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!!!)

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.

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.

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.

" 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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.