A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 13th 07, 11:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
C J Campbell[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 799
Default Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation

On 2007-04-13 14:36:11 -0700, Larry Dighera said:

A fine, well thought out article, Larry. However, I maintain (and
always have) that we do not have an image problem. We have a safety
problem. We always have had a safety problem. If we can clean up the
safety problem the image problem will go away.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

  #2  
Old April 14th 07, 11:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:22:56 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote in
2007041315225616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

On 2007-04-13 14:36:11 -0700, Larry Dighera said:

A fine, well thought out article, Larry.


That is indeed a complement coming from "The World's Greatest Flight
Instructor." :-) Thanks.

However, I maintain (and always have) that we do not have an image problem.


When the main stream news media, like Time magazine, prints a
full-page promotional advertisement showing small aircraft juxtaposed
against nuclear generating plant condensation towers with the caption,
"Remember when only environmentalists would have been alarmed by this
photograph?", GA has an obvious image problem. GA is being used by
the news media as a scapegoat to capture readers/viewers through
sensational yellow journalism. The lay public is exposed to such
slurs continually, and their attitude toward GA is made unnecessarily
fearful and resentful as a result.

It's time GA realized it is being targeted unfairly in the news media,
and hold them accountable for their libelous marketing ploy. What's
it going to take to rouse the ire of GA stakeholders?

We have a safety
problem. We always have had a safety problem. If we can clean up the
safety problem the image problem will go away.


I disagree with your conclusion.

Aviation is dangerous. There is no question of that. And it's more
dangerous the closer to the ground you fly, and in the more weather
you traverse, and the closer to the boundaries of the aircraft's
flight performance envelope you operate. Those, and many of the other
causes of fatal accidents mentioned in the JAMA article, contribute to
GA's rather consistent fatality rate over the decades.

The reason for the consistency is, because until now, the government
has recognized the citizens' right to aerial navigation, and has not
attempted to encroach on it. That may be changing.

Now that the airline transport manufacturers have realized that there
is finite capacity for air traffic within the NAS, they are
aggressively looking for ways to manage the entire aviation circus
from construction and maintenance of the vehicles, to control and
ultimately, regulation of airspace and aircraft certification. It's
time we started asking, "What is a reasonable limit for air traffic
density over the CONUS?" Otherwise, GA will be crowded out of the
skies by airline traffic as aircraft manufacturers have to put their
products someplace.

So the GA fatality rate is largely a result of the kinds of flying
that GA does. With a few exceptions, the logical way to reduce the
"public safety concern" is to restrict some of the more hazardous (non
airline) aircraft operations. Consider this bit of "information":

Besides being a public safety concern, general aviation intersects
with medicine directly in at least 2 ways. First, transporting
patients from crash sites and between medical facilities is more
hazardous than generally recognized, and EMS flight crew members
have an occupational injury death rate that is 15 times the
average for all occupations.20 Despite 1 EMS helicopter in 3 being
likely to crash during a life span of 15 years, few EMS
helicopters have crash-resistant fuel systems.20 Second, physician
pilots crash at a higher rate per flight hour than other pilots.25
It is possible that physicians are more likely than other pilots
to buy high-performance aircraft that require more time for
mastery than their schedules may allow. In addition, physicians
may take risks (eg, fly when fatigued or in bad weather) in order
to meet the demands of a busy medical practice. From 1986 through
2005, a total of 816 physician and dentist pilots were involved in
general aviation crashes; of them, 270 (33%) were fatally injured.
Physician and dentist pilots accounted for 1.6% of all general
aviation crashes and 3.0% of pilot fatalities (Carol Floyd, BS,
National Transportation Safety Board, written communication,
February 2, 2007).

GA is a public safety concern only to those who exercise their right
to risk their personal wellbeing of their own free volition, much as
today's volunteer soldier does. If the good doctor is able to suggest
_viable_ solutions to the fatal accident causes he cites, I fully
support and applaud his contribution. But I am skeptical. It would
seem, that if no further safety enhancements have been
discovered/implemented to reduce the GA fatality rate in decades, it
is unlikely that they can be found and implemented.

  #3  
Old April 15th 07, 02:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Blueskies
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 979
Default Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation


:
: GA is a public safety concern only to those who exercise their right
: to risk their personal wellbeing of their own free volition, much as
: today's volunteer soldier does. If the good doctor is able to suggest
: _viable_ solutions to the fatal accident causes he cites, I fully
: support and applaud his contribution. But I am skeptical. It would
: seem, that if no further safety enhancements have been
: discovered/implemented to reduce the GA fatality rate in decades, it
: is unlikely that they can be found and implemented.
:

I just went through the FITS program intro yesterday (http://www.faa.gov/education_research/training/fits/). It
describes a scenario based flight instruction syllabus as opposed to a maneuver based syllabus. Most accidents in
aviation, especially GA, are the result of pilot error. This FITS approach attempts to modify decision making to steer
the pilot towards a less risky outcome. It was a good program, but the data are tentative,,,


  #4  
Old April 16th 07, 06:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:16:00 -0400, "Blueskies"
wrote in
:


I just went through the FITS program intro yesterday (http://www.faa.gov/education_research/training/fits/). It
describes a scenario based flight instruction syllabus as opposed to a maneuver based syllabus.


