The article is also full of statistical nonsense… things like:
“The U.S. has more than twice as many general-aviation aircraft [accidents] as every other nation combined”
Most people would think “This is really bad!”. But nowhere does it mention that the US has X amount more GA than any other country. Nor does it take into account thing like country populations.
Another one is:
“the general-aviation [death] rate is unchanged from 15 years ago” Is probably also not accurate. I doubt it takes into account things like population growth, population aging, flying hours, weather change etc… Nor does it say where the rate was obtained from.
I find news articles that twist numbers to make things more dramatic very annoying and less credible.
If you want to live a “safe” life, then do not fly small aircraft, it is as simple as that.
If you want to live a safe life, don’t get out of bed in the morning. This doesn’t lead anywhere, really. I want to fly small aircraft (bad enough to make my living from it) yet meet my grandchildren one day. Therefore I will consider any sensible measure to improve safety in this field. My example with the transponder is one such measure. Relatively inexpensive, but with a significant safety gain. Almost every aeroplane that is employed commercially – and that includes a lot of GA planes as well – is fitted with TCAS or another collision warning and avoidance device. Many of these aeroplanes operate within uncontrolled airspace from time to time, including airliners that fly into smaller airports. My TCAS indicator will prevent me from hitting other traffic in my vicinity in any type of airspace, provided everybody has a working transponder on board. My employer was forced to spend 50,000+ Euros on a TCAS installation, but this is for the benefit of every other aeroplane around us as well, because it will safe them from being hit by us. But only, if they have bought a transponder.
Another one is: “the general-aviation [death] rate is unchanged from 15 years ago” Is probably also not accurate. I doubt it takes into account things like population growth, population aging, flying hours, weather change etc… Nor does it say where the rate was obtained from.
In part three of the report is a graph based on FAA data that is captioned: “GENERAL AVIATION CRASH RATE REMAINS STEADY More than 20,000 people died in general-aviation crashes since 1983. While the death toll declined as people began to fly less, the crash rate has remained about the same since the late 1990s, as measured in crashes per 1 million flight hours.”
So obviously, the authors of the report do take these things into account.
And this here for me is the key statement of the article: “We actually are waiting for more people to be killed before we can do something that makes sense,” said former NTSB chairwoman Deborah Hersman, who became president of the National Safety Council in May. “We don’t kill enough people in aviation to merit regulatory changes.” Hersman called this “the tyranny of small numbers.”
As I wrote on another thread: When you are personally involved, or a member of your family, or friends of yours, one thing that you don’t really care about is statistics.
but this is for the benefit of every other aeroplane around us as well, because it will safe them from being hit by us. But only, if they have bought a transponder.
A statement that IMO doesn’t hold up. Midairs between low flying VFR traffic and bizjets are infrequent so much so that I don’t remember any. The typical low level VFR pilot is orders of magnitude more likely to be hit in the traffic circuit, in the vincinity of popular (small) GA aerodromes, or by sailplanes. In none of these scenarios is the transponder of any help. He’s much better off investing in FLARM, for example.
The 2000€ give you peace of mind, it doesn’t appreciably alter the risk for the low flying VFR pilot.
And for your peace of mind, BTW, Mode C would be sufficient, it needn’t be Mode-S.
I agree that the article is poorly written, to make a populist case, but
The U.S. has more than twice as many general-aviation aircraft [accidents] as every other nation combined
may be right. It does appear to be of the right order of magnitude.
The Mode S transponder enforcement in Europe has been very badly done. In the USA, they used the TIS (traffic info) carrot to get people to install them. In Europe, in typical European “screw you, we know best” manner they just enforced it. They could have provided TIS, since the equipment which supports Mode S can do it, but they chose to not spend the extra money on it (reportedly a c. 100k add-on) presumably because most GA doesn’t pay route charges.
I strongly disagree with the “civil liberties” angle against Mode C/S installation (because we all share the airspace and nobody has a right to be invisible while being a midair threat). I also see loads of people flying whose planes are (from a visual ID; a new / modern type) obviously Mode C/S yet they don’t show up, which I think is really perverse too.
There is a lot wrong with the aviation industry, especially with the way they don’t fix known long term problems. I think they don’t fix them because if they admitted there is a problem they would open the floodgates to loads of liability. So they just stagger on from one court case to the next…
why was every regulator afraid of GPS
Here in the UK there has been and still is strong training industry pressure to ignore GPS, to keep costs to minimum. If the CAA mandated some form of GPS training, they would have a war on their hands.
The FAA has done it cleverly (not intentionally, I think) by enabling the checkride examiner to require a demonstration of anything installed on the aircraft. So if a school has a plane with a GPS in it, they do have to teach how to use it because the student might be required to demonstrate competence on it.
And for your peace of mind, BTW, Mode C would be sufficient, it needn’t be Mode-S.
Very true. The whole “jet TCAS” argument needs only Mode C. Had they done that, the whole issue would have gradually become irrelevant.
The typical low level VFR pilot is orders of magnitude more likely to be hit in the traffic circuit, in the vincinity of popular (small) GA aerodromes, or by sailplanes. In none of these scenarios is the transponder of any help.
