Fatal Accidents Related to the Fly-In

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

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.

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

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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, 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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

You are quite correct Ray. There are risks while driving and there are risks when flying.

Managing risk while flying is much easier than while driving because so much is directly under the pilot's control, as you have indicated. Unfortunately, for the same reason, pilots have more opportunity to make bad choices. Using the common metrics, by time or distance travelled, driving ends up being the safer option, which further supports the hypothesis that pilots seem to be good at making bad choices.

If you get killed, it's because you caused it? I'm thinking if you don't get killed, it's also because you caused it. Flying is better but it does require some effort.

Bah. Of the 72 of us that graduated high school back in '83, ten of us are dead, and none from plane wrecks. People die doing all sorts of things - flying isn't more dangerous than anything else we do so long as we take precautions.

Yes, the risk is higher than driving, but only by a degree, and at the point where flying is safe it will stop being enjoyable. I know I don't get excited about boarding a Delta flight, at least not nearly as much as when climbing into the front seat of a Champ.

Indeed, I would be just as cautious about driving to OSH as I would be flying there....though I currently think my skill set isn't up to mixing it up in the mass arrival and departure of Airventure.

Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
— Captain A. G. Lamplugh, British Aviation Insurance Group, London. c. early 1930's.

It has been said that flying isn’t dangerous. Crashing is dangerous. This is more than a trite comment. The reality is that automobiles are much more crash resistant than aircraft, and particularly general aviation aircraft. Things are getting better in that regard, but overall, given a crash (or in the standardization world I frequent, “an undesirable event”) the automobile is more survivable than a general aviation aircraft. (Generally. My airplane was built in 1967 and it probably stands up pretty well with regards to survivability against a 1967 automobile.)

Like all things, it is a difficult comparison. If you only consider automobiles moving at general aviation cruise speeds, I am guessing that fatality rates might be comparable. (I spent enough time in Germany seeing and responding to accidents on the autobahn to make that a fairly educated guess. Once upon a time I had the statistics to back it up.) If you only consider accidents where the airplane is moving at typical automobile speeds (landing and taxiing) then again, airplanes do pretty well in terms of survivability. It is because we ask airplanes to do so much more that the RISK EXPOSURE is so much greater than travelling by car.

John and Martha King have recently become general aviation risk management missionaries. One of their recurrent themes is that most of the risks general aviation pilots face can be managed – or “treated” in risk management technical-speak. The problem is that many pilots are ignorant of – or not fully aware of identifying and treating the risks they face. Crashworthiness is one thing a pilot can address, if not cure. What is very true from the previous posts is that we as pilots and owners of aircraft can address and treat so many of the risks we face. Drivers, on the other hand, are faced with many risks outside of their control (e.g., other drivers who are impaired, distracted, or incompetent.) I saw a statistic some time that reported 35% of all people killed in drunk driving accidents were not even in the same car as the drunk driver.

Flying is not inherently dangerous. It does have its own risks. Pilots who do not recognize and manage those risks become statistics in the Nall report.

-- Chris Mayer
-- N424AF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Bill's absolutely correct, of course. IIRC, flying has an accident rate about ten times higher than driving

In our favor, as others have mentioned, the pilot is more directly responsible for his fate. You can be a perfect driver, make all the right decisions, but that still doesn't save you from the bad decisions made by the multitude of other drivers you'll encounter on the way. You're the master of your fate in an airplane; in a car, you're at the mercy of the distracted, the inept, the aggressive, and the inebriated.

Probably a key difference is that mechanical failure pays a relatively low part in auto crashes. In most cases, the car can just pull over; irritating, but no harm done. In contrast, mechanical failure in flight is a serious event.

Ron Wanttaja

Very well put Ron! As I like to tell people, "flying is as safe as you make it." It's an exercise in personal responsibility (and the cynic would point out it's an increasingly rare one for the modern age). You are in charge of your proficiency, checking the weather, ensuring the plane is airworthy, and deciding how many risk factors you want to load up on in the course of your flight. Fly safe and you shouldn't have a problem beating the average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc

The problem is that many pilots are ignorant of – or not fully aware of identifying and treating the risks they face.

---

Problem #2 is the pilots you just identified are the ones least likely to seek out help for improvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martymayes

Problem #2 is the pilots you just identified are the ones least likely to seek out help for improvement.

---

IIRC, the Lancair folks instituted a training program a number of years ago. Folks who have taken that class have a signficantly lower accident rate. But there's always the issue: How much of that reduction was due to the training received, vs. how much was due to that fact that the attendees were already safety-minded enough to TAKE the class....

