10 dead in 42 days
 

There seems to have been a high incidence of general aviationtragedies in Australia over the past few weeks and I for one am wonderingwhy. Is it a seasonal trend, whether thatbe occupational such as fire-bombing or perhaps climatic – the pleasant weatherconditions seeing more private aircraft take to the skies or was there someother explanation. A search of accidentinvestigation reports on the ATSB website provided the following informationbut no obvious explanation. However Inoted a higher accident occurrence rate within the private sector.

Should we be concerned that in the past 42 days, inAustralia, there have been 10 lives lost in a total of 8 separate aviationaccidents involving VH registered aircraft? Or that in the period 18/10/13 – 25/10/13 (8 days) there were fiveaviation tragedies resulting in six lives lost.

Should we be further concerned that of those lives lost,only two were lost through direct involvement in dangerous occupations, i.e. – cropdusting (WA – VH-JAY Ayres Corp S2R Thrush) and firebombing (NSW – VH-TZJ - PZLWARSZAWA-OKECIE M-18A Dromader).

A further three of the accidents involved amateur builtaircraft (WA – VH-ALP Lancair Legacy, NSW – VH-CTE Rand Robinson KR-2, VIC –VH-ICZ Lancair Legacy), with a total of four lives lost.

Another of the accidents involved flight training operationswith one life lost (VIC- VH-AUT Cessna 182R).

While the remaining two accidents and three lives lost wereprivate operations (VIC – VH-KKM Cessna 182, QLD – VH-WAV Cessna 206G).

To give some comparison, in the same period in the previousyear (15/09/12 – 25/10/12) there were only two fatal accidents (VH-UXG andVH-LLF), considerably less than this year. Sadly however, the loss of life was high; VH-UXG claimed 6 lives, whilstVH-LLF was a single fatality.

State by State sees Victoria having the highest accidentrate for the period, with a total of three separate accidents and a loss offour lives. NSW and WA have both had two single fatal accidents each, acombined total of four lives lost. WhilstQld has only had a single accident, it resulted in a double fatality. South Australia, NT, Tasmania and the ACT didnot record any fatalities in that period.

The year-to-date sees a National total of 15 separate fatal aviationaccidents with 21 lives lost. Thatequates to a life lost every 14 days. Togive some perspective, if each of the victims of these accidents had twochildren, potentially, this year, 42 children of aviation families would havelost a parent, a staggering prospect.

I believe we should be concerned... very concerned. What do you believe?

Coincidental spikes in data and over time this will average out to the norm.

I think you are over-thinking it far too much. :rolleyes:

Wow!!. let me see.. We have:
- a newly registered poster
- bad initial spelling, punctuation and syntax, that morphs into articulate writing.
- narrow use of well researched statistics on a very newsworthy topic.

I call Journalist on the prowl, trying to get some Pprune "pilots say" quotes.

Let me imagine the headline. "Ban private flying before a school is hit"
"Are Pilots just outlaw sky Bikies?"
Well here are some facts for you:
Aviation is a form of transport. All forms of transport have an element of danger associated with them. Aircraft accidents are far more likely to be fatal due to the high speeds they operate with. All accidents are preventable, however about 27 people will die every year from aircraft crashes, 1000 will die from road accidents, and 20 will die from falling off horses. As we are humans, I can't see this changing much.

The problem is that, in absence of an accident investigatory body with adequate resources and sufficient corporate competence and integrity to investigate these accidents properly and provide a useful report, we’ll never know.

It might be, as jabba suggests, just a random spike in the usual ways in which these tragedies occur. Or there could be a steady decline in the standard of airmanship. Or there could be a steady decline in airworthiness standards. Or all of the above or none of the above. Or...

We’ll never know.

Coincidentally, I laughed like a drain when I heard some underling from ATSB comment, in respect of the Ballarat Lancair accident, that the aircraft was not required to carry on-board recording devices that would have been helpful in determining the causes, or ruling out the causes, of the accident. Obviously the underling was living under a rock during the entirety of the ATSB’s ‘investigation’ of the ditching of NGA, and was in the toilet at the time Mr Dolan’s ‘beyond Reason’ Memo came out.

