2007 Fatalities: Not as safe as we think

[Cat Driver]

No matter what sort of screwed up media stat you dig up, you won't find anything in the aviation industry that compares to that!!! I have relatives and friends working on both sides and trust me when I say the aviation is not unsafe in comparison.

To use logging as a comparison for determining the fatality rate means that aviation has the same requirements as to training and the accepted skills level as a logger.

Nothing against loggers but at least we have a benchmark, now if they paid pilots as much as loggers at least their survivors might have some money to live on.

[Widow]

Those logger vs aviation fatality stats were straight from the Worksafe BC website, not the "screwed up media".

[justplanecrazy]

When a worker dies on the job (including a pilot) then there is little to no recourse if negligence contributed to that death (and please, I am NOT talking about money). The occupational health and safety OVERSIGHT of loggers is far more effective, accident investigation far swifter and more thorough. Recommendations by the coroner and other interested bodies are usually followed. Not so in aviation. And since the fatality rates FOR WORKING PILOTS is so high ... I do believe ALL aviation accidents should be THOROUGHLY investigated (not just the ones with famous or foreign people on board - people who can afford a lawyer because there is someone to sue).

Widow, I'm sorry to say the exact opposite is true:

Why No Inquests into Logging Deaths?
http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/12/09/LoggingDeathInquest/

Death In The Forest - Full Synopsis
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/globalsh ... 58e790ae78

Stop the Killing: The 'Culture of Desperation' in B.C.'s Forest Sector
http://www.usw.ca/program/content/3054.php

Yes you got those stats off of the WBC but they were for loggers across Canada including equipment operators, supervisors and everyone involved in the industry. When you look at the 2000 fallers operating in BC they have a 9% Fatality rate over a 30 year career vs. the 0.64% posted for Aviation on the WBC sight. I'm sure if you broke down those aviation stats for only westcoast seaplane pilots, it'd be significantly higher but still nowhere near the devestating 9% of fallers.

It's unfortunate but some jobs are simply not safe and never will be unless the public is willing to fork out an enormous amount of money required to make the industry safe. The amount it would cost to have a big enough staff to thouroghly investigate every single airplane crash would be enormous and result in very little decrease in loss of life. Jetsgo was a bare minimum airline with a horrible safety record, but when they offered their dollar fares, how many of us in the know still got on board? Yes some operators need to be shut down but this isn't the wild west and things take time. The bottom line is it's up to do our own research and choose not to fly with or work for those questionable operators. Touting the industry as a disgrace, does nothing but belittle our jobs.

[Widow]

I hate to argue with you justplanecrazy, but I'm very familiar with the articles you posted ... all from 2005 ... the year my husband died ... and his fatality is counted as a LOGGING fatality, and not an AVIATION fatality in the stats. Since that time, a special forestry coroner was appointed to investigate all forest deaths ... Forestry Coroner Appointed

Furthermore, the subtitle of the WorksafeBC Fatalities Report is "Work Related Deaths in BC":

This section provides a broad statistical overview of work-related deaths in B.C. for the 10 years from 1989 to 1998. It also explains the connection between work-related deaths and near-misses.

When people die, and "our" case not one person but five - five hard-working men - Arnie, Dave, Doug, Trevor and Fabian - accidents should be thoroughly investigated ... and not just because five families have continued to jump up and down about it, but because five people are dead and it was preventable.

I thought we were a unique case when this started, that somehow we had slipped through ALL the cracks ... but it turns out we were not the first, nor were we the last. I have the "inside track" on quite a number of transportation accident investigations over the last several years - all with rather "inconclusive" results.

