The first ever perfect flight would be newsworthy.
Mishap coverage is educational for the aspiring/new pilot and a reminder to the rest of us that no one took off on these flights intending to do harm, but then did…mature ADM and distraction management are requirements for every flight.
For those implying more flying is more dangerous, I agree, in your case please stay on the ground and invest in a simulator or hang up your spurs. Even if you think proficiency exposes you to more risk, it reduces the risk for your occasional passengers, you at least owe it to them.
Educating significant others on risk management decisions (get-there-itis) helps make them a positive contribution in marginal situation “go/no go” decisions…just go easy on their mishap reporting exposure.
Paul, thanks for an informative article. I have a comment on risk. You wrote, “but under five chances in 100,000 [hours] is an exceedingly low risk.” Well, it maybe low, but I am not sure about exceedingly low (and, no, I’m not trying to split hairs here).
If you fly 100 hours per year, then your risk of a crash is 5 per 1000 (or one in 200) per year. Fly ten years at that annual rate and it’s one in 20. Not looking so exceeding low anymore.
Don’t get me wrong, I fly at least 100 hours per year, most if it in a homebuilt. I’ve been riding motorcycles for over 40 years. Knock-on-wood, I’m still here to write this comment. Regardless, whether the risk of flying is “high” or the risk of flying is “low” all depends on what one’s personal threshold is for risk.
Finally, and as you noted, the actual risk experienced by any particular pilot is substantially (but maybe not completely) under her/his control. That is a big part of what I like about airplanes and motorcycles.
“The more you fly, the more exposed you are to bird strikes, …”
Yes, your risk exposure increases, but if the flight is done with purpose, it also leads to risk mitigation. I definitely have observed that on average, the pilots who fly more frequently and/or with purpose (i.e. additional training/proficiency with a knowledgeable instructor) have sharper skills and greater SA than those who fly infrequently. So while their risk exposure might be higher, their skillset to lower the severity of any actual abnormal situation is greater, so their overall risk of injury is much lower. Of course, the only way to truly eliminate all of the risk is to not do the thing, but at that point we’re not talking about risk reduction, we’re talking about risk avoidance.
I report on accidents in the type in which I specialize specifically to identify trends and orient training programs to address the greatest threats. I make something of a career of writing about accidents in Aviation Safety and elsewhere. I try to balance the reports with with good news–for example, I recently made a presentation on engine failure accidents in Beech Bonanzas and Debonairs in the decade 2011-2020 (with an NTSB Member in the back of the room). I emphasized the things pilots can do to prevent engine failures and to respond if a failure does occur. But stressed also that in a fleet with a conservatively estimated 750,000 flying hours in that decade there were only 159 NTSB reports citing power loss in these types of airplanes. On average you can fly 4716 hours before experiencing power loss in flight, and over 1/3 of those are directly attributable to fuel management. So keep the fuel flowing and that’s an average 7500 flying hours between engine failure events–more time than most non-career track pilots will ever fly. NTSB does not investigate all engine failures, but it does most. This is also part of the risk management equation, and that’s how I use accident reporting.
That said, I have presented in a NTSB forum including most of the Members themselves saying there Congressional mandate to investigate every single reportable aircraft mishap is a waste of time and money because we have enough data to tell us where the risks are. We need to turn these data into changes in instructional topics and methods. The flip side is that is they do no investigate all the crashes they won’t identify new trends if and when they emerge.
As for reporting in the popular media (and in our niche, AVWeb is extremely popular), I’m with you–if there is something notable about a specific event (notable perhaps being that it has received a lot of non-aviation press) then you probably ought to report it. If nothing else it balances all the reports of successes to remind readers that the is great risk in flying, and it’s up to us to prevent what we can and prepare for dealing with scenarios we cannot prevent.
One mechanical way to reduce risk of personal injury in single and twin reciprocating engine powered craft, which are the majority of GA flown for pleasure and some business, is the whole airframe ballistic parachute and individual occupant airbag. The former, if used when needed typically prevents death, the latter automatically prevents head and torso injury from frontal impact…moreso than four and five point shoulder harnesses. And, as Paul as mentioned, the use of a helmet also will reduce injury. Personally, I’d go with the ballistic chute and airbag, setting personal minimums and sticking with them, and realizing that if I absolutely must be “there” on a schedule, to either drive or fly commercially. Small price to pay for preventing life long injury and/or death.
Gary,
Considering the costs, training, upkeep, regulations, AD’s, maintenance, airspace restrictions, security, and currency, only the truly committed stick to flying. The rest drop out and take up cheaper fun like boats or motorcycles.
You have to be crazy to be a pilot and insane to actually own a plane. '-)
Great opening comment Rich - ahhh, the prefect flight, my definition - a flight when everything went perfectly, no mistakes, not even asking a controller to repeat a frequency. I’ve been flying for 42 years, still haven’t had one (came close a few times). But you know what, I keep trying.
I think (maybe I’m delusional) that “trying” makes me a better pilot. It also makes me more rational in my flight planning and decision whether to go or stay on the ground.
Sure there are things I can’t control, three engine failures, electrical fire in the cockpit, broken throttle cable (stuck at cruise power) gear failure etc., but I’ve learned from every icing encounter, and every accident report. The learning all goes to trying for that perfect flight.
