Safety comparison Ultralights vs GA

[Spriteah]

Hello all.

 

What im seeking here is some converstation and if anyone has any statistical data comparing GA and Ultra lights in a safety comparison.

 

I have been trying to seek out data and can find the GA stuff on ATSB but cannot find much at all on frequency of accidents on Ultra lights.

 

What are the safest ones to fly? Any answers and comments appreciated. Yours in flying.

 

Jim (spriteah)

 

 

[Guest RogerRammedJet]

What are the safest ones to fly?

 

The ones in the hanger!

 

Rog

 

 

[Guest vanbudo]

Mate, I don't know the exact % figure but i think you will find that statistically the vast majority of aircraft accidents are due to pilot error & not due to the aircraft persae, so to get a holistic view of safety would it logically follow that you would have to consider GA training verses sports aircraft training as well? I have been trained in both & I must say the GA syllabus offers alot more info; a higher level of knowledge if you like; which I found were often brushed over or not even touched on during the ultralight training I received. Having said that I know of some ultralight CFIs that are extremely professional, while others you would not let train your dog! cheers

 

 

[jimecho1]

Hi Jim

 

There's an article on Computer Assisted Reporting (CAR) by Dr Stephen Lamble at the following address

 

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~slamble/Why_use_CAR.html

 

In it, there's an article dealing with his hunt for just the statistics you mention. While he hasn't released the full database he constructed, his writings make interesting reading.

 

His experiences also show that it IS possible to construct an ongoing database of accident statistics, provided you have the time, patience and expertise.

 

Cheers, Jim

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

That article by Lamble has been knocking about on the net for donkeys years & I wouldn't put any faith in it myself. Its more about a journalist writing a "good" (Ie sensational) story than a real analysis of the facts. As the article points out, the "ultralight" statistics are mostly based on media (mis-)reporting of accidents.

 

John

 

 

[Guest brentc]

If you're after the REAL statistics with no fluffing up, rumours or doubt, then you will need to visit the RA-Aus office in Canberra. Due to the fact that RA-Aus is an association and has a constitution with a clause on information retrieval for members, then you as a member are entitled to visit the office (with notice given) and view all relevant paperwork. I would be interested to make this trip and would fly there in my own plane with someone else to assist if anyone out there feels that we are being left in the dark.

 

 

[jimecho1]

Hi John,

 

The quote from the article " In response to inquiries with the Bureau of Transport Economics I was sent hard copies of raw statistics listing the dates of fatal ultralight accidents." seems to indicate that the journalist began with cold, hard facts. He would have followed up those facts by looking up news and official reports using the dates in the BTE figures.

 

While I don't dispute that journalists, under pressure from their editors to produce stories by mid-afternoon, often get names and descriptions wrong (my own favourite being the mention recently in a rural weekly of a "three-access plane") Lamble's example holds a lot of water. It certainly tallies with what I've read.

 

Personally, I would LOVE to see stats on accidents on an official site. I would like to easily run up findings as to why the accident happened. I agree that pilot error is the cause of most accidents, but I'd like to learn from the errors of those pilots. If this was possible, the deaths and injuries might serve some purpose.

 

Regards, Jim

 

 

[jimecho1]

Hi Brentc

 

While you're up there, you might ask the powers whether it would be possible to post accident reports and follow-ups on the web - preferably on the RAaus site (passworded, perhaps?) so that we can all take a look without having to go to Canberra. Most of the stuff they have will already be in MS Word format, it's not as if an army of secretaries is needed to transcribe from hand-written notebooks.

 

I think the on-site versions would have to have names of those involved deleted, for reasons of privacy and compassion for families, but the resulting information would be an invaluable tool for all sport pilots.

 

After all, one of the things I've noticed is that the results of inquests, inquiries etc often don't get a run in the press, or, if they do, it's on page 263 over the ads for "discreet personal services".

 

Not that I've looked there, of couse!!!!!

 

Cheers, Jim

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Hi John,The quote from the article " In response to inquiries with the Bureau of Transport Economics I was sent hard copies of raw statistics listing the dates of fatal ultralight accidents." seems to indicate that the journalist began with cold, hard facts. He would have followed up those facts by looking up news and official reports using the dates in the BTE figures.

