GA mishap rates up 20%?
 

This article states that GA mishap rates are up 20% since 2000, while there has been an approximate 85% decrease in commercial operations and associated mishap rates.
It is basically saying at one point that GA pilots are not learning from their mistakes or benefiting from the recent advances in safety cultures and programs.

Deadly Private-Plane Crashes Prompt U.S. Call for Basics - Businessweek

Do the GA pilots here on APC think they have benefited from the recent safety advancements?

USMCFLYR

Define safety enhancements. GPS, Nexrad, Automation, Cirrus CAPS?

To me it all boils down to the pilot and his/her decisions. I would surmise the majority of GA accidents are VFR into IFR, and fuel starvation/exhaustion. The real problem is complacency, get homeitis, and "it won't happen to me".

So I guess my answer is no.

The article hits on a few, but part of the article is also focusing on 'back to basics' which to me involves basic aircraft handling skills and decision making.
The article certainly draws attention to weather related incidents. It mentions one mishap inparticular where the pilot supposedly did not check the weather prior to the flight. This means that they have no record of a conversation with FSS I'm assuming but doesn't seem to take into account that the pilot might have checked the weather on some internet source prior to the flight and doesn't mention if the flight was conducted under VFR or IFR.

But then you have to look at the accuracy of the reported material:

Such as a stall warning horn? :)

USMCFLYR

The advanced technology mostly makes rich guys feel a lot more comfortable with their own capabilities. While the tech can enhance safety, I suspect the complacency it generates in the PPL crowd probably offsets the potential benefits to be gained. This includes GPS retrofitted into older planes.

Other than a ballistic parachute all the tech in the world won't save you from VFR-into-IFR, fuel exhaustion, or stall/spin.

Could this be an AOA indicator in addition to the stall horn?

An AOA indictor is a great idea and ought to be included in every aircraft in my opinion, but that is coming from a guy who was basically brought up on flying AOA primarily (outside of my GA experience pre-military and Primary training in the T-34C (which had a little instruction on AOA flying)).

USMCFLYR

I'm pretty sure we're on the same page, but I'd suggest that tech can only improve situational awareness, and safety only when that SA is interpreted correctly. My fear is that tech has become a crutch for sound aeronautical descision making. All that technology without the ability to interpret what it's telling only makes for a more expensive smoking hole.

Stick and rudder. Also, take away the magic pink line and maybe pilots will step back and think. "Should I try to VFR navigate with pilotage into unknown MVFR/IFR areas?" No.

I seem to recall the majority of GA accidents are loss of control during takeoff or landing, but these probably don't account for the most fatalities.

At the risk of starting an age-war, I'd say that I see a totally different attitude from some of the old-timers as far as risk management is concerned. As someone in the safety-field, I feel that "risk assessments" are just meaningless pieces of paper that make safety-professionals feel good about themselves and sleep well at night. On the other hand, I think that the FAA is trying to figure out how to handle this problem, and I've noticed certain things from older pilots (not talking geriatric, just one or two generations older) that blow my mind. It seems like younger pilots do not get exposed to some of the risky situations that these older pilots got away with, and maybe some of them are better for it (the ones that survived), but the cost is too much, loosing pilots along the way. Maybe I'm way off base and it's not an issue. In any case, I think risk assessments, IMSAFE checklists, decision making processes, and the lot are fairly useless, as they are trying to change attitudes and that is a very hard thing to do. The pilots who have a good attitude and do not take excessive risks do not need those "tools" and the ones that do are the ones that will disregard the "tools" anyway.

As far as "back to basic airmanship"...yeah, most people do not want to take the time to learn. I'd say a good deal of airline pilots don't have a solid grasp on landing, not that they can't in most situations, just that they don't really know what's going on, and then there's that one landing where things go bad and they don't know why...

Not only this, but the situational awareness being provided. There is high SA, good. Low SA, bad. And bad SA, which is fatal. Bad SA being when you think you have high SA, but really none at all. Low SA is at least idenitifiable, and puts you on your toes.

Low experience, plus the barrage of info being provided through new technology is leading to bad SA and poor desicion making.

I agree completely. "Risk management" is nothing more than corporate buzz.

Attitudes are extremely difficult to change (1st generation CRM). Behavior is the target (6th generation). I can still have a poor attitude about something but have safe behavior. The assessments are tools that when used as intended work well. Unfortunately the part 91 typical GA training program focuses on mastering PTS standards but has little grounding in decision making, situational awareness, task priortization, workload management, etc. This was the whole point of FITS training being developed. Give students scenario based training instead of theoretical. IMO the FITS has limited success.

