NTSB Goes to Fewer Crashes

[John R]

We often see people advocating that one shouldn't speculate about
accident causes until the official NTSB investigators see the accident
and later produce a report. Well in many cases the NTSB investigator
didn't see the accident either.

--------
NTSB Goes to Fewer Crashes Washington Post 2/8/06

Strapped with a backlog of cases and a tight budget, the National
Transportation Safety Board is sending investigators to fewer and fewer
fatal airplane crashes -- particularly those involving small planes. And
that has safety experts worried.

Last year, the agency's accident investigators showed up at 62 percent
of all fatal plane crashes, compared with 75 percent of all fatal
crashes in 2001, according to NTSB numbers. But data from the Federal
Aviation Administration -- which is required to send an investigator to
every accident and take note of whether the NTSB is on the scene --
indicate that NTSB investigators showed up less than half the time last
year.

The NTSB chafed at the FAA numbers, calling them inaccurate. After a
back-and-forth between the agencies, the FAA backed down, acknowledging
that its numbers may be unreliable.

Whether the NTSB showed up at 62 percent or less than half of all fatal
crashes last year, the downward trend since 2001 has alarmed former
accident investigators.

Most of the nation's 1,700 crashes last year involved small planes, such
as turboprops owned by individuals. About 350 of those accidents caused
at least one fatality.

"The consequences are, you're going to miss some things," said Gene
Doub, a former NTSB accident investigator who teaches at University of
Southern California. "Every one of these are not just dumb pilots. Some
are airspace-system or training issues or airworthiness issues."

Full Article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701764_pf.html

or http://tinyurl.com/ch3gn

[Skylune]

>>
by John R > Feb 8, 2006 at 11:12 PM


"The consequences are, you're going to miss some things," said Gene
Doub, a former NTSB accident investigator who teaches at University of
Southern California. "Every one of these are not just dumb pilots. Some
are airspace-system or training issues or airworthiness issues."<<

"Training issues" indeed. I went on the EAA website yesterday for the
first time. A sport pilot license with just a state issued drivers
license for the medical and just 20 hours of instruction, including 5
solo.

Gimme a break! I don't care if they are restricted to daytime hours, no
x-countrys, etc. They can't be safe, esp in airports that have busy
patterns.

The mid-air yesterday: wonder if the person flying the experimental was a
"sport pilot."

I'm seriously surprised that the people here are not appalled at how easy
the FAA has made it for hacks to get into the air.

[[email protected]]

A monkey on the Internet managed to type:

>>>A sport pilot license with just a state issued drivers
license for the medical and just 20 hours of instruction, including 5
solo.... Gimme a break! I don't care if they are restricted to daytime
hours, no
x-countrys, etc. They can't be safe, esp in airports that have busy
patterns.<<<

And you know this based on what? All your time in the air instructing?
Trolling on r.a.p. doesn't make you an expert. The minimums for the PPL
are 40hrs, but only a handful of people complete it in that time; the
20hr requirement for the SPL is also a minimum. Most will probably take
longer to get it done. It's the instructor's discretion when the
student is ready for the checkride.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-02-09, Skylune > wrote:
> I'm seriously surprised that the people here are not appalled at how easy
> the FAA has made it for hacks to get into the air.

More regulation and red tape does not a safer system make.

The training standards in Britain for private pilots is MUCH "higher"
(the depth of knowlege required deeper, the difficulty in obtaining the
PPL harder) than in the United States. Yet paradoxically, GA is safer in
the United States.

There comes a point when adding further regulation or difficulty
actually makes things *less* safe. In my opinion, the FAA is doing a
pretty good job with certification.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Robert M. Gary]

> I'm seriously surprised that the people here are not appalled at how easy
> the FAA has made it for hacks to get into the air.

On what information do you base the assertion that sport pilots will be
less safe?

-Robert

[Jose]

> [sport pilots] can't be safe, esp in airports that have busy
> patterns.

Are drivers safe, esp on freeways with busy traffic?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Terry]

If you are so afraid, Mr. Lune, just keep looking up and make sure you
stay away from little airports. Stick with the big planes that manage to
kill about 100+ folks each time they go boom.



Skylune wrote:
> by John R > Feb 8, 2006 at 11:12 PM
>
>
> "The consequences are, you're going to miss some things," said Gene
> Doub, a former NTSB accident investigator who teaches at University of
> Southern California. "Every one of these are not just dumb pilots. Some
> are airspace-system or training issues or airworthiness issues."<<
>
> "Training issues" indeed. I went on the EAA website yesterday for the
> first time. A sport pilot license with just a state issued drivers
> license for the medical and just 20 hours of instruction, including 5
> solo.
>
> Gimme a break! I don't care if they are restricted to daytime hours, no
> x-countrys, etc. They can't be safe, esp in airports that have busy
> patterns.
>
> The mid-air yesterday: wonder if the person flying the experimental was a
> "sport pilot."
>
> I'm seriously surprised that the people here are not appalled at how easy
> the FAA has made it for hacks to get into the air.
>
>
>
>

[Mark T. Dame]

Skylune wrote:
>
> "Training issues" indeed. I went on the EAA website yesterday for the
> first time. A sport pilot license with just a state issued drivers
> license for the medical and just 20 hours of instruction, including 5
> solo.
>
> Gimme a break! I don't care if they are restricted to daytime hours, no
> x-countrys, etc. They can't be safe, esp in airports that have busy
> patterns.

By the time you have 20 hours you should be able to safely fly the
plane. The rest of the training revolves around night and cross country
flying, which are not applicable to Sport Pilots. Additionally, as
others stated, if you aren't ready to take the checkride in 20 hours,
your instructor won't sign you off. When it comes right down to it, in
CAVU conditions, pilots with fresh tickets tend to be safer than pilots
with many years of "experience". Most bad pilots are pilots that don't
fly very much. For example, a pilot may have been flying for twenty
years, but may only have 200 hours. And 60-70 of that in the first year
because that's when he was getting his ticket.

I don't have any stats in front of me with the average number of hours
flown by private pilots every year, but for many, it's less than an hour
or two a month. If given the choice between riding with a random pilot
with a fresh ticket and one with twenty years of "experience" (no other
information known), I would choose the fresh pilot.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"To fly is heavenly, to hover is divine."