הכול
← Back to Squawk list
Unfit for flight: Hidden defects linked to small-aircraft crashes over five decades
Nearly 45,000 people have been killed over the past five decades in private planes and helicopters — almost nine times the number that have died in airline crashes — and federal investigators have cited pilots as causing or contributing to 86% of private crashes. But a USA TODAY investigation shows repeated instances in which crashes, deaths and injuries were caused by defective parts and dangerous designs, casting doubt on the government's official rulings and revealing the inner workings… (www.usatoday.com) עוד...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
The USA Today is notorious for its hit pieces on aviation. They come armed with a few facts supporting their theory that aviation is highly dangerous and should be regulated out of existence. They must be owned by the railroads.
AOPA responded to this article this morning: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/June/18/USA-Today-report-extremely-flawed-AOPA-says.aspx
I just read the whole article, all 3 parts.
My first impression is that it is a total anti-GA hack job. The writers obviously think that all small planes are dangerous.
More important, they intentionally write to make things sound not just bad, but in the worst possible light, without any regard to being fair.
They point out that the manufacturers are involved in investigating GA accidents. Guess what? The manufacturers are heavily involved in investigating airline accidents.
I'm tired of so many people, lead by hacks like the USA Today, who always portray private enterprise (manufacturers) as inherently untrustworthy, if not evil. Yet when they point to the NTSB, they are implying the only good solution is to make the government larger.
The USA Today repeatedly point out that there have been 9 times as many GA deaths as airlines in the last 50 years. Fine, why not dig up the statistic on how many times more "amateur" driver caused deaths there have been as opposed to the professionals driving buses and taxis?
The USA points to court decisions that contradict NTSB findings. Like our legal system is perfect and always comes to the truth? NEWS FLASH! There were legitimate reasons Congress granted liability relief in 1994. I will submit that our courts still get aviation wrong too many times.
What is the major impediment to GA manufacturers making existing airplanes and helicopters safer? While a big part is the increased risk of liability in our sue-happy legal system, the cost for FAA certification of existing designs is prohibitive.
The unreasonable costs of FAA approved changes would be an interesting article. Or how many times the courts got it wrong? But those would involve some real investigative reporting, something these hacks are incapable of.
My first impression is that it is a total anti-GA hack job. The writers obviously think that all small planes are dangerous.
More important, they intentionally write to make things sound not just bad, but in the worst possible light, without any regard to being fair.
They point out that the manufacturers are involved in investigating GA accidents. Guess what? The manufacturers are heavily involved in investigating airline accidents.
I'm tired of so many people, lead by hacks like the USA Today, who always portray private enterprise (manufacturers) as inherently untrustworthy, if not evil. Yet when they point to the NTSB, they are implying the only good solution is to make the government larger.
The USA Today repeatedly point out that there have been 9 times as many GA deaths as airlines in the last 50 years. Fine, why not dig up the statistic on how many times more "amateur" driver caused deaths there have been as opposed to the professionals driving buses and taxis?
The USA points to court decisions that contradict NTSB findings. Like our legal system is perfect and always comes to the truth? NEWS FLASH! There were legitimate reasons Congress granted liability relief in 1994. I will submit that our courts still get aviation wrong too many times.
What is the major impediment to GA manufacturers making existing airplanes and helicopters safer? While a big part is the increased risk of liability in our sue-happy legal system, the cost for FAA certification of existing designs is prohibitive.
The unreasonable costs of FAA approved changes would be an interesting article. Or how many times the courts got it wrong? But those would involve some real investigative reporting, something these hacks are incapable of.
I read the article in its entirety and found it to be interesting. I do admit that there is a fair amount of sensationalism and certainly a focus on the negative aspects of accident statistics. I did, however, I found my response to the article somewhat eye opening. I am the only pilot in my family. My grandfather likes to call to my attention, any recent crashes that have happened. My usual response is usually two-fold, first I will say "well how many people have died in car accidents since then?" Second, I will usually take a cursory examination of the situation around the crash and say that it was likely pilot error because that pilot probably did X when obviously he should have done Y. I always remind them about how we train all the time for things to go wrong, and how we always have a plan. Reading the article, lead to some self reflection as I wondered, how much of what I say is simply regurgitating dogma, and how much is actually true. I'm a relatively low time GA pilot, and prior to reading the article, I was aware of how certification of aircraft worked and that many of the aircraft produced today were not certified in the Part 23 era. I recognize that changes are on the horizon, which will hopefully lead to increased safety and decreased cost. I was disturbed, however, to read about how cursory the NTSB's examination of most GA crashes was. I never realized that there were only 48 regional investigators. I have on my own time, prior to this article, read through a bunch of NTSB findings of GA crashes because I'm a nerd and remember reading that the report is basically a narrative of what caused the crash, with examination as to what caused the fatalities. Yes, it is true that all fatalities would be eliminated if crashes were eliminated but survivability is something that we should also strive for. I think that the two questions we should take away from that article are, "are we doing enough, quickly enough?" and "How can we make crashes in the current GA fleet more survivable?"
Jason gives more credit to the article than it might deserve. The article uses anecdotal and cherry picked statistics to make an expository case. Having said that, no has mentioned that from 90-98% of the accidents overwhelming cause is the pilot. This is not to bash pilots but to demonstrate that human beings are limited in their ability to timely process data in critical situations. This is also true for airline. As well as general aviation pilots. The safety gains have come from automation technology assistance. The real question should be why is the focus on 2-10% of faults rather on the 90+%.
As for manufacturers liability, the tort law involved uses the principle of joint and several liability rather than comparative liability that many states use for automobile liability and damage determinations. The 1990s limitation to 18 years was a compromise albeit akin to don't ask don't tell. If a manufacturer is a fraction of a percent responsible for what could be related to an accident or at least convincing a jury of that fact with a very technical argument, the manufacture is responsible for all of the damages. This rule may not be fair but looks to a deep pocket to provide compensation.
James Meer, Microflight
As for manufacturers liability, the tort law involved uses the principle of joint and several liability rather than comparative liability that many states use for automobile liability and damage determinations. The 1990s limitation to 18 years was a compromise albeit akin to don't ask don't tell. If a manufacturer is a fraction of a percent responsible for what could be related to an accident or at least convincing a jury of that fact with a very technical argument, the manufacture is responsible for all of the damages. This rule may not be fair but looks to a deep pocket to provide compensation.
James Meer, Microflight
Actually, the number of accidents that have a maintenance root cause is quite high... bordering on 20%. You might argue that the "pilot screwed up" the emergency procedures - which is true in SOME cases. Often (for example, an engine failure at night) the odds are stacked against the pilot regardless of whether every step of the mechanical failure is executed faithfully and with precision. To assert, worse BELIEVE, that our machines are error free is unhelpful. Regardless of how hard manufacturers work to put out a reliable product, it's still a statistical game. For every bit of increased reliability we pay an increasingly high premium in terms of purchase price and maintenance. It all boils down to risk, risk management, and what my (or YOUR) personal risk preference might be.