Jump to content

How many times does the plane(s) actually kill someone


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Yetti said:

So what percentage of times can no amount of skill or planning is it actually the planes fault.

I am from the school of thought that it is never the planes fault....maybe the plane breaks or misbehaves somehow but is that the planes fault or the engineering or the mx? Human hands or minds were involved in all processes of the manufacturing process and all components.... It may even go all the way back to the person who made the bolt that broke that took the plane down....did that person follow the correct procedure and mixtures of metals and chemicals to manufacture that bolt or was he thinking of his girlfriend etc......

There is a whole philosophy that there is no such things as accidents.........

even if a computer totally designed an airplane and put it together, could be garbage in garbage out,,....it would be a human who signs the airworthiness certificate.......

A monoxide detector that logs readings with a time stamp and could survive an accident with fire etc would be a good idea to become mandatory in all planes......would solve a lot of plane crash mysteries I believe......

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Jim Peace said:

I am from the school of thought that it is never the planes fault....maybe the plane breaks or misbehaves somehow but is that the planes fault or the engineering or the mx? Human hands or minds were involved in all processes of the manufacturing process and all components.... 

I think our Abominable friend means, what percentage of General Aviation accidents are not related to the actions / inactions of the pilot, from preflight planning up until impact? It's an interesting question, and I would also like to see the data. If someone running a Swiss lathe messed up the tolerances on the engine mount bolts (either holding the engine to the mount, or holding the mount to the airframe), that is unrelated to anything that I as owner / operator / pilot can prevent.

Interesting related trivia:  my dad turned in his wings after the tail rotor fell off of his (large) helicopter while orbiting the beach at 500', waiting to pick up an admiral and staff. The machining tolerances at Sikorski were off, and the nut that held the tail rotor on had a slightly-too-large hole drilled in it before tapping . . . . . Grounded the fleet.

Edited by Hank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Yetti said:

We know according to the NTSB it is always the pilots fault.    So what percentage of times can no amount of skill or planning is it actually the planes fault.

Heinrich would say: 80% pilot; 10% environment; 10% Mechanical.  He would also say there are many more behaviors that result in no injury or property damage that go unreported BEFORE there is a severe injury/property damage event and finally a fatality.

I worry far more about “the human element” (Me) and how I interact with weather and the machine.  My decisions to repair or “wait” are a big part of changing odds of machine breaking.  Throw in human element of maintenance and design of machines and it is a wonder any of us make it through a day :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good question. AOPA publishes a yearly Nall Report with some good info.  The 2018 publication includes 2015 data.   

Quote  "As with previous years pilot-related was the major cause of non-commercial fixed wing aircraft accidents, accounting for roughly 74 percent of all total and fatal accidents. Mechanical-related accidents accounted for roughly 16 percent of accidents and 8 percent of fatal accidents. Other or unknown causes accounted for 10 percent of accidents and 17 percent of fatal accidents."

BTW, I really like having a safety section! 

27thNallReport2018.pdf

Edited by DMM
correction
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how many of the pilot-related accidents started with something else, and the pilot reacted poorly "causing" the resulting accident? Had there been no unususl occurrence, the flight may have continued to a successful conclusion? I'm afraid that will involve far too much reading for me . . . .

I have visions of "The accident was caused by the pilot's failure to maintain proper airspeed and glideslope. Contributing factors were power lines, the tree and the failure of the cylinder mounting bolts on Cylinder #3." Thus part of the 74% rather than the 16% mechanical, because we are supposed to be able to land without an operating engine.

Edited by Hank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2019 at 10:22 PM, Pritch said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Hank said:

But how many of the pilot-related accidents started with something else, and the pilot reacted poorly "causing" the resulting accident? Had there been no unususl occurrence, the flight may have continued to a successful conclusion? I'm afraid that will involve far too much reading for me . . . .

I have visions of "The accident was caused by the pilot's failure to maintain proper airspeed and glideslope. Contributing factors were power lines, the tree and the failure of the cylinder mounting bolts on Cylinder #3." Thus part of the 74% rather than the 16% mechanical, because we are supposed to be able to land without an operating engine.

So for instance the previous post on the M20K crash. "Contributing factors were the the runway was short, the fence and berm at the end of the runway and the failure of the aircraft to develop full takeoff power". Would you consider this to be a mechanical or human failure? If the aircraft developed full takeoff power would the crash have happened? If so, does that  make it a mechanical failure?

The pilot's delay in recognizing that the airplane was not performing as expected and aborting the takeoff, which resulted in collision with a berm beyond the end of the runway. Contributing to the accident were the pilot's exceedance of the airplane's gross weight and the underperformance of the engine due to governor setting and magneto timing deficiencies. 

Almost all accidents are the result of series of failures that lead up to the event. Our aircraft, even the 1960s and 70s aircraft are very reliable but mechanical failures due happen. As a mechanic and a pilot I understand this and accept responsibility to make a decision and take action. It is the one thing that is always in my control but unfortunately people (me!) aren't perfect (mechanics and pilots) so stuff happens. 

