Message: 2
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:41:55 +1030
From: "Kittel, Stephen W \(ETSA\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS 2005
To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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
That is really interesting, Stephen W, thanks for the info.
A little sideways to another love of mine, low hour muddercycle riders may
crash (incident) many times in a day on difficult terrain, however damage is
minimised as their speed is lower (caution), their machinery is simpler
(trainer?) and in general they are younger and tougher. When the crash occurs
it is seldom reported (embarrasment) although quite often that is not mandatory
as there will be 5 blokes standing around laughing their fat guts out at him
(sorry about the true sexism).
Next comes the experienced rider (pilot) with years of experience he can pre-judge the
conditions, increasing his speed. His machinery is the latest (often the most
un-crashworthy, not applying to gliding) giving more speed. He rides (flies) confidently,
closer to the edge compared with a novice. When he crashes, the damage is very high
-usually a helicopter extraction- and often tragic. We all hear about it, pay for it,
grieve, etc, the sum result is that the novice rider becomes more nervous and further
futile restrictions are the participants as a whole, usually as a need to "have
SOMETHING done". How familiar!
No silver bullet, sorry, just noting the similar trend, I am sure it is evident
throughout a lot of sports.
Wayne,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
