2007 Fatalities: Not as safe as we think

[Widow]

This has not been a good year, in case you haven't noticed. I posted this article on another thread, and am reposting here ...

The growth of the air taxi and air shuttle industry has put more planes into the air, creating more work for air traffic controllers - the vital link connecting pilots with the all-seeing radar on the ground. Smaller commuter planes and private planes also have a higher incident rate than commercial aircraft - a statistic that turns the old standby of four-times-safer-than-a-car on its ear. To wit, you're seven times MORE likely to be injured in a small plane, than you are in a motor vehicle.

Full article here

So much for being safer flying than driving?

In conjunction with my previous thread, Remembering Pilots ...

According to CADORs, there have been 33 fatal accidents this year (plus Richmond, which has not yet been recorded), which have resulted in 47 deaths.

If I have interpreted correctly, 11 of these deaths were pilots working for commercial operations (I believe I have excluded rental aircraft). These are their names.

• Jason Watt: January 3, 2007 / NWT / CADORs 2007C0051
  Rick Wolsey: January 8, 2007 / SK / CADORs 2007C0071
  Jocelyn Parry: April 1, 2007 / QC / CADORs 2007Q0557
  Kyle Knobelsdorf: May 18, 2007 / ON / CADORs 2007O0805
  Kristina Raymond: May 27, 2007 / PQ / CADORs 2007Q0969
  Richard Rodger: June 3, 2007 / YK / CADORs 2007C1440
  Joseph Michael Plourde: July 2, 2007 / SK / CADORs 2007C1763
  Byron Gwilliam: July 19, 2007 / SK / CADORs 2007C1994
  Robert Garnet Maxwell: August 9, 2007 / MB / CADORs 2007C2257
  Kenneth Steele: October 3, 2007 / NF / CADORs 2007A1159
  Matthew Bienert: October 13, 2007 / BC / CADORs 2007P2055

There were also several pilots who were working for private operations, but these are more difficult to identify. Any help would be appreciated. These are CADORs for fatalities I am unsure whether the pilot was working (private op, owner is a company):

• 2007Q2462
  2007C2292
  2007C2338
  2007O2230
  2007O0796

Additionally, CADOR 2007O1233 identifies the accident operator as private, and the owner as private, but shows that a Minister's Observer has been appointed ... which leads me to believe the pilot was working.

I know, I know. This is depressing stuff. But it is real, and true. And I am tired of our "leaders" telling us how safe the Canadian skies are.

For those of you who knew one of these lost pilots, I hope you are finding peace and closure.

[Rowdy]

I agree it hasn't been a great year, and I'm all to lucky to have just not made that list. Came mighty close..

However.. How many fatalities this year have there been on the road. Say.. In BC alone? Of which were commercial vehicles?! I saw the numbers not to long ago (don't have a link unfortunatly) and the number is considerably higher than you'd think.

I'd still much rather be in the air than on the roads.

Now as a part of the great canadian aviation community, lets do our best to keep each other safe.

Widow, you're doing a great job of keeping people informed. I applaud your efforts and hope people are keepin there purdy lil ears open.

[200hr Wonder]

The growth of the air taxi and air shuttle industry has put more planes into the air, creating more work for air traffic controllers - the vital link connecting pilots with the all-seeing radar on the ground. Smaller commuter planes and private planes also have a higher incident rate than commercial aircraft - a statistic that turns the old standby of four-times-safer-than-a-car on its ear. To wit, you're seven times MORE likely to be injured in a small plane, than you are in a motor vehicle.

Not to say that this year has been tough on the smaller ops, but clearly the author of this news story has no real idea what he is talking about. Smaller commuter planes, assuming air taxi designation are commercial are they not? If he can not even get that simple fact right how much can you believe? Don't get me wrong I think the death rate aint great, but I tend to trust this news story as far as I can throw a 172.

[trancemania]

Hey Rowdy,

What happened to you that was a "close call"

[the_professor]

This has not been a good year, in case you haven't noticed. I posted this article on another thread, and am reposting here ...

