USA Today's attack on General Aviation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
15,552
Location
Jupiter, Florida
The three parts of USA Today's General Aviation attack.

The following is a sobering reminder to be safe.

The article clearly omits many facts. So be it. We really do need to address GA safety. And we need to address each and every common cause of light aircraft crashes in a systematic and effective manner.

http://www.usatoday.com/longform/news/na...art-1/10405323/


http://www.usatoday.com/longform/news/nation/2014/06/12/unfit-for-flight-part-2/10405451/

http://www.usatoday.com/longform/news/nation/2014/06/14/unfit-for-flight-part-3/10533813/
 
I sent a letter to or local paper for printing that. I stated that the article was severely slanted and misleading, not worthy of print in its' current state.
 
A lot of people who own small planes do their own repairs,
even though it sometimes requires specialized training and tools.
They also make DIY repairs, using duct tape and zip ties...

Age of equipment is also a factor, some of the planes date to the 60's...
Or earlier....
 
Actually the article is more of an attack on the FAA and GA manufacturers rather than GA owners. At least that's what I understand after reading the ENTIRE acticle!
 
Originally Posted By: mattwithcats
A lot of people who own small planes do their own repairs,
even though it sometimes requires specialized training and tools.
They also make DIY repairs, using duct tape and zip ties...

Age of equipment is also a factor, some of the planes date to the 60's...
Or earlier....


This is simply not the case.
For any aircraft not registered as either experimental (you know, if you built it yourself) or in the very restrictive exhibition catagory, there are well defined limits on what an owner can fix without the direct oversight of a licensed A&P willing to sign off on his work in the aircraft's log book.
An owner may do oil changes, plug changes and brake/tire/wheel bearing work, all of which are a little more involved than the same maintenance items on any car. He may not perform repairs to the primary structure, engine or control surfaces or their actuating mechanisms.
Zip ties and duct tape would generally not be acceptable repair items, although you do see fairings, which are strictly non structural, with short term speed tape repairs.
Every active aircraft is required to have at least an annual inspection and depending upon both the manufacturer's requirements as well as the catagory in which it's operated may require far more frequent inspections.
This includes verifying engine output with a compression test.
If the engine desn't make enough compression to make rated power, the airplane may not legally be operated until the repairs are done.
The annual is to verify that the aircraft meets the standards upon which its type certificate was granted and nobody with inspection authorization is going to sign his name in the logs of anything dodgy.
Age is not a mitigating factor in that the airplane must conform with the same standards that applied to its type certificate when new. The aircraft might have faded paint and a ratty interior, but all of the important stuff will be in proper working order. A fifty year old active Cessna is not comparable to a twenty year old beater car. The Cessna will have had the attentions of people who knew what they were doing throughout its life.
It's also pretty hard to beat on an airplane in that most piston engines in light aircraft can have the throttle(s) shoved all the way forward and left there with no harm to anything other than the credit card you use to buy fuel.
There's not a lot that you can do to hurt an airplane as long as you put the mains down first and stay on the runway.
You must also pay attention to weight and balance as well as density altitude.
Structural failures in flight usually follow loss of control which usually follows bludering into IFR conditions without any recent experience.
 
Quote:
Nearly 45,000 people have been killed over the past five decades
So roughly 1/3 as many people as who have been killed by hippopotami, right?
 
One problem in GA is rusty airplanes and rusty pilots, that is airplanes that don't get flown enough and pilots that don't stay current with their skills.

Last summer I had to wave and jump up and down because a pilot was starting to taxi out to the runway to take off. He still had some elevator lock devices with the streamers blowing in wind attached. I could not tell if he was happy with me or angry. Rusty pilots and poor judgement has got to be a problem that needs more attention.
 
Originally Posted By: mattwithcats
A lot of people who own small planes do their own repairs, even though it sometimes requires specialized training and tools.
They also make DIY repairs, using duct tape and zip ties...Age of equipment is also a factor, some of the planes date to the 60's...Or earlier....


However, the leading cause of GA accidents is not equipment failure. In fact, the "top 10" list from the FAA really does put much of the blame (and rightly so) on the pilots.

Crashes related to: Low altitude maneuvering, stall, spin, terrain, obstacles, VFR to IMC, running out of gas and general loss of control are big issues for small planes.

I fly a single engine Cessna Cardinal 177RG. I'd be lying if I said that I am fully confident in my skills and my airplane. I worry, always. And GA statistics back up my feelings on the subject.

One thing to note: A GA aircraft on an IFR flight plan is considerably safer than the average GA flight. However, a single engine aircraft in bad weather conditions is always a risk. Put another way, a light aircraft on an IFR flight plan, in good weather is as safe as light GA gets. Possibly 10X safer (by memory) .
 
Clearly a hatchet job by people with an agenda, no practical knowledge of light aircraft, or both.

I quit reading at this gem:

"On Thanksgiving eve in 2011, Russel Hardy had no warning of the sheer cliff ahead of him as he flew a Rockwell Aero Commander in the darkness toward Arizona's Superstition Mountains."

I don't see how you can do anything other than fault the PIC for flying into terrain.

Leaving the ground has inherent risks associated with it, whether standing on a ladder or flying a light aircraft.

