What is it like to use oxygen?

Some time ago there was a picture of a buy in the PIC seat of a Beech 18. The entire aircraft had disintegrated around him. he was in a Daze. He spent one night at the hospital.

At the Faribault Cirrus wreck, and several other recent ones, there was just a lump of composite left. No PIC seat. Nobody survived.
 
My previous career (before I went back to school) was as a respiratory therapist and one thing you should keep in mind is that it's not a good idea mix and match oxygen devices, especially in the case of flow-sensing O2 setups. I do not know if this carries over to the aircraft O2 systems, but I would be hesitant to do so because of the potential negative consequences of a mismatch. Personally if it were me, and I were relying on bottled O2, I would invest in one of the newer carbon fiber tanks that are available through EMS suppliers. They carry a lot more O2 than a standard steel or aluminum tank for a lot of weight savings....approximately 1/2 to 1/3 the weight for a several fold increase in capacity. You could likely, at the flow rates associated with a cannula (2-6 L/min) get at least a couple of hours off of one using a standard nasal cannula.

The other issue, assuming you are talking about using the flow-sensing cannulae intended for home oxygen use (such as by COPD patients), is that I do not know if you can use them at altitudes above 5,000' AMSL. More correctly, I don't know if they have ever been tested for such environments. Just my two cents.....

No no, nothing so complex, these systems just have a small needle valce and a check ball flow meter so you can turn the flow down at lower altitudes. These systems are simple constant flow systems, they sense nothing. There are more expensive demand/diluter systems, but that's not what he's refering to.
 
Some time ago there was a picture of a buy in the PIC seat of a Beech 18. The entire aircraft had disintegrated around him. he was in a Daze. He spent one night at the hospital.

At the Faribault Cirrus wreck, and several other recent ones, there was just a lump of composite left. No PIC seat. Nobody survived.

Yeah, but then, a Beech 18 and a Cirrus aren't in the same catagory, that dude still isn't cleared back to work, and if he hadn't been on the spar, he would have died. It was a freak deal. As I said before, I haven't gone through the engineering on the Cirrus, but I doubt that it's bad. The question that needs to be answered is had the fuel tanks not let go, would there have been any survivors. In other words, would the fuel cels disintegrate in a survivable crash. I've seen lots of aluminum planes crashed with no fire and all aboard had died. The issues may or may not be related. Personally, I'd build rubberized Kevlar reinforced fuel cells for any aircraft, but no one does.
 
From here on out, can we please take this discussion to the other thread?

NTSB CHI08FA039 said:
On November 25, 2007, about 1455 central standard time, a Cirrus Design Corp. SR22, N482SR, was destroyed on impact with terrain during landing on runway 12 (4,254 feet by 72 feet, dry asphalt) at the Faribault Municipal Airport (FBL), near Faribault, Minnesota. A post impact fire occurred. The personal flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed in the area at the time of the accident. No flight plan was on file. The pilot and three passengers sustained fatal injuries. The flight originated from the Aberdeen Regional Airport, near Aberdeen, South Dakota, about 1300, and was destined for FBL.

About 1300, a witness, who was a certified flight instructor, saw a Cirrus airplane attempt a landing and saw it go-around. That Cirrus airplane did not land at FBL. About 1440, the witness was monitoring the Unicom frequency at FBL when the pilot of N482SR advised him of his intentions to land and refuel. The witness stated that he saw N482SR on short final and saw the airplane's go-around. About eight minutes later the witness saw the airplane over runway 12 about 40 feet above the ground in level flight heading towards his location. He reported that about four seconds later the airplane rolled left, and impacted terrain in an inverted attitude. The witness indicated that the airplane impacted terrain left wing down, it cartwheeled, and then the post impact fire and explosion occurred.

At 1456, the recorded weather at FBL was: Wind 190 degrees at 15 knots, gusting to 22 knots; visibility 10 statute miles; sky condition clear; temperature 8 degree C; dew point -4; altimeter 29.77 inches of mercury.