How about a mentoring program after you get a Private license. It would be like a learner's permit. You still would need to fly X number of hours every so often with a CFI. It is kind of like the student that calls you after they get their license and says, "hey, got this trip. Would you mind going along with me?" I had a student that bought a brand new Garmin 1000 Cessna 182 in 2008 with no flight experience at all. Even though he was not legally required to after he got his license, he asked me to fly with him on many long cross countries. We've taken that 182 from Ft Worth as far as SLC,DEN and LAS, in all weather conditions. He probably learned more during those trips than he did during his training! More importantly, it gave him an opportunity to use decision making skills under observation with corrective input --like an FO flying with an experienced captain---...Well, the NEXRAD data is 22 minutes old so would you really like to head that way? I believe some sort of mentoring would bring down the accident rate.

The problem with 'organized' risk assessment/management is that risk is dynamic, not static, and these assessments have the potential to lull some people into a false sense of security: "I did my risk assessment and we're good to go with the mission now".

I too have seen a degradation in stick & rudder skills as both civilian & military flight schools focus a lot of time and effort on aeronautical decision making, risk assessment, etc. Stuff that takes time away from real things.

Likewise, the move towards synthetic training devices has limited the opportunity to hone stick and rudder skills. Even full-motion, level D simulators will only ever be 1g and 2D vis (well, 3D vis may come one day, but it still won't be like real vision anytime in the foreseeable future). The 1g means you can't replicate sinks, slips, or skids and the 2D vis, no matter how photo-realistic, will never give you true depth perception or peripheral vision (although some of the fighter non-motion, 360-deg vis things do some of it). This means you're teaching guys to fly procedures and numbers - which gets you most of the way there, but will never make you a pilot.

You mean a BFR. At some point the 1000 hour PPL's experience trumps the wet behind the ears CFII.

As far as new equipment (G1000, etc), I'm all for getting someone in there who can show me how to best use the tools at hand.

I should have specified quals for the mentor in terms of hours/experience. Once you've achieved a certain amount of time you would be released from mentoring so the 1000hr PP would not apply. Many of the PP I see on BFRs are flying 30 hours a year. Loading all 6 relatives in the flying club PA32-300 on a 103 degree day in TX and going to the family reunion in Ruidoso at 6,920 MSL elevation. The let's go do some stalls and steep turns at 7am on a cool day with the two of us BFR won't help that guy. Getting him into a realistic situation will.

Such as a stall warning horn? :)

USMCFLYR[/QUOTE]

NO, he was referring to an AOA indicator for GA aircraft.

The problem we are having is the lack of basic stick and rudder skills. That goes beyond flying the airplane and encompasses basic ADM too.

40 years ago, aircraft with gyros weren't used until the student was ready for an instrument rating. Otherwise private pilots would learn on a bare to the bones, dead reckoning, Piper Cub.

Today, we are injecting crazy amounts of information and distractions into the private pilot cockpit that is giving them a false sense of security.

I feel that we need to get back to the "building block" approach to FT.

SEE posts 5 and 6 in this thread

40 years ago, aircraft with gyros weren't used until the student was ready for an instrument rating. Otherwise private pilots would learn on a bare to [/QUOTE]

Solo a glider, then move on to the powered plane syllabus. Done this way at the USAFA, with Israeli Air Force, and most of the commonwealth air forces (via a robust cadet training scheme). It's a cheaper way to learn the basics, and builds outstanding habit patterns WRT external scan, energy management, and rudder coordination.

I don't know where Businessweek is getting their information from but, the 2011 Nall report shows a steady decline and a 17% decrease in GA accidents since 2001. Just look at page three:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications...ll-summary.pdf

If the report was to be taken literally, it starts out by saying "private-pilot flights" whereas the Nall report states all non-commercial fixed wing.

I have no idea if they (Businessweek) are smart enough to actually differentiate such accident stats, but one thing is for sure - statistics can be made to follow any particular agenda.

USMCFLYR

Not going to work. The only way risk assessments work is if they are enforced 100% of the time (not going to happen) and if they completely anticipate every possible scenario (not really possible). I go back to what I said before: They help safety-professionals sleep well at night, but do little to really address any problems. I'm well versed in safety culture, human factors (not the BS CRM stuff they sell you at aeronautical schools, I mean ergonomics and real human factors (psychology)).

Sorry about the "BS" CRM you received in the past. I can tell you that as a safety professional myself that works directly with a large percentage of the Fortune 500 flight departments (part 91), they do believe in the concept and enforce it. Perhaps as the material filters down to other GA operations out there it gets diluted. Or perhaps even misused?