Maybe this is just another chapter in the {removed political comment} attack on people they perceive as wealthy, in as much as it takes at least a small degree of affluence to own a light aircraft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Win
Clearly a hatchet job by people with an agenda, no practical knowledge of light aircraft, or both. I quit reading at this gem: "On Thanksgiving eve in 2011, Russel Hardy had no warning of the sheer cliff ahead of him as he flew a Rockwell Aero Commander in the darkness toward Arizona's Superstition Mountains." I don't see how you can do anything other than fault the PIC for flying into terrain. Leaving the ground has inherent risks associated with it, whether standing on a ladder or flying a light aircraft. Maybe this is just another chapter in the attack on people they perceive as wealthy, in as much as it takes at least a small degree of affluence to own a light aircraft.


Everything else aside, today's technology can easily prevent CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) . A simple GPS with terrain display will go a long way towards preventing this. A WAAS GPS, with terrain database, coupled to a digital autopilot will absolutely prevent CFIT.

Yet the FAA will gladly revoke my certificates if I decide to install such equipment in my aircraft.
 
My experience is mostly limited to events of 40+ years ago. Back then, lots of rural fellas flew 'kinda shaky' more basic types of planes with sometimes 'pencil whipped' inspections. However, the owners flew more often and many had the mechanical smarts/common sense to keep the planes pretty safe. It seems to me folks don't encourage or much want their kids getting into 'dirty hands' type activities/careers anymore, so those skills have degraded as those 'skilled' have died off. I left the aviation world behind partly as increased regulation/costs climbed out of my more 'middle class' income would afford
 
It was at one time common for large farmers around here to have a small plane opearted off a mown grass strip on his farm.
These guys were often not legally pilots and usually took care of these off the books GA aircraft themselves.
Times have changed.
 
Originally Posted By: Win

Maybe this is just another chapter in the attack on people they perceive as wealthy, in as much as it takes at least a small degree of affluence to own a light aircraft.


Agreed. I think there is some truth to this statement.
 
Originally Posted By: yonyon
Quote:
Nearly 45,000 people have been killed over the past five decades
So roughly 1/3 as many people as who have been killed by hippopotami, right?


and 1/50 of the annual highway deaths in the US alone.
 
Another take on this is that nobody has to fly a light aircraft, just as nobody has to scuba dive.
I've done and enjoyed both.
Both have certain risks, but those risks can and should be managed.
In flying and in diving, risk can be mitigated by the individual.
If the individual exercises good judgement in either activity and carefully considers conditions, his equipment and his experience and skill levels, risk is greatly reduced.
No regulatory regime can replace good and honest personal judgement.
GA airplanes crash and divers drown.
In most cases, better planning and judgement going in would have resulted in a better outcome.
Many GA accidents come down to something stupid that could easily have been avoided, sometimes just by the pilot keeping the aircraft on the ground until conditions improve, just as many divers die in conditions where they should have stayed on the shore or the boat.
We all have our macho moments.
We all need to learn to supress those impulses when the downside involves a little more than a sore forearm or a bruise.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

...Many GA accidents come down to something stupid that could easily have been avoided, sometimes just by the pilot keeping the aircraft on the ground until conditions improve...


Known as "Get-there-itis"

You're at your destination. You've either flown there for business or pleasure (vacation, etc) and today is departure day. You "must" get back on time. Or so you are conditioned to strive for vigorously, throughout your pre-GA life. The boss expects it, whether the boss is the one from work or your better half. Can't disappoint. Wow, that forecast looks a little dicey but I can handle it and so can my airplane. Off we go, gotta get there. Bad things only happen to the other guy, we'll be fine.

Oh [censored]. This stuff is worse than forecasted. It'll thin out though, just a little farther. Don't need to do that 180 yet...
 
More effort should be made to educate GA pilots that their aircraft simply don't have the capability of those boring 737s or MD-80s that all of the non-pilots fly in the back of every day.
I won't name names, but some GA aircraft makers almost encourage their inexperienced buyers to push the envelope.
No piston and most turbine GA aircraft simply can't deal with weather as well as even a short haul airliner can. Most GA aircraft can't outclimb either a storm or icing and none have de-icing systems as effective as those found on commercial transports. Large diversions are also more practical in a four hundred knot aircraft, more so than in one grinding along at a buck eighty or so. Even the smaller GA jets are pretty slow as compared to any jet airliner.
The fact that airline crews fly a lot, fly actual IFR a lot and make instrument approaches a lot is also a part of the equation.
When GA guys with better equiment and more experience than one has are staying on the ground, that should be a solid hint.
Getting back late, or leaving your airplane and flying back commercial will always be better than not getting back at all.
 
Back when I flew, which was a good while back, I was only VFR. I aimed to get my IFR ticket eventually, but kept putting it off. Some IFR guys would tell me that the reason it's handy was for if you flew somewhere in good VFR and then the day to come back it's turned to IMC. So some of them used to say that having the instrument rating and the airplane being current in the IFR cert was the ticket home. Even now, as I entertain the concept of getting back into flying again, I don't look up on cra@ppy days and wish I could fly in it. It's always the CAVU days that stir the flying itch. For myself and my limits, I see the instrument rating as being more there for night flying than IMC, for my own purposes. My personal feeling is that if you're going to fly night VFR, pilot and airplane having the instrument rating is a significant safety edge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top