Hi,
It’s great to see this work being read and discussed!
Just to clear up a point, the data on page 17 and page 18 are correct. However, the data on page 17 (both in the text and the same data in the figure) relate to all occurrences (accidents, incidents, and ‘normal operations’), while the data on page 18 (text only) relate only to accidents. This is mentioned in a footnote on page 18 but obviously the way that the data have been presented is open to misinterpretation (much to my embarrassment as my background is in human factors :-)
To summarise the data, 12.1% of all VFR into IMC occurrences involved a fatality (a pretty amazing statistic), and 75.6% of all VFR into IMC accidents involved a fatality. I guess I would summarise that as being a double whammy. Not only does VFR into IMC have a high fatality rate overall, if it does result in an accident the stats look very bleak indeed.
One interesting thing to come out of the stats I think was that while almost all injuries to pilots or passengers occurred within the VFR into IMC group, the likelihood of the aircraft incurring some degree of damage was actually greatest for the precautionary landing group. That is discussed on the bottom of page 48 and the top of page 49. I’d be interested to have any feedback as to whether you think the suggested explanation sounds sensible or not.
Getting feedback is great! Thanks. It is very satisfying to see it generating discussion!
If anyone would like a printed copy of the report, or any other ATSB reports, just drop me an email.
Cheers, Richard.
ATSB