The airplane was found inverted on about a 180-degree magnetic heading in a bean field northeast of runway 12's taxiway about 330 feet northeast of the runway's centerline and about 2,000 feet from the approach end of the runway. The composite portions of airplane's empennage and wings were consumed by fire. The metal portions of the airplane's empennage and wings exhibited deformation, discoloring, and melting. The fuselage, up to the firewall, exhibited damage and charring consistent with a fire. A ground scar was observed starting about 48 feet west of the wreckage and lead to the center of the wreckage on about an 80-degree magnetic heading. The shape of the scar's depression was consistent with the inverted shape of the left wing tip. A red navigation light lens was found near the ground scar. A propeller blade had separated from its hub and was found imbedded in a depression in the ground north of the ground scar about 27 feet from the center of the wreckage. The depression's shape was consistent with the shape of the spinner and engine cowling. A propeller blade was found resting within the depression. The third propeller blade that exhibited chordwise abrasions on its back was found about 180 feet from the center of the wreckage on about a 350-degree magnetic heading from the center of the wreckage. The airplane's recoverable data module was deformed, discolored, and was found about 84 feet north of the center of the wreckage. The top of the oxygen bottle was found about 309 feet from the center of the wreckage on about a 70-degree magnetic heading from the center of the wreckage. The airplane's parachute was found extended on the ground starting with its risers near the center of the wreckage and its topmost portion resting about 120-degrees magnetic and 105 feet from the center of the wreckage.

An on-scene examination of the wreckage was conducted. The flight control cables were traced from the cockpit to the linkage for each flight control surface and flight control continuity was established. The ballistic parachute's primer charges were found dimpled. The engine controls cables were traced from the cockpit to their respective engine controls and engine control continuity was established. The engine driven fuel pump shear shaft was intact. The right magneto sustained fire damage and did not produce any spark when it was rotated by hand. The left magneto produced spark at all leads when it was rotated by hand. The gascolator, engine driven and electric fuel pumps, and the fuel line to the manifold valve contained liquid consistent with the smell and color of aviation gasoline. The top sparkplugs were removed and no anomalies were detected. The engine's propeller flange was rotated with a lever. Each cylinder produced a thumb compression. Both turbochargers' compressors rotated when spun by hand.

The airplane's recoverable data module and the engine have been retained for further examination.

Judging by the fact they landed inverted, my guess is the fire most likely didn't have anything to do with the fatalities. Certainly didn't help, but I don't think it was to blame. I can't speak for definite as I have not seen the postmortem data yet for all of those involved. Even if I had I would not be able to speak explicitly about this specific case.

My guess is that it was the poor choice of runways on the part of the pilot resulting in an inadvertent roll to the left due to the crosswinds (coming from roughly the pilot's 2 o'clock). What is truly sad is there is a second runway at KFBL that would have given him a near head-on approach into the wind. The pilot was a doc, and one has to wonder if he was simply going for the challenge of a crosswind landing or if he went for the runway he chose because it was paved as opposed to the turn runway without the crosswind.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the great responses. I don't think I'll mention the Cirrus SR22 anymore. For whatever reason, certain people seem to feel it necessary to express how they feel about it, even though no one cares what they have to say.
 
Even if you can buy a jet at close to the money, you'll never operate it even close, and I'm not even starting on insurance, just operating costs. If you want a small recip powered pressurized single, you basically have three options, one is experimental, the Lancair IVP (also available with a turbine) and two Certified, the Malibu and P-210. Outside of that you are looking at twin Recips, P-Barons, Aerostars, the 340, 414 &421 Cessnas (won't even think about the 411), the pressurized Navajos (again, I wouldn't consider them due to operating costs unless I had a job for them), a few pressurized Twin Commanders (these I like) and a few pressurized Queen Airs. When you get into the turbine powered aircraft, you options expand. Probably for a personal transport the TBM 850 come close to the top of my list (it has a slower less expensive sibling the TBM 700 as well) as a turbo prop single and another turbine single if you want a longer legged travelling machine with family or clients aboard, the Pilatus PC-12 is the front runner with it's larger cabin and lavatory facilities. When we start adding turbine twins to the mix, the Eclipse is out there as a jet, it is pressurized, but it most definitely is not cabin class, but for a jet, it is moderately priced, but again, the price of purchase is not indicative of the price of operation. As soon as you start getting into jets, costs make a steep climb curve. Even Turbo Props get pretty pricey, but when put alongside equivalent recips, it can be a competetive comparison especially when you calculate in dispatch reliability.


