RAA, CTA, Flaps, and .... Acghmed

[Guest Qwerty]

Acghmed complains that he has spent his whole life devoted to the construction of beautiful houses. He has built small houses and big houses and he has built huge houses. but noone calls him Acghmed the house builder. He has built many many houses but still noone calls him Acghmed the house builder, but ???k one Donky........................

 

So my question is how many hours of uneventful flying and how many uneventful landings do RAAus pilots have to complete before the good flying is recognised.

 

I dont have access to the data but I would love to know how RAAus flight stats, for lets say incedents vs number of sorties, in Australia compare with similar stats from GA in Australia and to other nation's stats.

 

I suspect that there is a lot of criticism directed tward RAAus that it simply does not deserve.

 

 

[hihosland]

Since RaAus have the how "many landings" question on their re-registration form it should be possible to extract that data and extrapolate from there the ratio of incidents (reported incidents) to total sorties.

 

Davidh

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

There is some fatalities per 100 thousand hours CASA stats floating around the net from a few years back. No statistically significant difference between RA-Aus and light aircraft GA. And in the past few years our flying hours have gone up and fewer fatalities than before. Some new data would be appreciated indeed!

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Some updated data would indeed be good but the most recent figures I've seen unfortunately don't appear to support the assertion that theres "no statistically significant difference between RA-Aus and light aircraft GA".

 

See http://www.casa.gov.au/seminars/selfadmin/papers/CASA-Safety-Statistics.pdf page 7.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Think about this. Most incidents occur in the circuit, landing and at takeoff. RAAus flights by their very nature are short duration, hell I know people that pretty much only do circuits. Now on the other hand GA flights tend to be longer, ie, they are going somewere. I know that I am generalising wildly but it is a reasonable thesis. Now if we compare GA and RAAus using incidents per 1000 hrs we will get a distorted perception of risk because the risk is related to the number of landings and the number of takoffs. Basically, flying along in cruise is about (roughly speaking) as dangerous as sitting in the aircraft in the hangar. It is reasonable to assume that the number of takeoffs roughly equals the numbe rof landings, so a better measure of safety of operation would be to measure the number of incidents per 1000 landings. Unfortunately I expect that it might be difficult to extract the landing figures for GA to do any fair analysis.

 

 

[sain]

Interesting stats those. They don't seem to mesh at all with the ones on page 4, which is showing around 100 accidents in 2005 (with a downward trend), though with around 12 fatalities in 10 fatal accidents (very hard to tell - wild XXXX guess).

 

So assuming you are talking about fatal accidents only (again, the preceeding slides don't make it clear) on page 7, and you add all the GA sub-types up then they come out worse than the ultralights, but around the same for all sport types (+gyros +gliders).

 

But then if you take the fatal accidents/100000hrs for both types then ultralights come out around (ballpark, can't really tell - give numbers damn it) all of GA taken together.

 

In conclusion I think that presentation is an excellent example of comparing apples with elephants. I think the fatal accidents/100,000 hours is probably the best point of comparision (even though its the worst for us), though even that is a tad dubious.

 

I still think statistically insignificant difference is a hard call to beat. Why is there no smiley-with-head-stuck-in-sand emoticon?

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

There is a different between *fatal accidents* and *fatalities* per 100,000 flying hours.

 

As querty points out, we probably do many more landings and take offs than most private GA and we do have a higher fatal accident rate. However, we kill 2 at most in any one accident, so our fatalities per 100,000 hours is probably lower than GA.

 

See page 21 of this document:

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/27391/aviationstats09.pdf

 

That's 6.5 average over the past 10 years for private GA, which is no real difference to us, going by the number in the other presentation. (which shows only fatal accidents, but also says only one in 6 accidents kills more than one person)

 

So basically, we kill less people more often than GA does!

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Its all biased info until you can arrange a reasonable comparison. Here is another comparison that is just as stupid as comparing fatalities or incidents per 100,000 hrs. Why not compare incidents per number of registrations??? it is just as logical?

 

Incidents per sortie is the only way to get at what is happening. And just to make it interesting the needs to be presented in a way that takes account of most of the major variences....heres a coouple for starters.

 

pilot greater than 500 landings exp vs pilot less than 500 landings exp.

 

Pilot greater than 10 landings in the last month vs pilot less than 10 landings in the last month.

 

I contend that significant decisions that cost us time, money and lives are being based on faulty statistical information analysed using faulty logic.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

I hate "me too" answers, but in this case I have to say: couldn't agree more!

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Look Basscheffers, In this case I have to agree, I hate "me too" answers too

 

 

[facthunter]

Statistics.

 

Statistics only tell part of the story, and depending on the parameters chosen may be misleading.

 

GA landings are collated, as the returns include that information.

 

All forms of civil aviation consider that the landing and take-off phases of flight are the most dangerous, so the most valid comparison would be to relate accidents to number of landings rather than flight time, there should not be much argument about that. Nev..