But that’s true only because proper active TAS/TCAS costs so much. Mine was GBP 12k, done by a fancy well known UK shop who still bodged it. I could have done a “self install” for almost half that, by buying the bits from the USA and using a freelance installer, but it still is a lot. For better or for worse, having that system has somewhat hardened my attitude to those who apparently choose to switch off their Mode C so they can bust airspace from underneath…
ADS-B should make the receiver much cheaper but ADS-B will never be mandated in Europe for any airspace which currently doesn’t mandate Mode S – IMHO. So VFR flight, OCAS, at low levels (e.g. below 2000ft) will always be a lot more risky.
What people also forget is that if they had a Mode C transponder, they would get a better service from ATC. Currently, a big chunk of ATC effort is wasted watching and reporting on “altitude unknown” targets.
He’s much better off investing in FLARM, for example.
Practically nobody uses FLARM. A year or two ago I had a receiver on loan for a few months. I don’t think it ever picked up a single contact. The gliding communities might use it, but I would not expect anybody to send any money on it just to avoid gliders.
USA Today is a comic book newspaper for anybody who isn’t familiar with it.
I most definitely do not seek safety at any cost, or believe in forcibly imposing my values in that regard on others. Life is an individual thing, not an element in a collective program. Despite enjoying my life flying and doing any number of dangerous things with vehicles, I have yet to make an insurance claim on any vehicle policy I have ever purchased, or sustain a single injury, over 35 years. So naturally I remain completely disinterested in other peoples initiatives to manage my safety, at my expense.
Practically nobody uses FLARM.
It depends on where you are. In central europe it’s used quite a bit, and there have been midairs with gliders. So I personally would be more afraid of midairs with gliders than midairs with bizjets.
But that’s true only because proper active TAS/TCAS costs so much.
I would really like to know what would happen if we suddenly had 10 times as many active transponders (and transponder interrogators).
Until not very many years ago, the Swiss AIP told everyone VFR not to switch on the transponder below 7000’, because at that time Skyguide had a radar processor that, when overloaded, started to loose aircraft tracks (like any radar processor), but not at the fringe of coverage, but randomly. So a C152 switching on its transponder could have caused the radar track of a 747 on short final to LSZH to be lost. And LSZH VFR arrivals were all required to switch off the transponder. I once got a bollocking because the then new Garmin transponder decided to switch itself on again.
So 10 times as many transponders would cause quite some frequency congestion, and ADS-B out is only going to make the problem worse.
These systems were all designed with a traffic density of an international airport in mind. A busy GA aerodrome far exceeds this density on a sunny weekend.
And is there any evidence that newer aircraft are much safer than older aircraft? If money were irrelevant, I would rather fly a Cirrus than a C172 but I’m not sure I would be that much safer as a result – haven’t looked at the statistics in detail for these. Perhaps a better comparison would be Mooney v. Cirrus, or a Beechcraft Bonanza.
USA Today is a comic book newspaper
Yes, that was obvious from the beginning. I didn’t care to read beyond the first paragraph. Tear-jerker story of course: several dead, nice young little girl marred, probably for life, stupid carburettor, lack of regulation. Now objectivised: EFATO, pilot errs in handling either through lack of ability or bad luck, location of aerodrome may have been an important factor. EFATO can happen for a thousand reasons and a bit of luck is required. All the rest of the article builds upon the opener, making it worthless.
Practically nobody uses FLARM.
That could come from any trade union or political party’s election advertisements. There are regions where FLARM is universal, or almost. Not that I want to advocate it.
If you want to live a safe life, don’t get out of bed in the morning.
Absolutely and totally agree. Even in bed, certain risks remain. Putting the bed in a nuclear approved shelter brings some further improvement.
That’s BS.
Only factual discussion, please. Spicy vocabulary brings life to the discussion but there was no lack of that. Now it only brings bad feelings, totally unnecessary.
As long as not even a simple and efficient 2000 Euro safety feature like a transponder can be enforced on all aircraft
2000 quid is a lot of money to someone who bought their pride and joy for, say 25000 – and even that may have been at the limit of their means. The worst is, however, that the current regulators, at least in Europe, act so erratically that every penny spent today may well be utterly worthless tomorrow. If anybody would promise to buy back my Mode-S transponder if it did not fulfill ALL my legal requirements for my current mode of flying for the next 15 or 20 years, I installed one immediately. As it is, nobody knows what further gimmicks will come next.
Small wonder none wants to pay 2000€ to be more easily prosecuted.
That’s exactly the feeling among my fellow microlighters, or at least among a certain part of them. The worst of them even refuse to file flight plans where they should, because it feels too much like flying “controlled” – untrue though that is.
Even in bed, certain risks remain
They may, however, be regarded as acceptable, depending on the “exact situation” 
and even that may have been at the limit of their means
Buying a plane at the limit of your means is a big mistake. The average Annual on a low end certified aircraft is 1x to 2x more than the installation of a Mode S transponder, and that assumes they don’t have to actually do any work. I used to know a syndicate around a C152 which used to pay 3x GTX330 (~8k) for every Annual. IMHO, the real issue that was fought over in the “Mode S wars” was not the 2k but the sheer in-your-face arrogance with which it was pushed through.