Ron Wanttaja

Marty and Ron, Of course you both are absolutely correct. As mentioned above I deal with standardization in high risk environments. One recurring theme is that ISO certification does not makes a company is good. Rather,the company's commitment to excellence leads to certification. Now to build on Ron's point. At AV, I went to the forum on basic stick and rudder skills held at the IAC. At the beginning, the presenter asked how many in the crowd regularly practiced the private pilot practical test maneuvers since they got their certificate. Less than half (MUCH less) of the people in attendance raised their hands. And these were the people who were interested enough in improving their skills to come to the forum.

I am wondering if the armored vehicles parked next to 36R will be moved before next year’s AirVenture. In retrospect, to move them further way from landing aircraft seems like a no brainer.

“The NTSB released a preliminary report on the crash Aug. 6, which includes the facts and circumstances but no indication what caused the accident. The amateur-built Zimmerman Breezy (being operated as a personal flight) touched down on Runway 36R and "appeared to bounce during the landing roll," the NTSB report states. The Breezy then veered right off the runway and struck armored vehicles parked near the airport perimeter. “

LOL, that's the truth of it - the kinds of people who go to safety training aren't the people that need it the most.

The thing is the average pilot that gets into trouble isn't grossly negligent; it's usually a case of not knowing what they don't know. Heck, I'm guilty of it.

I thought I knew weather. My first job in the Army dealt with meterological effects on smoke - inversion layers, thermals, etc. - so I approached weather too confidently and got a suprise on what unstable air actually means when one is in an aircraft, particularly a light one like a Champ. Nothing strained but my eyes for being held so wide at my first taste of "moderate" turbulence.

At our chapter meetings we occasionally have one of our IFR type guys brief us on the ADSB stuff. Initially I wanted to go into glassy-eyed mode and daydream of low-and-slow VFR flight, but then it dawned on me that I'll be encountering more and more aircraft with it and pilots used to having it - and I'll be invisible to their magic box, as I don't have a transponder. Yes, he'll still be looking to see-and-avoid, but human nature being what it is he'll be looking first for what's on the screen or just double checking the all clear it's giving him. So I better understand how his system works and what he is working off of.

If it wasn't for our chapter thinking Big Picture Aviation I wouldn't have given ADSB-out a second thought and ignored the topic completely. Will it save my life some day? I dunno, but it sure as heck won't kill me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

At our chapter meetings we occasionally have one of our IFR type guys brief us on the ADSB stuff. Initially I wanted to go into glassy-eyed mode and daydream of low-and-slow VFR flight, but then it dawned on me that I'll be encountering more and more aircraft with it and pilots used to having it - and I'll be invisible to their magic box, as I don't have a transponder.

---

It's like that NOW for the NORDO folks....I even had one guy tell me, "I won't see you if you don't tell me you're there." I flew the original Fly Baby NORDO for about seven years. I even wrote an article on what I'd learned, titled, "Do-It-Yourself Stealth (And How to Survive It)". Will probably need to dust that off in a couple of years to handle the ADSB Magoos.

It's funny, the attitudes towards electronic aids. My home airfield is close to the Seattle Class B. While it's easy enough to go in and out without entering the Class B airspace, there's a bit of a "funnel effect" with airplanes up to business jets trying to sneak in below 1800 feet at the corner closest to my flield. We were having a conversation on another forum about landmarks to use to ensure one stayed out of the bad areas. One guy told us we were nuts using stuff outside the airplane, that he was going to rely on his GPS...in very busy airspace. I guess when ADSB is in place, he'll have a full-blown video game to watch. Might need industrial-strength windshield wipers, though.

Ron Wanttaja

The Feds should pay us to put on ADSB Out and nuclear powered Strobes.

Ha ha ha! Funny the things one sees and hears at an uncontrolled airfield.

My personal favorite are the IFR checkpoint guys and the Ghost Tower folks.

Them: "Well Equipped Aircraft Seven Four Echo passing Victor, landing."
Me: "Say again location?"
Them: "Passing Victor at three thousand."
Me: "Okay, I'll bite - where is that from the field by direction and distance?"
Them: "....."
Me: "Say again location?"
Them, as if talking to a moron: "Ten miles south, landing three."
Me: "I'm the yellow champ in the pattern, touch and go, entering downwind."
Them, somewhat huffily: "Straight approach on the glide."

:)

Ghost tower people, as I call them, have this one sided conversation with a tower that isn't there, including responding to things never said. Lots of Vector, Altitude and "Squawking One Two Hundred" stuff. I like 'em, as there's never any confusion where they are.

I always assume there are NORDO aircraft around. Some folks seem to think that since no radio is required at an uncontrolled airfield that they shouldn't use them, or, more generously, that it's optional. And, even in this day and time, occasionally we'll have someone land without using a radio and walk up to the map with the stick pin in it entirely too casually, look at it, and then shortly leave out, using their radio as they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

I guess when ADSB is in place, he'll have a full-blown video game to watch.