The Eclipse 500 would be my pick from what I've seen. Cheaper and faster then the overpriced Mustang. But when I get to the point when I could afford a 2 million dollar jet, I would probably just go with NetJets.
 
From here on out, can we please take this discussion to the other thread?



Judging by the fact they landed inverted, my guess is the fire most likely didn't have anything to do with the fatalities. Certainly didn't help, but I don't think it was to blame. I can't speak for definite as I have not seen the postmortem data yet for all of those involved. Even if I had I would not be able to speak explicitly about this specific case.

My guess is that it was the poor choice of runways on the part of the pilot resulting in an inadvertent roll to the left due to the crosswinds (coming from roughly the pilot's 2 o'clock). What is truly sad is there is a second runway at KFBL that would have given him a near head-on approach into the wind. The pilot was a doc, and one has to wonder if he was simply going for the challenge of a crosswind landing or if he went for the runway he chose because it was paved as opposed to the turn runway without the crosswind.
My bet is that the doc had never landed it on grass. They don't teach that at Cirrus school, apparently. Too little pilot for too much plane.

But still, completely unscientifically, just looking at the press pics of the cirrus fatals, there just isn't much left afterward. Contrast that to the recent Bellanca that clipped a wing in Washington State. It landed inverted and the walked away....it was still recognizeable as a fuselage.

sigh.
 
Thanks for the great responses. I don't think I'll mention the Cirrus SR22 anymore. For whatever reason, certain people seem to feel it necessary to express how they feel about it, even though no one cares what they have to say.

What a pompous effing statement. This is the second time you have been offered advise/recommendations and replied in this manner.
Congrats, you are the first person I have placed on ignore.
 
The Eclipse 500 would be my pick from what I've seen. Cheaper and faster then the overpriced Mustang. But when I get to the point when I could afford a 2 million dollar jet, I would probably just go with NetJets.

Well, then the top of my picks for a pressurized plane would be the Aerostar. You can pick them up for under half a mil, but the best of them cost about $700k. They are fast, cruising in the top half of the 200s and reasonably economical. The Aerostar gives you turboprop speed without the turbine bills.
There is a pressurized recip single I skipped as well as a twin, The Mooney Mustang M22 and the Beech Duke respectively, because both of them have the reliability of a crackhead, you can rely on them to burn money.
I'm personally not that fond of pressurized singles.
 
Thanks for the great responses. I don't think I'll mention the Cirrus SR22 anymore. For whatever reason, certain people seem to feel it necessary to express how they feel about it, even though no one cares what they have to say.

The Eclipse 500 would be my pick from what I've seen. Cheaper and faster then the overpriced Mustang. But when I get to the point when I could afford a 2 million dollar jet, I would probably just go with NetJets.
As for the first quote, you introduced the subject aircraft of your question. There's going to be multiple opinions on why or why not it's a preferable platform for your desirable function. Threads creep on this forum. Rarely there isn't something to be learned from them.

As for the latter, would you rather go for a platform that has changed and seen setback after setback umpteen times or with one by a company with a proved track record in building a wide range of aircraft?

In turning that back to your first statement, I personally think the Cirrus is a fine airplane in spite of the many fatal accidents in its short history. But, even the finest safety record is not going to survive in the hands of an unprepared pilot.
 
Even if it doesn't burn, there still should be little left, it's part and parcel to the crash/failure mode of composites and is part of what saves your life. Metals crumple, but carbon fiber is different, it crushes and shatters. Carbon Fiber strands are a crystaline form bonded together by long strand polymer chains, typically epoxy or vinylester. It absorbs energy by shattering and dissintegrating rather than crumpling and folding. It is also one of the reasons I don't trust a pure carbon/plasic matrix that is older (fatigued, as there is no way to quantify the fatigue prior to failure) and/or has undergone a non deforming impact, because the crystaline chain can be shattered and disconnected while the the plastic it is imbedded in is undamaged due to its much higher modulous of elasticity (CF has a very low MF which is why it can provide such a rigid surface with such little material so you can make very light strong parts out of it). That's why many composite structures are truely composite and use Kevlar and S glass (and now a material I have been playing with lately that I'm pretty impressed with, polyethylene fibers). All materials are different and have different properties and failure modes. Their engineering is different, as is their failure analysis. Even different metals need to be analysed differently when reviewing their failures to see if they did what you wanted them to do.
Hence my as yet unanswered question about the life expectancy of CF airframes and components.
 
