NYT Op-Ed on General Aviation

[carqwik]

Not very positive about General Aviation...I will refrain from sharing my thoughts about the quality of reporting and the validity of the opinion-editorial writings at the "Grey Lady"...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/The-Dangers-of-Private-Planes.html

 

[M016576]

Not very positive about General Aviation...I will refrain from sharing my thoughts about the quality of reporting and the validity of the opinion-editorial writings at the "Grey Lady"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/The-Dangers-of-Private-Planes.html

Hmmm back to back articles on the "evils" of GA.

This one is clearly liberal media: the author suggests more regulation and higher insurance standards for GA with no thought as to how that would effect the health of GA.

Or perhaps the author has thought about how it would effect GA: I'm reminded of the media treatment from "The Fountainhead." Let's hope this "Ellsworth Toohey" doesn't rise above the signal to noise ratio in the real world. Honestly, I can't believe the NYT would print this crap.

[Danb]

I'm absolutely sure if we had more insurance our accident rate would diminish.. What do you think the author is smoking...

[1964-M20E]

Sounds to me like he is just trying to sell books.  This was on the OP Ed page if I’m not mistaken so just his opinion not the paper's.  Keep in mind I’m not defending the NYT or the media in general.  I think media bias is one of our problems in this country and the world today.

[chrisk]

Not very positive about General Aviation...I will refrain from sharing my thoughts about the quality of reporting and the validity of the opinion-editorial writings at the "Grey Lady"...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/The-Dangers-of-Private-Planes.html

 

What rubbish.  Why do these folks always compare private planes to commercial airlines, with a shock that the accident rate is higher.  It's kind of like comparing a Greyhound bus driver to motor cycle drivers and being shocked that the death rate per mile is much higher with motorcycles. 

 

And of course the liberal slant that more government regulation is the answer.  --Now I remember why I don't subscribe to the NY Times.

[AndyFromCB]

I'm pretty positive several states already require insurance and I highly doubt there is much of a difference in accident rates. From my recollection of being a 300 hour pilot with an ink still drying on my instrument certificate, the insurance company wanted a 3 hour checkout on my Bravo. That was about long enough to get myself into some deep doodoo on my next few flights…How fast can you say PIO 3 times.

 

Quite frankly I am always surprised that someone from so called liberal media is always so concerned when conservatives are falling out of the sky ;-)

[scottfromiowa]

I actually think this is a pretty honest and "fair" story. It is timed with the annual pilgrimage to Oshkosh. A coincidence? I doubt it. This is a 10 compared to the USA Today 1 on scale of sensationalism. Was this a happy GA piece? NOPE. Was it full of lies...? Not in my mind. The real question is why print this now? What is the REAL REASON behind this story?

1. To Educate the non-flyer on the exposure of pilot training?

2. To Educate the non-flyer on the perils of weather?

3. To Eduate the non-flyer on their exposure as a passenger flying GA? (Weather, pilot training, Insurance)

4. A general assault on the perils of GA?

5. A hit piece that taxpayers should not be funding GA at such high levels?

6. Small jets are DANGEROUS rich people...Commercial...SAFE?

7. Don't fly on a small jet (rich people)...fly commercial?

8. It is pick on GA pilots that don't buy insurance day?

9. It is educate GA insurance carriers that they should be charging more day?...'Cause I know how to underwrite better than you

10. It is get under GA pilots skin by exposing the perils of their passion day...Hey get responsible and have insurance so when you hit that house the people will be: O.K. day?

[scottfromiowa]

When a liberal gets struck by lightning, does it make a sound?

[Skywarrior]

The article's author is promoting his new book, which covers a fight over an insurance claim after a pilot crashed a Baron while scud-running, trying to land at a lakeside field. The cause in that case was clearly pilot error. But, the book is about evil insurance companies.

[scottfromiowa]

The article's author is promoting his new book, which covers a fight over an insurance claim after a pilot crashed a Baron while scud-running, trying to land at a lakeside field. The cause in that case was clearly pilot error. But, the book is about evil insurance companies.

That is pretty funny. His piece does NOT address the evil's of insurance companies in any way. Really, the opposite commenting on pilot error/training and weather as the leading areas.

[gjensen]

I think the piece is a good written article. I am currently renewing my insurance and with 350 hours total time, instrument rating and 100 hours in the last year, I can still not find anyone offering decent per passenger bodily injury coverage. They all limit liability from $100,000 to $250,000 and will only offer smooth coverage at 500 hours. 

