uh-oh...

Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm


That's priceless!!!

"The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because such
aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect occupants
from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the researchers
wrote.

Either Ralph Nader has a daughter, or MX has a sister.

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm


That's priceless!!!

"The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because such
aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect occupants
from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the researchers
wrote.

Either Ralph Nader has a daughter, or MX has a sister.

I noticed the same thing. I hope nobody got paid to make that not-so-astute
observation...

KB

On Apr 11, 6:27 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Dan Luke" wrote in message

...

Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

That's priceless!!!

"The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because such
aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect occupants
from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the researchers
wrote.

Either Ralph Nader has a daughter, or MX has a sister.

The statistics are no surprise.
I'll bet that private automobile death rates are higher than those for
professionally driven buses, too.

Even basing the statistics on "per passenger mile" isn't quite fair.
Commercial flights, by their nature, are relatively long, or the
passengers would have driven. Many private flights are short and for
fun. You can flap your wings in a Cub all day and get nowhere
compared to a short hop in a 747. Multiply that by a few hundred
passengers, and the statistics are, well, true but worthless.

It might be easier to build GA aircraft better, if it wasn't so durn
expensive to build them in the first place, by the time the regulators
get done with everything.

wrote in message
ps.com...


The statistics are no surprise.
I'll bet that private automobile death rates are higher than those for
professionally driven buses, too.

Even basing the statistics on "per passenger mile" isn't quite fair.
Commercial flights, by their nature, are relatively long, or the
passengers would have driven. Many private flights are short and for
fun. You can flap your wings in a Cub all day and get nowhere
compared to a short hop in a 747. Multiply that by a few hundred
passengers, and the statistics are, well, true but worthless.

It might be easier to build GA aircraft better, if it wasn't so durn
expensive to build them in the first place, by the time the regulators
get done with everything.


Agreed.

I think I saw a couple of points that defeated the purpose of the artical to
me. She stated the statistics were comparable to riding a motorcycle which
doesn't seem to send her running off to save the bike shops, when it seems
to me a lot more people consider them well worth the risk. And she doesn't
mention what an large part of GA accidents are attributed to fuel starvation
and weather. If you are a fair weather pilot like me, and always asure you
have quality fuel and extra reserves, it seems to speak very well for GA to
me.

I wonder what the latest numbers are for GA fatalities due to fuel stavation
and weather? Isn't it about 90%?

"Dan Luke" wrote:
Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm

Here's the link to the original JAMA article (requires registration to read
the article - which I have not yet done myself):

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/297/14/1596

Some of the conclusions mentioned in the article that Dan linked to appear
to be inconsistent with the annual NALL reports; specifically "Not wearing
safety restraints, including lap belts and shoulder restraints, is another
risk factor for pilot death," and "The higher fatality rate for general
aviation crashes may be because such aircraft are not as able to withstand
impact forces and protect occupants from death and severe injury as
commercial aircraft are."

So far as I know, neither of the those two assertions appear to have any
validity. An implication in their claims is that commercial aviation and
general aviation both have a comparable number of accidents per flight hour
but that GA accidents have a higher probability of generating fatalities.
That runs dramatically contrary to statistics I've seen elsewhere.

"Maxwell" wrote:
I wonder what the latest numbers are for GA fatalities due to fuel
stavation and weather? Isn't it about 90%?

Nowhere near that. Time to get your statistics updated! According to the
following source, those two items accounted for about 18%[*] of all
fatalities:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf

(Should be required reading for pilots, IMHO.)
[*] 82.9% * (8.3% + 13.6%) = 18.2%

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:41:29 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

"Maxwell" wrote:
I wonder what the latest numbers are for GA fatalities due to fuel
stavation and weather? Isn't it about 90%?

Nowhere near that. Time to get your statistics updated! According to the
following source, those two items accounted for about 18%[*] of all
fatalities:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf

I did my own study of Cessna 172/210 accidents from 1998 through 2004 (excluding
training accidents)... a bit over 1,000 accidents. Some highlights of my
results:

General Pilot Error 52.5%
Maintenance Error 4.6%
Undetermined Loss of Power 4.7%
Engine Mechanical 3.7%
Fuel System 0.9%
Other Mechanical 4.2%
Fuel Exhaustion/Starvation 8.9%
Carb Ice 1.2%
VFR to IFR 5.2%
Inadequate Preflight 1.6%
Fuel Contamination 0.5%

The "General Pilot Error" basically is the cases where the pilot lost control of
the aircraft (generally during takeoff and landing), misjudged the approach,
stall/spin, etc.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:41:29 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:


"Maxwell" wrote:
I wonder what the latest numbers are for GA fatalities due to fuel
stavation and weather? Isn't it about 90%?

Nowhere near that. Time to get your statistics updated! According to the
following source, those two items accounted for about 18%[*] of all
fatalities:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf


I did my own study of Cessna 172/210 accidents from 1998 through 2004
(excluding
training accidents)... a bit over 1,000 accidents. Some highlights of my
results:


General Pilot Error 52.5%
Maintenance Error 4.6%
Undetermined Loss of Power 4.7%
Engine Mechanical 3.7%
Fuel System 0.9%
Other Mechanical 4.2%
Fuel Exhaustion/Starvation 8.9%
Carb Ice 1.2%
VFR to IFR 5.2%
Inadequate Preflight 1.6%
Fuel Contamination 0.5%

The "General Pilot Error" basically is the cases where the pilot lost
control of
the aircraft (generally during takeoff and landing), misjudged the
approach,
stall/spin, etc.


I thought I might be quoting an urban legend, that's why I invited the
numbers. I knew someone would have them handy. Back when I was learning to
fly in '71, these numbers were a little more difficult to come by. But I did
hear it quoted a lot, often by some of my own CFIs.

I didn't see any numbers on icing, or control failure due to ice though.
Ron, was that part of the General Pilot Error figure, or did it say?

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:21:42 -0500, "Maxwell" wrote:

I didn't see any numbers on icing, or control failure due to ice though.
Ron, was that part of the General Pilot Error figure, or did it say?

The figures I posted was from my own analysis, and covered only non-training
accidents in 172s and 210s from 1998-2004. I didn't find any in-flight icing
accidents of these aircraft in this period, although several due to not removing
frost during preflight.

My process was to download the NTSB reports, read the narrative, and come to my
own conclusion as to the cause. I mostly, but not always, agreed with the
NTSB's probable cause.

Here are the cause categories included in my database:

Engine failures -
Undetermined
Engine Internal
Fuel - Firewall forward
Fuel - Aft of Firewall
Ignition
Fuel Exhaustion/Starvation
Fuel Contamination
Drive system
Oil System
Carburetor Mechanical
Carb Ice
Cooling System
General Pilot Mishandling, including loss of control due to stalls, winds,
other, and unknown.
VFR to IFR
Disorientation
Wake Turbulence
Mechanical Failure
Airframe
Controls
Propeller/spinner
Other
Maneuvering at Low Alt
Failure to Recover from maneuver (deliberate aerobatics)
Pilot Incapacitation
Density Altitude
Manufacturer/Builder error
Maintenance Error
Midair
Control Blockage
Inadequate Preflight
Inexperience
CG or Weight
Fire
Suicide
Controller Error
Undetermined

During my analysis, I would assign an "Initiator" (my equivalent of probable
cause) and check off other categories as secondary/tertiary factors as
appropriate.

The analysis was performed as part of a study of homebuilt accidents, published
in KITPLANES magazine last year. I included the Cessna 172/210 accidents as a
control group.

Ron Wanttaja