave me that stat and he used it again in his seminar. Amazing isn't it.

 

[Graueradler]

See the Nall report:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/10nall.pdf

 

[Geico266]

In my ten-year database of Cessna 172/210 accidents, "Continued VFR into IFR conditions" accounted for about 4.7% of the total accidents (64 of 1371). Fuel Exhaustion or Fuel Starvation accounted for almost twice as many accidents.

However, VFR into IFR accounts for 20% of all fatal accidents (49 of 237).

(The database does not include training accidents).

Ron Wanttaja

Weather is a factor, but running out of fuel is way up there on the list of stupid pilot tricks.

 

[rbhankins001]

Wow, running out of fuel is a surprise to me . . .

We are delaying our flight this morning . . . 10 mile viz and blue sky here, but on the coast 13-15 miles away it is fogged in super thick. I don't mind waiting a little while.

Thanks for your comments folks. I'm trying to make myself as safe a pilot as I can be.

Weather decisions are a major component of my life, I'm a boat captain . . .

-Rob

 

[Ken Ibold]

In my ten-year database of Cessna 172/210 accidents, "Continued VFR into IFR conditions" accounted for about 4.7% of the total accidents (64 of 1371). Fuel Exhaustion or Fuel Starvation accounted for almost twice as many accidents.

However, VFR into IFR accounts for 20% of all fatal accidents (49 of 237).

(The database does not include training accidents).

Ron Wanttaja

My 8-year database of all GA accidents (including training accidents) comes to largely the same conclusions.

 

[John Baker]

It seems to be a recurring theme . . . maybe I'm wrong. What does the forum say???

I'm a fairweather flyer (that doesn't mean I'm not going to get an IFR just in case though!) and never HAVE to be anywhere that bad. I prefer to wait it out.

So what do you guys thing is the leading contributor to accidents involving major damage and injuries??? (Please don't say pilot error )

??

After many years of research, studies, and also by questioning thousands of pilots over those years, the FAA has determined that flying is the leading cause of all aircraft accidents and incidents.

John

 

[wanttaja]

If you want to avoid an engine failure, at ABS (American Bonanza Society) this year, Tom Rosen cited this:

91 % - 9 out of 10 – ENGINE FAILURES were FUEL RELATED in the 10 years ending last year

Tom Turner gave me that stat and he used it again in his seminar. Amazing isn't it.

Don't have Bonanza stats, but this isn't borne out in my Cessna 172/210 set.

Out of the 1371 accidents in my ten-year database, 137 were pilot-induced fuel-related (exhaustion, starvation, contamination). Ten more were mechanically-related. 122 accidents were caused by engine failure due to mechanical reasons, plus 18 carb ice cases.

So for the 172/210 set, about half the engine failure accidents were fuel-related. With fuel-injected engines in many Bonanzas, the carb ice cases will decrease, but I see no reason the Bonanza would have lower rates for most of the other causes.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[nosehair]

Yes, amazingly, running out of fuel is listed as the Number One cause of accidents.

I wonder how many of those "out of fuel" conditions were caused by:

stronger headwinds than expected

poor vis or low ceilings causing more getting off course and taking longer than expected

over-all bad weather causing the pilot to not lean properly or properly manage fuel.

Over-all, most of these 'out of fuel' accidents are set up by some 'condition' that is an overload for the pilot who forgets his otherwise normal routine.

The only way you can say 'fuel starvation' is the cause is if you have planned all possible weather, mechanical, navigation, etc. issues, and somehow just forgot to 'gas up'.

How many of the fuel accidents would that be?

 

[pilot_dude]

The number one cause of accidents/injuries is the unintentional impact with a solid surface.

 

[Mattl]

The number one cause of accidents/injuries is the unintentional impact with a solid surface.

CO doesn't require impact and that'll kill you dead quick!

 

[wabower]

I think you may be overlooking the obvious-and-hard-to-believe-until-you-see-it first-hand-stupidity and oblivion that can be a part of the issue.

In February of 198X, an experienced pilot friend asked me to ride from KC to Denver with him in a new-to-him Commander 112, just to "keep an eye on things." Winds over the route were predictably westerly and stout, so I figured he would stop for fuel in Salina, Hayes, Hill City or Goodland, since they are the best candidates along the route and eastern CO is a bit sparse.

