WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Transportation Safety Board has released preliminary aviation accident statistics for 2014 showing a slight increase in fatal general aviation accidents, from 222 in 2013 to 253 in 2014.
The overall number of general aviation accidents decreased slightly from 1,224 in 2013 to 1,221 in 2014.
Despite reporting fewer accidents, the accident rate for general aviation aircraft increased from 6.26 per 100,000 flight hours in the previous year to 6.74 in 2014, NTSB statistics show.
There were 28 accidents involving Part 121 operations (commercial air transport).
The number of accidents involving scheduled Part 135 (commuter) operations decreased from seven in 2013 to four in 2014.
On-demand Part 135 operations, which include charter, air taxi, air tour, and air medical flights, reported 35 accidents in 2014, down from 44 in 2013. The accident rate decreased from 1.30 per 100,000 flight hours in 2013 to 1.02 in 2014.
The 2014 statistical tables showing accidents, fatalities, and accident rates for major segments of U.S. civil aviation can be found at NTSB.gov.
I think the point should be made that most aircraft accidents are really collisions with other aircraft or the ground because of pilot error. Not accidents. An accident is when a meteor hits your plane. Weather and fuel issues are our worst enemies that usually are proceeded by a horrible chain of events that could have been broken.. And people like us keep on dying from it. Mostly dying because of the same stuff. We are a proud, risk taking, group who tends to focus on completing the mission. Let’s all try to be more humble and safe.
Stats are just that. Stats. Let’s stop making them and the news. Every time one of us does something stupid the media is all over it. Mitigate risk and mitigate the negative media. God bless aviation.
The statement that “the accident rate for general aviation aircraft increased from 6.26 per 100,000 flight hours in the previous year to 6.74 in 2014” is not information; it is data. Data are raw observations; information is meaning derived from data. To derive meaning from this observation, one must perform an analysis to determine whether the observed change is meaningful. Statistical tests of significance, in this case either a t-test or a chi-squared analysis (both comparatively simple to perform), can reveal whether the observed change in rate signifies a real change in the world or represents meaningless random variation. To perform either test, one needs data not customarily reported by FAA: the number of individual reports and the datum reported by each reporter, upon which the calculated rates are based. A high-level briefing on the use of statistical tests of significance in evaluating aviation safety trends was briefed to the ICAO Assembly in the mid-1990s; it is disheartening that the U.S. has not adopted these basic tools in the intervening 20 years.
Yes, we know that the denominator of the rate, general aviation hours flown, is not a robust number; this means that the data must be viewed with skepticism and any informational inferences drawn from the data also must be viewed cautiously, bounded by appropriate caveats. But to read the raw trend data as having inherent meaning is incorrect, regardless of how robust one or another element of the rate fraction may be. To read a raw trend as if it were information is simply wrong. We in aviation should stop doing it.
As a CFII/ME when a students completes…and is on the way to a future of smart flying …I ask them one thing …please if you do have an accident, please let it be an original one…
If all student pilots and all other pilots were required by FARs to read the accident history of the aircraft they will fly – including the equipment failures …since in many cases they add to the accident cause …then guess what the results would be?
from
Neil Cosentino
USAF, Retired
FASTA – USA
Tampa Bay Florida
813-784-4669
Neil, you have a valid suggestion here.
I read all the accident postings I come across, and I find a vast majority of them to be pilot issues. Good go/no-go judgement is a must before each flight, but when things don’t go according to the plan, instinct must kick in.
Many accidents happen on arrival or departure when reaction time can be a split second difference between outcomes. The plane is telling you what’s going on, you feel it in your seat, so this is when your instinct must kick in. Indecisiveness leads to trouble. There is no time to think and be indecisive. Developing instinctive reactions to unusual situations comes with knowing your plane, and stepping out of your comfort zone…incrementally and with an expert guidance if warranted.
I learned what the “seat of the pants flying” phrase really means only after I bought my Colt. It was much harder to understand when I was renting.
Safe flying.
Ed
Many fatal accidents are deemed ” PILOT ERROR ” when they should be deemed PILOT TRAINING ERROR [ PTE ].
The FAA and the industry have made many good improvements … but the repetition of the same thing over and over it really ” Kills Me ” mentally…
Asking pilots to have only ” Original Accidents ” …kind of creates the mindset…
FASTA – USA
I hope all will find our recently published AmeriCAN Aviation Manifesto interesting and would add their programs …1. We need to LAUNCH a 21st century NIFS – a NATIONAL Intrastate-Interstate FLYWAY SYSTEM [ NIFS ].
2. We need to start site planning for Global Airports …they are the primary Nodes for the NIFS, all 20,000 airports…
note we are have located a site for the Florida global airport [ FGA ] we need nine [ 9] more global airports sites NE, NW, SE, SW…
3. We need a 21st century SUPER STOL 50 passenger Combi fanjet; example a today’s DC-3/C-47 to serve the NIFS system and the military reserves and guard units…
4.. We need robot fabricated – robot assembled two seat tandem, electric powered – Primary Pilot Trainer/PAM aircraft – Person Air Mobility aircraft that sell for < $10/lb.
5. We need a National simulator based – STEM base cadet pilot program embedded in local schools and supported by mentors from
the Daedalians, Red River Rats, FABA, ERAU, FIT, CAP, USAF, USA, USN, USMC, USCG, EAA, AOPA, NBAA, NASA, FAA…
FEI: STEM is Science Technology Engineering Math.
The K6-12+ STEM SIM Cadet Pilots earn their wings by doing it all in SIMs in compliance with the FAA regulations including check rides given by volunteer rated pilots…
The K6-12+ STEM SIM Cadet Pilot training program that takes out future young simulator trained, this program trains our future pilots
from zero sim hours all the way through private, ratings, CFII/ME Commercial, ATP, type ratings… F-15, 16, 17.., B-5? C-4?…B-777, 767…
6. Your suggested and/or recommended programs or projects ? share here_________________________________________________________
FMI for more information about any of the above programs contact:
FASTA USA text/cell 813-784-4669
That’s a good idea, Neil. It might make some of them wonder if they really ought to be flying though.
Good point … but if they do not understand the meaning maybe they should find another hobby or career.