Yes, sinbinned: We should be very concerned. Someone should investigate the accident investigator. :ok:

There's always peeks & troughs in any form of transport accidents, auto accidents/deaths go thru the roof when there's public holidays just by sheer numbers of movements on the road so any increase in air movements due perhaps good weather or increased activities in other flying sectors will most likely increase the rate of accidents.

This is a sad time for aviators alike & their families.



Wmk2

Journo lololol hardly
 

Beechking Im not a Journalist. As for the syntax, I don't know what happened there, it wasn't typed that way. I am just an average person within aviation who is concerned that their colleagues are dying, nothing more, nothing less.

Cream puff, thank you for a constructive answer, and I have to agree with you.

Would be interesting to compare the accident rate of the five years 1975-1980, (ie what was probably the golden age of GA in Oz), with the last five years 2009-2013.

I would be surprised if it doesn't show an increase in the GA accident rate, with a corresponding increase in the fatality rate. :eek:

Just my perception of the last 40 years!

Dr :8

How many people have died on our roads in the last 42 days? I think even the national Xmas road toll is higher than that. Just coincidence, I don't think it's a trend

Alpha


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

Medical accidents.

That's a real eye opener.

Accidents - ATSB data
 

As referred to by the ferryman:

http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1382856806

from ABS:

And Motor cars:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]=gif

So far this year 15 people have been killed on Quad Bikes in Australia, a total of 19 in 2012 .... Living is a dangerous thing sometimes so we take the best steps we can to stay alive including, appropriate safety measures, education, and effective communication of the risks involved. Fly safe everyone.

I ask my non aviator friends if they have their car brakes serviced every 100 hours of driving. They obviously don't, but they still depend on them as a critical safety device every intersection.

I think there is too much maintenance on aircraft. Humans are willing to wear any risks associated with something if the utility is high enough.

-Living in Latrobe Valley next to a smoke factory [tick]
-Accepting a giant liquid chemical storage facility near major populations [tick]
-Standing room + No seatbelts on a train/bus [tick]
-Smelling that nice benzene, cancer-causing fumes at petrol stations [tick]

Ok the list is endless, yet the utility/safety/legislation is unbalanced with aviation. I'd like to see a study pair up flying experience/currency improving safety against lesser maintenance standards, like getting rid of TBO's and doing maintenance by inspection (oil analysis, etc). On a tangent, what kind of stupid idea is it pulling a new engine to pieces after ~2000hrs, then adding that rebuild risk to what could have otherwise been a nice working engine for another 2000hrs+.

My hypothesis would be that making aviation cheaper, thus encouraging more flying and experience would be equally as safe per million hours flown. And if not, divide by a utility score so if the productivity and usefulness increase from more flying rates, then we should be willing to accept the same safety standards as a motor vehicle, public bus or train in GA.

Also look after your body and stop having heart attacks.

Interesting points Shagpile but will never change, if anything will get more restrictive. Whenever a group (LAME's) have vested interests they will protect them, fiercely.

Ranga I think you are right.

What I want to know is how we got to this point. I can accept the fare-paying public are after minimal risk (read: what they perceive as no risk). But GA is largely pilot + 0-3, like a car. Pretty much same profile of pax (friends, family).

Yet somehow over these years the standards too have become 5x higher than cars.

What I want to know is why the public require (at our expense and private enjoyment) that light aircraft confirm to a very high set of standards, higher than any other form of transportation when the risk to general public is so tiny.

Life is guaranteed to end in death.

OK Sinbinned, please accept my apologies. My family have been on the receiving end from gutter level journalism after an aviation tragedy, and it leaves a very sour taste. I see that you have raised a valid concern, and I incorrectly assumed you to be a journalist. I also meant no disrespect with the grammatical structure of the post, as I live in a very large glass house :uhoh:

I think we get/got to this point by trying to rule make for the lowest common denominator. It's the easiest way and allows those who rule make to be seen to be doing something. This then benefits the vested interests.