USMCFLYR

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

N9373M

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.

USMCFLYR

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

rickair7777

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.

N9373M

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

USMCFLYR

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

HSLD

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.

yimke

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.

EasternATC

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.

JamesNoBrakes

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...