"USA Today" Piece on GA

[carqwik]

USA Today article...does not paint a good picture of GA.  The author presumes that trial lawyers always get their facts right and win jury trials...therefore....well read this...

 

http://www.usatoday.com/longform/news/nation/2014/06/12/lies-coverups-mask-roots-small-aircraft-carnage-unfit-for-flight-part-1/10405323/

 

 

[rainman]

My friend's wife read this and told him he can't fly ith me....my best friend ! His marriage is worth more than a $100 hamburger so no go! Yes , I have other friends, but we were competitive age group runners for 18 years and travelled together. There is no data I can show her that makes GA safer per mile travelled when compared to commercial airlines or driving. A serious injury ended my running, but we still travel long distances to go to sporting events. But now it's by car......hours of driving...no fun.

[Gone]

Sensationalist in the extreme.  Written only to shine a spotlight on the author.

[marks]

The singular true fact that comes through is that the death rate in general aircraft is very high.  Of course the lawyers go for the deepest pocket they can find.  I believe it's true that many mechanical failors are actually pilot errors, as in "took off with known deficiencies".  Every pilot I know has a few great stories of near death flights.  Our planes are small and many get caught in weather accicdents because their pilots fly into bad weather and because WX isn't just here or there - WX develops and if you are where it develops you are in a very small plane.  Lastly, most of the accusations made against the manufacturers are made by the pilots themselves or their families to collect as much money as possible.  Right where I live we had a pilot who barely made it alive through his accident, where he was landing on a turf runway in the wrong direction, nearly crashed into an oncoming aircraft landing in the other direction, (he was a deaf pilot) and sued Cessna for the fact that his seat slid back in his fourty-plus year old airplane and settled out of court at the last minute. We pilots, our airplane and parts manufacturers, are all in this together because of the death rate in small aircraft. 

[ChrisH]

More people die every year in recreational boating accidents than GA, go write that story. 

[Jeff_S]

Wow, didn't have the time or inclination to read through the whole thing, but I wonder why they decided to pick on GA so much.  There's always an ulterior motive. Perhaps the author's family was scarred by a tragedy of some sort.  That's what I'd like to understand.

[Mcstealth]

USA Today has long been very unfriendly to GA. Long history of negative narratives against everything that isn't big iron, and not always nice to big iron corporate.

[201er]

Just cause lawyers can dig up some legal discrepency and win the hearts of juries makes the NTSB reports nomless credible. Why don'tthey go after auto manufacturers instead and blame them as the true cause of all the drunk driving accidents.

[aaronk25]

I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER USA EVER AGAIN.....

[chrisk]

The article is very sensational, but it really fails to to address some of the root problems.   Most of the systems in this country are in need of an overhaul. 

• For patent trials, why isn't the jury made up of subject matter experts.
• For aviation trials, why isn't the jury made up of pilots and aircraft mechanics.
• And I could go on about FAA rules that make it difficult to adopt new safety equipment.

[aviatoreb]

I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER USA EVER AGAIN.....

 

Long Long ago - I became deeply fed up with the popular media.  I came to realize that the media is full of writers more so than reporters.  The distinction is that writers tell stories.  Writers need to sell their pieces.  Newspapers buy stories and market them to buyers.  

 

Writers make stories when there might not be a story to tell and they are often very talented people.  They have the ability to change the facts or skew the facts to tell their story.  The good writers have the ability to use a little bit of truth and then a lot of fluff to tell whatever side of the story they wish.  If so inclined - this very same writer could be hired to tell the opposite story using the same collected data. Its like debate club in high school when in competition the debaters are expected to be able to win a debate when assigned to either side of the discussion.

 

This is especially scary when a) it regards something I am interested in like ga, or it is something we are all interested in like the pretense for voting for or against some candidate, or the premise to go to war, etc.

 

About ten years ago I unsubscribed to all newspapers - I have no piles of garbage paper shipped to my house.  Yes I look at nytimes on line sometimes - but with a big grain of salt. I don't trust them either.  Its all a bunch of literary garbage.

 

Here is a story that really disgusted me about 10 years ago.  The regional paper - the watertown times daily (ok small paper - lower quality - but I think the concept is systemic) - sent a reporter out to my town Potsdam and found my wife and I eating lunch in a local restaurant.  The reporter asked to talk to us - about the village was going to close the downtown village office (which needed to be upgraded as it was run down) and rather than upgrade it, close it and build an entirely new building on the outskirts of town across the street from the elementary school.  My wife and I like very much the idea of a town with a town-center with side walks etc - and we think the village itself should not be lending to the sort of thing that a walmart coming to town does which is kill the walking center of a small town (Potsdam has ~15k people living in it so we are talking small town).  The reporter was looking for parents to say that they were up at arms about all the traffic it would cause near the elementary school with all the cars going to the village office and it would be dangerous for the children.  The reporter kept trying to get us to say that.  We kept saying no - that was silly - this is a small town and there is so little traffic daily going to the village office and really the roads are pretty quite so that is not an issue but we were unhappy with the loss of the village office from the downtown for the reasons stated above.  We kept insisting and he kept fishing for a quote to support his premise.  Finally we said we want to stop talking to him as we didn't agree with him and we wanted to have lunch together.  Which story do you think he wrote?  He wrote the story that parents were worried about the traffic of a village office across the street from the elementary school - and yes sentences from his interview with us were taken out of context to support the story that he spun and had chosen before he ever sat with us.