[seniorpumpkin]

I still can't believe how little is being said on this forum about the work that goes towards making aviation safer. There is risk and danger involved in everything from walking down the stairs to playing Russian roulette. The thing I am always amazed at is how much I know about the risks involved in aviation. Every accident IS investigated. Perhaps not to the extent some people would like, but think of how our lives would change if every other risky activity had such great, proactive risk avoidance! Imagine if everyone who drives a car got a newsletter in the mail several times a year explaining how different car accidents happened according to actual investigations. Thanks to Transport Canada we have that amazing service! It's called the Aviation Safety letter. Imagine if it was illegal to install poor quality tires on a car, think of the lives that would be saved! I'm no AME but I'm pretty sure it's illegal to install uncertified parts on airplanes. I'm sure that if we required extensive training and testing before letting people operate a chainsaw, there would be fewer paraplegics out there.
My point is that we need to be making more constructive criticism of the industry. Lets build upon the success that has been made, instead of making negative references and writing petitions. I think better enforcement is a good answer, I am optimistic about having new SMS in place, and I always applaud when poor operators learn lessons the easy way.

[CD]

Every accident IS investigated.

You may need to qualify that statement to indicate who you believe is investigating every accident. Certainly, the TSB does not (and at this time cannot) investigate every accident:

Approximately 4,000 transportation occurrences are reported to the TSB each year in accordance with its mandatory reporting requirements. Practical considerations dictate that only a small proportion of these be investigated.
Transportation Safety Board - Occurrence Classification Policy

A description on the kinds of occurrences that are investigated is available at the link above.

I investigated getting a job with the TSB but they are not hiring...

TC advertises year after year for people but they don't actually hire anyone.

The TSB post their vacancies on the jobs.gc.ca website. You have to check the site on a regular basis to see if any new posting comes up as I don't think there is any method to list yourself for notifications of open positions (someone will correct that if I'm wrong).

Jobs Open to the Public

For TC, there is an online recruitment site for individuals to register their interest and resume so that when positions open, they can be contacted.

Welcome to Transport Canada’s e-Recruitment Inventory

That being said, while the reorganization is happening, there may indeed not be much hiring occuring at TC:

National Organization Transition Implementation Project

[Dog]

Why is OK to have such lax safety if you can only kill nine people at a time?

Dog, if you wanted you could make 703's just as safe. Force them to install TCAS, ground radar, if single engine must be PT6, if dual, must maintain 500 fpm climb, only fly established flight routes, run 50% gross when mountain flying, don't allow glassy water or heavy wave landings, only hight time pilots allowed etc, etc. and it'd be just as safe as the 705's cause there woudn't be anyone flying.

Comparing 703 with 705 is like comparing a balloon operation with intergalactic travel. We're operating in completely different environments. I don't think the rules are any less safe in 703 versus 705 - but not following them sure as hell is!

Consider this statement from shimmydampner, who appears to be flying in the 703 world: "But maybe that's because I fly 1950's radial machines in the mountains or at 50' off the trees in weather that the IFR boys are going missed in...." Do you really think this allowed in 703??? So if this person continues to display reckless disregard for human life and augers in - will you blame the aircraft? Will you blame CAR 703 regulations as unsafe? Or will the TSB discover that the true reason for the accident was that the pilot showed a complete lack of airmanship and good judgement, not to mention broke the law and invalidated the insurance.

I didn't say that airtaxi should be run exactly as airline operations are merely that to state if you believe that they are equal you are propagating a myth: as a pilot you owe it to yourself and you passengers to know better.

No, the same rule won't work for both. But why is it OK to have an airtaxi pilot (arguably flying with a much higher workload) to be on duty for thirteen days straight up to 14 hours a day while a multi crew airplane that spends the majority of its flying in the flight levels on autopilot can't work more than three in a row over 12?(??!) Why can a low time pilot fly single pilot hard IFR non-precision approaches at night? Snoopy, how likely do you think shimmydampner would have been to get away with that if he was required to have a co-pilot? Less than half?

This is my point: The differences are glaring. What is unacceptable in one is overlooked in the other. Can it be done safely in airtaxi? Surely it can be done safer. The driving force is the regulation and the enforcement. Who let shimmydampner get away with flying below VFR limits?

