2 replies
March 2020

Jeff_Edwards

Ron Wanttaja posts an interesting article but there are several errors in his analysis that are worth mentioning. He states, “It’s interesting to note that most lethal of accidents—continued VFR into IFR conditions, buzzing, etc.—do occur near cruise speed.) As expected, a higher fatality rate is found among airplanes that can fly faster.” That fact is not born out by research that I participated in with the GAJSC that shows most fatal GA accidents involve a loss of control and are low speed events fmi see: https://www.gajsc.org/document-center/ Faster does not correlate to more fatal accidents, otherwise turbine aircraft would logically lead the way.

As he notes, not all accidents get reported so his denominators are suspect (at best). Many accidents are not reported or incorrectly reported or coded. I found many Lancair accidents were incorrectly coded by the FAA and NTSB. After the introduction of the Lancair IVP almost every Lancair accident was coded as a Lancair IVP, even if it was a Lancair 320 or 360. Aircraft recognition is not their strong suit.

As I said, the denominator is important when discussing accident rates. I encountered this several years ago when an FAA internal memo incorrectly noted a super majority of Lancair accidents had fatal results. They said, “Analysis of Lancair accidents revealed that the Lancair is over-represented in the experimental aircraft accident rate, and was not improving. For instance, Lancair aircraft only represented 3.2% of the experimental fleet, yet in FY 2008, they accounted for 6.6% of the accidents with a lethality rate approaching 60%. These percentages were worse in FY 2012 —Lancair accounted for 8.2% of the accidents with a lethality rate of 100%.” Simply not true. There were 30 accidents and incidents in the U.S. in 2008 with 11 of those fatal. Certainly not a good year but not 100%. As of 2016, when I published a white paper on the subject (found here: https://www.lancairowners.com/files/wp-content/uploads/2016-LOBO-White-Paper.pdf), our fleet of Lancairs had experienced 557 known accidents and incidents since 1988, including 116 fatal accidents involving 192 fatalities. 372 accidents and incidents involved no injuries at all. Efforts to reduce the fatal Lancair accident rate has paid off with just two fatal accidents last year but, the work continues to have an accident free fleet.

Pilots are often their own worst enemy. LOBO commissioned a safety study that utilized the GAJSC protocols for examining the data. The white paper reports on the research and found that nearly a majority (261) of the accidents involved a failure by pilots to follow procedures. Many of the accident pilots had no training in the aircraft they were flying. If pilots would simply take training from a recognized and well respected training provider and if the training community would standardize their training syllabus across their fleets like Robinson, COPA, Cirrus and the MU2 fleet have done, then we would see a serious reduction in the accident rate.

I appreciate Ron’s work on this subject and thank him for his thought provoking discussion.

Best regards,

Jeff Edwards, PhD, ATP and founder Lancair Owners and Builders Organization (LOBO)

January 2023

Kamichan

the problem might be that faster airplanes have less lift coefficient or wing area in comparison to wingload/weight,so low speed is more dangerous to such airfoils and wing configurations than on a low wingloaded slow design…

so why nobody actually gets such an idea by seeing that data i don,t get it,…the correlations in thise statistics are blurred completely as it seems, as Canadian UL data shows that the accident rate of registered and insured but besides that completely identical ultralights in Canada, mostly low maintenance and often homebuilt is half of those of GA airplanes?‍♀️the basic ULs there don,t need any checks or whatever only registration and insurance and the only difference is 25 kilos/ m2 and minimum of 10 m2 wing area.l.l…which leads to bigger designs, but besides that the wing loading of Us UL standards is basically even lower! ?‍♀️i leanrt and compared that for more than a year alone in many designs and sices…
so most accidents even come from restrictive max. engine powers which lead to lack of climb out! but besides that a more heavy bird with 10 m2 than mostly minimum of 7 m2( below that an UL is technically more or less impossible even with the lightest engines, stall speed minimums give that limit…no chance for less, all others are wrongly classified experimentals with high wing loads and as far as i was able to get drawings and blueprints mostly a crap of zero calculated design features regarding G loads! nor safety) …
so not fast airpkanes crash more often but more easily with their small wings at low speed…its simpky always stall?‍♀️stall under rain, under crisswings, tight banks/turns, steep climbing, brainless testosterone behaviour( aerobatics as if every shit we buy MUST endure every overload…but nope, it doesn,t! ?‍♀️)
low floght is not dangerous sorry, but idioticly watwr skidding or sand skidding , zero planning…that is dangerous! and when low and slow YOU JEED A LOW WING LOAD AND HIGH LIFT SURFACE, WHICH CAN BE DESIGNED AND NOT TRIED OUT WITH SOME CRAPPY OLD RESALE FROM A GARAGE HOMEBUILT! )
so it.s behaviour and ignorance that leads to accidents! ?‍♀️using something inappropriate for hazzardous application or simply wrong usage…case closed. people should study more, read manuals, get a license or some training or the knowledge from lesewhere,
ttjanks for the statistics, but i assume those show US behavior a lot…ignorance leads to wrong expectations , lack of knowledge leads to such idiocies as STOL contests, sorry…lbut adter i learnt how to calculate lift in correlation to speed amd weight STOL competitions made zero sense to me and lost all reason for doing those,l.?‍♀️