Maybe he did but the article was written "some years ago now" (at least 4 to my knowledge). Since then all he has done is refresh the figures by "conducting annual searches of media archives to gather statistics about the number of accidents in the preceding year. As numerous other threads on this forum show, the media isn't too fussy about the accuracy of describing any light aircraft accident as an ultralight. This is bound to affect the accuracy of the statistics (which also don't seem to take into account the increase in the number of hours flown in RAA registered aircraft). I'm certainly not trying to claim that the accident rate is satisfactory but I'm highly suspicious of both the sensational conclusions and Lambles motives.

 

I deplore the limited feedback available on ultralight accidents (particularly fatal ones). I flew for many years in the UK and the equivalent magazine there (Microlight Flying) included a quarterly pull out summary of all the accidents (including fatals) reported to the organisation. Each report also included pertinent comments, advice and observations by the technical officer. I found this highly educational and informative as did many other pilots. Granted that the UK mag was distributed to members only (not retail) but I don't see why it would not be possible to provide the same level of feedback here by including it with the copies of the mag mailed to RAA members.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[jimecho1]

Hi John,

 

Lamble's a pro journalist and I would expect him to know the difference between an ultralight and a GA aircraft. The sensational reports we read are those coming from any old journalist who happens to be in the vicinity when the editor wants info on a rumoured crash.

 

In fact, I've never read about any crash which hasn't been correctly reported eventually - often along with well-researched background. (I have to index and categorise newspaper items as part of my job).

 

With the internet, we can retrieve information and news reports from the last ten years. If we look at the later reports (the ones made after the sensation has died down but before the incident starts to bore the editors) we usually find accurate information.

 

Sorry to bang on about this, but I believe it's fairly useless to shoot the messenger. Our community is better served if we educate him / her instead. Maybe we need to co-operate to produce a small site for reporters to get their facts - plane types etc - from. Any ideas?

 

I heartily agree with your second para. While overseas bodies / bureaucracies make information freely available on the web, many of their Australian equivalents don't. Instead, they put up lists of what's available and offer to sell it to you. The situation will improve over time and change will probably be led by bodies such as RA-Aus. Hopefully.

 

Of course, there's nothing to stop us from starting our own. If Lamble can do it, others can.

 

Cheers, Jim

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Jim, RA-Aus have already agreed to do this and they are published in the monthly magazine for your perusal. They usually only appear after everything is finalised which is often a couple of years later. Until such time, we can only theorise as to what might have happened.

 

 

[jimecho1]

Hi Brent

 

I've read some of the reports. What I didn't know was that the RA-Aus policy was to publish all inquiry results. The ones I read seemed so few that I reasoned they couldn't be all there. Are the ones already published in the mag, in fact, all on the web site, or will they be, eventually?

 

Thanks for letting me know, by the way.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Hi..i found a casa report that has some ultralight activity in it..strangly enough it seems hangliders acount for far more hours flown then ultralights??how does that work?? anyway, theres graphs showing number of hours flown verses accidents in specific aviation sectors...is an interesting read..the opening stanza says it doesnt count ultralight accidents, but clearly it does but doesnt add them to the ga stats..

 

http://casa.gov.au/seminars/selfadmin/papers/CASA-Safety-Statistics.pdf

 

 

[jimecho1]

Maybe they're counted if an ultralight is involved in an accident in conjunction with a GA aircraft?

 

 

[Spriteah]

Well if you want a passenger I'll be keen to drop up.

 

 

[Spriteah]

What I have found is casa has all the info on GA. But almost nothing on Ultralight. And correct me if I am wrong but we do not have to report incidents to casa unless we venture into their world.

 

Jim.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

The "hang-glider" hours is in fact all HGFA flying hours so it includes paragliders and more than 700 trikes. In 2005 there were approx 50% more HGFA aircraft than RAA ultralights so perhaps its not such a surprise that they flew more hours. Plus the fact most of them don't have to pay fuel bills may have helped ;-) The number of glider hours from a fleet of only 1100 aircraft suprised me though .

 

The blurb on the the intro to the CASA stats Motzartmerv found is simply a definition of what GA is - ie everything apart from RPT and Sport aviation (which includes ultralights). Hence sport and GA accidents and accident rates are graphed seperately and only compared on page 7.

 

If a journo whats to confirm whether a crashed aircraft is an ultralight or not would a quick phone call to the RAA not be sufficient ?