I'm covering for a friend of mine this week in a corporately owned and operated Turbo Beaver. It is owned by a logging company and, like widow says, they have a tremendous safety culture. Employees and contractors who fly more than a set number of flights are required to have underwater egress training. The airplane is equipped with in-flight satellite phone and policy requires 30 minute check ins while we're flying and prior to any takeoff. Passengers wear constant-wear life jackets. Required by regulation? Nope. Should these measures be required of 703 float operators? I think so.

You can beat you chest and say that 703 isn't broke, but you won't convince me until the statistics imrpove.

[Cat Driver]

I am optimistic about having new SMS in place, and I always applaud when poor operators learn lessons the easy way.

How will SMS make poor operators operate legally?

[snoopy]

Dog,

One thing I have never said is that there is nothing wrong with 703. There is everything wrong with 703 and most of it relates to the operators that do break the rules and disregard safety; and Transport Canada who do nothing to stop it, and in many cases enable the bad operators.

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... st+justice
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... st+justice
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... st+justice

There's way more, but I've been down this road too many times... ask Widow.

The point is, nobody is looking over shimmydampner's shoulder - and many others like him/her. And two crew doesn't prevent stupidity either - take a look at some accident reports and you'll see what I mean.

At any rate, I hear what you're saying, I just think many of the key rules are already in place. Unfortunately there is nobody around to enforce them, and without the industry desiring to change themselves, there is no motivation from within. I firmly believe that if everyone abided by the existing rules, that a huge increase in safety would naturally result. Then one could take a serious look at whether those rules are effective.

Everybody - government included, is running around in a state of denial, shouting over each other that we don't have a problem. Did anyone ever stop to think "maybe we DO have a problem?" and try receiving information instead of blocking it?

For everyone else:

Of course we should enjoy aviation - and if those of us trying to effect change didn't see any hope for the future, we wouldn't be trying so hard to promote change. Of course there are some good operators out there. Unfortunately their numbers are declining as market pressures come to bear, and regulatory oversight diminishes with TC budget decreases and changes in priorities. If you're not in business, just working in the industry, it can be a little tougher to realize the competitive disadvantage that a good operator faces against one who is cutting a few rules here and there. In a society concerned more with the value of a dollar over safety, it doesn't take long for an operator to be faced with some ugly choices if they wish to survive. If they make the wrong choices, both YOU and the passengers become affected, whether you know it or not.

Consider this real life example, and bear in mind this is not an isolated case.

There is an operator, with a privately registered aircraft, who for many years ventured into the grey area (actually, its not grey at all) of hauling customer overloads with his/her aircraft. Over the years, markets dropped, prices rose and pretty soon the bags turned into passengers and eventually the whole situation became blatant.

So what? you say... Well, that operator is at a great competitive advantage against both legitimate air services, and other lodge operators as well. The person just saved themselves huge amounts of money in operating costs - insurance, pilot training/hiring, maintenance, costs associated with Transport Canada requirements etc. Or by not having to pay a licensed air service who bears these costs. Consequently, they were able to keep their rates low, and survive. Of course the passenger has no idea that their ass is not insured, flown by a pilot not required to meet any standards of training, in less stringent flying conditions, in an aircraft not maintained to commercial standards.

Here's a bit of hypothetical: What if others out there are breaking the same or different rules and thereby cutting costs. As people start behaving competitively for a declining piece of the pie in an environment of rising costs, those that cut corners can stay in the game longer because their costs are lower, therefore they can sustain lower rates. Soon, more operators are faced with hard choices - if they make the wrong choice, the situation worsens. Kind of like when you flush the toilet and watch the little whirlpool accelerate... Add to this situation, a total lack of oversight, and industry-wide denial. In this (very common) scenario only an accident can break the cycle - and there is no guarantee it will be enough.

Back to reality... This particular situation went on for many years, and many other lodge operators and air services complained, but nobody was willing to actually DO anything about it. Since no accident or regulatory retribution came of it, the lodge operator became even more blatant.

