By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON, April 10 (Reuters) - Private U.S. flights, usually involving small airplanes, are 82 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than major airlines, researchers said on Tuesday.
Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore said these non-commercial flights account for most U.S. aviation crashes, injuries and deaths.
They called these so-called general aviation flights a public safety problem and urged the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board to do more to improve safety of small airplanes.
The general aviation rate of 1.31 fatal crashes per 100,000 flight hours is 82 times greater than for major airlines, said the researchers, who analyzed government statistics.
From 2002 through 2005, general aviation accounted for an annual average of 1,685 crashes and 583 deaths, making up 91 percent of all U.S. aviation crashes and 94 percent of all aviation deaths, the researchers said.
"I would like people to realize that the huge majority of aviation deaths occur in general aviation," said epidemiologist Susan Baker, who wrote the analysis with Dr. Guohua Li, a professor of emergency medicine.
Li said the fatal crash risk per mile of travel for general aviation flights is comparable to the risk from motorcycle riding.
General aviation refers primarily to small private airplanes and business jets. These business and personal flights may involve recreation, emergency medical services, sightseeing, flight training, traffic reporting, search and rescue, firefighting, crop dusting, logging or other purposes.
FATALITY RATES
About 20 percent of general aviation crashes result in at least one death, a rate that has remained steady for 20 years, the researchers said. At the same time, the overall airline crash fatality rate fell from 16 percent to 6 percent.
"The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because such aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect occupants from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are," the researchers wrote.
"In recent decades, while major airlines have improved seat strength, revised exit row configurations and used more fire retardant materials, few improvements have been made in general aviation aircraft in part because federal regulations only require safety improvements for entirely new aircraft models," they added.
Baker, a licensed private pilot, said using such logic, Volkswagen Beetles could have been sold without seat belts for decades after the government required them in all new cars.
FAA spokesman Les Dorr said the agency will review the research, but added, "We have had a vigorous general aviation safety program in place since 1970. We hold seminars all across the country. And last October, we even revamped this effort."
Low-flying small aircraft are particularly at risk in poor weather conditions, the researchers said. Not wearing safety restraints, including lap belts and shoulder restraints, is another risk factor for pilot death, they said.
The researchers said there are 228,000 active U.S. private pilots and 220,000 registered general aviation aircraft. Planes make up 93 percent of the aircraft and helicopters 4 percent.
Researchers fault US small airplane flight safety
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Researchers fault US small airplane flight safety
Researchers fault US small airplane flight safety
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
-
marktheone
- Rank 7
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:07 am
- Location: An airplane.
google news alerts - as they happen to my inbox-
Northern Skies
- Rank 8
- Posts: 769
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm
-
Wixel Pimp
- Rank 1
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:10 pm
The information is not new. It's well known that the vast majority of airplane accidents occur with "small" airplanes. It has little to do with the construction.
There is a ridiculous statement in the article associating the relatively large fatality rate in small airplanes to the construction of the thing. We all know that the best way to prevent fatalities is to not crash. If you crash more, you'll get more fatalities. Period.
An interesting statistic that isn't quoted in the article is the rate of accidents for small twins. Although there are small twins that can't maintain altitude on one engine, many can so logically the accident rate should be lower since you have powerplant redundancy. Unfortunately, the increased operating complexity of a twin and the techniques required to safely operate on a single engine, turn many survivable incidents into fatal accidents.
So what is the underlying lesson here? There is very little wrong with the construction of small aircraft. If you want to bring the level of safety up to the average airliner, nobody would be able to afford one. Furthermore, there is really no reason for it. We're talking about (for the most part) single engine low performance airplanes that often don't even have retractable gear.
The key is training. Many many private pilots don't invest in recurrent training. Many accidents are cause by pilots not knowing what to do when faced with adverse operating conditions. Many fly in weather they aren't rated for (Like JFK junior).
If you want to reduce the accident rate in general aviation, the emphasis should be placed on training. Not better seat belts.
By the way, isn't it interesting that all Volkswagons are delivered with seat belts but busses aren't?
There is a ridiculous statement in the article associating the relatively large fatality rate in small airplanes to the construction of the thing. We all know that the best way to prevent fatalities is to not crash. If you crash more, you'll get more fatalities. Period.
An interesting statistic that isn't quoted in the article is the rate of accidents for small twins. Although there are small twins that can't maintain altitude on one engine, many can so logically the accident rate should be lower since you have powerplant redundancy. Unfortunately, the increased operating complexity of a twin and the techniques required to safely operate on a single engine, turn many survivable incidents into fatal accidents.
So what is the underlying lesson here? There is very little wrong with the construction of small aircraft. If you want to bring the level of safety up to the average airliner, nobody would be able to afford one. Furthermore, there is really no reason for it. We're talking about (for the most part) single engine low performance airplanes that often don't even have retractable gear.
The key is training. Many many private pilots don't invest in recurrent training. Many accidents are cause by pilots not knowing what to do when faced with adverse operating conditions. Many fly in weather they aren't rated for (Like JFK junior).
If you want to reduce the accident rate in general aviation, the emphasis should be placed on training. Not better seat belts.
By the way, isn't it interesting that all Volkswagons are delivered with seat belts but busses aren't?
Fatal crash vs Accident.cpl_atc wrote:Richard Collins (Flying Magazine) has for years ranted about accident stats like these, and their dubious accuracy. There is no concrete record of hours flown by GA types, so many assumptions go into their calculation. And if memory serves, the accident rate suggested by Collins recently for bizjet and airline flights was somewhere in the 1.02/100,000hrs range. So right there you have a huge discrepancy with the "82 times greater" claimed in this study.article wrote:The general aviation rate of 1.31 fatal crashes per 100,000 flight hours is 82 times greater than for major airlines
