Too many accidents

[Phil Perry]

Yes Phil, all training issues. I totally agree. The Sportstar is a nice aircraft, but given our club environment we couldn't get them to work. We needed something more rugged where the consequences of the inevitable mistakes weren't so bad.One or Two bullet proof trainers exist in the military.

 

In our case the tempo of training and the weather can give you an unholy mix. Moorrabin Airport is close to the Bay and we can and occasionally experience Fifteen to Seventeen knot crosswinds and considerable turbulence at any time of the year. My experience was that Ab Initio training only ceased when the wind was gusting around 30 knots - although one day like that I went up for the "fly backwards" trick in a C150.

I flew at and around Moorabbin between 1970 and 1982, on and off ( between cargo jobbies in other parts of South East Asia ) so I know the area very well, ALTHOUGH. . . with climate change,. . . things could well be a bit different now. In the UK, most instructors won't teach early students in winds of the 30 Kt gusting type, bit daft really. . . they are not going to learn anything, except maybe that the instructor is an idiot. . . . but I realise that training regimes differ from place to place. . . . and I can't beat your backwards bit in the 152, but I did find an inadvertant similar situation crossing the Alps in Europe in a C-210 turbo at FL 185, where we appeared to go pretty well nowhere at all for some twenty minutes. . . but this really doesn't qualify as going backwards, . . . .I only usually do that in an MW6, or in my trike. I've actually achieved 26 Kt, GPS groundspeed, backwards in my trike, last winter. Does that count ? ( lol)

 

Phil

 

 

[dutchroll]

While I don't think Sunfish's hasty generalisation and somewhat inflammatory statement about shallow ends of gene pools was particularly helpful, I do understand (I think) what he is saying. At least some aspects of it anyway.

 

The recreational aviation scene appears to have a problem if one is to objectively look at the stats, even allowing for margins of error. They're finding similar results in the USA and the recent NTSB survey uncovered data which shows the experimental/amateur built scene has a disproportionate accident and fatality rate in the aviation industry overall. This in turn has attracted FAA attention.

 

If the RAA and whatever other outfits want to govern this scene over here don't sit up and take notice (I'm not saying they're ignoring it, but if they don't take sufficient action), similar will happen over here, and the regulators will perk up. Then you will find life getting uncomfortable. These are just the facts of life as they stand at the moment. If the industry wants to be free (-er) of regulatory and oversight burdens, self-regulate, and exercise freedoms not available to the big commercial guys, then it is going to have to do something about the stats, or the decision making process will eventually be taken out of its hands. That principal doesn't just apply to RAA officialdom, but it also applies down through the ranks of RAA members. It's not easy to tell a guy he's being a danger to himself and everyone else, but sometimes you just have to be cruel to be kind. It's like Biggest Loser. They need a giant slap across the face and to be forced to stand there in front of a mirror. "Yes mate. That's you. You better believe it....."

 

To be fair, we do get guys with attitude and/or capability problems in the commercial world too, but there are a myriad of systems in place which can generally filter these blokes out. These systems include simulators, a checking regime, and even the humble copilot (I know at least one occasion in a certain major airline where they've taken over control of a big jet to execute a go-around - I've spoken to the guy who actually did it!). Obviously it's not practical to institute these big systems in the recreational scene, so other ways need to be devised and encouraged (or even enforced).

 

Also I'm not a big fan of comparing it to car accidents (there are over 1 billion vehicles on the road around the world). Any utter moron can get a drivers licence. I see evidence of that every time I go out.

 

 

[Bandit12]

The recreational aviation scene appears to have a problem if one is to objectively look at the stats, even allowing for margins of error.

I'm no RA-Aus basher, but from the stats I put up earlier, there is only a 1.5% chance that the difference in fatality rates between comparable GA activites and RA-Aus is due to normal, random variation. It is more than appearing to be a problem. I don't know if I would necessarily say there is a huge problem (at 4.6 fatalities per 100K flying hours) but there is always room for improvement. I'm not sure I agree with the gene pool suggestion as there really isn't any evidence for it but everything needs to be considered I guess. Personally I would be looking at what GA does or has that RA-Aus doesn't or hasn't first than go down the route of a biological difference explanation.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I'm no RA-Aus basher, but from the stats I put up earlier, there is only a 1.5% chance that the difference in fatality rates between comparable GA activites and RA-Aus is due to normal, random variation. It is more than appearing to be a problem.

