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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
For what it is worth, my feedback on your proposed response:
Larry Dighera wrote: For pilots without instrument training, flying from visual flight rules into instrument meteorological conditions is a perilous scenario. [There are a miniscule number of airmen who hold FAA certificates, that have not received any instrument training; instrument training is not required to obtain a Glider certificate. The phrase the researchers probably meant to use was 'instrument rating' not 'instrument training.' Regardless, it is true that the average life expectancy of a pilot who is not instrument rated and qualified (recent experience) is a bit over a minute when unintentionally finding himself in a cloud that totally obscures his outside reference.] I think a more appropriate rebuttal here is that other sources, such as the annual Nall Report, find that in 2005 weather related accidents accounted for only about 11% of all fatal GA accidents. By comparison, Nall claims 27% of fatal GA accidents in 2005 are due to pilot control errors during what it calls "maneuvering flight." Therefore the emphasis on VFR into VMC and lack of mention of "maneuvering flight" by the researchers as a causal factor is an improper inversion of priorities. In 1990, the FAA amended regulations regarding background checks on pilots for alcohol-related motor vehicle convictions, requiring pilots to provide a written report of each alcohol-related traffic offense within 60 days of the conviction. Flying privileges can be suspended or revoked if a pilot has had 2 or more convictions for driving under the influence in the past 3 years. A recent cohort study indicated that a history of driving while intoxicated is a valid risk marker for general aviation pilots. After adjusting for age, sex, and flight experience, the study showed that a history of driving while intoxicated was associated with a 43% increased risk of aviation crash involvement.12 Following intensive research and interventions, the proportion of alcohol involvement in fatal general aviation crashes has decreased progressively from more than 30% in the early 1960s to about 8% today.13 I think a rebuttal may be approprihere might be: [The 2006 Nall Report found that alcohol and drugs account for only about 1.1% of all accidents in the past few years. This is again an inversion of causal priorities and places an improper emphasis on a minor causative factor. Further efforts and analysis on reducing alcohol and drug related aviation accidents is misguided effort that is better spent elsewhere.] [A pilot who flies without the use of shoulder restraint belts is a fool. It is curious that the researchers failed to mention ballistic parachute recovery systems like those currently mandated for the recently FAA certified Cirrus aircraft.] I don't think you can properly claim the FAA mandated the Cirrus BRS. The general aviation crash fatality rate has remained at about 19% for the past 20 years while the overall airline crash fatality rate has declined from 16% from 1986 through 1995 to 6% from 1996 through 2005.4,24 [Due to the reduction in airline operations due to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, increased airport security, and general decline in airline ticket sales, that statistic may be misleading.] 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 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. [A more robust airframe requires increased weight. There is a tradeoff of safety for performance.] Another objection would be that the difference in rates may be due to the nature of the accidents the two classes of flights encounter. Having two experienced pilots on board would almost certainly skew where and when accidents take place such that the impacts on the airframes are not comparable. In recent decades, while major airlines have improved seat strength, revised exit row configurations, and used more fire retardant materials, few improvements have been made in general aviation aircraft, in part, because federal regulations only require safety improvements for entirely new aircraft models. A corresponding policy for automobiles would have meant that Volkswagen Beetles could have been sold without seatbelts for decades after federal regulation required them in all new cars. [The Volkswagen analogy is flawed. The ubiquitous Cessna 172 aircraft have had should restraints for decades despite their first being FAA certified in the 1950s.] Typo: "shoulder restraints" not "should restraints". To improve the safety of general aviation, interventions are needed to improve fuel system integrity and restraint systems, enhance general crashworthiness of small aircraft, Those are only viable measures if their added weight and cost do not so negatively impact aircraft performance and affordability so as to render General Aviation operations impractical.] Furthermore, restraints systems in many small aircraft are already superior to those found on airlines. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:14:57 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote in : Do you have a source for the report itself? On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:09:27 -0500, "Dan Luke" wrote in : Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:11:41 -0700, Sylvain wrote in
: Jim Logajan wrote: will read it to its end) I think you'll need to focus in on the one or two aspect of their article you think are most in need of rebuttal and discard the other criticisms. As much as I appreciate the effort made by Larry, I'll have to agree; two points that could be worth focusing on is that (a) they do not understand what General Aviation is; (b) they have no undestanding of what IFR (and VFR and IMC and VMC) mean; both points which they could have clarified by spending two minutes on Internet and/or talking to some pilots (and/or association of same such as AOPA); These two points alone discredite the whole argument. Agreed. But it's worse than that. One of the Johns Hopkins University researchers who authored the report has apparently authored several other aviation oriented reports that are mentioned in the bibliography! It makes you wonder what those reports are like. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
