Fatal Accidents Related to the Fly-In

[rwanttaja]

This probably belongs in the Airventure forum, but this is a bit of a "downer" and I didn't want to inhibit discussion there.

The question came up on another forum regarding the number of fatal crashes that occur to planes flying to or from Oshkosh, and on the grounds themselves. I took a stab at making an estimate, using the NTSB database to find related accidents from 1982 through 2013. I've attached a PDF of the results... about 66 accidents (of all certifications) over ~31 years. A summary is attached.

The accidents occurring at Wittman field near the dates of the fly-ins were easy to determine, the ones that happen to planes fly to or from were a bit harder. Often, though, the NTSB reports note any Oshkosh relationships. To find the ones going to or from OSH, I searched the Narratives for "Oshkosh", "OSH ", "EAA", and "Airventure". Cases were manually checked to throw out ones that didn't apply (crash in the Oshkosh mountain in Oregon, EAA Biplane crash during initial test flight, etc.).

Note that there is no guarantee the NTSB investigator will note an AV connection, though.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

Ron, I share your concern. On Wed. Becky remarked how the week was safe so far, obviously maybe in part for the good weather. And I was worried that it might not last and sure enough there was the Breezy fatal and serious accident just popped up on a otherwise nice morning. I have heard no explanation at all, a left field guess might be wake turbulence if there was any other traffic or an engine problem. Perhaps your research can find some common factor in some of these accidents that could be combated by some EAA education. I know some accidents have been during landing when pilots try to do something outside the normal landing range. And some of it is just that some many airplanes are flying in one place. I wonder if the rate is any higher than it would be if we looked at the same number all over the U S. For me, the real measure of how good the convention is is if it is a safe week, as we sometimes have.

[Zack Baughman]

For the total number of flight operations in and out of Oshkosh the week before, during (especially during), and after AirVenture, I'd say the safety record is pretty remarkable. Just one person's opinion.

Zack

[Frank Giger]

I'll disagree - it's not remarkable, it's incredible. Less than 70 accidents in thirty years?

It's not the number of airplanes that wow me (though the traffic levels are insane), but the disparity of aircraft that would have me guess it was much higher. C172's, Cubs, RV's, Barons, and every conceivable variation in between sharing the approach, pattern, and even runways? And that doesn't include the disparity in pilot experience and skill.

Throw in fixed dates for the event and get-there-itis and weather over the years can put people beyond their personal (and aircraft) minimums.

[C150L]

Not sure it's in line with the safety/accident statistics for EAA/Airventure, but might be interesting to compare with that of fatality stats for persons going to/at/from Super Bowls, Indy 500, Sturgis,etc. Perhaps the question is, where are you really safe?

When I bought my 1st 150 to get my PPL back in 95, many suggested I sell the plane as the engines quit and they crash. I certainly had to inform them that a plane does not automatically crash from an engine failure. One has to land the airplane after an engine failure and one has to land the plane every time they take off. In case of an engine failure, one doesn't necessarily have a nice paved runway in front of them and has to work with what's there.

I often ask, where is one really safe? At that time, I recall an elderly gentleman driving his tractor along the side of the road near by and some inattentive driver coming from behind, rear ended the tractor, killing it's (tractor) driver. Where are we safe?

I really should be hitting the road here shortly and getting down to Oshkosh. (About 30 miles from home.) Is that really safe?

[rwanttaja]

For the total number of flight operations in and out of Oshkosh the week before, during (especially during), and after AirVenture, I'd say the safety record is pretty remarkable. Just one person's opinion.

Zack, you're absolutely right. When you consider you've got a large portion of the GA fleet headed to one location for one week every year, *something* is going to happen.

Also, just so it's clear, there's no way I'd put any blame on EAA, AirVenture, or any other organization. If I have an accident driving to the movie theater, it's not Warner Brothers' fault.

There are a number of factors at work, here:

1. It's a very attractive destination...it's like a swimming pool on a 100-degree day that's hosting a convention of the Federated Ladies Of Opulent Z-Rated Internet Entertainment Shows (FLOOZIES).