 

The writer of the column (Damien Fowler) has a book out about fighting insurance companies after a GA accident. If you have assets to protect and family members that you would like to pass  them down to, I suggest looking into the coverage being offered to GA pilots, the low limits are a joke. They will not cover a broken arm at todays emergency room prices. I guess I will have no passengers, other than my dog for another 150 hours. 

 

Gary

[PaulB]

It seems like misguided anger. Yeah of course people die flying planes but a lot more die riding motorcycles, swimming in pools, and boating every year. I would argue aviation gets more attention becuase accidents are less common and make a more interesting news story. I can't say I ever feel shocked when I hear someone fed on a motorcycle but it's a different story for a plane crash.

[N601RX]

Here is some more info on the book. It seems to me his grudge is with the insurance company not paying a claim.

http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/books/256621021.html

[AndyFromCB]

I think the piece is a good written article. I am currently renewing my insurance and with 350 hours total time, instrument rating and 100 hours in the last year, I can still not find anyone offering decent per passenger bodily injury coverage. They all limit liability from $100,000 to $250,000 and will only offer smooth coverage at 500 hours. 

 

The writer of the column (Damien Fowler) has a book out about fighting insurance companies after a GA accident. If you have assets to protect and family members that you would like to pass  them down to, I suggest looking into the coverage being offered to GA pilots, the low limits are a joke. They will not cover a broken arm at todays emergency room prices. I guess I will have no passengers, other than my dog for another 150 hours. 

 

Gary

 

I've had a million smooth since about 80 hours total time, always in a retractable from the start. You can't find it or you're not willing to pay for it?

[N601RX]

I would agree with the above poster about passenger limits. Even the 1M smooth is not going to cover a trauma with an extended hospital stay and then a good rehab center. I've had 2 family members go through bad accidents that they survived. In both cases the medical bills were well over 1M.

[Jerry 5TJ]

The article is factual in citing GA accident rates, it quotes reputable authority on accident causes, and notes that insurers are de facto regulators more restrictive than Part 91. I rate it as fair treatment-- Part 91 operations ARE more dangerous than Part 121 by any rational measure.

As for insurance --  The article does not say mandatory insurance will make GA safer.  But, like others, I've long been an advocate of buying all the smooth coverage one can get. I do.

[aviatoreb]

It is my opinion that these reporters are neither liberals or conservatives - they are something else - they are reporters and their motivations are often to advance their own personal careers and so picking on a favorite target like GA is easy pickings to write an op ed.  Nuf said about that.

 

Now on to fun with statistics.  It is easy to intentionally or accidentally misinterpret statistics.

 

Take from the article, 

"Statistics from the N.T.S.B. show that general aviation aircraft average nearly seven accidents per 100,000 flight hours, compared with an average of 0.16 accidents per 100,000 hours for commercial airlines."

 

That is correctly cited I am sure.  But it is not a proper assessment of your likelihood of being in an accident necessarily, unless you are already on an airplane (conditional) but rather if you fly often you should be asking what is the likelihood of being amongst the people who are in accidents on commercial airlines.  Well commercial airlines carry lots more people than GA airplanes.  I don't know the actual numbers but let me make some up for sake of argument.  Let's say GA carries on average 3 people per flight (from small airplanes that are two seaters up to 12 seaters generally) and lets say commercial carries 100 on average (I don't know the average so making stuff up)...  So if GA has an accident rate of 7 per 100,000  flights hrs with avg 3 on board -> 3*7 =21 accidents in an accident per people flying 100,000 hrs (rather than airframe flying hours).  Vs in commercial that is 0.16*100=1.6 accidents per per people flying 100,000 hrs.  So that is a ratio of 21/1.6=13 (again using my made up numbers).  So that gap narrows due to the fact that when an airline crashes it carries more people.

 

Yes - small airplanes are more dangerous we see but surprisingly not as large as the usual stat indicates which is arframe flying hours.

 

Here is another "fun" tidbit.  So the claim was that airline travel is completely safe last year since no one was killed on a commercial airline trip in the US.  I doubt it.  

 

Consider the complete trip.  Driving to and from the airport carries risk.  I don't know what that number is but let me guess that the average person has a 10 mi trip each way (I have a 140 mi trip each way to the nearest US commercial airport by car!) - so 40 total (10 to the airport from home then back and on the other end too round trip - I am not counting in car pooling).  In the us I found http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts016_13 there were roughly 800,000,000 passengers last year.   The car death rate (vs accident rate which is higher) is roughly 2 per 100,000,000 miles traveled (vs hours used in airplanes).  so  (8e8 passenger trips) *(40 miles each) *(2/1e8 deaths per car miles)=640. That suggests that there were 640 deaths on the highways last year due to folks partaking in an airline trip.  Yike!  Oh I hid an error in this computation - see if you can find it - but since these are rough computations it is not an important error since the order of magnitude is correctly stated.