The growth of the air taxi and air shuttle industry has put more planes into the air, creating more work for air traffic controllers - the vital link connecting pilots with the all-seeing radar on the ground. Smaller commuter planes and private planes also have a higher incident rate than commercial aircraft - a statistic that turns the old standby of four-times-safer-than-a-car on its ear. To wit, you're seven times MORE likely to be injured in a small plane, than you are in a motor vehicle.

"Canada Road Traffic Crash Accidents.
There are about 160,000 road accidents in Canada every year. According to the Transportation Safety Board approximately 2800-2900 people are killed on Canadian roads each year."

http://www.car-accidents.com/country-ca ... sions.html

Let's keep the aviation accident rate in perspective. This guy's report is crap.

[Widow]

To be honest I thought it was preposterous to suggest that driving a car was less dangerous than flying. I did some research and found that the numbers were closer than I had anticipated.

The first web page I came across in my search was
http://birdhouse.org/blog/2007/08/19/death-by-numbers/
they crunched numbers by journey and found that:
Your chances of dying in a plane crash are approximately 1 in 20,000; chances of dying in an auto accident roughly 1 in 100.

Next I checked the Transport Canada page and crunched the numbers myself based on vehicle registrations. I don't know how accurate a picture of risk these numbers reflect but here are my results anyway:
Canadian registered automobiles in Canada in 2005: 18,515,000
accidents 151,975 fatalities 2925
Canadian registered aircraft in 2005: 30,830
accidents 244 fatalities 48
therefore:
chances of a car being in an accident are 1 in 122 (during2005)
chances of a plane being in an accident are 1 in 126
chances of a car killing someone: 1 in 6330
chances of a plane killing someone: 1 in 642

Transport Canada did mention that automobile accidents and fatalities are on the rise while airplane accidents and fatalities are declining.

So it would appear as though this is a difficult comparison. I like to think in terms of rationality. When you drive a car you are always surrounded by other big chunks of metal, moving pretty fast, often with drivers who are unaware/drunk/otherwise unfit, whereas in an airplane the nearest hard thing is usually at least two miles away and you have a pretty good chance of having a reliable driver who is well trained.
Sorry I couldn't come up with anything more conclusive.

Any valid comparison between types of transportation accidents/fatalities would have to consider the #'s of persons who can travel in each vehicle. Such as comparing 10 passenger and under automobiles, with 10 passenger and under aircraft.

I am fairly certain that the numbers seniorpumpkin crunched would be a lot scarier with these things factored in.

(snip)

Changing the way the statistics are published (i.e. flight schools no longer air taxi) hasn't fooled me. I don't believe things are safer than they were ten years ago.

[Walker]

Not necessarily,
How many people ride in cars in Canada a year?
How many people ride in small aircraft in Canada a year?

That statistic MAY be correct once adjusted for per-capita incidents. That being said I don’t have the numbers and I’m not a statistician, but don’t totally throw them out the window. I guess you don’t teach statistical regression in university do you Mr Professor? What class was it you said you taught again?


jk, Its morning and the coffee machine is taking too long...

Edit: Widow beat me to the punch!

[sarg]

For starters look at the source of the article, a legal webpage with a link to see if you can sue for an aviation related incident. There should be no question about the point of view that the author is taking or why. The death of anyone is a terrible event, but I must say I take some of the statistics about aviation with a grain of salt.

The old saying is: "There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics." Many reports do not give the methodology used to gather the stats, so you have tough time determining if the information is good info to start with. Considering my experience with Stats Canada this has only been reinforced, when I took part in a six month employment survey.
Q. Where you employed last month?
A. Yes
Q. How many hours did you work last month?
A. 100 Hours.
Q. So you where only employed part time?
A. No, that is full time for a commercial pilot.
It was like this every month having to explain the the person gathering the stats that a commercial pilot is limited 1200 hours a year as full time employment, not the 2080 considered the norm. Sometimes the person you where talking to said "Oh, yeah I remember something about pilots being different" sometimes not. So dealing with our Federal government on a labour force survey for statistical information I still have no idea if my information was gathered and inputed correctly. This after spending extra time at the beginning of the survey going over what your employed as, by who, the hole 9 yards. Garbage in, Garbage out.

