11bee Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Just came across the following article which makes some pretty disturbing allegations about small aircraft / helicopter safety. To me, it comes across as a bit of a media hack job but I'm not an expert on this subject. I'm curious what others think. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/17/small-plane-crashes-investigation/10717427/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Just came across the following article which makes some pretty disturbing allegations about small aircraft / helicopter safety. To me, it comes across as a bit of a media hack job but I'm not an expert on this subject. I'm curious what others think. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/17/small-plane-crashes-investigation/10717427/ A lot of the helicopter complaints are for Robinsons. I refuse to fly on them. The problem is robbies are cheap trainers and are very common and their weight margins aren't that hot so any increase in price, or weight is a no go almost instantly. A lot of the rest of it, I'm here to tell its heavily regulated already, there are weekly safety updates from many sources (gov, manufacturers, etc) , and a lot of stuff really is pilot error. A lot of that is just the broad scope of avaitors in general avaition. Got an 84 year old who can fly a helicopter like its an extension of his body and a 20 year old with a minimal hour of robinson time in his first gig flying from the same airport. its crazy. Mechanics are very black and white, its fixed or put in place, according to spec by the book. Pilots are have to be a lot more adaptable, and more prone to error. Pilots can encounter scenarios they have only practiced once or twice, or may not realize they are making an error until its too late, and they can't take 5 minutes to consult the book, or make a phone call to the manufacturer. Mechanics are very type A, Very stubborn. We were regulated by the FAA, NTSB, EPA, and US Forest Service. We had to pass inspections from all of them to win a 4 month contract, not to mention flight tests (at our own expense, so some bureaucrat could get a helicopter ride) screw USA today. If they want to be specific and call out specific companies and cases, thats fine but to throw a blanket statement out like that... "carnage" in journalism. And the most frustating part is they will pull this, and the federal government will tighten regs, that are already intense. I can't wait for the "required nomex and helmets" for all I don't think so Grandpa!! Edited June 18, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DutyCat Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Well, as a CFI, my opinion is that in general aviation, the aircraft design is rarely to blame. There is a rigorous certification program in place to maximize design airworthiness. Once and awhile, something major in a new design slips through and is discovered and corrected through an Airworthiness Directive. Small scope AD's are issued all of the time for maintenance and operating procedures when a problem emerges. There are also sometimes improper maintenance issues which cause accidents, and manufacturer defects. However, 99 times out of 100 it is pilot error. What is a misconception is GA safety in general. Although it is common to say, "You are safer flying than diving to the airport," for GA, that may not be true. Depending on how you spin the statistics, I have seen it suggested that GA is about as dangerous as driving. What certainly is true, however, is you are WAY safer on a commercial airliner per mile traveled, especially on a mainline carrier, than driving a car. As was pointed out, a lot of language in this article was on R's. I can't speak about them with any authority, other than by nature, helicopters are more dangerous than fixed wing for a number of reasons. Edited June 18, 2014 by DutyCat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Well, as a CFI, my opinion is that in general aviation, the aircraft design is rarely to blame. There is a rigorous certification program in place to maximize design airworthiness. Once and awhile, something major in a new design slips through and is discovered and corrected through an Airworthiness Directive. Small scope AD's are issued all of the time for maintenance and operating procedures when a problem emerges. There are also sometimes improper maintenance issues which cause accidents, and manufacturer defects. However, 99 times out of 100 it is pilot error. What is a misconception is GA safety in general. Although it is common to say, "You are safer flying than diving to the airport," for GA, that may not be true. Depending on how you spin the statistics, I have seen it suggested that GA is about as dangerous as driving. What certainly is true, however, is you are WAY safer on a commercial airliner per mile traveled, especially on a mainline carrier, than driving a car. Agreed. I just see this as another chance for journalism to call out the government for not protecting us from ourselves enough. With an airline they have a routine and flying and fixing is a full time job, its not nearly as constant in general aviation. its far more individualized. Edited June 18, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 How many people have died in car accidents since 1964? I just looked it up. The lowest since 1964 was in 1992, with just over 39,000. The highest was in 1970, with over 52,000. Next... