And another fact, you know Munson was being trained by Flightsafety at the time of the crash and had an instructor with him?
The FAA investigation into the crash stated that the probable cause was “…the pilot’s failure to recognize the need for, and to take action to maintain, sufficient airspeed to prevent a stall into the ground during an attempted landing. The pilot also failed to recognize the need for timely and sufficient power application to prevent the stall during an approach conducted inadvertently without flaps extended. Contributing to the pilot’s inability to recognize the problem and to take proper action was his failure to use the appropriate checklist and his nonstandard pattern procedures which resulted in an abnormal approach profile.”
(source: en.wikipedia.org)
Not a good day for Munson, neither for the instructor, nor Flight Safety.
In the latest review in Pilot of the Diamond DA40 they mention it has had only ‘one fatal accident per 1,000 aircraft-years’, and this being one of the best, or the best in class.
The 172SP, PA28-161 and DA40 remain a hobby horse of mine in demonstrating superior, or should it be inferior (meaning less of them), accident statistics. The Cirrus is also making it into this category as pilots finally start pulling the chute to avoid a fatal outcome.
Aiming for a 1 in a million hour accident rate (minimum public transport objective used for safety factor performance tables) still seems worthwhile in GA.
No reason why a pressurised single pilot, single engine turbine can’t hope to achieve this, but it would take a lot of training, especially in CRM, and possibly some form of safety culture team assisting on planning and dispatch to ensure this outcome.
The 1 in a million hour fatality rate is a long way from even the largest turboprop aircraft. The 2012 Breiling report had Twin TPs at .67/100,000 hours and Singles at 0.72/100,000. The PA46 and TBMs are showing between 1.5 and 2.0.
I would have thought DA-40s use as a trainer would contribute significantly to its low fatality rate, no?
Aiming for a 1 in a million hour accident rate (minimum public transport objective used for safety factor performance tables) still seems worthwhile in GA.
Aiming for … is worthwhile, however you will never achieve it with GA, because the long cruise segment (e.g. 10h) is missing which is required for such a good statistics.
Or as an airline safety pilot once put it " If you used you plane for fetching bread rolls for breakfast in the morning the statistical outcome would be disastrous ".
The 172SP, PA28-161 and DA40 remain a hobby horse of mine in demonstrating superior, or should it be inferior (meaning less of them), accident statistics
I would think that this is due to an intersection of undemanding mission profiles and “slow” aircraft without any handling quirks, yet they are hardly cheap which discourages owner-pilots without what somebody might call “insufficient committment” to getting good.
And the non-owner scenarios are mostly rentals used in training i.e. trivial mission profiles and with an experienced pilot on board.
If you go any slower the accident rate will rise because of various factors (easier to “get into”, less robust construction).
If you go faster the accident rate will rise again because, ahem, they go faster… and they will attract people with the cash but insufficient training or currency on type.
Aiming for … is worthwhile, however you will never achieve it with GA, because the long cruise segment (e.g. 10h) is missing which is required for such a good statistics.
Class A performance tables I think take into account % exposure to phase of flight. Public transport, in particular stateside continues to improve on the stats. No Part 135 (Commuter airlines) fatal accident in over six years, Part 121 (scheduled passenger) no fatality in over 3 years.
The 1 in a million hour fatality rate is a long way from even the largest turboprop aircraft. The 2012 Breiling report had Twin TPs at .67/100,000 hours and Singles at 0.72/100,000. The PA46 and TBMs are showing between 1.5 and 2.0.
This probably related to Part 91 operations, see comment above, and for accidents outside the USA. Am assuming this is an overall accident rate, or fatal rate? If fatal it must be excluding Part 135.
With a bit of torturing of the GA statistics a cohort of well maintained, within M&B and conservative fuel planned SE operating airways in daylight, from one ILS airport to another, and light IFR should be able to achieve better than 1 in 200,000 hours fatality rate. Single pilot morbidity rates may preclude achieving 1 in a million. Why SE, because I add the assumption that you plan for at least 1,000 foot ceilings to achieve some chance of a successful forced landing, effectively removing low IFR single pilot accidents.
Here is the link to the Munson accident
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR8002.pdf
The instructor was a buddy who had instructed on his Beech Duke and did not have turbine time. Not a Flight Safety instructional flight.
The Fedex philosophy of briefing for the go around at each approach gate always struck me as good practice – i.e. you are going around unless checks complete and approach stable at each gate in the descent and approach.
No reason why a pressurised single pilot, single engine turbine can’t hope to achieve this, but it would take a lot of training, especially in CRM, and possibly some form of safety culture team assisting on planning and dispatch to ensure this outcome.
Re. “Safety Culture”. I once read statistics from Sweden showing that PPLs who were aeroclub members had notably better accident statistics that those who were not.
Im not sure if this is true but from what Ive seen, if people would fly more often they might maintain their skills and thereby perhaps have less accidents especially true for IFR flying. Its a general statement though, because Ive known pilots who fly often enough 100hrs a year but for whom flying without a working autopilot on board would find themselves upside down in no time.
Im not sure if this is true but from what Ive seen, if people would fly more often they might maintain their skills and thereby perhaps have less accidents especially true for IFR flying.
@C210_Flyer, you could be onto something here. We could call this new concept “currency”. 
True but there is currency and then there is Currency. Can you detect the subtle difference?
Single pilot IFR is no joke. I have the greatest respect for the freight dogs who fly in all kind of wx most without an autopilot.