I like this safety section too. I try and never look at things like this while my wife is looking over my shoulder but it is a great to have open discussions and hopefully learn from them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hank said:

But how many of the pilot-related accidents started with something else, and the pilot reacted poorly "causing" the resulting accident? Had there been no unususl occurrence, the flight may have continued to a successful conclusion? 

I hear what you are saying Hank.   Recently a Mooney crashed after the pilot (apparently)  control in IMC shortly after losing his attitude indicator.  I'd say this will likely be counted against the pilot in future reports.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, JimB said:

 

So for instance the previous post on the M20K crash. "Contributing factors were the the runway was short, the fence and berm at the end of the runway and the failure of the aircraft to develop full takeoff power". Would you consider this to be a mechanical or human failure? If the aircraft developed full takeoff power would the crash have happened? If so, does that  make it a mechanical failure?

The pilot's delay in recognizing that the airplane was not performing as expected and aborting the takeoff, which resulted in collision with a berm beyond the end of the runway. Contributing to the accident were the pilot's exceedance of the airplane's gross weight and the underperformance of the engine due to governor setting and magneto timing deficiencies. 

Almost all accidents are the result of series of failures that lead up to the event. Our aircraft, even the 1960s and 70s aircraft are very reliable but mechanical failures due happen. As a mechanic and a pilot I understand this and accept responsibility to make a decision and take action. It is the one thing that is always in my control but unfortunately people (me!) aren't perfect (mechanics and pilots) so stuff happens. 

I like this safety section too. I try and never look at things like this while my wife is looking over my shoulder but it is a great to have open discussions and hopefully learn from them. 

The accident chain or domino effect are real.  Often there are multiple elements in an accident/incident that recognition and removal of any one will prevent the outcome.  Throw in “Acts of God” for a portion of all as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they say about riding motorcycles is that if you can survive the first two years on the street, then you can probably survive.    One person said "I have never seen a person crash on a straight away"  Meaning that turning is where people crash the most.  On the Mooney into the berm.  If the pilot had not overloaded the plane, would he have made it?  If so it's not the plane's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion neither the Mooney in to the berm or the IMC/attitude indicator failure should be classified as mechanical. The only one that I can say that no amount of planning or action from the pilot could have prevented it from recent memory, is ERAU's Piper Arrow spar failure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yetti said:

What they say about riding motorcycles is that if you can survive the first two years on the street, then you can probably survive.    One person said "I have never seen a person crash on a straight away"  Meaning that turning is where people crash the most.  On the Mooney into the berm.  If the pilot had not overloaded the plane, would he have made it?  If so it's not the plane's fault.

The Mooney into the berm wasn't making full RPM. The pilot should have noticed; but he had been in & out of that field in the past. Bad operation (black not pushed fully forward), bad governor, bent linkage??? Existing issue before this flight, or newly developed during this takeoff? We may never know. But overweight surely falls on Pilot Responsibility and is for sure a Contributing Factor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall Mike Busch talked about an incident in one of his webinars where an aircraft had an engine failure on takeoff.  I recall he said the pilot appeared to make a textbook water landing off the coast, but there were deaths or injuries from head injuries since shoulder harnesses had not been installed.  The motor had had top end work in the recent past, and I recall MB talking about a legal case against the shop

There was also LAX06FA129, another engine failure on takeoff out of SMO.  The pilot and passenger were killed on what witnesses described as a controlled water landing off the coast, but but again there were no shoulder harnesses and both drowned when they were knocked out from hitting their heads on the panel and the plane sunk.

There are probably tons of other such examples.  The notion that the NTSB just rubber stamps the "pilot's failure to maintain control" in all cases is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yetti said:

What they say about riding motorcycles is that if you can survive the first two years on the street, then you can probably survive.    One person said "I have never seen a person crash on a straight away"  Meaning that turning is where people crash the most.  On the Mooney into the berm.  If the pilot had not overloaded the plane, would he have made it?  If so it's not the plane's fault.

Sorry to spoil this myth, but I’ve seen people both crash on a straight away and get killed on a motorcycle after riding for two years. Most of the motorcycle accidents I’ve seen are from people that were riding more than two years.

ATV accidents, on the other hand, do seem to be over represented by less experienced riders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

Sorry to spoil this myth, but I’ve seen people both crash on a straight away and get killed on a motorcycle after riding for two years. Most of the motorcycle accidents I’ve seen are from people that were riding more than two years.

ATV accidents, on the other hand, do seem to be over represented by less experienced riders.

I was in a Yamaha dealership (friend was buying a scooter) and the salesman said while we were looking at a sport bike.   "That's a 4 week bike"   We gave him the tilted head puzzled dog look.   Within 4 weeks of purchase it will be back in here to get fixed after being wrecked.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually if the aircraft breaks the pilot could have done something to make a less dire if not favorable outcome. But every so often something breaks at the wrong place or the wrong time and there aren’t any options. I try and brief every takeoff, including what I’m going to do if the mill quits. Sometimes the answer is “it’s going to hurt bad”. No one ever said this was safe. We takes our chances.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answer: too many...

