Reducing the Accident Rate

"Icebound" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...


Weather as a factor in about 360, but only about 120 or so "IMC", most
others are wind, carb-icing, and density altitude.

But fatal accidents disproportionately involve weather.

And lots of "power related" accidents are truly fuel exhaustion.

And most power-reltaed "accidents" are not fatals.

Weather and pilot judgment remain the biggest potentially fixable issues.

I also strongly suspect that lots of "power related" accidents are related
to owners who are marginally able to afford to maintain their airplanes
optimally. I wonder how much of supposed turbine engine reliability is
related to the turbine engine itself vs. to open-checkbook by-the-book
maintenance.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
Weather and pilot judgment remain the biggest potentially fixable issues.

Frankly, I think that's only true if we accept that the aircraft are
not going to improve. Highway fatality rates have improved
dramatically in the last few decades, and it is generally accepted
that the improvements are almost wholly due to the cars, not the
drivers.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...


Frankly, I think that's only true if we accept that the aircraft are
not going to improve. Highway fatality rates have improved

Well airbags in seatbelts are one nice up and coming possibility for a
safety improvement.

Perhaps terrain avoidance systems can help prevent CFIT accidents, but is
that an airplane improvement or a pilot improvement?

Perhaps weather datalink can help reduce weather accidents, but really that
is providing info to the pilot, not improving the airplane per se.

In any event, it will take a really long time for this to trickle down to
the majority of the GA fleet... airplanes have a much longer average useful
life than cars.

Economics has a lot to do with this of course... there is no doubt in my
mind that adding TKS to all GA airplanes would significantly reduce icing
accidents... but that is not practical.

So I do think focusing on pilots is more important than focusing on
airplanes. And weather/judgment by far cause a disproportionate number of
accidents and have for years.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
Well airbags in seatbelts are one nice up and coming possibility for a
safety improvement.

Why go so far? The reality is that a huge chunk of the fleet is still
flying around without shoulder harnesses. Ever wonder why? I don't.
I've installed two sets. Both were ridiculously expensive and poorly
designed. Why? FAA.

Perhaps terrain avoidance systems can help prevent CFIT accidents, but is
that an airplane improvement or a pilot improvement?

It's an airplane improvement. While it's always the pilot's
responsibility to avoid terrain, the truth is that no pilot (suicides
excepted) ever intentionally pointed his airplane at terrain. The
easier it is to maintain situational awareness, the less likely the
pilot is to do it.

In fact, I believe the whole issue of workload deserves a lot more
consideration. The more a pilot has to do, the more likely he is to
make a mistake. Do you realize that every car sold in the past 10
years has highly reliable, very efficient FADEC with single-lever
control? Why are they a rartiy on airplanes? FAA.

Perhaps weather datalink can help reduce weather accidents, but really that
is providing info to the pilot, not improving the airplane per se.

But it is improving the airplane. Pilots do not intentionally fly
into weather they can't handle. They fly into weather they think they
can handle, and they are wrong - IMO usually about the weather, not
their capabilities. The more accurate, timely, and user-friendly the
weather-update system becomes, the less likely pilots will be to make
these mistakes.

In any event, it will take a really long time for this to trickle down to
the majority of the GA fleet... airplanes have a much longer average useful
life than cars.

Why? FAA.

Economics has a lot to do with this of course... there is no doubt in my
mind that adding TKS to all GA airplanes would significantly reduce icing
accidents... but that is not practical.

Why not? Frankly, there's just not that much to the system. Most of
the system cost is regulatory compliance. In other words, FAA.

So I do think focusing on pilots is more important than focusing on
airplanes.

No, I think that's the wrong focus. If we're going to make a major
effort to address a systemic problem, it should be the correct
systemic problem. The FAA.

Michael

Michael wrote:

Frankly, I think that's only true if we accept that the aircraft are
not going to improve. Highway fatality rates have improved
dramatically in the last few decades, and it is generally accepted
that the improvements are almost wholly due to the cars, not the
drivers.

All of the improvements in automobile safety come with a weight penalty. There's not
a whole lot of room to improve aircraft in this way without cutting the carrying
capacity of each plane by significant amounts.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
All of the improvements in automobile safety come with a weight penalty.

In other words, everything weighs something. That's actually not true
- software weighs nothing.

In any case - today's cars are both safer AND lighter than they were
40 years ago, or even 20. I suppose they could be lighter still if
they weren't any safer, but obviously if you allow modern technology
to be used without having to prove to a federal bureaucrat who doesn't
understand it that it's acceptable, you can reduce weight AND improve
safety.

Michael

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...


and a long-time CFI. But his "solution" is to have a one-day
course, associated with the National Convention, in which
pilots pay a hefty fee ($100-$200) for 'recurrant training'
done by "national names".

I think perhaps a much more relevant and successful approach would be to
have this course be relevant to your specific airplane type.

Whether the program is done by a "national name" or not, how about a
specific review of accidents related to your airplane type and then a
discussion of how those accidents can be prevented?

This seems to me to be more "doable" than a generic "aviation safety"
program and it also seems to me that this would be more relevant to your
particular type association.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message ...
"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
and a long-time CFI. But his "solution" is to have a one-day
course, associated with the National Convention, in which
pilots pay a hefty fee ($100-$200) for 'recurrant training'
done by "national names".

I think perhaps a much more relevant and successful approach would be to
have this course be relevant to your specific airplane type.

Well, I'm hazy on the details, but I think the idea is to somehow have
it be more "Grumman Specific".

The thing is:
1) something like 10% of the membership attends the convention
2) of that 10%, I think the fraction likely to pay $100 to attend
a safety seminar are likely to be the fraction most interested
in safety/recurrant training in any case.

Our type club already has an excellent pilot familiarization program
taught by type-familiar CFIs all over the country. I believe many of
the accidents involve pilots who either don't avail themselves of the
program, or who did so years ago (and have forgotten or gotten rusty
on what they learned).

I don't have great ideas, just the hunch a safety seminar may be a
good and useful thing, but I don't think it's going to address the
overall accident rate for our type (or any type) too much.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...

I don't have great ideas, just the hunch a safety seminar may be a
good and useful thing, but I don't think it's going to address the
overall accident rate for our type (or any type) too much.

This is true of most recurrent training. It can be extremely helpful to
increase airplane utilization and/or improve safety for the self-selected
group which chooses to attend, but that is probably not a large enough group
from which to gather statistics. But addressing the overall accident rate
would require addressing pilot attitudes and also would probably require a
more realistic assessment by pilots of how much money they should spend on
maintenance -- both are uphill battles not likely to be won in a safety
seminar.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message ...
"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
I don't have great ideas, just the hunch a safety seminar may be a
good and useful thing, but I don't think it's going to address the
overall accident rate for our type (or any type) too much.

This is true of most recurrent training. It can be extremely helpful to
increase airplane utilization and/or improve safety for the self-selected
group which chooses to attend, but that is probably not a large enough group
from which to gather statistics. But addressing the overall accident rate
would require addressing pilot attitudes and also would probably require a
more realistic assessment by pilots of how much money they should spend on
maintenance -- both are uphill battles not likely to be won in a safety
seminar.

For our type anyway, supposedly the accidents can be traced to pilot
judgement.

It's a pretty simple aircraft to maintain, anyway, Sen. Inhofe's propeller
notwithstanding. That was a simple case of his A&Ps not following the
maint. manual procedure, not of insufficient money on maint.

Cheers,
Sydney