Eventually and finally, the CTA stepped in and the operator was fined: $25,000. Happy ending - right? Nope. After enough time went by to feel they were under the radar scope, the operator is back at it again - safe in the knowledge that our regulatory system is so flawed that nobody will do anything about it.

This is the unfortunate reality of the industry in which we all operate. We are the only ones who can change it, and only by changing ourselves.

Just my two cents, and inflation ate it...

[seniorpumpkin]

Every accident IS investigated.

You may need to qualify that statement to indicate who you believe is investigating every accident.

Thanks CD, your totally right, I was wrong to make such a broad and blatantly wrong statement. I guess reading the aviation safety letter, and the COPA accident reports has led me to believe I was getting information on every accident. I still think transport does as good a job as can be expected in imparting lessons learned to the aviation industry. This being said, there is no doubt that Transport does need more help and perhaps more funding.

I am optimistic about having new SMS in place, and I always applaud when poor operators learn lessons the easy way.


How will SMS make poor operators operate legally?

I wasn't implying that SMS would be a vehicle for enforcement. Those were two separate thoughts. Perhaps I should have used a period instead of a comma. I think SMS will be a positive change in that it will force operators to address safety issues, and maybe even take action to mitigate them.
I applaud when poor operators change their practices due to lessons learned (make changes based on close calls rather than actual accidents).

[Widow]

My husband died because MJM Air was not flight following, and did not follow their own emergency procedure. But immediately following the accident, they contracted for outside dispatch/flight following services ... so they fixed the "problem" and there were no repercussions ... except that now (with Interfor suddenly deciding to "oversee" safety), they could no longer afford to stay in business.

The TSB issued no advisory or recommendations about how critical it is to flight follow or adhere to emergency procedures as a result of this accident. TCCA condoned the actions of MJM.

This is how SMS works. I think it stinks.

[sarg]

Widow, I know it takes time to compile a report but the one you're posting is nearly 10 years out date with it's statistical information. Like I stated earlier I could see no methodology on how they determined the person years worked for aviation in this report, which of course could greatly effect the information being portrayed. The report states:

This graph covers only the nine industries
with the highest death rates. Death rates are
unavailable for the fishing industry because
the seasonal nature of fishing makes it difficult
to accurately determine person-years for the
industry.

It is easy to determine the person years in an industry that pays its employees by the hour like logging, mining or mills. Aviation is not quite as straight forward. Lets take a look at my fictional aviation world to see how the stats can be manipulated:
Assume 2500 pilots employed full time each flying 1,000 hours per year
We'll assume 5 pilot fatal crashes. (I like my math simply)
2,500 pilot working full time into 10,000 person years is a factor of 4
the same group flying 2.5 million hours against the standard work year of 5.2 million hours produces a factor of 8.32 5,200,000 divided by 2,500,000 x 4
the same 2.5 million hours against the Transport max of 1200 hours per year produces a factor of 3.33 2,500,000 divided by 3,000,000 x 4

So in my fictional world using the same number of deaths depending on how I choose to calculate my 10,000 person years I can show my death rate at:
20/10,000 person years
41.6/10,000 person years
16.6/10,000 person years


Which one is the that most represents the truth? Or as xsbank suggested earlier maybe duty hours should be used, which changes the equations again. The 25 death per 10,000 person years is a massive statisical spread. So until the methodology is clearly defined I can not take this report or any other a face value.

From the same report:

Nearly 98% of workers killed were
male and just over 2% were female.

Does this stat mean that men are 98 times more likely to die doing the same job as a women, if so all the males should stay at home raising the kids and the women should work. I think means males are employed in the higher risk groups to a greater percentage.

I'm reasonably sure aviation doesn't fit into the neat "accident pyramid theory" listed. I'm sure 20,000 unsafe actions in aviation will produce far more than 1 work related death.

