Thanks, Mick.

So where does it specify the number of fatalities in that accident?

There doesn't appear to be that level of drill down.

Remember that the USA has a population of over 341 million people compared to Australia’s 26.6 million. Over that 3 month time period, Australia’s 19 fatalities works out at 0.71 fatalities per million people, whereas the USA works out at 0.16 fatalities per million people. In other words, Australia had over 4 times as many fatalities per capita as the USA.

Over a quite specific, statistically unrepresentative period of just shy of three months.

I agree with Dick in part, not because of relative population, but in regard to relative Aviating population. The number of active pilots at all levels in the USA, the amount and density of traffic and airports, military airspace, weather phenomenon, elevation, and so on is far above Australias pitiful aviation scene. Australia should have an accident rate 1/10th that of the USA, but it does not. I do blame in part the rule set and abomination of what is Australias regulator and government decisions in relation to Aviation infrastructure. Safe skies are empty skies as far as Australia is concerned.

Mick.....the information is there.........accessing it is the trick.

Once you get to the Sea World (YSWD) blue bar under the destination aerodrome selection, right clicking the blue bar will present you with a --> goto Drill through --> Data Table and that provides information on the accident (eg., fatalities).

And the US has far worse weather conditions and higher terrain than Aus.
Yes. It is a short sampling period but still very strange.

The state of GA regulation
 

Couldn’t agree more, in so many ways the regulatory environment has cruelled what should be a healthy competitive GA industry. For example, we’ve lost hundreds of flying schools and experienced instructors due to the inordinately complex and expensive requirements of CASA. The uptake of IF ratings has built in disincentives such as not permitted with C5 and Basic C2 medicals.
Then there’s all the invented permissions for which CASA charges exorbitant fees and the wrong principle that the independent regulator should recoup a large proportion of its expenses from the industry.

No more strange than the US recording 99 fatalities from 66 accidents for the September quarter last year while, for the same period, we recorded 2 fatalities from 1 accident (3 from 2 if you include the G-2468 homebuilt gyrocopter crash).

For the decade 2010-2019 the US suffered an average GA fatality rate per year of 405, Australia 32.

So 1.19 per million people for the US, 1.20 for Australia.

Using flight hours flown for GA - USA 10.3 per million flight hours, Australia 8.5 per million (graph on page 12).

Surely it's the number (and type) of accidents that result in fatalities, rather than just the bald number of fatalities that is the important metric if you are trying to discuss (or imply) systemic failures?

Certainly that's a much more representative dataset. It would be interesting to see how the most recent few years look against that longer term trend.

I am getting a sense of déjà vu all over again with this topic. I'm sure it has been kicked around in the past with some discussion about the higher percentage of instrument rated pilots in the GA community in the US when compared to Australia.

As a thought would 1 October to 19 December being spring and summer in Australia mean more recreational flying happening vs the start of winter in the US, therefore more flying activity?

Accidents, didn’t count total number.
Doesn’t matter to the point I was trying to make.

Shouldn't need right clicking and 'drill throughs' or clearing of a bit of 'clutter' or whatever to get to the number of people whose lives were lost in a tragedy.

If the number of passengers killed in commercial helicopter operations in the last few years are statistically irrelevant, I wonder why we bother with ATSB. Just wait until the statisticians decides there's some statistically relevant trend and then arc up an investigation.

Yes, there's undoubtedly something to that hypothesis. On the flip side, there might be something to be said for the prevailing flying conditions during that period in either hemisphere; might the onset of the northern winter present more hazardous flying conditions than the onset of the southern summer?

Bottomline is that you need to careful when comparing statistics, very much more so when you start looking at smaller subsets.

Okey doke, thanks for that. I keep forgetting the right click trick for touch screens.

LB said:

I'm in total agreement LB. The ATSB Database is user-unfriendly and not at all straightforward to use or query, and I'm really not sure why it needed to be that way.

A statistician would say that each event is mutually exclusive, however that is definitely not the case when you’re talking about aircraft manufacturers and operators of said aircraft with pilots and moving parts.