 

The raw data of the hours flown by sport aviation and GA is all available at http://www.btre.gov.au/info.aspx?ResourceId=226&NodeId=102 - it includes comprehensive infor provided by RAA. 2006 is the last year with data available and shows a 29% increase in the number of ultralight hours.

 

So using the data in the CASA presentation it would be possible to write an article entitled "The rate of fatal ultralight accidents falls by a third in the past 2 years". But how newsworthy would this be since it simply proves how statistics can be manipulated.

 

John

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

I do not really think that you will achieve much by asking RAAus for records – if they have not been publishing them then they are hardly likely to admit it – and if they have not got them then they cannot give them.

 

The accident/incident record in our movement is fragmentary at best. For many years a culture established where (especially once the honorary officers who handled tech and accident reports dropped out and reporting was centralised in the office) members simply did not report!

 

There was a tacit understanding that AUF (in those days) were not reporting fully so it was a waste of time members doing the paperwork (and potentially drawing unwanted attention to themselves).

 

Certainly I know for a fact that many very serious accidents went unreported – like near write-offs (but no attention getting injuries with them) and yet it is the incidents – the serious accidents that did not quite happen – that are the most valuable, and we get even less of those.

 

I probably saw/see more than most from running the Thruster Support Group. My members come through me to get parts, work done, advice etc so the situation was a de-facto form of accident reporting. It was very valuable because it gave stimulus to do further work in the Tech and Ops area by which to plug gaps on the causes of why members needed the parts and advice.

 

That has worked and TOSG has been effective in raising both skill and knowledge levels in Thruster operators. Over our 12 years of operation there has been a very noticeable decline in major and minor events with the type.

 

What a relatively small group has been able to achieve is exactly the national level safety culture that we should be striving for – but the first step is to actively encourage the user base to make the reports in the first place.

 

The next hurdle is the magazine now being in the public arena as a recruiting device and pages of accidents are not going to help that! The solution is not rocket science and all RAAus have to do is what has been repeatedly suggested – have a loose leaf magazine insert that only goes to the members!

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

i notice that the RAAus ask only for number of landings done each year and not hours flown. this information would be totally irrevelant when comparing to everyone else who use hours flown .

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

I take your point Ozzie but I do not think landings are irrelevant (other than trying to mix apples and oranges in a comparison exercise). I personally think we should have both - hours and landings.

 

Who is likely to be the most current pilot - one who has put in a solid hour of circuits with a mix of full stops, touch and goes, all in a cross wind, or one who has spent 3 hours pole squatting and picking his nose, totally trimmed out at 8000'?

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

i notice that the RAAus ask only for number of landings done each year and not hours flown. this information would be totally irrevelant when comparing to everyone else who use hours flown .

Curious - I recently renewed my aircraft rego & had to supply both number of landings and the aircraft hours. If this isn't consistently asked for perhaps the total hours are accumulated from the pilot certificate renewals.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

BTW. when i renewed my rego this year it came back marked "provisional" previous renewals did not have this. anyone else notice any thing different on their renewals?

 

Ozzie

 

 

[Guest J430]

Brent

 

I'll go, will you pick me up on your way there!

 

Yes the data needs to be seperated out by a/c type and then cause......

 

As for most modern types, Tecnam, Sportstar's Jabiru's etc......and with good training, and I think the PPL level is really a minimum, especially when some folk want more GA like activity, you can be as safe as any old Piper or Cessna driver.

 

J

 

 

[Flyer]

Who is likely to be the most current pilot - one who has put in a solid hour of circuits with a mix of full stops, touch and goes, all in a cross wind, or one who has spent 3 hours pole squatting and picking his nose, totally trimmed out at 8000'?

In answer to the above...Both. The pilot who has put in a heap of circuit work will be good at low level work and getting the plane up and down. ;)

 

The pilot who has just spent 3 hours at 8500' (8000' is an IFR level :big_grin:) is working on his cross country proficiency, heading and height hold, in flight judgement, fuel management, weather management etc etc.

 

My 2 bobs worth...

 

Regards

 

Phil

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Flyer - I think you miss a central point! Unless you break it up in flight or have a mid air - then the majority of entries to the crash comic are from hitting the ground.

 

Proficiency in alleviating that situation may have slightly more import than holding a heading etc etc!