EASA NCO General Aviation Safety

Snoopy wrote:

At last, can one of you skilled mathematicians give a rough number on how dangerous private flying is in EASAland compared to eg driving a car, or compare against other recreational activities?

Some comparative statistics are given in CAP 1284 page 13
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=6771

[ local copy ]

Snoopy wrote:

At last, can one of you skilled mathematicians give a rough number on how dangerous private flying is in EASAland

Most things I’ve seen say it’s roughly equivalent to the risk of riding a motorcycle on public roads.

Insurance actuaries seem to think it is worse – I had to get life insurance for a mortgage. No questions at all on if I rode a motorcycle, but questions on GA flying (and very heavy penalties for doing so – the cost was 4 times higher than the typical premium from a typical insurer).

Snoopy wrote:

Flight Planning and Preparation: This is a safety issue that frequently results in CFIT accidents, particularly when worsening weather leads to the need for in-flight re-planning, which considerably tests a pilot’s ability to concurrently fly the aircraft..

I am not sure what flight planning in this context means, obviously mostly weather. And there I would identify several problems: Inaccurate forecasts, too optimistic interpretation of forecast, not following best use of available possibilities to get briefings and data (out of cost reasons often) as well as lack of in flight weather facilities.

CFIT’s due to weather happen a lot more VFR than IFR, so the agencies idea of making the IR easier will help in this regard.

Yet there may well be more factors than just weather in the flight planning and preparation sector which can cause accidents: bad fuel and load planning for starters, inadequate route planning and all these things.

Snoopy wrote:

Intentional Low Flying: This issue affects the pilot’s decision making process. When either through self-made or external pressures, effects such as marginal weather then lead some pilots to try to reach the planned des- tination instead of waiting for the current weather situation to improve. This safety issue is recurrent in loss of control accidents where stall or spin occurs while flying in low altitudes or entering IMC weather.

Intentional low flying often has to do with atrocious airspace structures where traffic is forced down to low altitudes because ATC does not want them in their sectors. Low flying has many problems: you have no time if the engine stops, you have no space to deviate if your path is closed before you, generally low flying is not a good idea. Therefore possibilities should be introduced to avoid it. Again, IFR will be helpful but I also found the CVFR routes of old a great thing, you could cross e.g. the TMA Milano at FL110/120. Today, it is a mere 1500 ft.

Airborne Separation: This safety issue is the 3rd highest when it comes to fatalities over the last 5 years. Pre- flight planning and knowledge of complex airspace structures are common factors related to this safety issue. In addition, situational awareness and the ability for inexperienced pilots to communicate effectively with ATC have also been identified as causal factors.

It is scary how many mid airs we have had in recent years. Collision avoidance should be a massive effort in the future which suggests they should be compulsory. But saying that, I hasten to add that we need affordable systems which can be used on a drone as much as a 747. In other words, ADS-B.

Handling of Technical Failures: After a technical failure during flight the pilot’s workload increases significant- ly. There is evidence of accidents occurring due to the pilot being too focused on the problem rather than flying the aircraft. This in turn creates situations where the accident outcome becomes significantly worse than it could have been had the technical failure been handled appropriately.

I agree, make POH’s for this century. Encourage airplane specific POH’s and checklists. Retire FI’s who insist on thumb rules and guesswork rather than proper type specific training. Do proper type transition training.

Human Factor Safety Issues
Perception and Situational Awareness: This safety issue is linked to a number of different types of accidents, especially a pilot’s awareness of the aircraft’s energy state that may lead to a loss of control and also awareness of both the geographical position of the aircraft and its position in relation to other aircraft.

Encourage use of moving maps but also of out of the window flying. Banning GPS does nothing but becoming addicted to it neither.

Train basic flying skills. Quite a few airplanes have been lost recently due to the lack of this. And not only GA planes.

Decision Making and Planning: The decision making and planning process varies between persons. This process feeds directly into the pilot’s actions, which then provides the basis for the end result. It is therefore very important that the correct information is available to the pilot when decisions are made so as to facilitate the best possible outcome of any encountered scenario.

Again, training. Make access to simulators more affordable by providing sims which allow individual training on non certified yet high fidelity devices.
Read accident reports, read incident reports. Allow for just culture reporting.