Consider that even Transport Canada is guility of this in publishing accident rates. Transport uses the info reported on the aviation medical form to calculate hours flown by the pilot group to come up with x accidents/100,000 hours stat. And honestly how many of us accurately report hours flown when we do our medicals?

My 2 cents.

[Reality]

Widow, First off, I am sorry for your loss, I really do feel for you. However, enough is enough, you continue to bash the industry, and i for one am tired of it. You follow the media in posting irrelevant information, imply how unsafe the industry is and it is getting old. I bet there was over 10,000 aircraft movements yesterday with 200,000 passengers and nothing went wrong, post that.
Again I am sorry for what you have been through and may your husband rest in peace.
Our industry has enough media misrepresentation please stop adding to it.

[Cat Driver]

And honestly how many of us accurately report hours flown when we do our medicals?

Don't forget their numbers may be further skewed by not recording the hours of those of us who did not pay the $55.00 " fee ".

[_dwj_]

You can see the Canadian air accident statistics here:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/stats/air/2006/prelim_2006.asp

I think the author of this article meant "airliners" rather than "commercial flights". And he is correct: small planes are much more dangerous than cars, whereas airliners are much safer.

[Cat Driver]

Widow, First off, I am sorry for your loss, I really do feel for you. However, enough is enough, you continue to bash the industry, and i for one am tired of it.

There is a simple solution to that problem BSN, don't read her posts.

I have read through some of your posts here and you seem to think that the industry is safe and well regulated, I can assure you that you are wrong. The industry is far from being as safe as it could be with properly trained and screened pilots and proper over site of the industry for compliance to maintenance to get rid of the operators who operate unsafe junk.

You follow the media in posting irrelevant information, imply how unsafe the industry is and it is getting old.

And I agree with widow, the small commercial aircraft operations in Canada are having far to many fatal accidents than it should.

I bet there was over 10,000 aircraft movements yesterday with 200,000 passengers and nothing went wrong, post that.

10,000 movements in small airplane charter operations in Canada?

[snaproll20]

BSN

for my money, the year we have ZERO fatalities in aviation in Canada will be the time we BEGIN to consider stop listening to people like Widow.

We are constantly reminded by TC themselves to fly safer. So why is it wrong for someone to do it on a voluntary ( and purer) basis? Cat Driver ends his posts with the safe admonition to be safe.

Sure, Widow is more driven than the rest of us. If Widow irritates you by emphasizing your mortality, maybe you should look in the mirror.

Statistics are never reliable, as someone pointed out, how they are derived can slant the information. Still, 'one death' is a very bald statistic. Too many deaths is a horrible statistic. I would not be comforted by favourable comparisons to highway driving because that would foster a false sense of security. Choosing a 'less likely way to die' is not an option for me.

[phillyfan]

There will never be a year when we have zero accidents. Many of these accidents are caused by pilots doing things with airplanes they should not have been doing. Bad decision making is a human flaw. It's not going away anytime soon.

[Cat Driver]

Bad decision making is a human flaw. It's not going away anytime soon.

True, but bad decision making can be mitigated by having chief pilots who actually do the job their description gives them the mandate to do, instead just of being a necessary paper requirement to make it look good.

[Reality]

Cat Driver, I agree that there is alot of shady operations out there and they do need to be shut down, and I agree it takes to long by government bodies to take action on such outfits.
How do you propose the industry can get any safer? The only way is if all aircraft are turbine powered have two engines and are operated in CAVOK weather.

You have been in this industry for a long time and the majority of the time I take your post's with a lot of respect due to your experience, but you of all people know that there is very little more that can be done to make the industry safer.

Would you agree that more of the smaller aircraft fatalities are contributed to pilot error rather than maintenance?

Is the new SMS system going to help?

I am not going to start into a pissing match with you but please enlighten me how it could possibly be done.

[Reality]

Oh, and although my opinion of you may change by your response to my last post, I think it is a good start that someone with your experience starts to train young pilots from experience and not by someone with 250 hrs recently graduated from school.

