If all midair collisions were eliminated...

In article ,
brian whatcott wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft
fatalities
would still happen.

If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be
alive,
based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
justification for eliminating midair collisions? Is there are threshold of
deaths below which efforts to eliminate midair collisions are not
justified?
What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that
offsets
the loss of life that they entail?

If the US road speed limit were reduced from 70 to 65 mph, perhaps
30,000 lives would be saved annually. Isn't that worthwhile?

We have apparently decided NOT.

Because it's utter bull****.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:59:13 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be alive,
based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
justification for eliminating midair collisions?

If it were possible, sure, but many _more_ lives could be saved by
putting the effort elsewhere. It's a matter of allocation of
resources.

The restrictions on flying that an effort to completely eliminate
midairs would mean that pretty much everybody stays on the ground.


--
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

Dana wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:59:13 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be
alive, based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a
sufficient justification for eliminating midair collisions?

If it were possible, sure, but many _more_ lives could be saved by
putting the effort elsewhere. It's a matter of allocation of
resources.

Thank you.

I had originally included that very assessment in my original post but
decided to remove it to allow the statistics to "speak for themselves."

More opinion:
In fact, a review of the Nall Report statistics indicates that a large
majority of fatal fixed wing GA accidents could be categorized as due to
fundamental "improper use of flight controls." I.e. inadequate or rusty
flight skill (or one-time fatal mistakes of otherwise experienced pilots.)
Furthermore, since those causes appear to have dropped to a plateau below
which they appear not to be improving, and considering the high cost of
maintaining and improving those skills, the way I see it the following are
probably true:

1) Improvement in skill level of GA pilots is unlikely to improve in the
future in any cost-effective way. It seems reasonable to assume that the
pilot population already practices its skills as much as it can now afford.
Further improvements in piloting can probably only be made if GA becomes
more "elite" by raising the skill level required. (Though this winnowing of
the pilot population would run contrary to efforts to "Grow GA".)

2) If the GA pilot population is to improve its safety record or to grow in
number without compromising its existing safety record, then given what is
known of the current pilot population capabilities, the current design of
fixed wing aircraft controls must be changed in some fundamental ways.

For example, addition of some machine intelligence in the flight control
systems that takes into account not just pilot demands, but limits to those
demands imposed by the current flight regime, and is active through all
phases of flight so that it aids and/or limits controls to controllable
regimes. The statistics currently indicate a greater probability of human
failure than machine failure, so this seems likely to yield a net reduction
in the accident rate. On the other hand the cost aspect is unknown.

Jim Logajan writes:

For example, addition of some machine intelligence in the flight control
systems that takes into account not just pilot demands, but limits to those
demands imposed by the current flight regime, and is active through all
phases of flight so that it aids and/or limits controls to controllable
regimes.

Automation has its own universe of failure modes that is just as difficult to
eliminate as human error (because it is derived largely from human error), and
digital systems in particular have catastrophic failure modes that human-based
systems do not share. So be careful what you wish for.

In any case, Airbus is trying to embrace the philosophy you espouse, not
always successfully.

And to a significant extent, the greater the automation, the less interesting
the activity. It might be pragmatic to automate commercial flight, but flying
for pleasure would probably suffer from excessive automation.

The statistics currently indicate a greater probability of human
failure than machine failure, so this seems likely to yield a net reduction
in the accident rate.

There are no heavily automated systems to compare to, and existing automation
systems have not been analyzed in detail, as far as I know.

Interesting comments Jim.

And probably quite accurate.

With todays (cheap) technology, some "artifical intelligence" in the
flight controlls is probably possible at an acceptable cost..

This might run contrary to some design philosophies though..

Cirrus perhaps? (flame suit on!)



Dave


On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:32:40 -0600, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Dana wrote:

More opinion:
In fact, a review of the Nall Report statistics indicates that a large
majority of fatal fixed wing GA accidents could be categorized as due to
fundamental "improper use of flight controls." I.e. inadequate or rusty
flight skill (or one-time fatal mistakes of otherwise experienced pilots.)
Furthermore, since those causes appear to have dropped to a plateau below
which they appear not to be improving, and considering the high cost of
maintaining and improving those skills, the way I see it the following are
probably true:

1) Improvement in skill level of GA pilots is unlikely to improve in the
future in any cost-effective way. It seems reasonable to assume that the
pilot population already practices its skills as much as it can now afford.
Further improvements in piloting can probably only be made if GA becomes
more "elite" by raising the skill level required. (Though this winnowing of
the pilot population would run contrary to efforts to "Grow GA".)