Hence my as yet unanswered question about the life expectancy of CF airframes and components.
Well, Beech failed to deliver on an FAA contract on the ICAW's for composite structures. That says something.

Henning, what I am getting at isn't crashworthiness of composites. They can be very, very crashworthy. I'm getting at the fire/burn mode of Cirrus crashes. There are a LOT of them.

I think SteveinMichigan is looking for CO levels in the blood and pumonary burns- signs that the cardiovascular system survived the crash, but the occupants asphyxiated. Cirrus may have a fuel system problem w.r.t crashworthiness.
 
Hence my as yet unanswered question about the life expectancy of CF airframes and components.

Here's my take on it: If the structural components are strictly CF/Epoxy or Vinylester, after 6 years, all bets are off with me. If the matrix has Kevlar and or Glass in it, I'll look further. If the glass and/or Kevlar is biased to run parallel & perpendicular with the direction of flex, while the CF is aligned at a 45 bias to the direction of flex, I'm good with it so far. Next thing to consider is the quality control of the layup resin and the wetting of the clothes as well as how well the clothes are layed (there is a lot of skill involved in putting down cloth correctly to maintain it's design/engineering qualities) and this is also dependent on the quality of the clothes being used. If all this passes, and assuming vacuum bagging, I'm good with it for at least 25 years, or until it sees a sharp impact. At 25 years or upon small impacts, I would have to do some serious inspection with a 70* ultrasonic crystal. Any large sharp impacts, and I'd probably scrap it.
 
Well, Beech failed to deliver on an FAA contract on the ICAW's for composite structures. That says something.

Henning, what I am getting at isn't crashworthiness of composites. They can be very, very crashworthy. I'm getting at the fire/burn mode of Cirrus crashes. There are a LOT of them.

I think SteveinMichigan is looking for CO levels in the blood and pumonary burns- signs that the cardiovascular system survived the crash, but the occupants asphyxiated. Cirrus may have a fuel system problem w.r.t crashworthiness.

They may, and his research may find something there. As far as I'm concerned, nobody builds their fuel tanks properly, but WTF do I know?

The reason they couldn't deliver an ICAW for composites is because it's impossible to do. About the best you can do is say "Keep it waxed with a UV inhibitive wax"
 
Last edited:
Well, Beech failed to deliver on an FAA contract on the ICAW's for composite structures. That says something.

Henning, what I am getting at isn't crashworthiness of composites. They can be very, very crashworthy. I'm getting at the fire/burn mode of Cirrus crashes. There are a LOT of them.

I think SteveinMichigan is looking for CO levels in the blood and pumonary burns- signs that the cardiovascular system survived the crash, but the occupants asphyxiated. Cirrus may have a fuel system problem w.r.t crashworthiness.
Actually there are three common mechanisms of death with thermal injury:
-Massive external burns without evidence of fatal inhalation injury or toxic gas inhalation; the precise mechanism of death is thought to be a sudden drop in blood pressure in most cases. The other most commonly cited possible mechanism is impingement of function of the respiratory musculature...my opinion that the truth is probably the two in some form of combination
-Fatal inhalation injury, usually to the upper airways not the lungs specifically as the upper airways tend to absorb most of the heat even in inhalation of superheated air. The injuries to the lungs of themselves are more commonly a feature when the victim survives for a period of time. The lung injuries are actually due, in large part, to the effects of the chemicals in the air or smoke on the lower air passages rather than the temperature of the air. I have an article pending in a respiratory care magazine on this subject as a matter of fact. It is actually rather complex and one of the more fascinating aspects of respiratory care.
-Toxic gas exposure- carbon monoxide, cyanide, etc

We are including variables that will identify all of these issues.
 
They may, and his research may find something there. As far as I'm concerned, nobody builds their fuel tanks properly, but WTF do I know?

The reason they couldn't deliver an ICAW for composites is because it's impossible to do. About the best you can do is say "Keep it waxed with a UV inhibitive wax"
I agree...the tanks are not properly built for any aircraft on the market that I have seen but some are worse than others. Personally I would like to see research done into a way to make the fuel itself safer, perhaps in combination with the development of a biofuel alternative for 100LL.
 