As we neared Goodland in level flight with no sign of impending descent, I inquired about his intentions to refuel. He pointed to the gages, and said "don't think we need to stop, tanks are still showing full." When it became apparent that he really wasn't kidding and no punch-line would be forthcoming, I tapped on the panel adjacent to the gages watched his eyes widen as the needles quickly fell to the lower portion of the gages, at which point he grabbed the chart and became quite interested in locating Goodland info and getting on the ground.

The guy was no dummy, was well-educated and had been flying for years. We worked together in the investment securities business, and I knew first-hand of his skill and expertise in that industry. To see him totally lose his awareness and common sense regarding such a fundamentally simple aspect of flying was one of my first indications that the pilot population might be running a tad light.

Yes, amazingly, running out of fuel is listed as the Number One cause of accidents.

I wonder how many of those "out of fuel" conditions were caused by:

stronger headwinds than expected

poor vis or low ceilings causing more getting off course and taking longer than expected

over-all bad weather causing the pilot to not lean properly or properly manage fuel.

Over-all, most of these 'out of fuel' accidents are set up by some 'condition' that is an overload for the pilot who forgets his otherwise normal routine.

The only way you can say 'fuel starvation' is the cause is if you have planned all possible weather, mechanical, navigation, etc. issues, and somehow just forgot to 'gas up'.

How many of the fuel accidents would that be?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Pilots are the number one cause of accidents. You, me, them, us. Stop blaming other crap and accept the fact that we get stupid in airplanes(all of us) once you have accepted it, you might be able to recognize it in time. Luck is also good.

 

[John Baker]

Pilots are the number one cause of accidents. You, me, them, us. Stop blaming other crap and accept the fact that we get stupid in airplanes(all of us) once you have accepted it, you might be able to recognize it in time. Luck is also good.

Hey there, now just hold your horses, I represent that completely!

John

 

[Dave Siciliano]

In my ten-year database of Cessna 172/210 accidents, "Continued VFR into IFR conditions" accounted for about 4.7% of the total accidents (64 of 1371). Fuel Exhaustion or Fuel Starvation accounted for almost twice as many accidents.

However, VFR into IFR accounts for 20% of all fatal accidents (49 of 237).

(The database does not include training accidents).

Ron Wanttaja

Ron: if you want, I can ask Tom Turner for the specifics. He's a pretty detailed fella if you don't know him.

Best,

Dave

 

[wabower]

When the autopsy report of the demise of the owner-flown segment of GA is published (sometime before 2050) the cause of death will be listed as suicide.

 

[wanttaja]

The only way you can say 'fuel starvation' is the cause is if you have planned all possible weather, mechanical, navigation, etc. issues, and somehow just forgot to 'gas up'.

Actually, no. "Fuel Exhaustion" occurs when you use up all the gas on the airplane. "Fuel Starvation" occurs when there IS gas in the airplane, but it is not delivered properly to the engine, either due to hardware or pilot issues.

And neither mechanical issues...nor judgement issues such as running out of fuel... are the leading cause of General Aviation aircraft accidents. The leading cause is plain old simple stick-and-rudder mistakes by the pilot...undershooting, overshooting, stalling, getting blown off the side of the runway, groundlooping, etc, with no aircraft issues involved. For my combined 172/210 database, over 50% of the accidents are due to what I refer to as "Pilot Miscontrol"...and my database doesn't even include training accidents. This is five times higher than fuel exhaustion/starvation rate, the second-leading cause of 172/210 accidents. The third place finisher is undetermined engine failure (e.g., engine quit, NTSB can't find why).

When you look at just fatal accidents, the numbers adjust quite a bit. Pilot Mismanagement drops to ~32%, fuel exhaustion/starvation to just 3.4%. Continued VFR into IFR conditions is the second-place finisher in the fatal accidents, at 20.7%. Third place is what I lump together as SALA (Stupidity at Low Altitude), 7.2% of the fatals.

Ron Wanttaja

* SALA includes buzzing, hitting obstructions, stalling out after a high-speed pass, flying up box canyons, etc.

 

[bob_albertson]

It seems to be a recurring theme . . . maybe I'm wrong. What does the forum say???

I'm a fairweather flyer (that doesn't mean I'm not going to get an IFR just in case though!) and never HAVE to be anywhere that bad. I prefer to wait it out.

So what do you guys thing is the leading contributor to accidents involving major damage and injuries??? (Please don't say pilot error )

??

The number one reason for accidents is CFIT. People continually find ways to take perfectly good airplanes and fly them into terra firma.