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DutyCat Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 How many people have died in car accidents since 1964? I just looked it up. The lowest since 1964 was in 1992, with just over 39,000. The highest was in 1970, with over 52,000. Next... Like I said...depends on how you spin it. If you start looking a miles traveled, hours in transit, number of departures, twins vs singles, rotorcraft.....everything changes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Hegedus Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Also, GA encompasses everything from the new students going for thier first trip around the field with an instructor, to the high-time corporate jet pilot, to everything in between - the "$100 hamburger" weekend flyer, the oil field service helicopter, the photo mapping guys, airshow pilots, banner towers, sightseeing services, and a myriad of other things. Not exactly directly comparable with scheduled airlines. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Also, GA encompasses everything from the new students going for thier first trip around the field with an instructor, to the high-time corporate jet pilot, to everything in between - the "$100 hamburger" weekend flyer, the oil field service helicopter, the photo mapping guys, airshow pilots, banner towers, sightseeing services, and a myriad of other things. Not exactly directly comparable with scheduled airlines. Yep Also Robinson's are Diesel , I don't know if that has been a factor in fires, compared to turbines. Edited June 18, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I'm always more nervous driving to the airport than strapping on a GA aircraft - and I've survived a GA accident that totaled the airplane. Still feel safer than in a car. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ben Brown Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Ex-airline pilot/CFII here. Just the very nature of GA means you're going to have more crashes than the airlines. The GA pilot group doesn't get the same quality or frequency of recurrent training as pro pilots, and GA pilots are often less proficient, since they don't fly day-in, day-out. When I was instructing, I felt like the requirements for recurrent training did need to be tightened considerably, based on what I was seeing while doing biennial flight reviews. There were quite a few cases where I wondered how the guy even made it to the airport alive. Throw in a second engine, and things got even scarier. I agree with Dutycat that the aircraft designs or maintenance issues usually aren’t the problem. My best friend was killed partly because a required engine mod wasn’t done, but in most crashes, pilot error/poor decision-making is the main factor (including my friend’s crash). Aviation just isn’t very forgiving and never will be. How many lawsuits have been won or settled when a pilot screwed-up and exceeded the design limitations of the airplane, and the survivors sue the company for “faulty design” or something like that? And, like Jennings says, almost as many people die on US roads every year than have died in all GA crashes since 1962 (do not get me started on driver training! ). I think this USA Today “story” is just another case of trying to start a media-generated uproar in a misinformed/ill-informed public, making them think that a light plane is going to come crashing through their roof at any moment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) There is a such a difference even within general avaition. My helicopter company rarely had anything approaching routine. one day you were transporting people to a mountain, the next it was netting big horn sheep, then nothing would happen for 2 weeks, then you would have 2 months straight of work, all amongst regular TV news scrambles if something worth reporting showed up. No two days were ever the same, and the jobs varied drastically. sometimes you got months notice, sometimes only hours. But that was the nature of the business. Obviously you are scrambling for work, so we always said "yes" first then figured out how later. Lots of all nighters, lots of scrambles, And all over the country, we went straight from Katrina in NOLA to Fires in California Compared to a regular tourist circuit like las vegas, grand canyon, or city tour, Hawaii were its nice predictable orbits at the same time week and week out doing the same work. Our accident/incident rate was naturally higher, coupled with hot and high as a matter of routine. :deadhorse1:/> There is no safe way to fly low to the ground while trying to fire a net gun at a galloping animal. Edited June 18, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MoFo Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 but to throw a blanket statement out like that... "carnage" in journalism. It's the USA Today. It's not journalism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winnie Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Just to put some facts straight, Robionson helicopters run on 100LL avgas unless they are the new R-66 that is a turbine, and they have a rough reputation, but if you REALLY look into the statistics there are just as many if not more Bell 206B's as the robinson if you count percentages, however they started falling out of the skies 20 years before the Robinsons. I have over 2000 hours on piston helicopters and over 2500 on turbines, and I prefer my turbines, but the R-44 has its uses and is not a death trap if operated as intended by qualified crew. If the crew is NOT well qualified, won't matter what machine you are in... Cheers H. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted June 18, 2014 Author Share Posted June 18, 2014 Just to put some facts straight, Robionson helicopters run on 100LL avgas unless they are the new R-66 that is a turbine, and they have a rough reputation, but if you REALLY look into the statistics there are just as many if not more Bell 206B's as the robinson if you count percentages, however they started falling out of the skies 20 years before the Robinsons. I have over 2000 hours on piston helicopters and over 2500 on turbines, and I prefer my turbines, but the R-44 has its uses and is not a death trap if operated as intended by qualified crew. If the crew is NOT well qualified, won't matter what machine you are in... Cheers H. Good point. Not to give this article any credence because I do think it's a hack job but is the fuel system on the R-series helos that vulnerable and if so, would it really have been difficult / uneconomical to install a crash-worthy fuel tank like the military helo's are equipped with? Only downside I can think of (aside from cost) might be excessive weight for such a small airframe. I personally think that modern GA / light helos are safer than ever. Some of the avionics they are sporting are more advanced than what the airlines have. More and more planes are equipped with whole-aircraft parachute systems, some have cockpit airbags, etc. Of course the article above seems to have overlooked these advances. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aaronw Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Would also be interested to see the numbers if you remove sport aircraft including "home builts" such as the one John Denver was flying when he died. Much lower level of oversight because they are restricted in performance and passenger capability (pilot only I believe). Of course at the moment GM is recalling 20 million autos after years of denial that they had a problem, so not exactly an aviation only problem. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Johnopfor Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Just came across the following article which makes some pretty disturbing allegations about small aircraft / helicopter safety. To me, it comes across as a bit of a media hack job but I'm not an expert on this subject. I'm curious what others think. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/17/small-plane-crashes-investigation/10717427/ Daaaaamn!...... Someone still reads USA Today?! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share Posted June 19, 2014 Daaaaamn!...... Someone still reads USA Today?! LOL... One of my custom Google News groups scooped the article up. I have settings to avoid them and the other faux news services, this one must have slipped through. Gotta tighten things up to keep the junk out. Agreed about USA Today, I can't figure out how they are still in business. The only time I've ever seen anyone read them was at airports. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 LOL... One of my custom Google News groups scooped the article up. I have settings to avoid them and the other faux news services, this one must have slipped through. Gotta tighten things up to keep the junk out. Agreed about USA Today, I can't figure out how they are still in business. The only time I've ever seen anyone read them was at airports. That would explain this hit piece Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aaronw Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 LOL... One of my custom Google News groups scooped the article up. I have settings to avoid them and the other faux news services, this one must have slipped through. Gotta tighten things up to keep the junk out. Agreed about USA Today, I can't figure out how they are still in business. The only time I've ever seen anyone read them was at airports. and motels. I think they have an arrangement with all the big chains. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 All the h/motels I stayed in the past decade have dropped USA Today outside the door in the morning as a matter of course. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GEH737 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 "Journalism" is now an infotainment industry - and eyeballs on the product generates the revenue - facts are not the primary concern. A known fact is that fear / and or sex sells. Read the article today - I think we're gonna be OK. Flew to San Juan yesterday, and to JFK last night / this morning. Flights were uneventful, but nearly had two accidents on the way to/from the airports (shuttle vans). That's not much of a story though... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winnie Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 With regards to the crashworthiness of the Robinsons, they have a Airworthiness Directive to mount self sealing fuel tanks, basically a rubber bladder inside the actual metal tank, to contain fuel, and also flexible fuel hoses, thus they have done lots to prevent post-crash fires. They would do a lot more to demand more stringent requirements for private pilots, rather than ban specific aircraft types. When I went to the Robinson safety course, one of the examples of idiocy they told us of, was an inexperienced pilot landing and rolling over the aircraft in response to a caution light that was not even a problem... Training is key, Cheers H. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 They would do a lot more to demand more stringent requirements for private pilots, rather than ban specific aircraft types. don't be silly! I am routinely told that banning certain items/tools/machines will instantly fix the idiots/incompetents that misuse them Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Diamondback Six Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Lemme tell you something as both an AOPA member and a Recovering Journalist: if USA Today were any MORE full of bullcrap, they could open a fertilizer factory big enough to satisfy the entire WORLD's needs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.