Yeah I agree. Plus, I would've though with the level of pride and care one would expect with building and operating your own aircraft as compared to some of the junk out there in GA (the last GA twin I hired I told the operators I would never touch it again), it should be no problem achieving an accident rate equal to or less than GA. But that isn't the case at the moment.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

What I find alarming is not the number of accidents, but the number of times we are reporting that an experienced and well respected member of the industry (sport) has been involved in a fatal accident. This is the part that I find hard to reconcile, the old adage "it can happen to anyone" is never more true than in aviation.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Whilst I would be the first to agree that flying is not in itself inherently DANGEROUS, . . . . . It can seem to be a little unforgiving sometimes.

Phil

I don't know who originally said this but it has stayed with me since my early hang gliding days in the mid 70s. From Dan Poynters book "The basic handbook of skysurfing" published in 1973.

"Aviation is not in itself inherently dangerous. But to even a greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I find RA flying more challenging than GA, mainly because of the lower landing speed, lack of inertia and hence susceptibility to gusts. But I find the RA flyers seem more confident of surviving a forced landing, confidence that I think is misplaced. In GA I always felt that my chances of surviving a sudden engine failure were probably only 50% because of all the nasty things down on the ground like power lines, trees, rocks, water that I might not be able to avoid. RA conversations suggest that pilots generally believe they will manage an engine or systems failure quite well, and so I think they are more tolerant of maintenance issues that could lead to failure.

 

 

[skeptic36]

IBut I find the RA flyers seem more confident of surviving a forced landing, confidence that I think is misplaced. In GA I always felt that my chances of surviving a sudden engine failure were probably only 50% because of all the nasty things down on the ground like power lines, trees, rocks, water that I might not be able to avoid. RA conversations suggest that pilots generally believe they will manage an engine or systems failure quite well, and so I think they are more tolerant of maintenance issues that could lead to failure.

I can understand G.A concern for maintenance when I watch them regularly head north east over my property at around 1500ft with what must be about 2% chance of a safe landing site for at least 100 km. I have never identified raaus or Hgfa aircraft heading that way.

I don't for 1 minute condone slack maintenance, but I believe most of us are trained to maintain glide distance to potential landing site which could be a reason for our confidence in comparison to our G.A colleagues.

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[alf jessup]

That is

 

I can understand G.A concern for maintenance when I watch them regularly head north east over my property at around 1500ft with what must be about 2% chance of a safe landing site for at least 100 km. I have never identified raaus or Hgfa aircraft heading that way.I don't for 1 minute condone slack maintenance, but I believe most of us are trained to maintain glide distance to potential landing site which could be a reason for our confidence in comparison to our G.A colleagues.

Regards Bill

That is correct Bill you never see us because we are usually way up high when traversing that terrain, well never NE from your house as there is nothing as you say for 100kms

 

Height is your friend if your going that way, I have great confidence my 912 isn't going to fail me in that 3 minutes of no options even at height, but I know it can so that is a calculated risk i take every time I head over to Bright from WSL.

 

I have done a couple direct in the past but err on the side of caution now as I have seen for myself what limited options there are. (and there are options, not all pretty but options)

 

The extra 22 minutes going via Bairnsdale, Bruthen and the Omeo valley is my preffered option now I have the Tecnam.

 

Cheers

 

Alf

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I reckon the risks are about the same whether I fly over Bass Strait, high country or outback rolling sand dunes. It is a bit less risky flying over farmland but there are a lot of hidden traps even there, which is why so many fatals occur in flat open paddocks. A high standard of maintenance for my 912 and aircraft is the insurance, rather than kidding myself that I can make a successful forced landing. A precautionary landing is different, given the opportunity to inspect the proposed landing ground. Maybe this is GA thinking - but if I always had to have a good field within gliding range I wouldn't get far.

 

 

[turboplanner]

This has drifted into theoreticals rather than what has been happening.

 

We've heard very little of people colliding with trees and rocks in so-called "tiger" country.

 

What we have seen is 8 or so spear in verically after losing control of their aircraft above 500 feet - spearing in and killing themselves in eminently landable paddocks.

 

If you took those fatalities out of the equation the record would look much better.

 

So rather than come up with a theory on something which has not been happening it would be better to get to the heart of why people are losing control of flyable aircraft.