We both know that your not doing it for the money!

I reserve the right to withdrawl this compliment

[nimbostratus]

Comparing these kinds of statistics is a joke. It's apples and oranges. Just because they are all airplanes or all cars they can't be grouped together. Maybe try comparing car accidents caused by drunk drivers at night after 11pm with accidents in GA aviation comparing the same demographic. Guess what, I'm thinking you'll find far fewer fatalities in the GA side. (Admittedly aviations most problematic sector in relation to fatalities per flight hour).

Just keep in mind that until the Concorde crash in France, the Concorde had THE SAFEST record of any airliner in the world with no fatalities. They day of the crash it become the LEAST SAFE aircraft in the sky after one crash.

GA (like the Concorde scenario) is a very small sector in all of aviation and as a result the accident statistics seem to relay a scary story. You tell me, is it fair?

I'm not taking a side on safety comparisons between these sectors but I really think you need to consider what these numbers mean.

JMHO

[xsbank]

Reality, first you have to look at the fatality statistics and accept them to be correct with a small fudge factor. Yes there is garbage in, like Sarg reporting his hours flown, not his duty hours. Whether you compare them to cars or not is a red herring. If you prefer, look at the number of a/c operated on the coast, then look at how many of them crash. Basically, use the comparison that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, then look again at the number of fatalities.

This sector of the industry is damned dangerous.

As per striving for zero fatalities, it is possible to approach zero:

"In 1974, the CFIT risk was about one large commercial jet aircraft loss every 0.8 million flights

In 2003, the averaged CFIT risk is less than one aircraft loss every 91 million departures

The reduction in risk has been about 100 times over 30 years ."

Likewise for windshear losses, virtually eliminated with windshear training.

It is possible to reach a near zero accident rate, once you have identified the problem and then applied the correct solution.
The problem with little planes is we have not identified the problem and there is little impetus for the operator to contribute to solving it while the regulator simply covers his ass.

[Widow]

NASA sits on air safety survey
By RITA BEAMISH, Associated Press Writer


MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. - Anxious to avoid upsetting air travelers, NASA is withholding results from an unprecedented national survey of pilots that found safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than the government previously recognized.

NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million safety project, through telephone interviews with roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years. Since ending the interviews at the beginning of 2005 and shutting down the project completely more than one year ago, the space agency has refused to divulge the results publicly.

Just last week, NASA ordered the contractor that conducted the survey to purge all related data from its computers.

The Associated Press learned about the NASA results from one person familiar with the survey who spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them.

A senior NASA official, associate administrator Thomas S. Luedtke, said revealing the findings could damage the public's confidence in airlines and affect airline profits. Luedtke acknowledged that the survey results "present a comprehensive picture of certain aspects of the U.S. commercial aviation industry."

The AP sought to obtain the survey data over 14 months under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

"Release of the requested data, which are sensitive and safety-related, could materially affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers and general aviation companies whose pilots participated in the survey," Luedtke wrote in a final denial letter to the AP. NASA also cited pilot confidentiality as a reason, although no airlines were identified in the survey, nor were the identities of pilots, all of whom were promised anonymity.

Among other results, the pilots reported at least twice as many bird strikes, near mid-air collisions and runway incursions as other government monitoring systems show, according to a person familiar with the results who was not authorized to discuss them publicly.

The survey also revealed higher-than-expected numbers of pilots who experienced "in-close approach changes" — potentially dangerous, last-minute instructions to alter landing plans.

Officials at the NASA Ames Research Center in California have said they want to publish their own report on the project by year's end.

Although to most people NASA is associated with spaceflight, the agency has a long and storied history of aviation safety research. Its experts study atmospheric science and airplane materials and design, among other areas.

"If the airlines aren't safe I want to know about it," said Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., chairman of the House Science and Technology investigations and oversight subcommittee. "I would rather not feel a false sense of security because they don't tell us."

Discussing NASA's decision not to release the survey data, the congressman said: "There is a faint odor about it all."

