Fewer crashes, fewer fatalities. Have we turned a corner in aviation safety?

When the FAA's latest accident figures (for 2007) came out recently, it was a pleasant surprise to see that numbers of fatal accidents (273) and fatalities (488) have come down so much. The trend seems to be a good one, but as always, it need to viewed with a critical eye. After all, it's not clear that the reduction in fatals came about because safety has improved or simply because pilots flew less in 2007 than they had before. After all, you could achieve a perfect safety record if nobody ever flew. And let's not forget that nearly 500 deaths is unacceptable by any measure.

To write its report, the NTSB uses a figure for GA hours flown that is generated by the FAA in a survey it sends pilots every year asking pretty much just how much we've flown. They use that information undistilled and unfiltered. If the NTSB wants a really accurate report, that's probably a bad idea, because when it comes to estimating total time and recent experience, pilots are a lot like fishermen.

As we've suggested in the past, it would actually be pretty easy for the FAA to come up with a much better estimate of hours flown each year simply by requiring mechanics to report the number of hours flown by airplanes that they put through an annual inspection. They could get that figure off of the tach or an hour meter, if installed. Such a figure would at least be a good way to double check the pilot-reported figures the FAA works with, and the cost would be close to zero (though the FAA, like any large bureaucracy, is gifted at making inexpensive things cost outrageous amounts--take its ADS-B proposal, for example).

Based on purely anecdotal evidence, we think that overall flying is down. On our travels around the country in light airplanes, we're just not seeing as many GA pilots at the airport.

Then again, those airplanes we do see are probably flying a lot more. Cirrus has been saying for years that its customers fly more than average, due to the utility of the airplane. If that is so, then it's safe to say that pilots of newer Mooney airplanes, Beechcraft, Cessnas and the like, also fly more than average. So a percentage of the fewer pilots who are flying, might be flying more hours. I'd venture an educated guess that that is true.

Then the big question is, are those pilots flying more safely than their predecessors? Again, I don't think there's much doubt but that they are. Why so? Avionics advances help tremendously--satellite weather is a huge safety advance--and better training methods, newer equipment and better familiarity with flying in the system all have to help.

On an individual level, it's easy to see how these things improve safety. Can there be any doubt that they would do so on a global level?

Is it enough, though? Clearly not. We probably can't ever hope to get the fatal accident rate down to zero, but cutting it by 80 percent is a great goal. Who knows, maybe someday pilots' idle boasts that the drive to the airport is more dangerous than their flight might actually come true.

Comments

[Dave Woodstock GA]

I posed the same question to the AOPA Safety Foundation staff when I read about this data in the present AOPA issue.

AOPA noted fatalities were down but non-fatal accidents were up. While training can make us all better pilots I suspected the reported accident values were due to drasticaly reduced flying time. As you noted fewer people flying equals fewer fatalities. Reduced hours flown translates into reduced pilot proficiency and higher accident rates.

All I have to do is sit in my backyard on weekends and listen to the sound of birds rather then aircraft engines to know my assumptions are not to far off base and GA isn't healthy.

The way things are going all you are going to have left pretty soon are lawyers, doctors, successful businessmen, and people pursuing military and professional pilot careers flying small aircraft.

My wings are on the wall. With three kids and a low six figure income I can't justify the expense any more to stay proficient and get any real value from the activity. Flying just enough to stay current doesn't make sense.

[Lee Whitney]

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's the data, stupid!"

As the prices of all components of aviation increase, the casual flyer segment of the population (airplane owners, pilots, passengers,) is priced further and further out. Weekend pilot numbers are shrinking. This is what the economists call "price elasticity." Total GA flying hours are declining, but the segment that is losing the most is what we're curious about. Why? Because they may be associated with higher accident rates.

So, who's flying now? In my opinion, based on personal observations around GA airports, and lots of hangar talk, it is the people who use airplanes (and air travel) for transportation on a regular basis--those who are relatively insensitive to costs. A high percentage are business folks.

Compared to say a 10-year average, my theory is the typical GA pilot flying today is probably flying more frequently, is more likely to hold one or more advanced ratings and is more likely to take recurrent/proficiency training and aircraft maintenance more seriously. Maybe he is flying more capable equipment, but I don't think you can blame that on Cirrus Design. These pilot characteristics are all associated with improved aviation safety, just like in the military and transport catgories where these things are considered normal behavior.

If we could look at this sort of data-slicing, I think the picture would point toward what can sustain safer GA, once the current economic realities are rationalized.

Flying airplanes is serious business, and the sooner we recognize that economic forces have a direct impact on safety, the sooner we can advance the discussion about what is most important to GA: freedom of personal expression and preservation of aviation as we "used to know it" or operational safety and perpetuation of, "the most noble way to get from point A to point B."

Call me an elitist. But, in light of the shocking economic realities, this priviledge may be limited to fewer and fewer folks. If we in the aviation community don't get this figured out soon, the regulators will do it for us. And, it's all in, "the data." So, let's, "go figure."

Lee Whitney
Grand Junction, Colorado (KGJT)

[Mike d.]

Good comments, but I don't know what the aviation community is supposed to do to reduce the cost of flying for the average GA pilot.

Insurance, gas, rental, instruction, equipment, etc, etc. Face it, GA is a hobby that is going the way of the dinosaur. Those who will continue to pursue the hobby will be a rarefied bunch who can afford to lay out the initial and continuing cost, that's all. Sad, but true.

Those of us not 100 years old like Richard Collins, and who missed the great golden age of GA will be the ones who miss out, or are missing out.
C'est la Vie.

Regards from KDTO.