 

 

[skeptic36]

I reckon the risks are about the same whether I fly over Bass Strait, high country or outback rolling sand dunes. It is a bit less risky flying over farmland but there are a lot of hidden traps even there, which is why so many fatals occur in flat open paddocks. A high standard of maintenance for my 912 and aircraft is the insurance, rather than kidding myself that I can make a successful forced landing. A precautionary landing is different, given the opportunity to inspect the proposed landing ground. Maybe this is GA thinking - but if I always had to have a good field within gliding range I wouldn't get far.

And yet there seems to be many pilots around that have had multiple engine failures over there career (in my view due to a lack of understanding how to manage the mighty 2 stroke) and are still here to talk about it.

 

 

[skeptic36]

This has drifted into theoreticals rather than what has been happening.We've heard very little of people colliding with trees and rocks in so-called "tiger" country.

What we have seen is 8 or so spear in verically after losing control of their aircraft above 500 feet - spearing in and killing themselves in eminently landable paddocks.

 

If you took those fatalities out of the equation the record would look much better.

 

So rather than come up with a theory on something which has not been happening it would be better to get to the heart of why people are losing control of flyable aircraft.

Maybe because they are continually hammered about there engine failing is probably going to be fatal and faced with that (questionable ) fact it would be difficult not to panic.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I agree the problem is crashes in open paddocks not over tiger country. Many of he pilots are experienced. So it comes down to maintenance, or something about the unpredictability of lightweight aircraft handling.

 

 

[facthunter]

Who has been putting THAT out? First I've heard it. We do entreat people to avoid areas that you can't land on if possible ( and it mostly is avoidable). Forced landing practice is still emphasised isn't it? Unpredictable aircraft handling? Am I missing something? Perhaps if the plane has some mechanical fault or control failure. Nev

 

 

[alf jessup]

I agree the problem is crashes in open paddocks not over tiger country. Many of he pilots are experienced. So it comes down to maintenance, or something about the unpredictability of lightweight aircraft handling.

I personally think it comes down to pilot attitude and pilot mishandling of the aircraft, I am not confident that maintenance has had a lot to do with the recent fatalities, maybe a couple but most pilot error or bad judgment.

 

An engine failure shouldn't really kill you but a stall and spin turning final most likely will

 

With experience comes complacency and over confidence if you let it.

 

Fly and maintain the aircraft as it should and you should never hit powerlines or spin it in.

 

3 important things in flying, airspeed, airspeed & airspeed in no particular order, I guess then good disclipined airmanship could play a part also.

 

Thats my take on it not that I am any expert.

 

Alf

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The incidents may be initiated by a mechanical fault in many cases , but there is a loss of control (stall/spin often) at relatively low level, or failure to successfully complete a forced landing. Slow/ light aircraft go from flying to fluttering more readily than GA aircraft around the stall speed, because wind gusts are proportionately more important and because they lack inertia. Back in the early 1930s here was grave concern about the higher landing speeds of streamlined monoplanes. Everyone was surprised that the accident rate went down.

 

 

[paulh]

Question

 

Further to the accident analysis kindly presented by Mr Bandit (post 27) is it possible to undertake analysis on crashes with reference to aircraft type similar to the Safety Is No Accident article by Ron Wanttaja in March 2011 Kit planes magazine (hope it’s ok to refer to an aviation print publication) – i.e. low wing/high wing and wing loading/cruise speed etc. and also connected to pilot hours on that aircraft type?

 

From the seeming lack of reliable crash information available this may not be possible without a significant research effort.

 

However is there some correlation between pilot error in the stall/spin type of crash and the aircraft type. Similarly the “danger zone” as stated by others when a pilot gets to 100hrs or so then buys a faster/cooler aircraft that is less forgiving that the trainer type he/she is used to?

 

It seems to me that the majority of the RAA tragic crashes are the higher performance aircraft types not the low and slow aircraft, with little of the very low inertia aircraft i.e. 95:10 types (possibly due to lower numbers flying, and annual hours flown)

 

Is this combination of pilot/aircraft type not a major contributing factor or is human factors, pilot skill and decision making still the biggest issue?

 

This may be painfully obvious to you experienced flyers, not so to me.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I don't know who originally said this but it has stayed with me since my early hang gliding days in the mid 70s. From Dan Poynters book "The basic handbook of skysurfing" published in 1973."Aviation is not in itself inherently dangerous. But to even a greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

Hi KG,. . . . Thanks for the reminder, I wondered how I could have come up with a line as poetic as that ! ! !

