In the French figures for fatal accidents ULM are included and one has to admit that 2018 was a bad year as was 2015 and 2009 but for different causes. As I pointed out 2018 showed the greatest number of fatal accidents were recorded as loss of control in flight. In previous years it has been fuel starvation and weather. These have been followed by a huge educational push within clubs and training organisations. Now fuel and weather rate much lower on the fatal accident scale so one could argue that in France we have learnt lessons. Now we will need to look again at what is required to reduce fatalities due to loss of control in flight and put things in place to do that.
adding a DIY column for Ultralights to the above table from Eurostat, I found out that France has about 25 fatalities per annum (see french wikipedia), while Italy about 15 per annum (see vfrflight.net). Total ULM in Italy are about 11000, and in France should be about 9000 (see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_l%C3%A9g%C3%A8re).
I think the table already includes ultralights ,as the numbers for Estonia already include Deltas – the 2 fatalities is a deltaplane with a collapsed wing..
LeSving wrote:
I’m not sure focusing on rules and regulations is the correct way though. It may even be a major cause. It’s the lack of thinking and planning that is the issue, and obeying rules doesn’t help you to think.
If you would have written “just focussing on rules…” I would have agreed.
Part of the humility we need to adopt in my opinion is, that most if not all of the rules the air actually have a good reason in enhancing safety. We might not always understand that reason but it it most often there.
And the most dangerous mindsets of all is to believe that I don’t have to obey the rule just because I don’t truly understand its purpose. Let’s take the cloud distant rules I used as an example: How many times have you heard other pilots say: “Flying a little bit closer to the clouds than allowed is not a risk – I can fly safely directly below the clouds low in airspace G so flying directly below them higher in Airspace E would not kill me – it’s just a stupid rule” – completely missing the point that these cloud clearances are not at all defined to protect them from accidentally entering/disorientation/etc. but only to enable see and avoid of IFR traffic that legally comes out of this cloud…
Therefore I fully agree that only following the rules doesn’t make us safer pilots – but there are extremely few situations and very few rules where breaking the rules does!
Malibuflyer wrote:
but only to enable see and avoid of IFR traffic that legally comes out of this cloud…
Do we know how many cases of this actually occuring there are?
I seem to recal something like there hasn’t been an imc imc mid air in class g in the uk for 40 or 50 years.
I really believe that if fuel was cheaper and flying costs lower that people would fly more and there would be a measurable safety knock on. More recently I’ve been flying less than usual and I certainly notice it.
I really believe that if fuel was cheaper and flying costs lower that people would fly more and there would be a measurable safety knock on. More recently I’ve been flying less than usual and I certainly notice it.
Certainly true. I think cost and lack of time are the main obstacles to a higher currency among the pilot population, not lack of will to fly more.
Maybe if electric planes really get going someday, their much lower cost per hour will help to increase currency?
I have had to decrease my flying budget and I feel it. Especially, as I would like to save for summer trips.
I will try during the holidays to make my own spreadsheet of piston-aircraft (except ULs) accidents in France in 2018 for exemple.
I looked at their website today and found some pretty interesting reports of the BEA. I must admit, I misjudged them.
Number of people killed is a stupid metric for a statistic showing commercial and general aviation side by side. One commercial accident can have as much fatalities as hundreds of ga flights.
Maybe if electric planes really get going someday, their much lower cost per hour will help to increase currency?
The wish is the thought here. Though in the history of aviation nothing got cheaper, except ticket prices for mass tourism. I believe electric planes‘ prices (overall) will continue where combustion planes ended.
I just wonder whether the French statistics for GA fatalities might be attributable to their lifestyle. In my experience it is de rigeur for lunch in an Aeroclub to be enjoyed with a glass of red, whereas we Brits go for a pint and a chinwag after flying.
I’ve never seen that among alpine pilots. Certainly not de rigeur.
Maybe that’s because we’re mostly oldies, a condition exacerbated by avoiding risk.