After I received my instrument rating I offered to act as a safety pilot for the guys at my school still working on theirs. On one occasion I was riding in a G530 equipped c172. While en-route the GPS gave us a big middle finger ("GPS SIGNAL LOST") and the student flying under the hood completely lost SA in a short time and wasn't sure what to do. He's probably not the first one its happened to.

Once I get my CFII I'll make sure to reproduce that scenario for all my students.

+1. One of the best questions I got during my training was "where are you"? (ADF/VOR/ded rekoning days).

I think a lot of it has to do with reliance on GPS and not being proficient in VORs, ADF, NDB... Old school style. I have noticed a big difference in instructors too. Older instructors don't really like you to be so reliant on GPS (for good reason... its a wonderful tool, but should be your only means of SA) and younger guys aren't as reluctant to rely on it so much.

And yet more of it has to do with certain areas. Anyone who has flown around central FL on the weekends can attest to this. Every yahoo with an experimental, ultralight, recreational license, and wet private are out dorking around in the sky being about as safe as a skydiver without a parachute. I've almost had mid-air collisions several times at uncontrolled fields due to some idiot not knowing where he is in the pattern or not making his call-outs appropriately. I cussed out someone over CTAF in Palatka (not professional I know, but this idiot really pushed my buttons) because I called right base to final and he comes out of nowhere with a "base to final" call for the same runway. I was saved by the fact that I was a little high and I watched him go right through my flight path about 200 ft below. He got mad that I yelled at him and gave me the, "I fly here every weekend! Who do you think you are!?" I'm out here dropping skydivers out of the sky and this idiot is just out farting around not making any calls.

And don't even get me started on the huge amount of foreign student pilots around here who tie up the radios with unintelligible gibberish and really can't fly worth a crap. Nuttier than squirrel **** around here some days.

On my last checkride, my DPE mentioned that in the next 10 years... there will be a push by the FAA to make a Private Pilot rating include an Instrument rating. Basically 2 ratings in one. Will cost twice as much, but I think it isn't the worst idea. It would make things a lot safer I would think. It would basically go: Sport/Recreational, Private (including all the instrument training), Commercial, etc... What would everyone think of something like this?

If the IR is mandated by the FAA, you'll see the number of GA pilots shrink even more.

I think it would stink; very bad for GA.

I suggest you just turn the GPS off for the first 20 hours or so. Then use GPS only every other flight until time for checkride prep.

Bad idea. Other than the obvious economic impact to aviation (scaring away half the customers) I don't think an instrument rating will improve safety much unless it is exercised on a regular basis, and that will require more than six approaches every six months for a PPL who only flies VFR.

Probably better to develop a robust info campaign to keep folks reminded of the top hazards to GA.

I can understand that... It would probably be somewhere in the ballpark of $20,000 to $25,000 for 100 to 125 hours I would think. It would certainly weed out a lot of the younger people coming around wanting to fly, thats for sure. I'm not sold on it being a great idea, but I think there should at least be some sort of integration. Its not an easy solution because if you teach a private pilot too much instrument training, it will only serve to give them false confidence and they will likely put themselves in a bad situation. But I think a little more focus on some BAI training wouldn't be the worst thing in the world either... but who knows what will happen. This industry is crazy.

It's the moving map, and it's just as deadly in IFR flight IMO. When that map goes out, is set incorrectly (TRK up via North Up) or the GPS goes out (yep, I've seen Loss Of Integrity and multiple GPS failures too), the pilot is helpless because they've never had to navigate "old school" as you put it. A lot of instructors think they are teaching it "old school", but with that map up the student is relying most on the map for SA, not interpreting the instruments as appropriate. It's not the GPS persay, most of them don't know what OBS mode does or what a course to/bearing from is, it''s the map IMO. If you teach without a map to start with, the end result is 100x better IMO.

Agreed^^ GPS is my back up. I've lost it a couple of times and for me it isn't a big deal because I already have my VOR's tuned up and ready to go. I usually slave my GPS (if equipped) to the VOR and use GPS when needed

I've had new-hire applicants (and others, but it's most troubling with new-hires) tell me they "can't fly the approach" when I turn off the moving map under partial panel situations. I ask them "why?". They think that is how you fly approaches and do any kind of LNAV. They don't understand that they have the required instruments, even with an attitude indicator in some cases! or combination of other instruments that will substitute, a CDI, a dme readout of some kind, the other required instruments, etc. This is scary to me.