FAA-Industry Training Standards (FITS)
All FITS products are non-regulatory and incentive driven. FITS is
focused on the redesign of general aviation training. Instead of
training pilots to pass practical test, FITS focuses on expertly
manage real-world challenges. Scenario based training is used to
enhance the GA pilots’ aeronautical decision making, risk
management, and single pilot resource management skills. We do
this without compromising basic stick and rudder skills.


Presenting maneuvers in context sounds like a step in the right
direction. I've often thought, that there needs to be more emphasis
on the pilot's role in various situations, particularly with regard to
social pressure's influence on the PIC's decision making process.

Most accidents in aviation, especially GA, are the result of pilot error.
This FITS approach attempts to modify decision making to steer
the pilot towards a less risky outcome. It was a good program, but the data are tentative,,,


It's always good to see improvement of age-old techniques.

Thanks for the information. I'll work it into my critique.

  #5  
Old April 16th 07, 11:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
C J Campbell[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 799
Default Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation

On 2007-04-16 10:21:19 -0700, Larry Dighera said:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:16:00 -0400, "Blueskies"
wrote in
:


I just went through the FITS program intro yesterday
(http://www.faa.gov/education_research/training/fits/). It
describes a scenario based flight instruction syllabus as opposed to a
maneuver based syllabus.


FAA-Industry Training Standards (FITS)
All FITS products are non-regulatory and incentive driven. FITS is
focused on the redesign of general aviation training. Instead of
training pilots to pass practical test, FITS focuses on expertly
manage real-world challenges. Scenario based training is used to
enhance the GA pilots’ aeronautical decision making, risk
management, and single pilot resource management skills. We do
this without compromising basic stick and rudder skills.


Presenting maneuvers in context sounds like a step in the right
direction. I've often thought, that there needs to be more emphasis
on the pilot's role in various situations, particularly with regard to
social pressure's influence on the PIC's decision making process.

Most accidents in aviation, especially GA, are the result of pilot error.
This FITS approach attempts to modify decision making to steer
the pilot towards a less risky outcome. It was a good program, but the
data are tentative,,,


It's always good to see improvement of age-old techniques.

Thanks for the information. I'll work it into my critique.


I like the FITS program. It does take more effort, but it should teach
far better decision making skills.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

  #6  
Old April 17th 07, 12:26 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Blueskies
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 979
Default Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2007041615590275249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
: On 2007-04-16 10:21:19 -0700, Larry Dighera said:
:
: On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:16:00 -0400, "Blueskies"
: wrote in
: :
:
:
: I just went through the FITS program intro yesterday
: (http://www.faa.gov/education_research/training/fits/). It
: describes a scenario based flight instruction syllabus as opposed to a
: maneuver based syllabus.
:
: FAA-Industry Training Standards (FITS)
: All FITS products are non-regulatory and incentive driven. FITS is
: focused on the redesign of general aviation training. Instead of
: training pilots to pass practical test, FITS focuses on expertly
: manage real-world challenges. Scenario based training is used to
: enhance the GA pilots' aeronautical decision making, risk
: management, and single pilot resource management skills. We do
: this without compromising basic stick and rudder skills.
:
:
: Presenting maneuvers in context sounds like a step in the right
: direction. I've often thought, that there needs to be more emphasis
: on the pilot's role in various situations, particularly with regard to
: social pressure's influence on the PIC's decision making process.
:
: Most accidents in aviation, especially GA, are the result of pilot error.
: This FITS approach attempts to modify decision making to steer
: the pilot towards a less risky outcome. It was a good program, but the
: data are tentative,,,
:
:
: It's always good to see improvement of age-old techniques.
:
: Thanks for the information. I'll work it into my critique.
:
: I like the FITS program. It does take more effort, but it should teach
: far better decision making skills.
: --
: Waddling Eagle
: World Famous Flight Instructor
:

Yes, I really enjoyed the program. It put definition to what I have been doing, and in fact for higher level ratings,
the total time to certification is lower (again, small data set).



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For those in General Aviation. Darren Aviation Marketplace 0 October 7th 05 04:42 AM
For those in General Aviation. Darren Instrument Flight Rules 0 October 7th 05 04:42 AM
Landing Critique Marco Leon Piloting 15 September 10th 05 05:29 PM
Naval Aviation Museum Risk RA-5C Naval Aviation 7 September 18th 04 05:41 AM
ENHANCED AVIATION SECURITY PACKAGE ANNOUNCED (All "General Aviation Pilots" to Pay $200.00 every two years!) www.agacf.org Piloting 4 December 21st 03 09:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.