NTSB stats for 2017- NOT good so far

Maui Cirrus CFII

Maui Cirrus CFII

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages
189
Location
Maui Hawaii
Display Name
Display name:
AoA
According to the NTSB data, we are currently running 1 Fatal accident every 3 days since the beginning of 2017. This is a serious problem.

I am starting a bi weekly NTSB accident synopsis emailer. http://bit.ly/2m8V1Nm


If you would like to receive updated newsletters on NTSB accident synopsis, please click the link below. You may always unsubscribe without any hassle.

http://eepurl.com/cFL3hD
 
Oh please tell me, what ever could the solution to less aviation accidents be?

I can't for the life of me figure out your angle.
 
sky-is-falling.jpg
 
Your newsletter says in line 2 that this accident occurred on 11/28/16.

I'm confused how this accident has anything to do with 2017 or, as your newsletter says in line 1, is "the 14th fatal accident in 2017."
 
Last edited:
register@teamandras.com said:
Your newsletter says in line 2 that this accident occurred on 11/28/16.

I'm confused how this accident has anything to do with 2017 or, as your newsletter says in line 1, is "the 14th fatal accident in 2017."
Click to expand...
The FAA tracks accidents by fiscal year; I assume the NTSB does the same.

Ron Wanttaja
 
As one of my former bosses put it, "The purpose of analysis is insight, not Bull****."

Without analysis and correlation of the accident causes, an apparent jump in the accident rate is a meaningless data point. It could merely reflect lower gas prices and an thus an increased number of hours flown.

Here's a page out of a presentation I gave at an FAA safety summit around two years ago. I compared the cost of gasoline (car gas, actually) with the number of homebuilt accidents. The correlation is interesting (though the scale for the accident Y-axis didn't come over properly):
gas_vs_accidents.jpg

In a similar way, good flying weather will also cause an increase in hours, and thus an increase in accidents.

Ron Wanttaja
 
James331 said:
"The Sky is Falling!"
Click to expand...

On that note, I need to prepare folks for some rather stupid analysis that, no doubt, someone out there is preparing to spring upon the world.

At some point, some bright spark in the Government or private industry will compare recent accident rates vs. the accident rate ten years ago. They will scream that the number of accidents per hours flown has shot through the roof, in comparison to the rate ten years ago.

It will be true...but the results are bogus. It ignores that fact that nearly 45,000 airplanes were removed from the registry during that ten-year period. Hence the total flight hours drops, and the accident rate per 100,000 hours looks much worse.

While the vast majority of the 45,000 aircraft removed were probably inactive, the FAA survey process assumes that about 70% of them were active, flying aircraft that the owners, for some reason, deregistered.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Hey...maybe some Senator should call for an investigation into this problem and we can start a thread about. :rolleyes:
 
wanttaja said:
On that note, I need to prepare folks for some rather stupid analysis that, no doubt, someone out there is preparing to spring upon the world.

At some point, some bright spark in the Government or private industry will compare recent accident rates vs. the accident rate ten years ago. They will scream that the number of accidents per hours flown has shot through the roof, in comparison to the rate ten years ago.

It will be true...but the results are bogus. It ignores that fact that nearly 45,000 airplanes were removed from the registry during that ten-year period. Hence the total flight hours drops, and the accident rate per 100,000 hours looks much worse.

While the vast majority of the 45,000 aircraft removed were probably inactive, the FAA survey process assumes that about 70% of them were active, flying aircraft that the owners, for some reason, deregistered.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

So they are/were assuming some average # of hours per airplane to determine accidents vs. hours? Wow. And I thought analysis of algorithms was hand waving math.
 
1 every 3 days across the entire country, including Alaska's high fatality environment, doesn't sound bad to me.
 
Hmm. LoC accident with an AoA advert on the bottom. Predictable.

Based on the pilot report, the accident was caused by wind shear. No AoA is going to save you from a true wind shear encounter. You're gonna go from a blue donut, to a red jelly donut, in the blink of an eye...and the end result will still be the same.

Maybe an AoA would've saved this landing also.


 
Maui Cirrus CFII said:
According to the NTSB data, we are currently running 1 Fatal accident every 3 days since the beginning of 2017. This is a serious problem.
Click to expand...
GeorgeC said:
I thought that was about average.
Click to expand...
Indeed. In fact, fatal accidents every three days should be cause for rejoicing in the halls of the FAA and NTSB. The normal average is one per day. There are, roughly, about three people killed per accident.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Maui Cirrus CFII said:
According to the NTSB data, we are currently running 1 Fatal accident every 3 days since the beginning of 2017. This is a serious problem.

I am starting a bi weekly NTSB accident synopsis emailer. http://bit.ly/2m8V1Nm


If you would like to receive updated newsletters on NTSB accident synopsis, please click the link below. You may always unsubscribe without any hassle.

http://eepurl.com/cFL3hD
Click to expand...

1 every 3 days? The link you shared below show a fatal accident every 1.28 days. (272/year). Of course zero is ideal but your serious problem listed above is a big improvement if the trend continues.
 
Mike5250 said:
1 every 3 days? The link you shared below show a fatal accident every 1.28 days. (272/year). Of course zero is ideal but your serious problem listed above is a big improvement if the trend continues.
Click to expand...
A fatal accident every 1.28 days is about 0.75 fatal accidents per day. Again, if true, time for rejoicing.
accidents_per_day.jpg


Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
As one of my former bosses put it, "The purpose of analysis is insight, not Bull****."

Without analysis and correlation of the accident causes, an apparent jump in the accident rate is a meaningless data point. It could merely reflect lower gas prices and an thus an increased number of hours flown.

Here's a page out of a presentation I gave at an FAA safety summit around two years ago. I compared the cost of gasoline (car gas, actually) with the number of homebuilt accidents. The correlation is interesting (though the scale for the accident Y-axis didn't come over properly):

In a similar way, good flying weather will also cause an increase in hours, and thus an increase in accidents.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Funny, but I would think there would be an initial spike in accidents, but better economic times/lower gas prices would get people flying more and get them more proficient and lead to less accidents. I never feel as safe as when I'm just flying to stay current vs. flying for fun/proficiency.
 
The solution is $10/gal avgas. No one will fly, therefore no aviation accidents. People will be shifted to the auto death statistics, and someone will get more votes or "saving American lives."
 
Sluggo63 said:
Funny, but I would think there would be an initial spike in accidents, but better economic times/lower gas prices would get people flying more and get them more proficient and lead to less accidents. I never feel as safe as when I'm just flying to stay current vs. flying for fun/proficiency.
Click to expand...
There's undoubtedly some sort of spike as you described, but the routine hazards of aviation continue. Keep in mind, too, that problems in a neglected/inactive engine may not germinate until a number of hours have been flown.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top