Accidents - correlation and causation?

Seen in Avweb's AvFlash:

[begin quote]
CRASH STATISTICS, FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
According to the AP's research, pilots older than 50 were involved in
55.8 percent of accidents over a five-year period even though they
constitute only 36.8 percent of certificated pilots. And, apparently,
the
older a pilot gets, the greater the risk. Pilots between the ages of 50
and 59 had 26.4 percent of accidents, marginally higher than their
percentage of the pilot population, which is about 22.1 percent, but
those 60 and older had 23.6 percent of accidents even though they make
up
only 14.7 percent of certificated pilots. The research also determined
that those under 50 consistently had proportionately fewer accidents
throughout the five-year sample period. More...
[end quote]

The main article goes on to say that pretty much anything other than age
was not factored into the report.

I'm just wondering - yet another questionable analysis? (I have no axe
to grind, it's still a couple of decades until I'm considered 'an older
pilot')

In particular:
- In the set of pilots between 20 and 50, perhaps a larger proportion of
those pilots are professional pilots flying for the airlines, where
the accident rates are lower and 2-pilot crews are the norm.
- In the set of pilots aged 50 and over, perhaps many more flight hours
are being flown by this group in GA aircraft because (a) they have the
time and (b) they are more likely to have the money - since their time
and money are less likely to be soaked up by child-rearing.
- as AvWeb pointed out, perhaps older GA pilots (generally having more
money) are flying faster machinery that is more likely to result in a
fatality when the angle of arrival is too steep.

I'd like to see it normalised particularly for flight hours and limited
to GA pilots only before I could draw any conclusions at all for a study
such as this. I don't think it carries much weight at all.

--
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

I'd like to see it normalised particularly for flight hours and limited
to GA pilots only before I could draw any conclusions at all for a study
such as this. I don't think it carries much weight at all.

Agreed -- but the general public won't see it that way. All they'll retain
is "old pilots crash", and move on to the NCAA tourney headlines...

I find it appalling that the average age of pilots is now 47 -- my age!
Man, if that's not an indication of the relative health (or, rather, the
lack thereof) of General Aviation, I'm not sure what is. We need to get a
few hundred thousand 20-something-year-olds in the fold to ensure that GA
(as we know it) is around in another 20 years.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:WFyTf.39506$oL.27969@attbi_s71...
snip
I find it appalling that the average age of pilots is now 47 -- my age!
Man, if that's not an indication of the relative health (or, rather, the
lack thereof) of General Aviation, I'm not sure what is. We need to get
a few hundred thousand 20-something-year-olds in the fold to ensure that
GA (as we know it) is around in another 20 years.
--
Jay Honeck

You're absolutely right about getting the younger crowd to participate in
Aviation. If you think flying is expensive now, wait until all those "old
farts" retire and FBO's, airframe manufacturers, etc. have to spread their
costs out over even fewer units. A $15,000 engine rebuild will seem like a
real bargain then.

Unfortunately, the FBO's I see are being used as corporate pilot training
centers, where the CFI's are all 25 and are motivated to build hours so they
can get a job with a commuter airline. In addtion to the lack of continuity
with the instructors (most don't last 6 months before they move to something
bigger and better), the FBO's seem to have a very short term horizon.
Instead of working to minimize the cost of getting a pilot's license so they
will have more customers over the long term, our local FBO's charge steep
prices for PPSEL training and C-152 rentals. In the end, the 22 year old
who is interested in flying makes a visit to the FBO, "does the math", and
realizes that a PPSEL is out of financial reach. S/he never comes back.

It seems that the GA "industry" would realize that the key to the industry's
long term health is creating enough pilots so the industry is sustainable
over the long term.

Your local GA field is going to be a far different place in 20 years unless
something changes.

KB

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:32:57 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote in
::


You're absolutely right about getting the younger crowd to participate in
Aviation.
[...]
In the end, the 22 year old who is interested in flying makes a visit to
the FBO, "does the math", and realizes that a PPSEL is out of financial
reach. S/he never comes back.


That's because wealth is usually acquired later in life.

Today the ultralight and powered parachute equipment provides the
aviation minded youth the means of flight without benefit of
examination nor unrealistic cost. Later, when s/he can better afford
the expense, the option is always open for flight instruction and FAA
certificate.

So, if you're truly interested in swelling the ranks of airmen,
consider soliciting recruits with advertising targeted to them in
publications that serve the ultralight segment of aviation.

[...]

Your local GA field is going to be a far different place in 20 years unless
something changes.


If SATS is eventually implemented nationwide, the municipal airports
will become an integral part of airline transportation feeding
passengers into international hubs, instead of exclusively serving
training and recreational flying.

If SATS is eventually implemented nationwide, the municipal airports
will become an integral part of airline transportation feeding
passengers into international hubs, instead of exclusively serving
training and recreational flying.

That won't happen without a re-thinking of "airline security". That
re-thinking could go either way, but given the path of money, I wouldn't
bet on our way.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:32:57 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote in
::


You're absolutely right about getting the younger crowd to participate in
Aviation.
[...]
In the end, the 22 year old who is interested in flying makes a visit to
the FBO, "does the math", and realizes that a PPSEL is out of financial
reach. S/he never comes back.


That's because wealth is usually acquired later in life.

Today the ultralight and powered parachute equipment provides the
aviation minded youth the means of flight without benefit of
examination nor unrealistic cost. Later, when s/he can better afford
the expense, the option is always open for flight instruction and FAA
certificate.

snip

My experience is that the ultralight crowd (no experience with the powered
'chute crowd) is that it looks a whole lot like the rest of the GA crowd.
Average age of 50 or more, white, and male. From my vantage point, it
appears that one type person who flys U/L's (or illegal U/L's) is someone
who wants to continue flying but can't afford (or doesn't want to pay for)
an aircraft that burns 8 gph of $4/gallon fuel. The other group I see
flying UL's and Sport Pilot aircraft are guys who are on the back side of
the health curve and either know or fear that they wouldn't pass an aviation
physical.

I simply don't see young people (30) at the airport, unless they are young
CFI's or guys making $8/hr driving the fuel truck.

KB

Kyle Boatright wrote:

I simply don't see young people (30) at the airport, unless they are
young CFI's or guys making $8/hr driving the fuel truck.

well, the money issue has already been discussed, but there is
another issue that might drive said young crowd away from GA, even
the wealthy kids, and that I don't think you can really fix: GA is
not for the 'instant gratification' crowd; the learning process is
long and takes a certain amount of dedication that today's youger
ones are not ready to undertake, even those who could easily
afford it (I live in the Silicon Valley, there are plenty of
rich 20 something -- you see them sometimes poping up at the local
airport, ask a few questions, may be take a ride, but rarely coming
back); there are so many other avenues (sport cars/bikes,
'extreme' sports, the kind you see on mtv, etc.) that makes
it possible for them to get instant gratification and show off with
a limited amount of personal investment/learning (as compared to what's
required for GA), that it is difficult for GA to compete...

--Sylvain

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:

I'd like to see it normalised particularly for flight hours and limited
to GA pilots only

bingo!

before I could draw any conclusions at all for a study
such as this. I don't think it carries much weight at all.

Before anyone can draw a VALID conclusion.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:

- In the set of pilots aged 50 and over, perhaps many more flight hours
are being flown by this group in GA aircraft because (a) they have the
time and (b) they are more likely to have the money - since their time
and money are less likely to be soaked up by child-rearing.

I think that pretty much explains it.