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Even if the stats are reworked to reflect sorties. It makes sense to find out which aircraft are more likely to be involved in incidents. Already they are split into GA, RPT, Charter, RAAus HGFA etc. I expect that pilot experience is another important factor. It may not be low hrs pilots either. It may be pilots between say 1000 and 2000 landings that need to be aware that they may be in a high risk group. Simply being aware will make a significant difference to behaviour. I hink that we need to know this information.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

There are 3 kind of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics ! (B Disraeli) so I suspect this discussion could be a long one ! A few observations - the rate for recreational aviation is essentially comprised of private and flight training ops so the most meaningful comparison might be with only those categories of GA.

 

I suspect that if the recreational rate was separated into flight training and private then the fatality rate for the later would be even worse than the combined figure.

 

Most fatalities DON'T occur during take off / landing so when considering fatal accident rates I don't think the higher number of landings by Recreational (if indeed it is higher) has much relevance.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

PS 98% of all statisitics are made up ! (Anon)

 

 

[facthunter]

Accidents.

 

John I think that I have never heard anyone suggest that the t/o and landing phase is not the most dangerous. Where is that information? Nev

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I think i smell what he's cooking.. The takeoff/ landing phases are much more likely to cause an accident, but less likely to to involve fatalities.. Its simply a question of energy, much less energy to be obsorbed when your low and slow...

 

sound reasonable?

 

 

[Paul Turner]

Since RaAus have the how "many landings" question on their re-registration form it should be possible to extract that data and extrapolate from there the ratio of incidents (reported incidents) to total sorties.Davidh

Why do we have to report 'how many landings'? I'm pretty sure it will always be the same number as my takeoffs.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

John I think that I have never heard anyone suggest that the t/o and landing phase is not the most dangerous. Where is that information? Nev

Most likely to have an accident - no argument that its t/o & landing phases but poor piloting skills here are generally more likely to result in bent planes than dead bodies.

 

Most likely causes for fatalities ... I'm not convinced. Just consider the circumstances of the RAAus fatalities that we know have occured in the past last few years. Or have a look at Fatal Accidents, Whats Killing Pilots, Aircraft Fatality, Darren Smith, Flight Instructor, CFI Homepage .

 

So it depends what you mean by "dangerous" ? I intentionally didn't use that word as I was specifically referring to fatalities not accidents (since that was the metric used in the CASA statistics.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[jetjr]

Not so sure, every so often I do a landing which really should qualify as two!

 

JR

 

 

[slartibartfast]

I have actually marked one in my log book as a half.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Why do we have to report 'how many landings'? I'm pretty sure it will always be the same number as my takeoffs.

There reason that we report number of landings is that we need to know how many sorties are flown. Now, the number of sorties = the number of takoffs but the number of takeoffs are not reported. The astute RAAus management have noted that there is a strong correlation between the number of landings (which are reported) and the numbe rof takeoffs (which are not reported). They then cleverly use this relationship together with the above formula ( number of sorties = number of takoffs ) to deduce the number of sorties flown.

 

 

[Paul Turner]

Fatal Accidents, Whats Killing Pilots, Aircraft Fatality, Darren Smith, Flight Instructor, CFI Homepage[/url] .

John,

 

Ignoring my earlier facetious comment... thanks for the link, it's a great piece that lays out in simple language some of the primary risk factors in our flying; and more importantly what we can do to reduce the probability of the event occurring. Others may argue around the relative percentages of the different risks but it's a great start to some constructive conversations... I've already passed it to my son and I'll do the same to every other person I know that flies.

 

I might see if we can get permission to reprint it in the RAAus magazine.

 

Cheers,

 

Paul

 

 

[facthunter]

Defining.

 

Some are talking fatalities. I am talking accidents.(as distinct from incidents) so we need to note that.

 

Re landing and taking off. The skills have to be applied more than en-route. You are busier, the workload is higher, there is more traffic , you are flying closer to the stall , reconfiguring the aircraft, etc. so there is more room for error.

 

DANGEROUS, not a word I like to apply to aviation explicitly as it is dependent on your perception, but to say that there are more or less hazards, might be a better way of expressing it.

 

The take-off phase is more worthy of attention than most give it credit for and to my recollection is the area where quite a few have come to grief, often due to the engine letting you down, (probably the most likely time as it is working the hardest, or the fuel hasn't been selected "on" properly).but for plenty of other factors as well.

 

STATISTICS compartmentalise occurrences, they don't consider causes. They can prove what you want them to prove if you select your criteria carefully, and dare I say dishonestly, sometimes. For instance, how would a comparo of Passenger miles related to deaths look in RAAus, where you don't always carry a pax and the max is ONE?

 

Number of landings . Recorded for maintenance reasons in RAAus I believe. I don't know why CASA want it. Has relevance to your ability to carry a passenger legally in RAAus, (recent experience.) Nev

 

 

[shags_j]

Awesome link. Thanks John.

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't know what the statistics say but my opinion is that teke off is the most dangerous phase of flight. If the engine fails you are low and getting lower, with not enough speed to get over tiger country. Failure on landing approach or even in the circuit and you have height and speed on your side to get you to the threshold. Country that looks OK for the approach looks vastly different when you have to climb over it, so much so that I will carry as much as 10kts of tailwind to take off into open country, rather than over trees.