In addition to Wombats general stuff I will add the following. It is very difficult to get good accurate measures of many accident statistics and sometimes make meaningful assessments of what they really mean is also not easy. Lots of pilots recall  lots of things told to them with various levels of veracity. Similar to Geoffs comments below I have always heard of the experience levels of 100, 300 and 1000 hrs as "danger" points. But realistically I have no proof of this and a statistical scattering would probably nearly cover all levels of experience anyway.
 
However, having said that, a year or so ago I downloaded all the fatal accidents off the ATSB website (about 100 or so at the time) and tried to do some analysis of where flying went wrong. Note the sample size was large, but incomplete over the time interval. It was only fatals. It included all GA, helicopter and gliding accidents which had been publicaly released.
If I ever feel really crazy I might download the whole lot and try to analyses the complete spectrum of accidents, but it won't be soon!
 
The following is the number of fatal accidents and the experience levels of the pilot.
 
Number        Experience Level

2                      0-30

3                      31-100

9                      101-300

31                    301-1000

23                    1001-3000

19                    3001-10000

14                    10000+

 

Now, having tabulated that, it doesn't tell us much as we don't know the distribution of experience in the whole Australian pilot sample. While (say) 300-1000 hour pilots seem to wipe themselves out in a big group, I also suspect the vast majority of Australian pilots fall into this category. Also if you divide number of accident by hour range (eg 3/70 for the 31-100 group) you get a number (I don't know what it physically represents) which steps down from 0-30 then stays roughly constant till the experience level goes over 1000 hours then reduces some more. This seems consistent with what you would expect as an indication of experience. Learners crash more, experience teaches you not to (seemingly after about 1000hrs).

 

FWIW the conclusions I came to in types of accidents were generally reinforced a few months later by a document released by ATSB or CASA in early 2005 regarding accidents in small aircraft.

Out of interest (and to expand about my earlier comments re structural failure) the following stats are approximate ball park figures (for _fatal_ accidents only)

 

The biggest danger in flying an aircraft is LOW flying 15% (mostly aerial work, simply hitting "stuff")

followed by

engine failure 14% (not fuel related)

VFR into IMC 11%

CFIT 9% (ie not VFR into IMC and not "low flying")

Fuel problems 8%

Collisions 8%

 

Thankfully, for glider pilots we are rarely in a position to be exposed to those top 5 but we were highly represented in the sixth.

 

Airframe failure (includes loose seats etc) came in 10th on the list at 5%.

 

But an interesting thing to note was that many situations, eg  engine failures (fuel or mechanical), manoevering, going round and the like lead to a "loss of control" ie spin or stall at low level. In fact a whopping 30% of all fatal accidents ending this way, even if they started for another reason.

 

Regards

SWK

 

 

 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff Kidd
Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 1:39 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS 2005

Good question David
 
    I have read or heard it somewhere recently (perhaps it was during Kevin's Safety Seminar in Wagga) that low hour post solo pilots aren't the key problem because they are still tentative, safety conscious and the lessons/training are still relatively fresh in their minds.
 
    That same recollection was that it was mentioned that about 250 -300 hours is where pilots get (over) confident and often push the safety envelope (or have got away with things previously) and they start to show up in the stats.
 
    Does anyone else recall the above being discussed.
 
Regards Geoff
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:14 PM
Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS 2005

Hi all,
 
This topic and the previous one re training, lead me to the following question.
 
 What is the accident/incident rate for low hour post solo pilots?
 
What is the acc/inc rate on breakdown form? ie number of hours flown v number of accident/incidentss.
 
Anyone know this info?
 
David Lawley
Computer Manager
Elizabeth Primary School 
Elizabeth East Prinary School
 
 
 
 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kittel, Stephen W (ETSA)
Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:25 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS 2005

As an answer for that question. Basically yes. Mechanical type failures are _almost_ non existant .
I have heard figures bandied around of aircraft failure accidents about 2% of total, but effectively this is bugger all. The reality is, most (virtually all) accidents are caused by the pilots actions.
Note that for powered aircraft (GA types anyway, to be comparable to gliders) the pattern is very similar, if slightly muddied by engine failures.
 
The more interesting question is, before seeing this result, what did you (and other pilots) think (feel) the rate would be? and why?
 
Not a dig, a real question from someone interested in your (and others) perceptions.
 
Regards
SWK


From: Geoff Kidd
 
 
(2)    Am I correct in the reading of these reports of occurrences between 13 Nov 2004 & 19 Nov 2005 that, perhaps with the exception of the "Canopy opening in flight" incident(s) that none of our Accidents or Incidents was due to a structural of other failure of an aircraft?
 
 
**********************************************************************
This email and any file attachments are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please tell us immediately
by return email and delete the document.
The information in this email expresses the opinion of the author
and does not necessarily represent the views of ETSA Utilities.
**********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
**********************************************************************
This email and any file attachments are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please tell us immediately
by return email and delete the document.
The information in this email expresses the opinion of the author
and does not necessarily represent the views of ETSA Utilities.
**********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Reply via email to