Bob

 

[poadeleted20]

As an FAASTeam Rep, I get regular briefings on accident causes, and the #1 cause of accidents over the last ten years (and the trend isn't getting any better) is pilots screwing up landings, usually in VMC and nonadverse winds. Things like CFIT and weather-related accidents are much bigger factors in fatal accidents, but at the end of the day, the aircraft component most at fault is the nut that holds the yoke, either through bad judgement or weak skills.

 

[pilot_dude]

CO doesn't require impact and that'll kill you dead quick!

Is that the number one cause?

 

[Dan Thomas]

I think you may be overlooking the obvious-and-hard-to-believe-until-you-see-it first-hand-stupidity and oblivion that can be a part of the issue.

In February of 198X, an experienced pilot friend asked me to ride from KC to Denver with him in a new-to-him Commander 112, just to "keep an eye on things." Winds over the route were predictably westerly and stout, so I figured he would stop for fuel in Salina, Hayes, Hill City or Goodland, since they are the best candidates along the route and eastern CO is a bit sparse.

As we neared Goodland in level flight with no sign of impending descent, I inquired about his intentions to refuel. He pointed to the gages, and said "don't think we need to stop, tanks are still showing full." When it became apparent that he really wasn't kidding and no punch-line would be forthcoming, I tapped on the panel adjacent to the gages watched his eyes widen as the needles quickly fell to the lower portion of the gages, at which point he grabbed the chart and became quite interested in locating Goodland info and getting on the ground.

The guy was no dummy, was well-educated and had been flying for years. We worked together in the investment securities business, and I knew first-hand of his skill and expertise in that industry. To see him totally lose his awareness and common sense regarding such a fundamentally simple aspect of flying was one of my first indications that the pilot population might be running a tad light.

This sort of thing is what I think is a major cause of accidents. The training is either being dumbed down to fit lazy students, or they're finding ways to get past the exams without really learning to think. Why in the world would a guy fly for hours and think he still had lots of fuel just because the gauges said so? Because he didn't understand that the engine burns so much per hour and that fuel gauges can be less than accurate. The same shallow training/thinking results in too many carb ice engine failures (not thinking about temp and dewpoint, nor understanding the physics of carb ice) or trying to fix a high or fast approach by diving a the runway and forcing it on.

The idea of striving for excellence has been lost. We want the machines to do all the thinking for us. Look at the drivers that can't successfully adjust their driving habits when the snow falls.

Dan

 

[Mattl]

Is that the number one cause?

Never said it was.....

 

[ClimbnSink]

Those lazy, ill trained idiots are us, we just haven't had the opportunity to prove it yet. Blaming modern values is retarded, brain wiring doesn't change in a generation. Besides they wrecked plenty of planes, for the same reasons, back in grandpa's day. Pilots do dumb things. Give it enough time you will too. Being on a high horse and having your head in the sand at the same time is a neat trick. You might want to work on your awareness of ADM.

This sort of thing is what I think is a major cause of accidents. The training is either being dumbed down to fit lazy students, or they're finding ways to get past the exams without really learning to think. Why in the world would a guy fly for hours and think he still had lots of fuel just because the gauges said so? Because he didn't understand that the engine burns so much per hour and that fuel gauges can be less than accurate. The same shallow training/thinking results in too many carb ice engine failures (not thinking about temp and dewpoint, nor understanding the physics of carb ice) or trying to fix a high or fast approach by diving a the runway and forcing it on.

The idea of striving for excellence has been lost. We want the machines to do all the thinking for us. Look at the drivers that can't successfully adjust their driving habits when the snow falls.

Dan

 

[wabower]

There's no reason to think it will ever change. Nothing about our system is geared to any standard of excellence, adequacy or accountability. Thinking that the GA safety record will improve based on pilot behavior is like thinking that all the pilots would file their tax returns on a timely basis if the IRS had the same ongoing compliance requirements does the the FAA.

If I were appointed as a random part 91 check airman tomorrow with the authority to re-test pilots to the PTS standards for the highest rating they hold for the aircraft they are currently qualified and legally current to fly, I'd be willing to bet the flunk rate would be at least 75%, including those on all of the aviation forums.

