General Aviation Needs an Aggressive Safety Goal

It's time for the FAA to set an aggressive goal, comparable to the ones they set for airliners, for reducing the general aviation fatal accident rate. Without one, senseless accidents will continue, needless lives will be lost, and potential new pilots will be scared away.

The general aviation safety record has improved over the years due to the leadership and collaborative efforts of the FAA, the AOPA Air Safety Foundation (ASF) and other organizations, and more can be done. From 1997 through 2006, the fatal accident rate declined from 1.36 to 1.26 accidents per 100,000 hours flown, a 7.4% decrease per the ASF's 2007 Nall Report, an authoritative summary of GA accident data. The number of fatal general aviation accidents declined by 5% in 2007, though this figure is directly affected by year-to-year variations in the number of hours flown. Historically, much of the decline in the number of fatal accidents is directly attributable to...

...a decrease in the total number of hours flown, rather than a decline in the underlying accident rate. Thus measuring the rate of accidents, as the FAA does for commercial aviation, gives a more accurate picture of the likelihood of an accident occurring, versus counting the number of accidents.

However, the current FAA performance measure for general aviation is still the number of fatal accidents per year. This figure is one of many measures on the FAA’s performance report used to determine whether the FAA is meeting its goals, and it influences how much employees are paid. The FAA performance target for 2008 allows the number of general aviation fatal accidents to increase by 3%, from 314 accidents in 2007 to 325 accidents in 2008, and still allow the FAA to have a “green” passing grade on their scorecard. By contrast, their performance target for commercial aviation is to cut the rate of airline fatalities by 50% by 2025. Yet, there is no long-term goal for reducing general aviation accidents.

Background
In recent years, general aviation averaged over 300 fatal accidents per year, resulting in around 600 deaths per year. This is very high compared to air carrier aviation fatalities, which numbered 40 in 2005. By comparison, the NTSB reports that annually railroads account for over 700 fatalities, boating accidents claim over 800 lives, and car accidents kill over 40,000 people. Nonetheless, while the public shows little reticence to board a boat or drive a car, they tend to view small planes as unsafe

In April 1998, then FAA Administrator Jane Garvey announced, as part of the FAA’s Safer Skies Initiative, goals for reducing general aviation and commercial aviation accidents. The target for general aviation was to reduce the number of fatal accidents from 400 to 350, a 12.5% reduction over ten years. A June, 2000 Government Accounting Office report said that this goal did "not encourage aggressive steps to decrease general aviation accidents." By contrast, the goal for commercial aviation was aggressive. It was to reduce the fatal accident rate by 80% over ten years, compared to a baseline measurement of accident data from the years 1996 to 1998.

To be fair, the FAA’s current performance target of 325 fatal accidents for 2008 is high partially because of the larger than expected decline in the number of accidents in 2007. Still, the goal should be revised downward. Also, the FAA is planning to change their general aviation performance target from the number of fatal accidents to the rate of fatal accidents, and to set a long-term goal for reducing accidents. According to the FAA’s FY 2008 Performance Target for General Aviation Fatal Accidents, the FAA hasn’t used a rate measure since that requires an accurate measure of the number of general aviation hours flown, and in the past that voluntary survey data was considered unreliable. However, it says that “…a survey was completed in FY 2004 that, for the first time, creates a statistically valid report of general aviation activity that the GA community agrees on. The next step is to create the baseline and work with the GA community on a reasonable target for the rate.” The 2008-2012 FAA Flight Plan says regarding general aviation fatal accidents that “The targets for FY 2009-2012 are under development.” A year earlier, the 2007-2011 FAA Flight Plan said that “The targets for FY 2010-2011 are under development."

Success in Commercial Aviation
While the general aviation accident picture is hazy, commercial aviation results are clear with unlimited visibility. Ten years ago, when the FAA set a goal to reduce the rate of commercial aviation fatalities by 80% by the year 2007, few thought it was possible. In fact, the goal wasn’t reached, but to the surprise of many however, they did reduce the commercial aviation fatality rate by more than 60%.

