Total and fatal, per 100k hours
Not a lot changes. The slight drop at 2012 in the totals is thought to be due to better pilot education, which is curious since who does this? Cirrus have adopted some programmes.
Peter wrote:
The slight drop at 2012 in the totals is thought to be due to better pilot education, which is curious since who does this?
The FAA through the FAAST (FAA Safety Team) seminars and webinars. While of varying quality, they are very numerous and usually well attended.
I would guess the increase in ‘pilot education’ is a way for FAA to explain something in their terms, without them having much to do with it. Ongoing development of insurance requirements by type may have a role, plus the airline pilot training industry doing a lot of hours, plus an increasing level of aviation knowledge as US aviation continues to transition to people (homebuilders etc) who better know their planes and equipment. The 1970s ‘GA as consumer transport’ concept is fading and thereby lowering the lumbers of people who are only casually interested.
Analysing lethality by type is interesting – SEP FG at around 13%, SEP RG at 20% and ME at 27%. The ME is lower than usually stated in FAA ME publications.
Lethality in IMC is 50%.
25 fatal accidents related to manoeuvring flight, with a high share for tailwheel.
I’d never paid attention to the SEP RG breakdown, it’s interesting to see the fatality rate being in effect closer to (but still lower than) ME, compared with SE FG. This could point to over risk compensation (ME and SE RG are seen are more capable and undertake riskier missions, which are in fact too risky for the actual increase in capability).
The numbers are small but it’s quite interesting to compare the gap between piston and turbine, in the SE vs ME case. In SE, piston and turbine accidents have similar fatality rates. In ME, piston fatality rates are much higher. Are engine failures and asymmetry easier to handle in ME turbines, maybe because of more widely installed auto-feather features?
denopa wrote:
Are engine failures and asymmetry easier to handle in ME turbines, maybe because of more widely installed auto-feather features?
1) The majority of the multi engine turbine fleet is operated by two pro pilots. King Airs!
2) An engine failure in a multi engine turbine, once handled correctly, has more „power“. Most of the multi engine pistons keep flying on a hairstring, so to say, and are less docile/bite quicker (Factory new Baron crash in germany during routine training flight comes to mind).
Is there even enough data to determine a statistically sound SET fatality rate in relation to number of accidents?
The cabin class MET have low inertia compared to a regional MET and need auto feather and rudder boost, although not all King Airs came with auto feather. Most KA may have safety pilots but unless the SOP is multi crew, most are operated single crew.
These asymmetric protection systems can be confused, by say partial power due to problems in the FCU.
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/king-air-crash-wichita/#.XbXpJsqnyhA
When the Canadian RCMP studied the accident stats they switched to the PC12.