 

I personally know someone who died that way.  The mother of one of my best high school buddies was on the way to pick him up at the airport following his first semester of college.  She never got there and he waited and waited at the airport for his mother that never came.  All of us friends saw each other at holiday time for the first time after first semester at college at the funeral.  She was a wonderful lady who drove to pick us up many times - to play Dungeons and Dragons!  Every safety article needs a personal story to drive home the horror - this one is mine, and it is true.

[AndyFromCB]

Well, GA might not be safe, but it sure as shiat beats flying Malaysia Airlnes...

 

Looks to me like the Ruskies shot themselves down an airliner

[marks]

Personally, I think it was a good article except the conclusion that more insurance involvement would have any meaningful impact on safety.  IMO many pilots don't honestly ever want to admit that private plane travel is less safe than car travel.  Of course everyone knows that motorcycle travel is less safe than car and bus travel, but constant awareness of actual private airplane safety and the causes of aircraft accidents is good for everyone to keep in mind.  I have a son who is quite impetuous and I constantly point out to him the possible dangers of private aircraft travel and I would just the soon him avoid flying, but he has already soloed and he's old enough to decide for himself.

[201er]

What the article fails to mention is that Part 121 airliners have autopilots that cost more than many of our GA airplanes do entirely. And they have like 3 of them. They have zero/zero autoland capability, triple redundancy, crew of two, etc. But even they aren't infalable against pilot error!

[Skywarrior]

That is pretty funny. His piece does NOT address the evil's of insurance companies in any way. Really, the opposite commenting on pilot error/training and weather as the leading areas.

 

Yep - that was my point. Doesn't make sense.

 

His article argues one thing, but the book he's flogging argues a totally different point.

[KSMooniac]

From the author's publisher:

 

"Mommy burned up."

 

On a cloudy day in August 2003, Grace and Lily Pearson, 4 and 3, were flying in their uncle's plane along with their mother on their way to their grandpa's birthday party near Lake Superior, when Lily noticed the trees out the window were growing close; so close she could almost touch them. Before the trees tore into the cabin, Grace had the strange sensation of falling through clouds.

 

A story of tragedy, survival, and justice, Damian Fowler's Falling Through Clouds is about a young father's fight for his family in the wake of a plane crash that killed his wife, badly injured his two daughters, and thrust him into a David-vs-Goliath legal confrontation with a multi-billion dollar insurance company. Blindsided when he was sued in federal court by this insurance company, Toby Pearson made it his mission to change aviation insurance law in his home state and nationally, while nursing his daughters to recovery and recreating his own life. Falling Through Clouds charts the dramatic journey of a man who turned a personal tragedy into an important victory for himself, his girls, and many other Americans.

 

He definitely has an ax to grind, and is using the NYT to advance his cause and of course sell books.  Note that the author is NOT the widower from the crash.  The insurance company denied the claim b/c the pilot failed to disclose a previous accident in his insurance application, and it went to court before they ultimately paid.  The same story could be written about any number of accidents in today's society where insurance companies slow-play the process, or the insurance policies are inadequate to address all of the claims/expenses with an accident.

 

More about him:

Damian Fowler, a former BBC reporter and New York-based journalist, has spent the last three years researching the Pearson family saga. He has written for Vanity Fair, Vogue, The Guardian, The Financial Times Magazine, and The Times of London, among others.

[KSMooniac]

Accident report:  http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20030903X01453&key=1

 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

The continued descent below minimum descent altitude and the altitude/clearance not maintained by the pilot during approach to the airport. The low ceiling was a contributing factor.

 

Doesn't sound like a very good pilot.  Flunked his IR checkride the first time, then flunked his multi ride twice 7 years later.  Then he had an accident following an aborted landing.  During the accident he shot a non-precision approach with thunderstorms and low ceilings in the vicinity, and had no alternate filed (as required due to low ceilings in the forecast).  

 

It sure sucks for those girls and their father, but it sounds like they've gotten past the tragedy from the snippets of their story that are on the web.

[John Pleisse]

Not very positive about General Aviation...I will refrain from sharing my thoughts about the quality of reporting and the validity of the opinion-editorial writings at the "Grey Lady"...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/The-Dangers-of-Private-Planes.html

 

But don't mind if I do.....they are inaccurate, immoral and arrogant. The NY Times is a disgrace and waste of Peabody Awards.

[gjensen]

Astelmaszek,

 

Who are you insured with that gave you a 1M smooth limit with 80 hours retract time. Let me know and I will call them today, because AOPA insurance, Falcon, and several others have all used the 500 hr criteria.