Not content to rest on their laurels, the FAA is poised to repeat this success with their new goal of reducing the rate of commercial fatalities 50% by 2025. Obviously, they know that the higher one sets the bar, the more that is achieved. Even if the original goal isn’t reached, far more is achieved than if a lower, “more realistic” goal were set.

The Need for New General Aviation Safety Goals
I urge the FAA to immediately set new general aviation accident performance targets for 2008 and 2009. In private industry, it would be inconceivable to set targets and pay bonuses for declining sales or decreasing profits. Likewise, the FAA needs a goal for decreasing, not increasing general aviation accidents in the next two years.

The FAA should repeat history and set another aggressive goal, but this time for general aviation safety. I propose a goal of reducing the general aviation fatal accident rate by 50% by the year 2020. With a higher bar, the FAA, industry, and other organizations will work even harder to find innovative new ways of achieving the goal.

Unfortunately, there are no easy fixes or silver bullets for attaining this goal. However, here are a few ideas.

1) Educate pilots on the greater risks involved in night flying. Less than 5% of flying is at night, yet 21% of fatal accidents are at night.

2) Identify unique regional risk factors and communicate them to airmen in each region, as I proposed to FAA Administrator Blakey. For example, my analysis of fatal accidents from 1993 through 2004 for the San Francisco Bay area showed that the fatal accident rate at night was 2.5 times the national average and VFR-into-IMC accidents occurred at a rate 6 times the national average.

3) For the Private Pilot checkride, modify the test criteria (the FAA’s Private Practical Test Standard) to include knowledge of somatogravic illusion and black hole approaches, which are major contributors to night accidents. Test for knowledge of local accident risk factors and require a discussion of the personal minimums the new pilot will use after attaining his or her certificate.

4) Develop an online, interactive risk management tool for pilots to enter a profile of their experience, location, and proposed trip information to generate a risk assessment and recommendations.

5) Develop a hotline pilots can call to talk with a flight instructor to evaluate risk prior to a flight.

6) Consider adding knowledge requirements in accident risk factors to the flight instructor rating.

7) Add Global Forecast System (GFS) charts to the www.aviationweather.gov website and educate pilots on how to interpret these charts to avoid icing conditions.

8) Apply human factors analysis to current FAA procedures governing aircraft movements on the ground and in the air. For example, pilots sometimes confuse the ATC instructions “Hold Short” and “Position and Hold” since they both contain the word “Hold.” In some countries, the latter instruction has been replaced with “Line up and Wait” to avoid confusion.

Achieving a 50% reduction in the general aviation fatal accident rate isn’t easy and will be harder than similar reductions in commercial aviation. However, if we achieve only a 40% reduction, we’ll save several thousand lives. To not set aggressive short and long-term goals is unconscionable when so many lives are at stake.

Comments

[Ron Carmichael]

Max,
I read your recommendations for improving our General Aviation Safety and I say BRAVO!!!! These are the kind of suggestions that all CFIs, the FAA, and pilots in general should support. Your interest and ACTIVE support of increased aviation safety is so vital to the survival of General Aviation - since it helps mitigate the perception that flying "little" airplanes is unsafe - even if done using common sense and adequate on-going training and currency.

Thanks for all you do!!

[PlasticPilot]

Hi Max,

I feel a bit mixed about your proposals 4 and 5, because they could lead pilots to rely on this only, and no longer assess safety by themselves.

On the other hand, when in doubt, there is often an instructor or more experienced pilot available locally to help. And if not... why not just cancel the flight, or divert later if you decided to launch anyway ?

This is what airmanship is about, and one must may be stress this out in training...

Thanks for all your work

[Don Fairbanks]

Your article was great, but like most people you failed to address the minimum abilities a new flight instructor brings to the table. Many are licensed to teach, with minimums that are far below instructing in other endovers. To instruct a person should have perhaps a thousand hours of flying in the real world before trying to pass on skills they have not mastered. I have been instructing for over 60 years in airplanes and helicopters, and see a progressive decline in flight skills. Many are learning the words associated with flight but not the skills. Writtens seem to have more weight than the polishing of flight skills.