Paul, I think there is incredible learning to be had from reading about a crash, but only if there is an investigation and a report on the causes leading to the crash. The report makes us wiser and can be quite startling when you pick up some process or flight activity you that do that is similar to that of the crash victim.
Learning about a crash the day after, without a conclusion, offers no usable information/learning, as evidence by the comments that follow each story - each with a theory as to why it happened. That’s a waste of time.
Point being is that statistics is not causal. Getting a bird in the canopy or a dead engine on climbout is a real possibility on EVERY flight regardless of statistics. The more you fly, the more you are exposed to bad things. During such an accident, you may have some input, maybe not.
When presented with “maybe not” with a dead engine on climbout, the inevitable is bad eaither way. That’s when we still see even the very best trained pilots with high time in type try just about anything.
I going with the ‘Bigger Picture View’; Report ‘EVERY Accident’ and let the ‘Clicks’ decide. Digital ink is cheap.
The Three Things that make Aviation Safer: Money, Money and Technology. If we never reported that planes got lost there wouldn’t be a GPS satellite network. If not reporting that some situations are just not survivable we wouldn’t have airframe parachutes. Reporting on failed vacuum systems brought us the EFIS with battery back-up. AOAs, because it was reported that stall warning indicators aren’t good enough at stall prevention. You can go on and on with life saving technologies but without awareness and statistics no one will invest ‘The Money ?’ to solve the most common problems. Awareness through those reports then justifies you and I spending ‘The Money ?’ to make a Safer Aircraft and Flying Experience.
Report accidents no matter how small or inconsequential even if only statistically. No sacrifice monetary and/or life should be made in vein. It may only be a statistic that’s reported but, someday that number will justify investing in a preventative solution.
The number of stall/spin crashes due to mishandling engine-out procedures in a twin would seem to argue that less practice equals more risk. One thing I’ve never seen is an attempt to measure the rigor of instruction. I went through a flight school with very high expectations, and in recurrent training have insisted that my instructors make me sweat; I believe those high expectations had a positive impact on my confidence and personal standards, and made me a safer pilot. My first cross-country after getting my instrument ticket included 2 1/2 hours in IMC (in a 172 with a standard six-pack and dual nav coms), which I only undertook because I felt well prepared. I’ve had way too many conversations with pilots, especially those with just a private rating, where it seems the tone of their instruction was to expect just enough to get by.
With the proliferation of flight simulators today, I think insurance companies could play a large role in improving safety by discounting their rates for frequent recurrent training, especially for instrument and twin engine-out practice. It would need to be frequent to do any good.
One of the big challenges is our ability to accurately assess risk. Sensational videos help skew perceived risk and IMO don’t accurately reflect the actual risks on any given typical flight.
I think they also foster either a “ I will never be that dumb” attitude or “something terrible that I can’t predict or recover from could happen on every flight” fatalism. Both ideations are not particularly helpful.
That being said I think there can be value in videos especially for examples of systems failures. Having already seen the developing symptoms of a particular failure may help pilots recognize it when it happens to them.
Finally I think accident videos should be treated like any other media. Consider the source, the motivation of the author/presenter and treat it as a data point, not the last and only answer.
After 16,000 plus light airplane and airline, I hit severe turbulence in an old Bonanza. That, and flying over the Los Angeles basin from northwest to KCRQ (all those structures and no good place to land in the event of an engine failure), I decided the fun was gone.
80-ish% of accidents are still pilot error. If the age of the fleet was a causal factor in accidents, the accident would be rising over the decades as the fleet ages, when in fact the opposite is true.
As a retired Air Force pilot and current airline pilot, I can tell you we practice BOTH maneuvers AND scenarios. In the single pilot GA world, I would argue the emphasis SHOULD be on maneuvers, as that is what the accident data suggests needs improvement. The reason scenario training is conducted in multi-crew, transport category aircraft is that the systems are much more complex, the environment more dynamic and challenging, and crew resource management must be trained/practiced. This type of scenario training requires expensive, full motion simulators and is not practical for GA. What types of scenarios are you suggesting GA practice?
“For pilots who have been in the game for a while, I see limited benefit in accident reports…”. IMO, this wonderful world of aviation is not so wonderful at times. “There but for the grace of God go I”. We, high or low timers, sometimes get sloppy or encounter situations through no fault of our own. Factual accident reports can be beneficial waker-uppers.
Well, I got my license in the early 1990s and have owned airplanes since the mid-90s. Flying was perceived as dangerous then too, but that didn’t stop me. I was a kid of the 1960s with astronauts and Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”. I wanted to be an astronaut/pilot. When I was finally able to afford it, I got my license. I have always reviewed accident reports as part of my “practice” to stay current, learn things, and not become complacent. Over the years it’s become clear, as the Led Zeppelin put it, the song remains the same. People become complacent, make mistakes, or are just very unlucky. There are a few yahoos (e.g., a recent accident in Watsonville), but mostly accidents are avoidable with some mindfulness, common sense, and professionalism.
With respect to internet story saturation, and “new” pilot fears, I think it’s just the latest 21st century fad. Recall that before GPS finding the destination airport could be an adventure. When I was a student my CFI would hit me with a rolled-up chart if I was looking at the gauges too much. With all the new flight simulators and gadgets I image that problem has only gotten worse.
The upshot is, if you really have a burning desire to fly, nothing will stop you. If anything, cost is probably the biggest roadblock for most folks as it was for me.