I agree...the tanks are not properly built for any aircraft on the market that I have seen but some are worse than others. Personally I would like to see research done into a way to make the fuel itself safer, perhaps in combination with the development of a biofuel alternative for 100LL.

Well, as for biofuel alternatives, the only thing at this point which has the BTU compactness necessary for aviation would be a biodiesel. Alchohol would cause max gross issues with most planes to get them an acceptable range and it isn't particularly safer in an accident for the occupants and is a mixed bag for firefighters/rescue personnell since they may walk right into an invisible flame, although it is easily dealt with using water to dilute below a burnable mix. Do you have any other alternatives?
 
My previous career (before I went back to school) was as a respiratory therapist and one thing you should keep in mind is that it's not a good idea mix and match oxygen devices, especially in the case of flow-sensing O2 setups. I do not know if this carries over to the aircraft O2 systems, but I would be hesitant to do so because of the potential negative consequences of a mismatch. Personally if it were me, and I were relying on bottled O2, I would invest in one of the newer carbon fiber tanks that are available through EMS suppliers. They carry a lot more O2 than a standard steel or aluminum tank for a lot of weight savings....approximately 1/2 to 1/3 the weight for a several fold increase in capacity. You could likely, at the flow rates associated with a cannula (2-6 L/min) get at least a couple of hours off of one using a standard nasal cannula.

The other issue, assuming you are talking about using the flow-sensing cannulae intended for home oxygen use (such as by COPD patients), is that I do not know if you can use them at altitudes above 5,000' AMSL. More correctly, I don't know if they have ever been tested for such environments. Just my two cents.....
No no, nothing so complex, these systems just have a small needle valce and a check ball flow meter so you can turn the flow down at lower altitudes. These systems are simple constant flow systems, they sense nothing. There are more expensive demand/diluter systems, but that's not what he's refering to.
As Henning said, these are aviation-specific "Aerox Aviation Oxygen Systems OxySaver nasal oxygen conserving cannulas.". However, they arrived after the trip for which we purchased them, so we've never used them or even opened the packaging. Having just done so, I see that there is no flowmeter included in this package. So it's rather incomplete for our purposes.:mad:
Since I rent, replacing the bottle(s) in the airplane isn't an option, and I'm not really motivated enough to buy my own bottle.
A conserving canula will work with any continuous flow source that can supply a regular canula or mask, but to get the O2 savings you need to have an adjustable flow control and a flowmeter to set it. If you have all that and can set the flow to a level appropriate for your altitude it should work as well as if it were connected to a source "designed" for it. I still strongly recommend that you also use a blood oxygen saturation meter to confirm that you are getting enough oxygen though.
We also have a pulse oximeter that we use on flights at significant altitude (above 8000' or so during the day).
 
However, they arrived after the trip for which we purchased them, so we've never used them or even opened the packaging. Having just done so, I see that there is no flowmeter included in this package.


Interesting, Grant. The OxySaver cannulas we have, the "flowmeter" as they call it is simply a hard plastic tube slightly larger than the flexible hose. The flowmeter is inline with the main line right before it Y's off. I had to look for it fairly hard myself when we first got them.

That's too bad you didn't get to use it! :(
 
Ok, back to the original poster's questions. The cost and weight and complexity issues of a pressurized craft are covered already. As to wearing the mask or cannula, I've only used the latter. The highest I've used them is at FL 220 in a B36TC. [Not a pressurized plane.] I don't find them to be obnoxious at all. In fact, I barely think about it after the first couple minutes. The mask can, obviously, be more of a hassle with a headset if it doesn't have a mic. The oxygen does cause my nasal membranes to dry out some, more than usual at altitude, I mean. I carry a tiny bottle of the water nasal spray sold in pharmacies [$1.79 or such] though I have them around all the time as our wood-heated cottage is quite dry.

As to need, it is partially medically necessary and partially FAA regs. Some of us live at higher altitudes--in my case, 8500 MSL--and much of my flying at cruise is done at or below that altitude, as the field I fly out of is at 5670 MSL. I definitely have less "need" for oxygen than people with whom I fly who come up from lower altitudes to Denver. It is quite striking, the difference. And by the way, if you don't already know this, don't think you can figure out when you begin to need oxygen: it is possible you will, but hypoxia is dramatically incidious.