The pressure the "uniformed passenger" put on a pilot to do a trip they have been told is unsafe, can at time be enormous. But that is a topic for another thread.

The end of my ravings for now.

[Widow]

Clearly, I do not know what methodology was used for the statistical analysis. I do suspect it is valid as it will be based on the pilot's WCB coverage. However, statistical analysis is not the only proof of the dangers of the air industry contained in the report.

Part 2, Single Incident Deaths, shows that Aircraft Accidents were #3 on the list, accounting for 11% of single incident deaths in the time period, with Motor Vehicle Accidents (not including Industrial Vehicle Accidents) and Stuck-by-Object Accidents respectively, being the top two. Pretty scarey when you think about the sheer simple numbers of small aircraft movements compared to motor vehicle movements and, again, the sheer numbers of objects workers can be "struck-by".

It states that:

The real tragedy of single incident deaths is that almost all of them are preventable, yet they continue to occur day after day, week after week, year after year. As long as B.C. workers continue to die in workplace accidents, the WCB will continue to combat this problem by helping employers and workers to identify and eliminate hazardous workplace conditions.

But this is not true ... the WCB has no power to "combat this problem" in terms of the #3 cause of Single Incident Deaths. I believe this needs to be examined, and aviation OH&S oversight revamped.

I am also aware that the report is "nearly 10 years out of date", and for that I compensated somewhat, by comparing 2005 - the "crisis" year, when my husband died (and my learning curve began).

The '89-'98 Report shows 124 working lives were lost in Aircraft Accidents, an average of 12.4 per year. It shows there were 49 working pilot fatality claims - an average of less than 5 per year.

WorkSafeBC Statistics 2005

This shows that there were 12 Aircraft Accident fatality claims through WorksafeBC in 2005 (8 working pilots). Compare this to the CADORs, which shows there were 7 fatal accidents of commercial aircraft and/or where a Ministers' Observer was appointed (a working pilot died). These 7 fatal accidents accounted for 16 deaths (although the CADORs only indicate 12 deaths, since apparently, only one person died on February 28, 2005). Remember, this is in BC alone.

As a famous Nanny would say, "That is not acceptable".

Transport Canada Probes Air Taxi Safety
By Russ Niles, Newswriter, Editor
March 19, 2006

Transport Canada has announced it intends to carry out a "full review" of air taxi operators in the West Coast province of British Columbia after six accidents killed 14 people in a 13-month span. Merlin Preuss, director general for civil aviation, told the Vancouver Sun that he's already ordered his staff to look into the string of accidents, which some in the industry say may just be an anomaly. "When you get that number, we start asking ourselves some questions," Preuss said. "We're sitting here fat, dumb and happy, if you like and then all of a sudden we get this spate of stuff going on on the Pacific Coast. We have no conclusions yet." B.C.'s coast is bordered by rugged mountains with numerous inlets and islands, and weather can be horrific, but Preuss indicated that cultural factors within the industry will also be probed. He told The Sun that air taxi operations often employ pilots "fresh out of training school."

(Who, as you know, may well have been trained by someone "fresh out of training school" themselves.)

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/briefs/191802-1.html


According to this article, Ottawa Orders Probe of BC Plane Crashes, and in reference to SATOPs:

Preuss believes the recommendations were implemented "one way or another."

Well, I beg to differ. And I'm still waiting for the publication of this so-called "full review".

[Cat Driver]

According to this article, Ottawa Orders Probe of BC Plane Crashes, and in reference to SATOPs:

Preuss believes the recommendations were implemented "one way or another."

Well, I beg to differ. And I'm still waiting for the publication of this so-called "full review".

***********************************************

widow, the lack of concern on the part of Preuss is evident, he " believes " .

Having had the miss fortune to have dealt with him for an extended period of time I would expect no more form a dishonest wanker like him.

[snaproll20]

seniorpumpkin.

You do not seem to get it.