Those lazy, ill trained idiots are us, we just haven't had the opportunity to prove it yet. Blaming modern values is retarded, brain wiring doesn't change in a generation. Besides they wrecked plenty of planes, for the same reasons, back in grandpa's day. Pilots do dumb things. Give it enough time you will too. Being on a high horse and having your head in the sand at the same time is a neat trick. You might want to work on your awareness of ADM.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Those lazy, ill trained idiots are us, we just haven't had the opportunity to prove it yet. Blaming modern values is retarded, brain wiring doesn't change in a generation. Besides they wrecked plenty of planes, for the same reasons, back in grandpa's day. Pilots do dumb things. Give it enough time you will too. Being on a high horse and having your head in the sand at the same time is a neat trick. You might want to work on your awareness of ADM.

I respectfully disagree. High school grads today cannot perform the three R's nearly as well as my generation could. The OWS mess is directly attributable to an easing of pressure on kids to work. All of this cannot help but have an effect on newer flight students, taken as a whole.

Dan

 

[jesse]

If I were appointed as a random part 91 check airman tomorrow with the authority to re-test pilots to the PTS standards for the highest rating they hold for the aircraft they are currently qualified and legally current to fly, I'd be willing to bet the flunk rate would be at least 75%, including those on all of the aviation forums.

Think you'd fair any better? Think failing 75% of the pilots out there would make a difference? Doesn't sound like the solution to me.

 

[Dr. O]

Very likely, many of us taken out for a PTS evaluation with no warning would result in some unhappy pilots...


I just had a biennial in the hands of a sadistic ATP who was bored/depressed - and thrilled he had a victim... Not sure whether it was his pulling the mixture on the critical engine as I was doing a standard rate turn at blue line into the (now dead) critical engine under the hood, or his getting the plane into a wing low 60 degree pitchup with the stall horn screaming (meanwhile I have my head bent between my knees with my hood on) and then his calmly saying, "your airplane!", but in any event when we got back his mood was much improved... He was smiling, jovial, back slapping, and seemed quite happy... In fact he was so happy he actually signed off my logbook and said he would see me again next year.. (yeah, I do it annually - some of us forget faster than others)

I was glad to be able to help him out of his depression...

denny-o

 

[wabower]

You want to try me for $1,000?

Think you'd fair any better?

Think failing 75% of the pilots out there would make a difference?

If they couldn't fly if they flunked, I'm sure it would make a difference. One way or the other, the fleet of active pilots would be better.

Doesn't sound like the solution to me.

So you don't think that a guy who flies his 340 less than 60 hours per year and takes his FR in a VFR-only Cessna 150 wouldn't benefit from a real check-ride in the airplane he uses for most of his trips, some of which are IFR?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Right a few thousand kids going OWS for a few months is so terrible. How many boomers went OWS for a decade, heck many of them are still OWS today. If the average test scores are down it is because of boomers immigration policy, ESL kids dragging down the average. A lot of kids are better prepared these days then in the good old days. They are teaching writing and math much earlier then they used to.

I respectfully disagree. High school grads today cannot perform the three R's nearly as well as my generation could. The OWS mess is directly attributable to an easing of pressure on kids to work. All of this cannot help but have an effect on newer flight students, taken as a whole.

Dan

 

[Ted]

So you don't think that a guy who flies his 340 less than 60 hours per year and takes his FR in a VFR-only Cessna 150 wouldn't benefit from a real check-ride in the airplane he uses for most of his trips, some of which are IFR?

Similarly, testing someone who gets 200 ft off the ground, hits the autopilot, and then flies the computer the whole way until 200 ft off the ground. Force this person to hand fly.

I don't see as many people with the IFR Cessna 340 doing their flight reviews in VFR 150s, but Wayne's pool may be different than mine. I do see people being overdependent on automation, and unable to fly the plane without it, regardless of aircraft type.

The primary focus I have for flight reviews and IPCs are hand flying the airplane (maneuvers, approaches, etc.) and important procedures ingrained in the pilot's head. In a number of cases, people take more than one session to get up to standard.

 

[RotorAndWing]

If I were appointed as a random part 91 check airman tomorrow with the authority to re-test pilots to the PTS standards for the highest rating they hold for the aircraft they are currently qualified and legally current to fly,

We already have those, they're called Aviation Safety Inspectors.

 

[wabower]

Are they random exams? What is the pass-fail ratio?

And BTW, I'm not looking for the job--or any job. From Oklahoma, to lazy to work, too nervous to steal.

We already have those, they're called Aviation Safety Inspectors.

 

[poadeleted20]

Are they random exams?

Even though the law technically permits that, I've never heard of the FAA re-examining a pilot under 44709 without cause. But if they did, my instructing experience suggests the pass/fail ratio might not be very good.