---

That's the truth. I've seen a flurry of traffic south of Phoenix on my iPad via my ADS-B In receiver (when a nearby ADS-B Out equipped aircraft must have triggered the transmission). It's downright intimidating to see all those folks ahead of you. I can see people staring at their screens for long periods at a time trying to figure the best route to avoid the traffic. I can also see other people avoiding busy airspace altogether once they can see what's there.

Saw the same thing approaching Oshkosh two weeks ago, but that's a special case. There you'd have to be crazy to stare at your iPad instead of looking out the window.

Mike E

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEdwards

That's the truth. I've seen a flurry of traffic south of Phoenix on my iPad via my ADS-B In receiver (when a nearby ADS-B Out equipped aircraft must have triggered the transmission). It's downright intimidating to see all those folks ahead of you. I can see people staring at their screens for long periods at a time trying to figure the best route to avoid the traffic. I can also see other people avoiding busy airspace altogether once they can see what's there.

Saw the same thing approaching Oshkosh two weeks ago, but that's a special case. There you'd have to be crazy to stare at your iPad instead of looking out the window.

Mike E

---

It was great going along the lakefront under the class b in chicago.

That's why I brought along a passenger. He was watching the traffic screens. My eyes were focused on not hitting the tail in front of me as he slowed down to 65kts as he passed ripon. Fortunately it was slow and the controller noticed me starting a turn back to ripon. ATC cleared me immediately to ripon, asked to keep my speed up (i had no problems keeping 90kts to short final) and sent the slow pokes to 27.

I keep hearing pilots that have never used TIS-B complain about how pilots won't be doing anything more than staring at their screens and nobody will be looking out the windows. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I've got ADS-B in/out in one of my planes linked to my GPS. The traffic is just something else on the map. If traffic is a potential conflict it will be marked as such allowing me to de-conflict long before the other traffic is in visual range. Screen shots from a test flight with TIS-B are on my web site along with notes pointing out strengths and weaknesses of the system. Flying with ADS-B traffic, it becomes readily apparent that it is not a replacement for the mk 1 eyeballs, and is lousy if you think you're going to use it in the traffic pattern around most smaller airports (traffic falls off radar and/or you fall out of ADS-B reception range). But, when at altitude flying cross country, it gives you better situational awareness of traffic around you that you likely never would have seen before. With a potential conflict, it tells me where to look.

The closest I've come to getting knocked out of the sky was meeting another aircraft at 10,500' in the middle of nowhere flying 90° to my course. We were both VFR and at the correct altitudes for our directions. Having flown NORDO for 15 years, I think I have a pretty good outside scan going most of the time. In this case, I got a very close up look at the side of the other plane while I was maneuvering hard to miss it. I don't think the other pilot ever saw me. Lessons learned were (1) Big Sky Theory doesn't always hold true, and (2) even with a good scan, you aren't likely to see another aircraft closing at 90° to your course at a high closure rate (both of us at roughly 150 kts [not in the Cub]). Had I have had ADS-B traffic at the time, assuming the other craft had a working transponder, I would have known about the other traffic long before it became a conflict.

Cub Builder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cub builder

I keep hearing pilots that have never used TIS-B complain about how pilots won't be doing anything more than staring at their screens and nobody will be looking out the windows. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

---

From your response, I am confident that is true in your case. I am not so sure about the pilot population in general. I think a lot of pilots will be distracted and/or distressed by it. Time will tell.

I have "used" TIS-B, though in a limited sense, in the few cases I described in an earlier post. Plus one other, returning from Oshkosh last year, where I was alerted to a crossing aircraft at my altitude in a situation very much as you described, though not so close. I intend to get ADS-B Out as soon as reasonably and financially possible so as to take full advantage of TIS-B.

I think with a little use it becomes readily apparent that the altitudes are inaccurate and while it's recent data, it's not real time data, which really forces the pilot to look out the window for the traffic. If you're at an extended range from Radar or ADS-B tower, traffic appears and disappears quite a bit, so once again, you have to look outside to see where they are at. However, I do find it to be useful for deconflicting with traffic that is beyond visual range. Caveat; I fly in a very mountainous area, so deal with spotty radar and ADS-B coverage. It may be more real time-ish with fewer drop outs out in the flat lands. :D Right now, I still get more traffic warnings from my antique Monroy PCAS than I do from ADS-B.

-Cub Builder

I am almost always on an IFR plan or FF. I have Mode S TIS and a Xaon but I still look out the window. My wife wondered why I was making a rather abrupt manouver last weekend but I suddenly saw chutes popping in front of me. It was after this that I heard the jump plane announce jumpers away. Nice timely call there. This is the same ass hole (at least now I know who and where he operates) that makes calls that announce that he's dumping a load of meat balls without indicating what airport or other location he's doing it at (and either leaves the frequency immediately or doesn't otherwise listen to the people who ask "Jumpers away over WHAT?"

What, the meatballs don't appear on TIS? I am shocked! (Wotcha wanna bet that UAS's don't, either?)