[PatrickH]

Max,

You certainly make some interesting points, however, I believe that the "action" part of your argument is basically flawed. The basic problem is not a lack of laws, or regulations with the FAA... it is pilots who ignore training, and don't use personal self-examination, training, and who are lulled into a sense that everything's ok, because they are within the laws. There's an old saying that Men must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants. Basically, it doesn't matter how many laws the FAA makes (which only make it harder for good pilots to be compliant), some folks will still go off into the wild blue yonder without a good briefing, or enough common sense to avoid the problems they will encounter. Then there's the case of experienced pilots like Crossfield who died earlier this year, who just run into something that was waaay stronger than he could handle, despite his level of experience. The government has never been able to force personal responsibility and never will, unless they achieve absolute tyranny. Sure, the proposals MIGHT lead to a drop in accidents, but for instance, the guys who would call the proposed hotline are not the one's I'm worried about. I suspect that the ones who would use the hotline, are already making use of available resources.
The ones I'm worried about are the ones who are not being personally responsible, who are under pressure to do something in a hurry, or just have a who cares attitude. This is already covered by the regs, and is ultimately still going to be a problem, no matter how much money we spend on education, or legislation, and another layer of bureaucracy.

[PatrickH]

One more point... I do think that a lot of the things mentioned above would be good things for more instructors to implement in their training.

[Doug Stewart]

Max,
It's wonderful to see you take this pro-active stand for the good of all general aviation pilots! It is untenable to have our leaders in government and industry take the complacent attitude of allowing for an increase in the fatal accident rate, while they pat themselves on their backs.
What general aviation needs, is people like you, with your knowledge, experience and pro-active abilities to take the leadership role in making general aviation a safer place for all of us.
Your mission is admirable and you have my gratitude!!!

[Dave]

Max, I read your article in today's 12/31/07 "Propwash" and commend some of your well thought out fixes that are needed. I am not a pilot but, working in commercial aviation. I still read a great deal about GA with an interest in understanding the carnage seen day after day in Aviation. I just am not comfortable flying in anything other than commercial since I worked in GA Maintenance a number of years. From pilots to aircraft too much lack of consistency to be trusted yet. Keep up the good work!

[Wiliam Knecht]

(Note: The comments below are those of the author, not the FAA)

Hi, Max,

As one of the FAA's research scientists whose exact job it is to try to lower the GA accident rate, I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm. One thing you might want to seriously consider, though, is the notion that it's hard to "legislate out stupidity." All I mean is that laws can never fully substitute for good judgment. It's also a challenge to expect that the average GA pilot's skill, experience, and equipment will ever come up to the standards of commercial air carrier pilots. So, I guess IMHO, I tend to side with the comments made by Don Fairbanks above. The emphasis should be on what we call "conservative confidence calibration"--pilot decision making that tends, if anything, to err on the side of caution, and that takes into full consideration each individual's level of training, experience, personal health, and equipment, all within the context of the specifics of each individual flight. It's doing an excellent pre-flight briefing, plus thinking ahead for alternatives if things go bad enroute. And this approach to flying has to be taught and practiced, not just legislated.

I do appreciate your getting us all thinking, though, and I'll mention your remarks to my sponsor in Washington.

William Knecht, Ph.D.
Engineering Research Psychologist
FAA, Oklahoma City

[Dan Burkett]

Max,

I appreciated your suggestions on how to better the GA accident rate. However, I think you have overlooked one major issue: motivation. As Mr. Knecht pointed out, we cannot "legislate out stupidity", but we can coax with both a carrot and a stick. The current FAA enforcement procedures provide the stick but there is no carrot. I believe that the Wings program was intended to be the carrot, but at this time I don't believe it meets the need. I would suggest that just as NAFI currently has a Master CFI program, the industry (read GAMA /AOPA /EAA /insurance companies) and FAA institute a Master Pilot program. To achieve the status, one must achieve advancements in knowledge as displayed by online testing at secured centers and no less than yearly skill proficiency tests. The essential part would need to be insurance discounts and the significant personal status of becoming a Master Pilot.