 

I believe this happens all the time.

[aviatoreb]

On to stats.

 

Yes GA is more dangerous than airlines and driving.  On a per hour travelled basis.  But not dramatically worse than airlines.  It is better than driving a motorcycle and dramatically better than going canoeing - yes canoeing is dangers - very dangerous.  Or swimming.  Stay out of the bath tub too.

 

Over 50 years 45,000 people died in GA?  50 years?!  How many people died in cars in 50 years?  wiki says ~35,000 died by car in US in 2012 - rough it out it comes to 1.75M died by car in the last 50 years.  Useless statements since more people drive.  Its per user and per hour of exposure that begins to mean something - I don't think that is just a mis use of stats by the reporter - that's just the reporter going for dramatic.

 

All the personal stories are fun - and very literary writing - just like taught in journalism school I'm sure - but anecdotal - for the following reason - if you tell the story that cars are more dangerous tell me how many horrific accident and loss stories you can tell with cars.

 

Really - the jurys know more than the NTSB?  I don't believe it. 

 

This story just reeks to me as the kind of story as I told above about the moving village offices - the reporter chose a thesis for the story before he started - a premise - and then wrote a story around it.  And being a talented writer is capable of writing a convincing story no mater what the premise.

 

By the way - in the media there is a premise that all risk of any activity should be zero.  Zero risk does not exist - whether it be transportation - or drugs to treat ailments, or whatever.  The attempt of zero'ing of risk has all kinds of unintended consequences - such as driving up costs of necessary activities to the point of becoming unavailable and perhaps leaving some other still risky alternative, or loosing access to drugs that are useful in some scenarios.  It is very American in recent years or decades to have an undertone argument to fall back on that risk should be zero'ed at all costs. This reporter is appealing to that undertone in the process of writing a skewed story.

[Seth]

Hard read, some of it true, still paints a bad picture.

 

 

Maybe they should do an article on the automotive deaths and recalls, but that's not as flashy as aviation.

 

-Seth

[carusoam]

Important to be aware of. But, the target audience of USA Today isn't getting the value. They are getting the sensationalism....

Best regards,

-a-

[NotarPilot]

Isn't USA Today kind of geared more towards the lower end of spectrum of Americans, such as those who can barely read anyways?

[bumper]

Unfortunately this has just enough underlying truth to allow it to fly with those who don't know what for.

 

The truth is that the FAA certification and regulation bureaucracy is partly to blame, making innovation, even safety improvements, prohibitively expensive and time consuming for mfg's. Greedy trial lawyers, ignorant juries, rediculously high jury awards, and the "blame someone else mentality" all come together to keep costs to fly exorbitant.

 

Consider what a huge boost to our economy, all of it, would occur if we could implement "loser pays - *all* court costs" in our tort system, along with realistic limits on jury awards. Our economy would do a smoking tire burn out on its way to a full recovery.

 

Don't think it will happen? Neither do I . . . too many lawyers in government and the Trial Lawyers Assoc. has too much influence.

 

bumper

[201er]

A sensational recurring theme in this piece is about making aircraft more crash survivable.  The thing the writer failed to realize, or conveniently brushed aside when analyzing statistics, is that over half the GA accidents are stall/spin related at low altitude and most often deadly. No amount of seat belts, air bags, fire proofing, or parachutes can save a plane getting into a spin in the pattern at low altitude which is where it is most likely to happen. I don't see how such a strong focus on manufacturer liability can make much difference when a substantial number of pilots can't keep a perfectly well functioning airplane flying right.

 

Perhaps these stories fly for a jury consisting of the unknowing general public, but try to get it past a jury of general aviation pilots, mechanics, instructors, faa, ntsb, engineers, and experts and I don't think it floats at all.

[bonal]

Since when did facts ever matter to main stream news I CANT TAKE IT ANY MORE God help us all.  If you got um fly um its just another freedom we will have taken away so get in as many hours as you can while you still can.

[Cruiser]

“It is clear that Mr. Frank could make no space in his lengthy article for evidence of progress—evidence laid out in an hour-long discussion AOPA had with him last week. Including this information would have undermined his misplaced notion that general aviation is unsafe,” AOPA concluded.

 

AOPA is not happy with this author either. It seems apparent that the author had input from several GA organizations and deliberately dismissed any positive data for the article. The purpose therefore is not to provide any insight or objective view but rather to sensationalize an activity that the majority of people are not well acquainted.