2) If the GA pilot population is to improve its safety record or to grow in
number without compromising its existing safety record, then given what is
known of the current pilot population capabilities, the current design of
fixed wing aircraft controls must be changed in some fundamental ways.

For example, addition of some machine intelligence in the flight control
systems that takes into account not just pilot demands, but limits to those
demands imposed by the current flight regime, and is active through all
phases of flight so that it aids and/or limits controls to controllable
regimes. The statistics currently indicate a greater probability of human
failure than machine failure, so this seems likely to yield a net reduction
in the accident rate. On the other hand the cost aspect is unknown.

Dana writes:

If it were possible, sure, but many _more_ lives could be saved by
putting the effort elsewhere. It's a matter of allocation of
resources.

I don't have the numbers, but you're probably right.

The restrictions on flying that an effort to completely eliminate
midairs would mean that pretty much everybody stays on the ground.

True of many safety measures if they are carried to extremes.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Jim Logajan writes:

If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft fatalities
would still happen.

If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, 27 people would still be alive,
based on your own cited statistics. Is saving lives not a sufficient
justification for eliminating midair collisions? Is there are threshold of
deaths below which efforts to eliminate midair collisions are not justified?
What cost is there in attempting to eliminate midair collisions that offsets
the loss of life that they entail?

There is the very obvious cost of expending a n dollars to save one life
when spending it elsewhere would save more than one life.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

Correction!

I wrote:
If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft
fatalities would still happen.

That should be ~97%, not ~99%. Corrected number below.

From Nall Report analysis of U.S. NTSB records:

Total fixed wing GA fatalities:
2002: 518
2003: 555
2004: 510
2005: 491
2006: 488
Total: 2562

Fatalities due to midair collision:
2002: 5

There were 9 fatalities, not 5. There were 5 accidents yielding
fatalities, not 5 fatalities. My misread.

2003: 7

Should be 23.

2004: 6

Should be 10.

2005: 5

Should be 14.

2006: 4

Should be 9.

Total: 27

Should be 65.


http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/04nall.pdf
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/07nall.pdf

On Feb 10, 3:59*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Correction!

I wrote:
If all GA midair collisions were eliminated, ~99% of GA aircraft
fatalities would still happen.

That should be ~97%, not ~99%. Corrected number below.

From Nall Report analysis of U.S. NTSB records:

Total fixed wing GA fatalities:
2002: * 518
2003: * 555
2004: * 510
2005: * 491
2006: * 488
Total: 2562

Fatalities due to midair collision:
2002: * * 5

There were 9 fatalities, not 5. There were 5 accidents yielding
fatalities, not 5 fatalities. My misread.

2003: * * 7

Should be 23.

2004: * * 6

Should be 10.

2005: * * 5

Should be 14.

2006: * * 4

Should be 9.

Total: * 27

Should be 65.





http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/04nall.pdf
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/07nall.pdf- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jim,

Does this factor in that there may have been more then one fatality in
an occurance?

For example using simple numbers, if you had 100 planes and 3
accidents that lead to 9 fatalities that would be 3 percent fatality
rate based on takeoffs. (97 percent safety rating)

Second example, if you had 100 planes and 1 accident that had 9 people
in the plane, you would have a 1 percent fatality rate based on
takeoffs. (99 percent safety rating)

I am not sure what the survival rate in a mid air is but to assume
everybody died in a mid air would be statistically incorrect if you
had survivors in any of your cites.

wrote in message
...

Jim,

Does this factor in that there may have been more then one fatality in
an occurance?

For example using simple numbers, if you had 100 planes and 3
accidents that lead to 9 fatalities that would be 3 percent fatality
rate based on takeoffs. (97 percent safety rating)

Second example, if you had 100 planes and 1 accident that had 9 people
in the plane, you would have a 1 percent fatality rate based on
takeoffs. (99 percent safety rating)

I am not sure what the survival rate in a mid air is but to assume
everybody died in a mid air would be statistically incorrect if you
had survivors in any of your cites.

-------------begin new post---------------

I don't recall the cite, but have read that a very high percentage of mid
air collisions are actually fender benders. It is not at all unusual for
both of the accident aircraft to land safely.

Peter