 

I seem to remember seeing a poster with similar wording whilst gliding with the RAF Air Training Corps in the very early sixties, it showed a WW1 biplane, standing vertically in a tree, the wording could have been slightly different, but as I've said before, my memory is fading along with the non existent medal ribbons. . . . .

 

Going back to the cut and thrust of the thread, and stripping away some of the deeper psychcology. . . unless all the incidents which have been mentioned are fully and clinically investigated, then no obvious picture is going to emerge. Other posters have said that this doesn't occur with recreational aircraft operations in Australia, but alluded to the possibility that this may change to the possible detriment of certain "Freedoms" currently enjoyed, should the fatalities continue to occur unabated or with monotonous and tragic regularity.

 

I have read all the posts with interest, although I cannot agree with the comment that some incidents have perhaps occurred due to an "Unpredictable" physical flight condition of an airframe, this should really appear under the banner of " loss of control" of an aircraft, I'd have to conclude personally that this situation could only occur in the event of a catastrophic control / airframe malfunction, or the pilot placing the aircraft into a flight condition which the test pilot never did. Test pilots usually try, within the designer's constraints, to explore the design envelope, and sometimes go well outside of this to then produce a manual with broad safety margins built into the POH so that Joe or Joanne average should be able to enjoy the experience of flying that machine without fear of anything nasty or UNPREDICTABLE occurring for which the pilot has no immediate answers. . .

 

Another poster mentioned a comparison between High and relatively Low energy aircraft types, and that the Low energy aircraft pilot really ought to have less chance of getting splattered in a forced- landing-gone-wrong where the inertia of the ground interface is exponentially LESS than that of a G.A. machine. . . . this may have some relevance, but if the aircraft arrives in a vertical dive, then any possible inertial advantage is rather negated. SO, are we back to training issues again, ? perhaps panic issues, causing a temporary state of pilot indecision / reaction ? with lack of investigation, we are left with only supposition and of course, more threads on the forum accident section and the press making another announcement peppered with the usual innaccuracies and uneducated assumptions.

 

Bit depressing really. . . . Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

The C150/2 series would have to be the closest to bullet proof on the civilian register. I have seen them stalled form 30', bounced, yawed from damn near wing tip to wing tip and they mostly still remain airworthy. The one stalled from 30' was pulled off the line, inspection plates removed, nothing found in need of repair and immediately put back on the line. The great thing about them is you can let a student make a mistake and the only thing that will 'feel' the consequences is the student and a wincing instructor ... LOL.

David, . . . there are few things for which I am full of praise, ( one of these, as you are aware is a good chiraz, but I digress. . .) I think that, on balance, the C-150 / 152 has got to be one of the best, current training machines ever designed. . . built like a brick outhouse, very forgiving, UNLESS you get too slow on the final turn, ESPECIALLY if the tanks are full ! ! ! they are VERY unforgiving in that event, but no matter, as long as the student KNOWS this. They take some incredible punishment, but just keep right on going. . . . I really like the type, since my first experience in one in 1961, to the present day.

 

In fact I may well use one for my revalidation hour in August this year, as they are still the lowest cost per hour rental machine at the Club ! ! ( £115.00 P/H, dunno what this equates to in OZBUKS ) this is Private Hire, . . I suppose the bloody instructor will want me to bung him a few quid as well ( mercenary sod ! )

 

I recently hired a 1959 model to fly to the Isle of Man . . . with a nice new paint job, and new upholstery. . . . it still flew beautifully ! Phil

 

 

[Gentreau]

I don't know who originally said this but it has stayed with me since my early hang gliding days in the mid 70s. From Dan Poynters book "The basic handbook of skysurfing" published in 1973."Aviation is not in itself inherently dangerous. But to even a greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

It seems to be attributed to Captain A. G. Lamplugh, British Aviation Insurance Group, London. c. early 1930's.

 

More info on Skygod.com

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Oi, guys, . . . watch out for the French. . . . . . they always seem to know more than us . . . ( Hi Clive. . .)