Follow-up...

Do whatever it takes to avoid this occurrence....

  • training
  • practice
  • maintenance
  • upgrades...

 

Avoid What has hindered many pilots before you...

  • Avoid VFR flight into IMC... several ways to do this
  • Avoid running out of gas... several ways of avoiding that
  • Avoid running into thunderstorms... several ways...
  • Avoid running into a load of ice... several...
  • Avoid things that have dissembled the fan’s drive... more and more ways to improve on this...

PP thoughts only, not a CFI or mechanic...

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO It is sort of a moot question.  The FAA has tried to regulate a level of safety in the certification and maintenance.  Those that go above and beyond in maintenance can still have failures.  Our job as pilots is to be able to save our passengers and survive,  as best we can.   Although the US AIR 427 had the rudder servo problem it was also found that pilots re-acted improperly which resulted in the ailerons being stalled and the inability to roll the aircraft to recover.  More recently there are the MAX accidents, ultimately they were survivable.  Understanding the human failures in accidents arms us to survive in the survivable cases.

I always hesitate before I submit reply on these sorts of things.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, skykrawler said:

IMHO It is sort of a moot question.  The FAA has tried to regulate a level of safety in the certification and maintenance.  Those that go above and beyond in maintenance can still have failures.  Our job as pilots is to be able to save our passengers and survive,  as best we can.   Although the US AIR 427 had the rudder servo problem it was also found that pilots re-acted improperly which resulted in the ailerons being stalled and the inability to roll the aircraft to recover.  More recently there are the MAX accidents, ultimately they were survivable.  Understanding the human failures in accidents arms us to survive in the survivable cases.

I always hesitate before I submit reply on these sorts of things.

 

But if fire in the cockpit, no hesitation, no checklist, just understand and react.  Survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of off topic here but it's related to the human condition. I read an in-depth article recently which discussed a world of autonomous cars and it stated that if all cars on the road were self-driving and the technology has been perfected (or as near perfected as possible), accidents would be reduced by roughly 95%. On the surface that sounds outrageous, but as it described, poor human judgement is responsible for just about all accidents and very little is attributed mechanical issues. It went on to say that fatalities would be reduced dramatically since drunk driving would no longer an issue and seniors would still be able to get around years after they would have turned in their keys. It  went on to say that the insurance industry would be disrupted due to the dramatic reduction in auto accidents.

Skeptics will say this is the stuff of Popular Science, but I think it's coming.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, flyboy0681 said:

Sort of off topic here but it's related to the human condition. I read an in-depth article recently which discussed a world of autonomous cars and it stated that if all cars on the road were self-driving and the technology has been perfected (or as near perfected as possible), accidents would be reduced by roughly 95%. On the surface that sounds outrageous, but as it described, poor human judgement is responsible for just about all accidents and very little is attributed mechanical issues. It went on to say that fatalities would be reduced dramatically since drunk driving would no longer an issue and seniors would still be able to get around years after they would have turned in their keys. It  went on to say that the insurance industry would be disrupted due to the dramatic reduction in auto accidents.

Skeptics will say this is the stuff of Popular Science, but I think it's coming.

 

I agree, but I hope not in my lifetime for either planes/trains or automobiles.  My reasons would simply open up a big debate I do not with to enter here or anywhere.

Edited by RogueOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the berm impact incident:  as the report indicates:  the pilot was delayed in recognizing....I thought one of the basic procedures in short field takeoffs is to confirm the engine is making full power prior to releasing the brakes?  

IMO, the Nall report’s findings of allocating fault over  several categories (pilot, mechanical, weather... ) is simply a polite  way of alerting us to the main culprit without saying we’re all idiots!  Until my anthropomorphic Mooney opens the hangar, cranks itself up and goes for a joy flight all by itself, it’s ALL on the pilot to be responsible for safe flight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2019 at 7:54 AM, cbarry said:

Regarding the berm impact incident:  as the report indicates:  the pilot was delayed in recognizing....I thought one of the basic procedures in short field takeoffs is to confirm the engine is making full power prior to releasing the brakes?  

IMO, the Nall report’s findings of allocating fault over  several categories (pilot, mechanical, weather... ) is simply a polite  way of alerting us to the main culprit without saying we’re all idiots!  Until my anthropomorphic Mooney opens the hangar, cranks itself up and goes for a joy flight all by itself, it’s ALL on the pilot to be responsible for safe flight.

Being an M20K 231 owner just like this, there's a lot of throttle fiddling on the takeoff roll since it doesn't an absolute pressure wastegate controller.  Consistently monitoring to ensure full power without over boosting makes this difficult when you don't have a lot of time due to a short runway combined with little/no margin being heavy.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.