With recent headlines about GM recalls and other "screw the public" by big corporations this article fits nicely with the current mania.

Clearly the author is trying to stir the pot and get himself recognized.

[201er]

I'm dissappointed that AOPA's response was short and weak as always. I'm glad they responded but coming from neutral or the other side, it just sounds like "they're in bed with the manufacturers."

[PMcClure]

Yeah, I stopped paying attention to the news about 10 years ago. If I "read" a USA today, it is only because some one gave one to me. I scan through it in  less than 10 minutes. Half of that is laughing at the opinion section.  News is no longer news, it is propaganda. The motive of the article seems to be increased regulation. GA is an easy target. My response;  I am gong flying as soon as I get home.

 

The only thing the USA today is good for is house training a new puppy. 

[wishboneash]

The only thing I found interesting in USA Today was the full page weather graphics. That is when I get around to seeing it, free, usually in a hotel!

[David Mazer]

I am certain there are areas in which manufacturers can and should improve.  I’m equally certain there are times when manufacturers deserve the losses they incur in lawsuits. The threat of lawsuits and loss is an appropriate counterweight to the pressures of profitability when the legal system is balanced and fair. As a physician, I have never felt the malpractice lawyers were the enemy and firmly believe that the threat of lawsuits is beneficial to most patients.  Our malpractice system isn’t quite balanced yet but it is better then nothing.

 

At the same time, this article is pure crap.  It reminds me of the articles and commentaries that compare smoking cigarettes to smoking pot just because the same modality is used to ingest the active drugs.  That is like comparing intravenous saline to intravenous heroin. It's just not a fair or accurate comparison. Even that comparison stupidity wasn’t enough for the author so he had to limit his comparison to domestic airlines.  GA and commercial airlines aren’t the same and shouldn’t be directly compared.

 

GA should be compared with motorcycles, boating, and maybe cars but not commercial airlines.  And, in opposition to Erik’s comments, even a per hour basis isn’t fair.  GA goes roughly two or three times as fast as autos and 15 times faster than boats.  Okay, maybe some motorcycles in my area go as fast as GA (I’ve seen them flying by at well over 100 mph in crowded traffic, crazy!)  Maybe they should be compared on a per mile traveled basis.  Under those circumstances, GA isn’t all that bad even if it could be better.

 

Finally, from a libertarian perspective, most accidents involve the pilot and way fewer passengers.  This is a risk we take on for ourselves.  The airlines take on the risk for others. Not at all the same. And, airline travel is the safest form of travel in the history of man. EVER. I’m glad of it but it doesn’t make a good comparator.

 

In summary, this article blows and isn’t in the publics best interest IMHO.

[FloridaMan]

If somebody dies in a plane crash, it makes regional news. 

 

Boating accidents rarely make the news. Auto accidents, almost never -- even when fatal and horrific. If every time something happens it's newsworthy, occurrences are sufficiently rare. If these things didn't make the news, then it would be something to be exceptionally concerned over. 

 

Very few NTSB reports do you read that you say, "wow, that guy just had a bout of really bad luck." 

 

I think that safety would improve markedly if more leniency towards experimental modifications existed, and if those performing modifications were required to fly or be on the aircraft when going through the appropriate matrix of relevant tests. 

[DaV8or]

I wrote this on another forum on this article, so I just cut and paste-

 

 

I have loads of issues with this article as do all of you, so I won't go over my opinions on all the terrible spin this article has, however there is one aspect I do kind of agree with what it says. I too believe that the NTSB over inflates the number of "pilot error" accidents. If you read enough of their reports you'll recognize that in many cases where there is a stall, or spin type accident the final cause of the fatalities are caused by the pilot "failing to maintain adequate airspeed", or control of the aircraft.

To that I say bull crap! The cause of the accident was the F#$in' engine that quit! Their final reports always seem to make the assumption that a successful forced landing with everyone walking away is always possible if only the pilot hadn't screwed up. The truth is IMO, that is just not always the case and many pilots die trying to stretch a glide because the alternative look to be just as fatal. I wish in these cases the report read- "The cause of this accident was found to be the failure of the engine because of xxx with the pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed a contributing factor."

It may be time to stop throwing the pilot under the bus as SOP.

What this article completely fails to recognize is the truth as to why airplanes don't have better systems and companies try to cover up known defects just to stay in business. The FAA, not the NTSB, creates an environment in which fixes, modifications and retrofits are often not affordable for company to accomplish due to the ridiculous certification requirements.

In addition, the legal establishment in this country makes admitting any flaws or defects in a product a death sentence. You admit a failure and you open the door to a flood of lawsuits. The system has forced people to the position of cover up, deflect, deny and never ever admit any wrong doing. There is no way to come out and say "We screwed up" without incurring the wrath of the legal vultures.

This article was written by a lawyer I'm convinced. Think about it. If you can plant this seed in a wide spread American audience, any jury you get will already be 70% on your side. It's actually pretty disgusting to me. I wonder why there is very little new airplane development in this country.