2. It's got hard dates...It's over by X, so enroute delays will heighten get-there-itis.

3. It tends to "fill up" and if you aren't there at the right time, you aren't going to have a parking space. Hence the impetus to get, at least, in the vicinity.

4. It's in the Midwest, in the middle of summer with the attendant risks of thunderstorms.

5. It has the densest air traffic in the world, far beyond the normal experience of any attendee.

6. Aircraft are often packed to the gills for the trip (camping gear, purchases for the return, etc.) and thus the aircraft behave differently (and are less forgiving) from what the pilot is used to.

7. It is especially attractive to those new to aviation, and whose flying skills may not be up to the challenges of 4, 5, and 6 above, and who may not be as aware of Get-There/Back-Itis. It's like teenagers when the FLOOZIES convention is in town.

To dodge the nanny-filter for the forum: "Excrement Occurs." We're looking at a two-week period where, at worst, six fatal accidents happen to attendees/potential attendees, in the entire US. Out of over 300,000 aircraft. As was posted elsewhere, "How many people die driving to or from NASCAR races?"

I'm going to take a deeper look into the causes, may post if anything interesting pops out.

Ron Wanttaja

[L16 Pilot]

As mentioned above, considering the number of aircraft and the different types of aircraft involved during Oshkosh I'd say the safety record is better than pretty good. The controllers do a great job of handling the traffic and when the unexpected density increases (10 T-6's approach and landing for example while GA is also in the area) they handle it all without creating a crisis. Pilots seem to be ' on their toes' too. I did see one aircraft that made a left turn out from 36 but the controller just gave him or her instructions to safely reenter the pattern. I think it was a go around but not sure.

[rwanttaja]

I'm going to take a deeper look into the causes, may post if anything interesting pops out.

OK, took a quick look. I compared the accident causes between those of the Fatal Cessna 172/210 accidents from 1998 through 2007 (had the spreadsheet already).

The good news is: nothing really stands out. It's about the same percentage of pilot stick-and-rudder issues, of pilot judgement issues, and of aircraft mechanical problems. The percentage of accidents due to continued VFR into IMC is less, for the Oshkosh-associated fatals (a bit of a surprise, really). A higher percentage of collisions (both in flight and on the ground), but the actual toll is only eight aircraft over ~30 years. It really doesn't happen that often. The fuel mismanagement category is about twice that of the Cessna group...probably not a surprise. Again, though, we're only talking five cases over 30+ years.

A bit more willingness to stretch fuel, perhaps. More collisions, but with 5% of the US's aircraft in one place for a week-long period, it's probably something you must expect. Half of them were ground collisions.

Not looking too bad, really.

Ron Wanttaja

[raytoews]

I think about this a lot ,,,,, more as I get older and closer to the end ,,, is flying more dangerous.
I have had 17 friends killed in airplanes and I have no idea how many in cars or other. I don't keep track.
Admittedly most of the people I call friend fly.
I know why all of them died, they or in one case their employer killed them.
That is 17 things I don't do.
Now I use my airplane most on a single route, I can fly it 2 1/2 hours or drive it in 8.
I estimate in 8 hours I will meet about 1000 cars of which statistically 10% are impaired so that is 100 potential ways for me to get whacked.
Now when I fly there is only one thing to run into, and I know exactly where it is.
If I get killed, I caused it, not some sleepy or drunk driver.
Flying is better.

Ray

[Bill Greenwood]

Ray, flying is more fun, and satisfying than driving, and I find it less stressful in good weather, BUT YOU ARE KIDDING YOURSELF IF YOU THINK GEN AV FLYING IS SAFER THAN DRIVING.
IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION, THERE ARE STATISTICS, ie the Nall Report, AND PRIVATE GEN AV FLYING HAS SEVERAL TIMES THE FATAL ACCIDENT RATES OF DRIVING.
MAJOR AIRLINE TRAVEL IN THE US IS SAFER THAN DRIVING.

We need to always strive to improve our safety record, flying into Oshkosh or wherever, but falsely claiming flying is safer is putting our head in the sand.