"Poor" ***operators do not smarten up under systems like SMS. They revell in them because they are allowed to get away with their shoddy methods ..... Just view SNOOPY's recent post.
(***I assume you mean "lousy" operators, not dollar-challenged ones.)

Despite huge evidence of wrongdoing, many illicit ( no Ops certificate) operators get away with it because they have to be caught red-handed. As a result, TC Enforcement people spend weeks lurking behind trees with binoculars and cameras. Mostly they fail to catch these people because they are like foxes. On the rare occasion when they are brought to court, the bloody stupid judges give them a nominal fine and turn them loose to re-offend. We are a permissive society.

The proper course of action for punishment should be confiscation of their aircraft and cancellation of their pilot licence and no chance of ever registering an aircraft in Canada ever again.

Of course, the joint influences of lack of personnel, determination and resources allotted by TC does not help.
Seriously, in view of these concerted efforts by Enforcement people, just what kind of result will you be expecting from a Business and Commercial Inspector, who spends most of his time behind a desk, when someone complains about SMS?

(The only plus is that is the flavour of the month, but that will fade.)

[snaproll20]

justplanecrazy

I have lost more friends to aviation than mountaineering. They are, however, equally as dead.

I am rejecting your comparison because you have quite eloquently pointed out your love for both.....which I thoroughly understand. You accept the inherent danger of both.
The vital point though is that you do not take trusting paying passengers with you when you climb (I assume you are not a guide!!!!)

Whether you fall from a rock or in an airplane, you made the choice and accepted the risk. The average passenger is not so enlightened. Most of them have little enlightenment as to the risk. Actually, few of them dwell on it, they just assume it is OK. Widow's husband was just going to work.

I agree with someone's comment that we may never entirely remove fatalities, especially in 703. But, this has been a bad year. We can expect worse ahead because of the decline in experience being put in the pilot seats of airplanes right now.

A while ago, there was a thread started on "Professionalism". It was interesting, but I could not find a comment to make, largely based on my cynicism. A recent conversation prompted the thought that a 'professional' could be someone who tries to better the state of his 'profession".

There are a few people on Avcanada who believe in action, but there is fragmentation of effort. That makes me believe that not many people share my definition above. It is why I have declared "sheep" on more than one occasion.
Certainly, the label "professional" cannot be applied to the senior management of TC under my context.

[Widow]

The average passenger is not so enlightened. Most of them have little enlightenment as to the risk. Actually, few of them dwell on it, they just assume it is OK. Widow's husband was just going to work.

Just a quick point ... Dave was a fairly "enlightened" passenger - he knew the risks, having taught me about the ELT switch, the risks of engine failure over rough waters, always wearing his floater-coat flying (better than nothing) and having been excited by the underwater egress course he was taking, courtesy of his employer. He survived this accident because of his knowledge, whatever the cause of the accident may have been. Had MJM Air been a "safe" operation, he would be alive today.

[sarg]

Widow, I went through the WorkSafeBC Statistics 2005 I came up with different numbers. by my count there were 9 pilot deaths accepted in 2005. 2 pilot death were from previous years 2003 and 2004, why they were included I don't know and it was not noted. New 2005 number 7 pilot deaths. 1 pilot was killed in a motor vehicle accident but recorded as a aviation death because he was working at the time, just like your husbands death was recorded as a forestry death. He stays in, still 7 pilot deaths in 2005. 2 pilots killed heli logging their deaths are now not considered aviation death by WorkSafeBC but forestry deaths. New 2005 pilot deaths for 2005 5. Which seems to be the average for the '89-'98 report, so how is the industry getting worse? Not to mention that the aviation industry on a whole is getting busier and the logging industry in BC is on a decline. The 2005 information provides no data for an apple to apple comparision.

I might have missed some but my read showed 4 loggers died in a plane crash that year, considering the number likely to have been transported that year I would think that your odds of having been in a fatal accident to be pretty low. Grant no hard numbers to back that statement up.