A buddy of mine is a mountain climber, spending a significant amount of time in the upper teens or above. His "need" for supplemental oxygen when we fly [he's an active pilot, too], is almost certainly less than mine.

But the regs don't make allowances for folks such as us. And it is a small thing to use it anyway and be safe.

But don't be put off by the ideal of a cannula; once you use one, you'll see it is no big deal. I suggest you purchase your own, for cleanliness reasons, if you are gonna rent the tank and etc. Some rental places insist you provide your own mask or cannula and sell them on the spot. They take up a tiny spot in your flight bag, put them into a ziplock baggie and clean them with alcohol or whatever after each use.
 
Last edited:
Well, as for biofuel alternatives, the only thing at this point which has the BTU compactness necessary for aviation would be a biodiesel. Alchohol would cause max gross issues with most planes to get them an acceptable range and it isn't particularly safer in an accident for the occupants and is a mixed bag for firefighters/rescue personnell since they may walk right into an invisible flame, although it is easily dealt with using water to dilute below a burnable mix. Do you have any other alternatives?
I have one I have been kicking around but I am hesitant to mention it on an open forum. One of my chemistry profs and I are supposed to meet about it on Monday (weather permitting....)
 
The reason for using data from fatal cases is the lack of a large scale readily accessible source of data for survivors of plane crashes. One could conceivably use the National Trauma Data Bank but the number of applicable cases are low. This is one of those areas where the federal privacy laws are more of a hindrance than a help. If we identify that aircraft A has more of a problem with, for example, fire than aircraft B, then maybe there exists a problem with the system. The other use of fatal data is in seeing if injuries happen that could be an issue in aircraft egress (leg injuries, etc) leading to scene deaths, but not deaths upon impact such as due to thermal or inhalation injuries.

To avoid further derailing this thread any further, I suggest we take this discussion to private messages. My apologies to the OP....

It sounds like you are looking under the street light, when the wallet was lost in the dark part of the alley...
 
Last edited:
It sounds like you are looking under the street light, when the wallet was lost in the dark part of the alley...
Injuries that occur in survivors also occur in fatalities, so one can use the data from non-survivors to determine what injuries will be in survivors. It's simply a place to start and then work from. Also, it can be used to find out what injuries are killing our fellow pilots and try to find ways to engineer restraints and other systems to minimize such occurrences.
 
Injuries that occur in survivors also occur in fatalities, so one can use the data from non-survivors to determine what injuries will be in survivors. It's simply a place to start and then work from. Also, it can be used to find out what injuries are killing our fellow pilots and try to find ways to engineer restraints and other systems to minimize such occurrences.
I'm convinced the largest majority of fatalities in aircraft accidents are not going to be prevented by any level of safety features beyond an internal, fire-proof, foam cocoon around the cabin occupants and deployed helium balloons.

Once complacency reaches a point with any level of safety components, it's right back to where it started. Given 85%+ accidents are pilot error, the statement at the bottom of my signature is the only thing that will ultimately prevent an accident, fatal or otherwise.
 
I'm convinced the largest majority of fatalities in aircraft accidents are not going to be prevented by any level of safety features beyond an internal, fire-proof, foam cocoon around the cabin occupants and deployed helium balloons.

Once complacency reaches a point with any level of safety components, it's right back to where it started. Given 85%+ accidents are pilot error, the statement at the bottom of my signature is the only thing that will ultimately prevent an accident, fatal or otherwise.
Agreed. 110% agreed. But that does not preclude us from an obligation to try, does it?
 
As long as you fail to examine injuries in nonfatal crashes (since injuries that occur in fatal crashes do not occur in nonfatal ones, or they'd be fatal), your research will be fundamentally flawed. Call me when it passes peer review.
 
As long as you fail to examine injuries in nonfatal crashes (since injuries that occur in fatal crashes do not occur in nonfatal ones, or they'd be fatal), your research will be fundamentally flawed. Call me when it passes peer review.
Call me when you do better or, better still, when you have suggestions for collaboration.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. 110% agreed. But that does not preclude us from an obligation to try, does it?
Well, since we agree then we should also agree that the FAA Safety Teams and the ASF are already doing what can be done to all our heart's content. Unfortunately, only an extremely small percentage of pilots participate in such programs.

The rest gets put in the hands of schools and CFIs who provide training, not to mention Flight Reviews which require far too little in determining a pilot's efforts toward safety and skill.

