Reducing the Accident Rate

"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

In article ,
(Michael) wrote:

[snip]
Why? FAA.

[snip]
Why are they a rartiy on airplanes? FAA.

[snip]
Why? FAA.

[snip]
In other words, FAA.

[snip]
it should be the correct
systemic problem. The FAA.

wow! no other causes?

hmmmm, if the FAA is the problem, then
why aren't aircraft in other nations safer?

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Michael) wrote:

[snip]
Why? FAA.

[snip]
Why are they a rartiy on airplanes? FAA.

[snip]
Why? FAA.

[snip]
In other words, FAA.

[snip]
it should be the correct
systemic problem. The FAA.

wow! no other causes?

hmmmm, if the FAA is the problem, then
why aren't aircraft in other nations safer?

--
Bob Noel

Two reasons:

1. Most nations fly planes designed to meet FAA regulations or planes built
in the US which obviously implies they are built to meet FAA regulations.
2. Most nations pattern their aviation agency after the FAA.

Dave Stadt wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
hmmmm, if the FAA is the problem, then
why aren't aircraft in other nations safer?

--
Bob Noel

Two reasons:

1. Most nations fly planes designed to meet FAA regulations or planes built
in the US which obviously implies they are built to meet FAA regulations.
2. Most nations pattern their aviation agency after the FAA.

Most nations built their agencies long before the U.S. had anything of the sort. Even
if your argument were true in all respects, we can simply check out the safety record
in the former Soviet Union. Their agencies and aircraft were developed completely
independently of ours.

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

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
Most nations built their agencies long before the U.S. had anything of the sort. Even
if your argument were true in all respects, we can simply check out the safety record
in the former Soviet Union. Their agencies and aircraft were developed completely
independently of ours.

While the Soviet Union existed, it had absolutely no crashes of
privately owned aircraft at all. Not one.

Michael

In article ,
(Michael) wrote:

[snip]
Why? FAA.

[snip]
Why are they a rartiy on airplanes? FAA.

[snip]
Why? FAA.

[snip]
In other words, FAA.

[snip]
it should be the correct
systemic problem. The FAA.

Michael, I sometimes feel like I must live in a parallel universe
to you. In your universe, the FAA is the root of all evil, their
employees are all bureaucrats without technical understanding, all
accident investigations are worthless, WINGS and other safety seminars
are useless, and CFIs are almost uniformly incompetent.

In the world I live in, things aren't nearly so black-and-white.

Cheers,
Sydney

(Snowbird) wrote
Michael, I sometimes feel like I must live in a parallel universe
to you. In your universe, the FAA is the root of all evil, their
employees are all bureaucrats without technical understanding, all
accident investigations are worthless, WINGS and other safety seminars
are useless, and CFIs are almost uniformly incompetent.

Well, I'm glad you used at least one qualifier - almost uniformly - to
describe my world. You should have used more, because really you came
up with a straw man argument.

In the world I live in, things aren't nearly so black-and-white.

Nor are they in mine. Do I think the FAA is the root of ALL evil?
No, but I think it's the single biggest safety problem in personal
aviation. That's not to say there are not others, but it makes sense
to tackle the biggest problem first. Do I think all FAA employees are
bureaucrats without technical understanding - no, but that's the
majority. Interestingly, there is at least one person I know who has
a lower opinion of FAA engineering competence than I do. He designs
electronic components for GA aircraft for a living. I've bought some
of them, and I'm way more impressed with them than I am with anything
the FAA ever did. Do I think ALL accident investigations are
worthless? No, but given the ones where I have first hand knowledge,
it's clearly more the rule than the exception. Do I believe ALL WINGS
and other safety seminars are useless? Clearly not, since I've
mentioned that there were at least a couple I attended where I learned
useful things. That doesn't change my opinion of the majority of
them. Do I belive CFIs are almost uniformly incompetent? No, I
belive the level of incompetence is highly variable, a minority are
actually competent for the kind of instruction they do, and a tiny
percentage are actually very good.

But just because it's never all black or all white, it's a mistake to
say it's all shades of gray. At some point you have to say it's close
enough to black or white. The FAA's long term contribution to
personal aviation safety has been overwhelmingly negative. Does it
mean the FAA never did anything positive? Of course not. Is it
different for commercial aviation? Maybe. Probably. I don't care.
We're not discussing how we can reduce the accident rate in commercial
operations but private ones, therefore for the purposes of this
discussion only the FAA's impact on private operations matters.

You can't fix the problem unless you correctly identify it. One of
the first rules of fixing problems in large groups is this - if the
problem is widespread, it's a problem with the process, not the
people.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

Why? FAA.

I say again... The FAA has few limitations on experimental airplanes.

Why hasn't someone developed an experimental airplane with a stellar safety
record by addressing all the safety issues you mentioned which are being
thrwarted by the FAA?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com