 

 

[104chocks]

Some stats from the UK CAA these cover the years 2000-2009

 

Accident rates per million flight hours [number of fatal accidents in brackets ] from UK CAA publication CAP800

 

0.0 Large Jet Public Transport [0]

 

1.1 Large TP Public Transport [2]

 

7.1 Business Jet Public Transport [1]

 

1.5 Small Public Transport [1]

 

1.1 All Heli Public Transport [3]

 

2.0 Offshore Heli Public Transport [3]

 

10.6 Small conventional non-Public-Transport [85]

 

15.9 Small heli non-PublicTransport [25]

 

23.2 Glider [32]

 

17.9 Microlight [20]

 

400 Gyroplane [9]

 

Quiet some variation across the aviation spectrum.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

Maybe this is GA thinking - but if I always had to have a good field within gliding range I wouldn't get far.

I think that is a ga thing "fly it like it will never stop and pay for your choice if it does" RA pilots are more likely to add a few miles to a leg to stay over some clear ground rather than just flying direct all the time

 

 

[Bandit12]

QuestionFurther to the accident analysis kindly presented by Mr Bandit (post 27) is it possible to undertake analysis on crashes with reference to aircraft type similar to the Safety Is No Accident article by Ron Wanttaja in March 2011 Kit planes magazine (hope it’s ok to refer to an aviation print publication) – i.e. low wing/high wing and wing loading/cruise speed etc. and also connected to pilot hours on that aircraft type?

 

From the seeming lack of reliable crash information available this may not be possible without a significant research effort.

 

However is there some correlation between pilot error in the stall/spin type of crash and the aircraft type. Similarly the “danger zone” as stated by others when a pilot gets to 100hrs or so then buys a faster/cooler aircraft that is less forgiving that the trainer type he/she is used to?

 

It seems to me that the majority of the RAA tragic crashes are the higher performance aircraft types not the low and slow aircraft, with little of the very low inertia aircraft i.e. 95:10 types (possibly due to lower numbers flying, and annual hours flown)

 

Is this combination of pilot/aircraft type not a major contributing factor or is human factors, pilot skill and decision making still the biggest issue?

 

This may be painfully obvious to you experienced flyers, not so to me.

It is certainly doable Paul....but teasing out the raw data from our rather challenging government publications is what makes it difficult. And realistically I would need to do at least 10 years to make meaningful comparisons. From a statistical point of view, our small population works against us in being very specific with the data, but it is certainly a possibility. Now if RA-Aus was to make available some sort of data base with every bit of information they have collected about accidents, I'd be more than happy to write a similar article.

 

PS don't feel it is painfully obvious either, in actual fact the reasons are often painfully obscured. We can always anecdotally look at recent accidents and say "there seems to be some issue with loss of control in turns" and this can be useful at least personally to remind us all to have a look at our own flying skills and habits. But to look at the big picture, there just hasn't been enough detail.

 

Going back to the cut and thrust of the thread, and stripping away some of the deeper psychcology. . . unless all the incidents which have been mentioned are fully and clinically investigated, then no obvious picture is going to emerge. Other posters have said that this doesn't occur with recreational aircraft operations in Australia, but alluded to the possibility that this may change to the possible detriment of certain "Freedoms" currently enjoyed, should the fatalities continue to occur unabated or with monotonous and tragic regularity.

........we are left with only supposition and of course, more threads on the forum accident section and the press making another announcement peppered with the usual inaccuracies and uneducated assumptions.

 

Bit depressing really. . . . Phil

Couldn't agree more Phil. You have a gift for summarising eloquently and succinctly.

 

Some stats from the UK CAA these cover the years 2000-2009

 

 

Accident rates per million flight hours [number of fatal accidents in brackets ] from UK CAA publication CAP800

 

10.6 Small conventional non-Public-Transport [85]

 

15.9 Small heli non-PublicTransport [25]

 

23.2 Glider [32]

 

17.9 Microlight [20]

 

400 Gyroplane [9]

Welcome to the forum Chocks! Thanks for the figures, they make for an interesting comparison. Ignoring the heavies and commercial stuff, flingwings, gliders and gyros, you have a microlight (most comparable to our RA-Aus aircraft) fatality rate equal to our GA rate, which is significantly lower than ours. Interestingly, your "Small conventional non-pubic transport" group rate (probably comparable to our GA) is many times higher. I suspect that it includes airwork, charter, agriculture etc, which doesn't really make it as comparable to the figures I posted.

 

So this is another thing that could be considered - why is the accident rate for UK microlights similar to our GA rate, and significantly less that our RA-Aus rate? What are the differences that may account for some of it, and how can they be improved?