Follow up: Was "State of GA Safety"

[[email protected]]

Just a follow-on to my post from 3/9 about GA safety & accident stats
re Nall report.

I read today on AvWeb that 2005 accidents were up according to the
NTSB. Total aircraft accidents were up vs 2004 figures, but fatalities
were significantly decreased. As far as the GA segment, the following
article (on AvWeb) says "GA crash stats rise significantly for 2005"
but doesn't elaborate on what the totals were.

So, maybe my perception of a higher than normal accident rate was not
unfounded?

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/598-full.html#191800

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Just a follow-on to my post from 3/9 about GA safety & accident stats
> re Nall report.
>
> I read today on AvWeb that 2005 accidents were up according to the
> NTSB. Total aircraft accidents were up vs 2004 figures, but fatalities
> were significantly decreased. As far as the GA segment, the following
> article (on AvWeb) says "GA crash stats rise significantly for 2005"
> but doesn't elaborate on what the totals were.
>
> So, maybe my perception of a higher than normal accident rate was not
> unfounded?
>
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/598-full.html#191800


The numbers are on the AOPA site. The 3.1 percent increase in total GA
accidents was insignificant over 2004. 2004 was the safest in recent
history which makes 2005 look very good. The accident rate in 2005 was
below normal.

GA fatalities increased by 7 or 2.2 percent over 2004. Again a very safe
year compared to the norm.

Now I remember why I dumped AVWEB soon after it was sold. I am not going to
read the AVWEB article but it looks like they got everything wrong.

[[email protected]]

I went to the AOPA site and saw the headline "NTSB: 2005 another safe
year for GA". And yet AvWeb says GA crash stats rise significantly for
2005. By 2.2% (fatalities). WTF?

>>>>Now I remember why I dumped AVWEB soon after it was sold. I am not going to read the AVWEB article but it looks like they got everything wrong<<<<

Hard to argue with that. (scratching head)

[Skylune]

by " > Mar 20, 2006 at 10:49 AM


I went to the AOPA site and saw the headline "NTSB: 2005 another safe
year for GA". And yet AvWeb says GA crash stats rise significantly for
2005. By 2.2% (fatalities). WTF?

<<

WTF indeed. AOPA does not report on reality. It is about as factual as
the old Iraqi Information Minister.

[[email protected]]

>>>WTF indeed. AOPA does not report on reality. It is about as factual as
the old Iraqi Information Minister.<<<

You are assuming (naturally) AOPA's numbers are wrong. If anything, it
is AvWeb's reporting of the new figures that's in question. They (AW)
consider a 2.2% increase "significant". AOPA (quoting NTSB stats)
reported a 3.1% increase in total GA accidents for 2005 vs 2004 - a
slight reversal of the record low in '04 - I don't think that qualifies
for "Baghdad Bob" status...

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Just a follow-on to my post from 3/9 about GA safety & accident stats
>> re Nall report.
>>
>> I read today on AvWeb that 2005 accidents were up according to the
>> NTSB. Total aircraft accidents were up vs 2004 figures, but fatalities
>> were significantly decreased. As far as the GA segment, the following
>> article (on AvWeb) says "GA crash stats rise significantly for 2005"
>> but doesn't elaborate on what the totals were.
>>
>> So, maybe my perception of a higher than normal accident rate was not
>> unfounded?
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/598-full.html#191800
>
>
> The numbers are on the AOPA site. The 3.1 percent increase in total GA
> accidents was insignificant over 2004. 2004 was the safest in recent
> history which makes 2005 look very good. The accident rate in 2005 was
> below normal.
>
> GA fatalities increased by 7 or 2.2 percent over 2004. Again a very safe
> year compared to the norm.
>
> Now I remember why I dumped AVWEB soon after it was sold. I am not going
> to read the AVWEB article but it looks like they got everything wrong.

Did they mention how much higher the "Miles flown" numbers are?