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

"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).

Larry Dighera wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
What is your feeling about my disclosing the hazard statistic for VFR
into IMC for un-rated/not-current pilots?

I concur with Neil Gould's response to your question.

Their statistics look okay to me, though I'm not sure where they get
the 6%. From their two NTSB references, out of 34 accidents listed for
CFR 121 carriers, 3 had fatalities (~9%) and out of 1669 GA accidents,
321 had fatalities (~19%). Averaging over the last several N years may
yield ~6%. Maybe they did that.

The point I was attempting to make, was that during the sample period
cited airline travel was diminished by the 9/11 influence, and that as
a result, it is reasonable to expect the number of airline fatalities
to be less than it was during a period of higher airline travel rates.
Am I mission your point?

I think my fundamental point is that their statistics are already
normalized (that is, made insensitive to the changes in amount of traffic
post-9/11.). So your original statement "...that statistic may be
misleading," isn't necessarily accurate.

However, it occurs to me the single biggest problem with their use of the
fatality rate statistic is that the normalization factor, the count of all
_reported_ accidents, probably isn't comparable for GA and airlines. There
may be reason to suspect that the count of non-fatal GA accidents is
underreported compared to airlines.

Furthermore, restraints systems in many small aircraft are already
superior to those found on airlines.

Ummm. I don't recall seeing any shoulder restraints on airline
seating.

Me neither. If the fatality rate on airlines is lower than smaller
aircraft, and those smaller aircraft already have superior restraints, then
agitating for improvements along these lines is pretty silly of them.

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:02:46 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
What is your feeling about my disclosing the hazard statistic for VFR
into IMC for un-rated/not-current pilots?

I concur with Neil Gould's response to your question.

Their statistics look okay to me, though I'm not sure where they get
the 6%. From their two NTSB references, out of 34 accidents listed for
CFR 121 carriers, 3 had fatalities (~9%) and out of 1669 GA accidents,
321 had fatalities (~19%). Averaging over the last several N years may
yield ~6%. Maybe they did that.

The point I was attempting to make, was that during the sample period
cited airline travel was diminished by the 9/11 influence, and that as
a result, it is reasonable to expect the number of airline fatalities
to be less than it was during a period of higher airline travel rates.
Am I mission your point?

I think my fundamental point is that their statistics are already
normalized (that is, made insensitive to the changes in amount of traffic
post-9/11.). So your original statement "...that statistic may be
misleading," isn't necessarily accurate.

Okay. I'll take your word for it, and remove this criticism.

However, it occurs to me the single biggest problem with their use of the
fatality rate statistic is that the normalization factor, the count of all
_reported_ accidents, probably isn't comparable for GA and airlines. There
may be reason to suspect that the count of non-fatal GA accidents is
underreported compared to airlines.

Agreed. But implicit in pointing this out is the apparent violation
of Title 49--Transportation, CHAPTER VIII--NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD, PART 830--NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT
ACCIDENTS OR INCIDENTS AND OVERDUE AIRCRAFT, AND PRESERVATION OF
AIRCRAFT WRECKAGE, MAIL, CARGO, AND RECORDS:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/report.htm

Furthermore, restraints systems in many small aircraft are already
superior to those found on airlines.

Ummm. I don't recall seeing any shoulder restraints on airline
seating.

Me neither. If the fatality rate on airlines is lower than smaller
aircraft, and those smaller aircraft already have superior restraints, then
agitating for improvements along these lines is pretty silly of them.

I suspect that the cascading avalanche of occupied passenger seats
torn from their mountings at impact is likely to be the most
significant factor in injury and death in airline accidents, and
shoulder belts would be ineffective in mitigating the crushing
injuries that result. But that's a guess.