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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote: Below is a first draft of my critique of this report. Any suggestions, error corrections, or other critique is welcome. Discussion of these two points might allow for a more succint reply than a point-by-point discussion of the numerous flaws in the "research" It is interesting to note that the very type of pilot and flying these "researchers" are "studying" has been promoted by the FAA and industry. Specifically, the Recreational Pilot. Another problem with this "research" is that it doesn't address what would be an acceptable level of risk. It paints GA as unsafe because it's not as safe as airline flying, which is basically one of the safest modes of transportation. What IS safe enough? -- Bob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:09:26 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in : Larry Dighera wrote: Well, after I refine it, with the assistance of the knowledgeable readership of this newsgroup, I will submit it to the authors, JAMA, AOPA, and AvWeb. If JAMA publishes it, expect it to be cut down. I thought about that too. Perhaps a brief summary of my analysis of the JHU report, supported by the in-line critique, might overcome that issue. It probably needs to be reformatted since I'm not sure the Usenet style of quoting the text being commented on is acceptable. It's a clumsy mechanism, but I was unable to think of a better format. A brief summary might overcome that objection. Have you a better idea? A journal is going to alot you only so much space, and you want it all to be used to make _your_ points. I'd therefore suggest a rewrite so that it doesn't need to quote the original. Good point. I'll see what I can do. Do you see any glaring errors? I'd need some time to review it. It's too long, I think, to send to JAMA. Sure, there are lots of nits to pick, but unlike Usenet (where you don't have to be brief - though the longer a post is, the less likely people 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. I agree. The in-line critique format that I have initially used is useful to me to call attention to almost all the issues I have with the JHU report. It makes a good foundation upon which to compose a summary of items with which I take issue. All in my humble opinion! Very much appreciated with sincere gratitude. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 06:05:55 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in : In article , Larry Dighera wrote: Below is a first draft of my critique of this report. Any suggestions, error corrections, or other critique is welcome. Discussion of these two points might allow for a more succint reply than a point-by-point discussion of the numerous flaws in the "research" It is interesting to note that the very type of pilot and flying these "researchers" are "studying" has been promoted by the FAA and industry. Specifically, the Recreational Pilot. True, but not to negate your valid point, I can see the JHU researchers dismissing the FAA's GA promotional efforts as unwarranted and inappropriate. It seems to me, that the impetus for JHU researchers report was a medically oriented concern for the safety of medical personnel who through necessity or choice participate in GA operations. Another problem with this "research" is that it doesn't address what would be an acceptable level of risk. It paints GA as unsafe because it's not as safe as airline flying, which is basically one of the safest modes of transportation. What IS safe enough? This is a vary valid point. I will incorporate it into my work. Thank you for your insight and help? Please feel free to comment on anything else you think might be useful. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
" Apparently you must be a JAMA member to see it, which is a bit odd, since it was apparently produced with public funds." JAMA is a journal, you moron. The organization is the American Medical association. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
Viperdoc writes:
JAMA is a journal, you moron. The organization is the American Medical association. I'm aware of that. But the report itself was funded by grants from government agencies, from what I understand. Therefore I don't see why it isn't distributed freely. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
On Apr 14, 6:00 am, "Viperdoc" wrote:
" Apparently you must be a JAMA member to see it, which is a bit odd, since it was apparently produced with public funds." JAMA is a journal, you moron. The organization is the American Medical association. One of your early teachers must have taught you the fine art of using invectives to make your statements stronger and diminish your opponents. We all owe her an eternal debt of gratitude. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
Recently, Larry Dighera posted:
Below is a first draft of my critique of this report. Any suggestions, error corrections, or other critique is welcome. ===================================== While I understand the importance of a response to this kind of article, I think that it can be attacked on a more basic level. In my opinion, it is flawed in its purpose, as it poses a problem that is miniscule in comparison to other activities of the general public. For example, an annual average of 583 fatalities in GA doesn't approach the weekly fatalities for driving an automobile. If reducing accidental death is the issue that makes this study important, it is a total waste of resources to focus on GA. To address your response, I would suggest that your language in places consitutes the kind of emotional response that you criticize in the report. For example: Crash Rates Civilian aviation generally can be divided into 2 groups: commercial and noncommercial flights.2 Commercial flights transport individuals and goods to generate revenue; they include operations of major airlines, commuter air carriers, and air taxis. Noncommercial flights, usually called general aviation, encompass a wide array of activities-emergency medical services (EMS), sightseeing, flight training, traffic reporting, aerial surveys, search and rescue, crop dusting, firefighting, logging, recreation, and personal or business use. General aviation aircraft range from small private airplanes and business jets to helicopters, hot-air balloons, and gliders. [This paragraph reveals the researchers' lack of understanding of the definition of General Aviation. Air Taxi, pipe-line and power-line patrol, crop dusting, and air charter flights all generate revenue, are piloted by airmen holding FAA Commercial or Airline Transport Pilot certificates, and they are all General Aviation operations. In fact, other than military aviation operations and airline (Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 Part 121) operations, all aviation operations are classified under the General Aviation designation. To assert that medical rescue helicopter ambulance services, flight training, traffic reporting, aerial surveys, and crop dusting are noncommercial is ridiculous.] Perhaps it would be better to leave off the last sentence, thus the paragraph would more strongly support your opening contention that the researchers lack an understanding of the definition of GA. I also don't understand why you would want to contribute to the misguided effort of this report by rationalizing the comparison between GA and commercial activities. It is probably true that any comparison between general public activities and commercial activities would show similar results. I would expect that there are fewer annual fatalities from riding buses than from driving cars, fewer deaths in chauferred limosines, fewer commercial truck fatalities than personal truck fatalities, fewer motorcycle racing deaths than personal motocycle deaths, fewer Navy Seal deaths than recreational SCUBA deaths, etc. In short, the report's conclusion is a no-brainer that didn't deserve the expenditure of public monies, and doesn't enlighten the reader in any meaningful way. It is purely alarmist, and IMO should be exposed as such. I suspect that the underlying issue is that bad decision making is dangerous, regardless of the activity. IMO, shifting the focus from bad decision making to mechanical or structural concerns misses the point. And, again, let's not lose sight of the maginitude of this problem; 583 annual deaths is likely less than deaths from any other activity of the general public. If the purpose is to save lives, GA should be pretty far down the list of priorities. Regards, Neil |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
On Apr 14, 1:16 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
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. Well in that case their expertise should be in physiological aspects of aviation. How did they get into the operational aspects? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Critique of: Crash Risk in General Aviation
Larry Dighera wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote: It probably needs to be reformatted since I'm not sure the Usenet style of quoting the text being commented on is acceptable. It's a clumsy mechanism, but I was unable to think of a better format. A brief summary might overcome that objection. Have you a better idea? I was taught that in traditional prose one should summarize or otherwise succinctly rephrase the main points that one is addressing. Or, where context is understood by all readers, there is little need to reference the original material. (Usenet and e-mail clients provide the wonderful tool of easily allowing one to quote the material being addressed to provide the context.) Otherwise I have no better idea. |
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 |