Unchecked Carnage - USA Today Report

[Jim Rosenow]

Interesting reading if you have the time....

http://www.usatoday.com/longform/news/nation/2014/06/12/unfit-for-flight-part-2/10405451/

[RickFE]

I read through the series. It seems to me, that the article lacks a lot of texture. For openers, comparing the record of airlines to that of GA is disingenuous. GA covers pretty much anything that isn't airline flying to include higher risk activities such as aerobatics, air racing, crop dusting etc. Airlines, are tightly governed and fly the same routes over and even train on specific routes that they fly. If one wanted to pull the same strings, we could compare the "carnage" of to "amateur" driven car transportation to that of professional bus driving. I bet a lot less people get hurt taking a bus to work or to the store, than people in those tiny little cars.

[Jeffsunzeri]

The articles appear to be textbook hatchet jobs. Some of the most obvious misrepresentations are found in the repeated use of "amateur pilots" and "amateur-flown aircraft". Another boner is when the author states "On Thanksgiving eve in 2011, Russel Hardy had no warning of the sheer cliff ahead of him...". Really? No maps or knowledge of the location of the mountain were available? Many of the author's claims are outright wrong and not just in detail.

It's pretty clear that Thomas Frank had to dig to find numbers to support many of his conclusions when you see the lack of date agreement. He groups 'deaths since 1964' with other periods, with no analysis of rates of change over the past 50 years. Totally disingenuous.

However, it is fairly difficult to argue with the point that the NTSB and the FAA could do measurably better in accident prevention analysis and reporting. We've known for decades that the incestuous relationship between the FAA and the NTSB is not good for aviation and the pilot population always gets the short end of that stick.

USA Today: right up there with Fox News.

[Aaron Novak]

So......whats this guys personal agenda?

[Jonathan Harger]

Here is a good rebuttal article to the USA Today smear job: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/unfit-for-publication-how_b_5509253.html
Also, here is EAA's response to the original article: http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/general-aviation/2014-06-18-usa-today-misrepresents-ga-accidents-misleads-public

[rleffler]

Here's another rebuttal by our very own Bob Collins, fellow EAA member and RV'er.

http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/

[Richard Warner]

The best thing that could happen to stop a lot of these lawsuits against the manufacturers is to allow the NTSB probable cause to be used in court. I don't know why it shouldn't be allowed.

[martymayes]

So......whats this guys personal agenda?

Two words Aaron, Deborah Hersman.

[Jeff Point]

The best thing that could happen to stop a lot of these lawsuits against the manufacturers is to allow the NTSB probable cause to be used in court. I don't know why it shouldn't be allowed.
At least part of the reason is that manufacturers, which now play a valuable role in these investigations (as even the story alludes to) would probably clam up and refuse if they knew that their efforts would be used against them later in court. Kind of like the NASA safety reporting form- how many pilots would file them if they didn't come with the guarantee of immunity from prosecution (or at least sanctions being levied.)

[Jim Hardin]

There is no doubt that the series was written following the chapter notes right out of the book of Sensational Journalism!!!

Yes it is a gross exaggeration but what exactly did they do? They took FACTS and with twisting and manipulation made a sensational story that angered all of us directly concerned with aviation!

But if we work through our initial anguish and eliminate the distortions and exaggerations, we are left with the FACTS that were presented…

How did an aircraft get certified with a flawed rotor system? How is that instead of fixing it, we only require the pilots to have an endorsement about it?

Why did it take almost 50 years of active denial to produce a simple fix for the Model 35 Bonanzas?

Some aircraft are more susceptible to post crash fires than others yet pilots as well as manufactures ignore solutions that have been around for years!

As Experimental Builders we have the greatest latitude in what we can do.

So the best thing we can do with this horrible hatchet job, is to leave it with an attitude and goal to approach ALL safety issues from a creative standpoint.

[Bob Dingley]

Just when I was comming to terms with aviation and getting comfortable with Cessna seats, here comes Thomas Frank, the aviation "expert", to tell me to "be afraid". Whats his next project? A series on brain surgery?


Todays (June 20) hit piece on Sikorsky had some major gaffes. Lets take the bird strike on the S-76. He wrongly alleges that the A/C was delivered with plastic windshields. The hawk busted the STCed acrylic windshield and drove the overhead T-handles aft,cutting off the fuel and generators. Even tho the throttles were also shoved aft, no problem. Similar to FADEC, they would have kept running, if only the fuel wasn't cut. They are built, since 1976, with very nice laminated glass windshields by PPG. They have thin gold conductor strips imbedded for defrosting. Replacement cost is $17,000 each and they are heavy. Heavy enough that if you load up a dozen 42 inch waist guys carrying little baggage, you would exceed the fwd cg limit. So about mid 1980's, a well known plastics firm STCed light, cheap acrylic windshields. The final solution was 15# of lead in the tail. But as you see, Mr Frank blames Sikorsky.


I won't bore you with the story of the engine governors on two types that the FAA mandated for certification. Hollywood could make a comedy about this, except they may wish to omit the fatalities. If any one wants to know more, PM me. Its a hoot.




Bob