Larry Dighera writes:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:14:57 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote in : Do you have a source for the report itself? On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:09:27 -0500, "Dan Luke" wrote in : Wait 'til Scary Mary gets on TV with this: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10403256.htm That's just a review of the report, not the report itself. I don't much like what I read even in the review, but I'd still like to see the report. Apparently you must be a JAMA member to see it, which is a bit odd, since it was apparently produced with public funds. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
Larry,
not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, but if you are going to rebut this article you should have some references. Your opinion is nice, but facts would be better. For example you state that the author implies that GA is more inherently dangerous than the airlines. This is actually true and the statistics bear this out. Another example is where you state that the reason for more GA crashes as opossed to the airlines is because there is more GA planes. This doesnt take into account the fact that airliners fly more. There are nearly 26000 airline flights a day (This is actually up from 9/11 by a couple grand), how many GA operations are there? Does the typical GA plane spend over 300 hours a month in the air? I dont want to beleger this and I hope you get the idea. There is no doubt that this report contains some errors, but I would sugest that you rebut the report on the basis of survivability of GA crashes and not the comparison of ailines and GA fatality rates. Good luck and let us know what you come up with. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
Larry Dighera wrote:
Agreed. But it's worse than that. One of the Johns Hopkins University researchers who authored the report has apparently authored several other aviation oriented reports that are mentioned in the bibliography! It makes you wonder what those reports are like. write/email the author and ask for copies; academics are vain enough that they'll bend over backward to satisfy someone who admits having read their papers :-) THEN, send them the critique :-) --Sylvain |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
Are these aeromedical people at John Hopkins? I fail to see the connection between a medical school and aviation safety. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
Andrew Sarangan writes:
Are these aeromedical people at John Hopkins? I fail to see the connection between a medical school and aviation safety. Aviation medicine. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:03:07 -0700, Sylvain wrote in
: Larry Dighera wrote: Agreed. But it's worse than that. One of the Johns Hopkins University researchers who authored the report has apparently authored several other aviation oriented reports that are mentioned in the bibliography! It makes you wonder what those reports are like. write/email the author and ask for copies; academics are vain enough that they'll bend over backward to satisfy someone who admits having read their papers :-) THEN, send them the critique :-) --Sylvain Great suggestion! What would it take to get you to shoulder that task? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
On 13 Apr 2007 19:38:25 -0700, "K Baum" wrote in
.com: Larry, not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, but if you are going to rebut this article you should have some references. Your opinion is nice, but facts would be better. Thank you for the suggestion. I'll see what sort of supporting citations I can find. For example you state that the author implies that GA is more inherently dangerous than the airlines. This is actually true and the statistics bear this out. I don't refute that contention. I just don't believe the comparison of fatality rates between different types of aircraft operation is useful or valid. Consider the hazards involved in crop=dusting vs airline transport operations. If you strengthen the airframe, and develop fuel bladders capable of withstanding impact into a granite mountain face until you can only fill the hopper half full and still be within the weight and balance envelope, the fatality rate will always remain higher for duster operations than for airline transport operations. Another example is where you state that the reason for more GA crashes as opossed to the airlines is because there is more GA planes. This doesnt take into account the fact that airliners fly more. Huh? More? More hours? More miles? More passenger miles? There are nearly 26000 airline flights a day (This is actually up from 9/11 by a couple grand), how many GA operations are there? Does the typical GA plane spend over 300 hours a month in the air? I dont want to beleger this and I hope you get the idea. You seem to be overlooking the fact that there are over ten times as many GA aircraft as airliners: There is no doubt that this report contains some errors, but I would sugest that you rebut the report on the basis of survivability of GA crashes and not the comparison of ailines and GA fatality rates. And I would prefer the Johns Hopkins University researchers not publicly make invalid and misleading comparisons also. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to incorporate more of that into my rhetoric. Good luck and let us know what you come up with. .. Thank you for your input. I know I have a narrow point of view just as the researchers do. It's good to see others reactions. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |