I think accident reports add to the “common experience” and while it may be difficult to pinpoint exactly what we learn from it, information and details are stored somewhere in our heads and is triggered when we enter similar situations, maybe subconsciously? I had a dead stick landing in a Piper Pawnee a year ago. Not to mess up and not making it to the airfield was on the top of my head all the time. Probably because I have read accident reports of people unfamiliar to the added drag of a windmilling propeller and landing 20-30 meters too short in the bush. To actually hit the airfield, I was more or less back in “model airplane mode” (RC), and to me the whole thing was very much uneventful, I had “done” this at least 1000 times. I did a perfect landing and even had enough speed on the ground to taxi off on the taxiway. I will not say I am a better pilot than others, but I am convinced that every little shred of experience and knowledge you have will help you in a case of emergency, and it will do so without you even thinking about it, or pop up automatically.
There are also other lessons to be learned. For instance experimental aircraft (homebuilts) have a higher accident rate than certified aircraft. This was attributed to experimental aircraft being technically inferior to certified aircraft. However, when analyzing the data a bit more, the accident were found not to be caused by technical errors, but due to pilot error. These pilot errors were typically done during the first few hours of flight, and in particular by pilots purchasing used (already built) aircraft. The higher accident rate was due to pilots being unfamiliar with the aircraft and its systems and being unfamiliar with the higher performance of these aircraft. Obviously when you build the aircraft yourself, you have intrinsic knowledge of the systems (which may be highly customized), but when purchasing a used aircraft, you are unfamiliar with the systems and unfamiliar with the performance. To get the accident rate down, more familiarization is needed and more pilot training is needed. Experimental aircraft were not technically inferior to certified aircraft. This knowledge is important to both pilots, builders and the CAA. Facts and status, that is what’s important, not rules and regulation, but that’s another story.
I wouldn’t do either and it’s not my problem if others do.
If two or three similar accidents happen, it will quickly become your and my problem because the authorities will have to react somehow. And the only way they can do this is by make more and more restrictive rules. Which will then apply to you and me as well.
I have specific issues with some UK and some French accident reports.
One UK AAIB one, G-AVRP, had a fair chunk of its camshaft in the oil filter, which was obviously never opened by the “maintenance” company. Nobody noticed, probably for years. Action taken? You are kidding… I can see why now; if they were to stop this, they would shut down half the UK “maintenance” business.
The one from the BEA on N2195B was similarly useless and obviously inaccurate. No background on the pilot, his lack of carrying oxygen, his problems working out Eurocontrol routes. And some other issues which could have been established with some quick local enquiries. The attitude is… flying is dangerous, people will get killed. Learning value = 0 unless you already know how to do that flight properly, or stay on the ground.
I try to learn from these reports but most of the time I struggle, and whenever I get an opportunity to speak to somebody who knew the pilot personally I hear a whole new piece of the story which obviously was not in the report. One “highly experienced” pilot of a turboprop, fatal crash, was a well known cowboy who a friend of mine (well qualified on type) would not fly with anymore and his demise was widely predicted. I suppose one can’t expect the investigators to do research beyond a certain point but if they visited the pilot’s home base and asked around they would get useful info. Would they be able to print it? Legally yes, morally it would be questionable. Yet this sort of stuff is a crucial part of most crashes where human factors were involved.
Would they be able to print it? Legally yes, morally it would be questionable.
The problem is: It is “hearsay” information about a deceased person who can not defend himself any more. Therefore it is better left out of the report, even if it would provide useful information. But I have read a lot of reports where previous accidents and incidents of the same pilot were cited (e.g. Crossair 3597, which is not a GA accident but can happen in the GA environment as well).
The rumour in the UK is that the UK AAIB gets a great deal of “input” (not always input they have asked for) from the lawyers for the various parties involved, and the final report comes out only when all the lawyers for all the parties have agreed to not sue them.
I agree about “hearsay” but it could be to some extent verified. For example if you have a pilot whose attitude is “I always fly” (I have known such types, and not all of them are alive now) it would be fairly easy to look up his logbook entries versus archived wx records.
OTOH the AAIB might argue their job is not pilot training, but merely reporting the known facts.
It would sometimes be really handy to publish the name of the maintenance company that didn’t open the oil filter, but the AAIB would prob99 get sued by them because I don’t think checking for metal in the filter is a requirement under Part M.
Another form of accident report is the ‘That worst day’ format, where the idea is to write something pithy, readable and anonymised so that all the human factors can be discussed without any embarrassment.
I wonder who writes these? I like to think I’ve learned quite a lot from them.
I wonder who writes these?
Maybe I will put my two or three of four (yet unwritten) ones to paper some day… Some magazines call them “I learnt about flying from that”.
Those are slightly different: ‘That worst day’ is written in the third person; ‘ILAFFT’ is first person. Both are useful and in my view, very healthy. The ‘worst day’ articles are in my view very nicely written by someone who clearly knows what they’re talking about.
A while ago I was quite interested in road safety and design, and it’s odd to consider that it seems far easier to paint a picture of a ‘typical’ general aviation accident than a typical road traffic accident. There’s much more raw information publicly available. I did learn that a fairly common pedestrian-crossing accident involves a car stopping, then being rear-ended pushing it forward onto the crossing and hitting the pedestrian. Part of the reason behind advanced-stop lines which everyone seems to ignore.
I’m not sure where I put the raw figures, but a while ago I worked my way through lots of NTSB accident reports in order to decide what sort of aircraft I would like to fly (had an obsession with the Rutan canards) before coming to the conclusion that forced landings in them on rugged terrain (i.e. where I like to fly) should basically not be considered survivable. Of course, I ended up flying Cessnas and Pipers like everybody else but I ended up buying plans for a reasonably conventional non-canard homebuilt.
before coming to the conclusion that forced landings in them on rugged terrain (i.e. where I like to fly) should basically not be considered survivable
I personally know a real live pilot who climbed to 18000ft in a canard homebuilt, passed out through hypoxia, and woke up in a forest on the side of a mountain. This was in the Alpine region, but may not have made any accident reports. The cockpit stayed in one piece despite what must have been a full power (way past Vne) impact. He had his legs rebuilt.
So maybe it depends on how well you build them?
before coming to the conclusion that forced landings in them on rugged terrain (i.e. where I like to fly) should basically not be considered survivable.
There have been 4 reported forced landings with Rutans canards here in Norway. In 2 of those the aircraft were totally damaged, in one the aircraft turned upside down with some damage, and one landed on an airfield but run off the runway with some minor damage. In all accidents the pilot could walk away, except for one where he had some serious leg damage. The passenger in that one could walk away though.
