Is it just me or are we seeing an awful lot of accidents lately?

You know I was thinking the same thing. Been off the forum for a couple weeks driving a dump truck 10 to 12 hours a day. Come back and yikes.

Not sure if theres more, or if just more publisized.

However one is to many.

Be safe, fly smart, Bub

You know, look at that Cessna that took off over weight and crashed that the guys were talking about on this forum. A little earlier (same day) another plane crashed at the same airport. What are the odds of that?

What the heck was that guy in the Cessna thinking? He had to know he was in trouble way before he ran out of runway.

Just a couple of weeks ago a fellow in my EAA chapter crashed his Cessna 140 in the woods just short of the airport. He was practicing night landings. He just barely got out alive. Don't know the cause yet. He is a very cautious pilot who has flown for many years.

I saw the crash of the P-51's at Oskosh. That was immediately followed by that crash in Ohio and one in Texas. Seems like there is suddenly a couple a week. Just makes me wonder!

You guys don't scan the NTSB reports nearly enough. There are people cratering in ALL the time, lot's gettin' killed too! I surf over there weekly to see who fell into the Darwin category and who fell into the bad luck category, and also to find out which insurance rates are going up.
There are plenty of little "fender benders" that don't ever see the light of day as well.

Has there been any study or consensus for the new(er) LSA category....smaller, kit planes, low time pilots....more or less accidents??

for about 1/2 the cost of a PPL and a plane for under 20K you can be flying over your town....safer....or not?? any ideas??

I scan the FAA Preliminary Accident & Incident Data every morning (yea, I know, weird habit).

Just anecdotal, but I have noticed some consistent patterns:

1. By far the most common accident/incident is "gear up landing" or "gear collapsed". If the airplane involved is a M20, C210, BE36, or other single engine retractable gear, odds seem very long that the accident will be "gear up" or "gear collapsed".

2. If the airplane is a PA-18, nine times out of ten the accident will be in Alaska. Makes sense, but still amazes me.

3. There seem to be an inordinate number of accidents/incidents involving ultralights. They are all unregistered, but I would still suspect that there are more accidents/incidents per 1,000 ultralights than per 1,000 single engine aircraft. More striking, if the accident/incident involves an ultralight, nine times out of ten it results in a fatality.

4. When spring comes around, aerial sprayers really start adding to the list.

Like I said, nothing scientific, but still interesting to look at.

375handh wrote:
2. If the airplane is a PA-18, nine times out of ten the accident will be in Alaska. Makes sense, but still amazes me.

3. There seem to be an inordinate number of accidents/incidents involving ultralights. They are all unregistered, but I would still suspect that there are more accidents/incidents per 1,000 ultralights than per 1,000 single engine aircraft. More striking, if the accident/incident involves an ultralight, nine times out of ten it results in a fatality.

2. Alaska has an interesting phenomenome called "hunting Season". Hunting season causes otherwise rational people to get a pilots certificate and go buy a super cub. They then proceed to try and land on the smallest little river gravel bar or ridge top strip they can find in search of that trouphy moose or sheep. High performance aircraft, tiny strip with no margine for error, typical lousy fall weather, aircraft that's more than likely overloaded flown by an inexperienced pilot = NTSB statistic. Now, this poor alaskan sole can't just give up and hire a professional next year. Oh no! Bigger tires would have prevented that accident, or VG's, or maybe a borer prop! So the plane will be rebuilt...again. And the pilot who hasn't flow for a year since his plane was being rebuilt will try it again. It's a vicious cycle.

3. Ah yes, ultralights. If you haven't flown one I recommend it. Will teach you more about seat of the pants flying than anything I can imagine. You'll learn a lot about your local weather patterns too. One would think that since ultralights are so slow the fatality rate would would be comparatively low too. But most models offer next to no pilot protection. So there you have it.

Phil

Ultralights are really safe-- they can go just barely fast enough to kill you.

AntiCub wrote: One would think that since ultralights are so slow the fatality rate would would be comparatively low too. But most models offer next to no pilot protection. So there you have it.

I think the number one reason there are so many ultralight accidents and fatalities is the lack of a well defined training curriculum. You've got guys out there who fly them specifically because you don't need a checkride or officially training of any kind. In that case it's not if but when.

I think the number one reason there are so many ultralight accidents and fatalities is the lack of a well defined training curriculum. You've got guys out there who fly them specifically because you don't need a checkride or officially training of any kind. In that case it's not if but when.

Zane, while I agree whole heatedly with what you said, (I had a an instructor who taught unbelievably bad habits myself) I think that explains the ultralight crash rate, not necessarily the fatality rate.

Phil

AntiCub wrote:Zane, while I agree whole heatedly with what you said, (I had a an instructor who taught unbelievably bad habits myself) I think that explains the ultralight crash rate, not necessarily the fatality rate.

Phil

I suppose you're right. The fatality rate may speak more about the limited protection offered by the ultralight airframe. Although, it may speak about the type of accidents happening also...stall/spin, etc, although that doesn't necessarily distinguish them from their GA brethren.