As was stated by some one else you seem to be going through these reports spreading the information that supports your point of view and ignoring all other. Which is only human and why in court both the prosecution and defense hire their own experts to interpet the data from their respective point of view.

Having said the above can we try to do better? Yes. Is it all going to hell even if we just look at 703 operators the west coast? I don't think so.

[the_professor]

I investigated getting a job with the TSB but they are not hiring. Even though they are very understaffed. Wait until SMS is shoved down our throats and there is no more enforcement at all.

TC advertises year after year for people but they don't actually hire anyone.

Hold on a minute. What does SMS have to do with the TSB's work? Absolutely nothing. SMS is Transport's baby.

[Widow]

... so how is the industry getting worse? .

I didn't say they were getting worse, I said they weren't getting any better. I would very much like to see similar reports and statistics for other provinces/nationally ... but they do not seem to be available. I think you'd find they confirm what the BC reports are showing. Do you think things are better?

I don't see any difference in the TSB/TCCA fatality statistics from before and after SATOPs when I factor in such differences as "Before 1999, flight training services were classified as air taxi but are now classified in the private/corporate/state aeroplane category" (which has the highest accident rates over the last ten years). Before SATOPs, helicopter accidents were sometimes included as air taxi statistics.

Mr. Preuss implies the recommendations of SATOPs have been addressed. I disagree. Have a look at the SATOPs - Please help my research threads. I think you'll see what I mean. SMS is not going to fix those problems. Without effective OH&S advocacy, SMS will result in more accidents. The power of the dollar will see to that. More accidents will result in more work for TSB (which, professor, was likely what xsbank was alluding to).

Having lost a loved one to a tragic accident, I should like to see future tragically preventable accidents prevented. I believe that SATOPs holds many clues to improving air safety, but I don't think the bureaucrats will do anything without THE AVIATION INDUSTRY standing up for itself.

So, sorry you don't like what I'm saying. But it is the truth, and I'm not going away.

[Dog]

Widow in the past 10 years 3% of the fallers in BC have died. That means in an average 30 year career, 1 in every 11 of your coworkers will die on the job plus numerous more will be seriously injured. No matter what sort of screwed up media stat you dig up, you won't find anything in the aviation industry that compares to that!!! I have relatives and friends working on both sides and trust me when I say the aviation is not unsafe in comparison.

Ok, what if you only compare small courier aircraft pilots vs fellers? You're comparing fellers instead of the logging industry. If you remember Navair? They had four fatalities only a couple months apart. How many pilots where flying freight for a living in BC, (excluding airline ops) 50? that would make it 8%. See what I mean. You can't compare only fellers unless you're ready to allow someone to compare a smaller segment of flying as well.

[boeingboy]

Avaiton overall is still extreamly safe and probably the safest mode of transportation.

Is there room to improve? - of course. Should it? - Of course it should.

I hate statisitics. For one - as can be seen here you can make anything sound good or bad. Depending on how you look at it and what you compare. 11 deaths this year? Out of how many total movments?

Case in point.............The concord - statsticly - is the most unsafe aircraft in the world. Yet only one ever crashed. Before that crash it was the safest. If it was still flying today - I would hands down fly it in a heartbeat.

[Widow]

Someone currently working at the TSB told me he got into it because he had lost 55 (pilot) friends over a period of ten or 11 years. All in seperate accidents.

More than one person has told me that they left (or are leaving) TCCA to work for TSB because they could not get TCCA to act on safety recommendations and they were becoming frustrated.

[Widow]

11 deaths this year? Out of how many total movments?

Let's just clarify, that is 11 confirmed working pilot deaths. 34 fatal accidents, 48 deaths. All in the "small aircraft" category.

[Dog]

Avaiton overall is still extreamly safe and probably the safest mode of transportation.

Wrong. Airline flying is one of the safest modes of transportation. General aviation, on the other hand is, in fact, dangerous by comparison. This is a common misconception.