Again, it's unfortunate that too many slip through with less than desirable performance during a flight review or an IPC. At some point, I'd like to dig up any research on what number of accidents in IMC would have been prevented by participation in a semi-annual or quarterly recurring IPC. I'm convinced very few would be fatal if GA pilots were required to perform as often and as well as those flying the big iron. The model of aircraft would be irrelevant.

While I respect Ron's opinion, I'll hold out to see what exactly is presented. But, I too, wonder how non-fatal accidents can be excluded at least as a comparison. Often, it's simply a matter of the level of trauma the body experiences on a given organ. Additionally, how much weight is given to age and health of the victim? I'm far from a scientist but I'd think all victims would have to be considered. Then they are broken down into sub-groups based on other contributing factors and even just plain guesses (supposition) since it's impossible to know all the facts during the series of events in an accident.

Correct me if I'm wrong... but, wouldn't it stand to reason the investigators are going to learn a heck of a lot more about an accident and resulting injuries from those who walk away?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But, I too, wonder how non-fatal accidents can be excluded at least as a comparison.

They are not being excluded by my choice, and I fully intend to compare my data to the best data available for survivors (which would be the National Trauma Data Bank, which is maintained by one of the trauma surgery organizations but is severely limited in its scope). The comparison will also serve as a check of whether autopsy data is a viable and more readily available proxy for survivor data, thereby answering Ron's challenges.

Additionally, how much weight is given to age and health of the victim?

We are actually going to address exactly that. In fact, that is one reason how I got actively started on this project to begin with. One of my trauma surgeon friends and myself were involved in a heated discussion over how age changes the frequency and severity of aortic trauma. Basically there was no good evidence in the literature and I was challenged to prove some of my assertions (and a couple of his as well), and it just pushed me to pursue the aviation project I had been kicking around. Right now, I don't have a good answer for your question but I will let you know as soon as I can.

Then they are broken down into sub-groups based on other contributing factors and even just plain guesses (supposition) since it's impossible to know all the facts during the series of events in an accident.

This is something we have already planned to do. Probable cause, contributing factors, aircraft performance, aircraft size, and the height, weight and BMI of the victims, etc are being taken into consideration and have been included as variables in the database.
 
By the way, I apologize for anything I might have said in my earlier (now edited) reply to Ron. I understand that some may question my methods or wonder why I chose to pursue autopsy data when a seemingly better choice would be to utilize medical data from survivors.

The existence of the privacy laws that are currently in place in the US makes survivor data less accessible to a point where it becomes nearly impossible to achieve without either legislative edict or signed releases from each victim. The former is likely to be impossible to achieve for limited projects with a relatively low number of subjects.The latter would be difficult to receive institutional review board approval for because of the possibility of inflicting further psychological harm on the survivors by broaching the subject of the incident with them. Therefore, I am simply pursuing a readily available and likely viable proxy for this. If it proves to not be useful, then at least this has been determined to be the case for sure.

I understand that Ron is simply being the devil's advocate and, in a way, I would rather face the questions and challenges here than once my database is further developed or when I submit publications or after. Any input is appreciated, but I would appreciate not being treated as though I have not fully thought out my approach to this. If I offended Ron or anyone else, you have my apologies.
 
edited. Fighting on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics.
 
Last edited:
Too bad they don't do crash tests in airplanes like they do in cars to test survivability and the integrity of the fuel system, for example, but I guess that would be prohibitively expensive.
 
As long as you fail to examine injuries in nonfatal crashes (since injuries that occur in fatal crashes do not occur in nonfatal ones, or they'd be fatal), your research will be fundamentally flawed. Call me when it passes peer review.

That's not completely acurate. Many injuries have a progressive level of severity starting in the non fatal and advancing to fatal injury. Head injuries are a perfect example. The exact same angle an object of impact can go from a bump to fatal depending on the force. Many internal traumas are the same as well as burns. I've sustained many injuries that had they been at higher energy levels would have been fatal.
 
Too bad they don't do crash tests in airplanes like they do in cars to test survivability and the integrity of the fuel system, for example, but I guess that would be prohibitively expensive.

That was the road I sent him down, now he can beg the insurance companies for money to research with...:D

"What does a research scientist learn best.....? Panhandling.":rofl:
 
Back
Top