Experience, Training and Competence of Individuals: The final HF priority area is related to the knowledge, training and competency of individuals. Through the analysis of airborne conflict performed by the NoA, the complexity of airspace structures was identified as one example where the complex nature of the aviation system makes things challenging, especially for private pilots. The safety risk assessment in this area will specifically consider ways to provide clear, simple information to help pilots have the right information so as to perform flights as safely as possible.

Declutter airspace and standardize the way it is used. Make available tailored systems which show active vs inactive airspace in real time. Train people how to use restricted or danger areas properly. Encourage use of airspace warning systems and flight plan properly.

More to it, but that is the gist of it.

From here

boscomantico wrote:

Calm down, 172driver. It’s cost-sharing. Nothing to do with an airtaxi operation. The rules are not the problem.

That’s correct, but were the passengers aware of the risk? The risk of operating private GA is orders of magnitude larger than commercial aviation. Statistically the largest cause of that risk is the pilot. Statistics also show that there is no clear cut relationship with between risk and pilot experience or formal competence. In most accidents we are left with the question of why it happened, because the pilot was one of the “most skilled and most experienced” in the area. The reality is more like if you keep on flying, you will eventually crash and burn, unless you are lucky and your age (or medical) will get you first.

Obviously pilots who are better in risk assessment and risk mitigation are safer pilots, but how do you distinguish those from the rest? The nature of private GA is such that often the most important risk assessment must be done on the fly, in the air, and continuously through the flight. If something unwanted is happening, the correct actions has to be taken. Good planning helps, but it will only get you that far. The risk of GA is high, but it isn’t higher than making it perfectly possible for most pilots to die of natural causes due to luck alone rather than good risk assessment. The only way to have some indication that this pilot is better than the other, is that one survived an incident, the other didn’t. That knowledge comes a bit late, if as a passenger you picked the wrong pilot.

Private GA is such a fringe activity that the general public have no clue about the risk in general. Ask anyone, and at best you will get an answer that ULs are much more dangerous. The reality is that numbers show a tiny bit more risk with ULs (for the number of accidents, not lethal accidents), if you want to make a point in a discussion. But, the numbers show no statistic significant whatsoever (not enough numbers compared with the tiny difference). In fact, taking into account that ULs can only have one passenger, and the overall risk is lower per passenger per flight hour, and this is indeed statistically significant. The new US sport pilot license does not allow for more than one passenger, even though the aircraft can have 4 seats for instance.

Most insurance companies consider any UL activity (pilot or passenger) as a risk activity, more like paragliding for instance. This is important for life insurance, insurance against accidents and so on. Your normal insurance will prop 95 not cover this activity. Certified aircraft, no problems, due to certification by EASA, it’s business as usual, like driving a car. This does not change the actual risk however. Being a passenger in a 4-6 seat certified GA aircraft is as bad as it gets if you value your life more than you value the insurance money to your wife. This is in fact more important if you do value your wife’s insurance money more, which is the main reason this is important to understand, and the reason why a rescue chute is more important in an UL than in a certified aircraft. The consequences of your death and injury (usually) is much more severe for your closest relatives if you die in an UL than in a certified aircraft. This goes for passengers also. Which again is the main reason to make every passenger fully aware of the risk in an UL : to prevent the relatives from suing you – and winning in court, when the insurance company won’t pay out.

IMO the rules are not entirely unproblematic. They allow for advertising. With advertising comes the tendency of focusing on the sunny aspects only, and especially so if this is a private initiative. Also, this allows for people who are completely unknown with GA to get involved. It’s not reasonable to expect such people to have any clue whatsoever about the actual risk. They have to be told in bold letters, and even then. Risk is not something that is easily understood. Flying with friends or family is very different. They have had time to contemplate the whole situation.

The reality is more like if you keep on flying, you will eventually crash and burn, unless you are lucky and your age (or medical) will get you first.

This qualifies to the top on the list of your statements.

There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but no old bold pilots. A good colleague is in his tenth decade and is still instructing aerobatics, ex English Electric Lightning must have good genes and risk management.

Does IAOPA offer insurance?
Certainly you can get a.certain amount of life insurance through the FFA and for the ULM and gliders FFPLUM broker a wide range of insurances from life and disability assurance through to hull insurance.