Miller asked NASA last week to provide his oversight committee with information on the survey and the decision to withhold data.

"The data appears to have great value to aviation safety, but not on a shelf at NASA," he wrote to NASA's administrator Michael Griffin.

The survey's purpose was to develop a new way of tracking safety trends and problems the airline industry could address. The project was shelved when NASA cut its budget as emphasis shifted to send astronauts to the moon and Mars.

NASA said nothing it discovered in the survey warranted notifying the Federal Aviation Administration immediately. Its data showed improvements in some areas, the person who was familiar with the survey said. Survey managers occasionally briefed the FAA during the project. At a briefing in April 2003, FAA officials expressed concerns about the high numbers of incidents being described by pilots because the NASA results were dramatically different from what FAA was getting from its own monitoring systems.

An FAA spokeswoman, Laura Brown, said the agency questioned NASA's methodology. The FAA is confident it can identify safety problems before they lead to accidents, she said.

In its space program, NASA has a deadly history of playing down safety issues. Investigators blamed the 1986 and 2003 shuttle disasters on poor decision making, budget cuts and improperly minimizing risks. NASA decided to go ahead with a 2006 shuttle launch and is moving ahead with one this week despite safety concerns by NASA engineers in both cases.

Aviation experts said NASA's pilot survey results could be a valuable resource in an industry where they believe many safety problems are underreported, even while deaths from commercial air crashes are rare and the number of deadly crashes has dropped in recent years.

"It gives us an awareness of not just the extent of the problems, but probably in some cases that the problems are there at all," said William Waldock, a safety science professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz. "If their intent is to just let it sit there, that's just a waste."

Officials involved in the survey touted the unusually high response rate among pilots, 80 percent, and said they believe it is more reliable than other reporting systems that rely on pilots to voluntarily report incidents.

"The data is strong," said Robert Dodd, an aviation safety expert hired by NASA to manage the survey. "Our process was very meticulously designed and very thorough. It was very scientific."

Pilot interviews lasted about 30 minutes, with standardized questions about how frequently they encountered equipment problems, smoke or fire, engine failure, passenger disturbances, severe turbulence, collisions with birds or inadequate tower communication, according to documents obtained by the AP.

Pilots also were asked about last-minute changes in landing instructions, flying too close to other planes, near collisions with ground vehicles or buildings, overweight takeoffs or occasions when pilots left the cockpit.

The survey, known officially as the National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service, started after a White House commission in 1997 proposed reducing fatal air crashes by 80 percent as of this year. Crashes have dropped 65 percent, with a rate of about 1 fatality in about 4.5 million departures.

NASA had begun to interview general aviation pilots and initially planned to interview flight attendants, air traffic controllers and mechanics before the survey was halted.

In earlier interviews that helped researchers design the NASA survey, pilots said airlines were unaware how frequently safety incidents occurred that could lead to serious problems or even crashes, said Jon Krosnick, a survey expert at Stanford University who helped NASA create the questionnaire. Krosnick also led a Stanford team that paid for a joint AP-Stanford poll on the environment.

"There are little things going on everyday that rarely lead to an accident but they increase the chances of an accident," said Krosnick. "It's the little things beneath the surface that cause the very infrequent crashes. You have to tackle those."

NASA directed its contractor Battelle Memorial Institute, along with subcontractors, on Thursday to return any project information and then purge it from their computers before Oct. 30.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jKO3 ... Bi9q_L98bQ

The problem with little planes is we have not identified the problem and there is little impetus for the operator to contribute to solving it while the regulator simply covers his ass.

I think SATOPs did a good job of identifying many of the problems ... they just didn't follow up. I'm still waiting for TC's "Pacific Region Air Taxi Review" which was apparently completed in 2006 and which was supposed to look into the results of SATOPs ....

[snoopy]

Reality,
Here is a reality check for you: It doesn't matter what type of aircraft you feel must be mandated, nor how many engines you feel must be required, of whatever variety; if the operator breaks the law. If the pilot bends the rules. If maintenance doesn't do their job. If flight operations and/or ground crew are remiss. If TC doesn't get off their asses and bust the offenders. Until the root problems are resolved, and to quote one of the offenders out there, "its like putting whipped cream on dog shit".

Our company operates a 1952 vintage, twin-engined radial aircraft in our air taxi operation. We have our own AMO and my partner and I have spent a great deal of time, money and effort to prove that these "old" aircraft are quite capable of operating efficiently and safely and just because this is a "bush plane" doesn't mean that it has to look like one.

It isn't WHAT we operate, it is HOW we operate that mitigates risk and impacts safety.

What we have discovered in our four years of operation is that our industry has serious problems and seems to be in a state of denial over it. Given the present industry/regulatory mentality and public perception, until there are more accidents and fatalities to "prove" that riding on risk is a bad idea, there will be no motivation for change. The operators that have pushed every corner of the envelope for years, and have gotten away with it, see little benefit in change.

The funny thing is, if we all got together and charged higher rates, carried legal loads, flew safely and responsibly, we would ALL - from the operator down to the janitor - make more money, and as Spock would say "live long and prosper".

If you don't believe what I am telling you, start a company with a mission statement of "doing it right" in this business, and you will soon find out.

Just my two cents, with interest...

Cheers,
Snoopy

[Reality]

Okay Widow, all that article tells me is there is another 8.5 million dollars wasted. Everybody knows that not everything is reported, what did you expect to find out? Everybody reported every possible close call or bird strike? I haven't had anything along those lines, but if it was worth mentioning I would report it, but if I hit a chickadee on the rollout I might just let that go....How many pilots on here have hit birds or something similar and not reported it? That survey was a waste of time and money with no intent to fix anything.

[Reality]

Snoopy, I agree with you, I am employed by a company that does not bend the rules, fly legal loads and does not push weather, that is why I have been here for 8 years. I am trying to stand up for the good operators and the industry in general. I am tired of everybody shitting on it and putting everyone in the same basket. Granted Transport is slow to shut shady outfit's down, but that is how are judicial system works in Canada, they have to build a good case.

[Widow]

Something akin to the 2.5 million wasted with Transport Canada's DMR Report of 2001 - which was also buried? Read about it on this thread:

Ex TCCA inspector flames the regulator

And since you asked:

Is the new SMS system going to help?

There was once an airline pilot who spotted a safety deficiency and brought it to the attention of the airline, union, professional associations and regulators. But since SMS was in place, and it was determined "not our problem", the pilot was essentially blackballed. The problem still exists, and has the potential to bend metal, injure or kill large numbers of people. There is a pending court case.

True story.

So much for my theory that unions and professional associations will protect the worker from occupational health and safety hazards associated with putting the "fox in charge of the henhouse".

SMS without effective OH&S will result in higher accident rates.

Reality, please be assured that I am not putting everyone in the same basket. I am very aware that there are good and "bad" ops out there, good and "bad" officials, good and "bad" pilots, good and "bad" AME/AMO, good and "bad" rules, etc, ... and that the good far outweight the bad. My point is, the bad is getting people killed. I don't know you, but I don't want you to be next.

[carholme]

Ladies/Gentlemen;

You can all get your dander up and protect your own arguments but when you look at the list of 12 pilots who died this year, that is reality.

Statistics aside, 12 pilots are not here anymore and couldn't give a shit about people on AvCanada arguing semantics.

If you think that aviation in Canada under the level of 705 is safe or not, read the list of names and ask yourselves, what have you done about the situation to prevent your name from being added to the list, this year or in the future.

Doc raised an issue about SEIFR, a very valid discussion which should prompt some strong input about the pros and cons, yet he is attacked on a personal level. Who cares whether he is for or against, he put a point of dicussion out there expecting some valid responses from which we all could learn. He is probably sorry he even tried.

Widow adds some information for discussion, presumably expecting that most of us would know that stats are skewed. She didn't write the article, but some of you respond as though she had.

You all know what your equipment was like on the last flight. Was there anything on that flight concerning the serviceability of the aircraft which could have led to a worsening situation?

Look at the list of 12 and see if you can find a slot reserved for your name.

Regards

carholme