I was cleaning out my desk today and found a summary of 98 NTSB accident reports that I had summarized a few years ago for C-170 accidents in Alaska from 1983-1999. (I must have had too much time on my hands then) Instead of throwing it out, I thought I would share. These are my summaries of the primary cause, there usually are accompanying factors involved. Enjoy
Loss of Directional control (ground loop) landing/takeoff = 30
General Pilot Error (not easy to define or one primary factor) = 20
Improper or poor choice of landing area = 19
Forced landing due to in flight mechanical breakdown = 8
Broken axles/gear legs/other gear-brake malfunctions = 6
Stall-Spin low and slow stuff = 4
Continued flight from VMC to IMC = 4
Precautionary Landing Accident = 3
Loose or broken seat latches causing seat to move = 2
Consumption of alcohol = 1
Other = 1
So, except for the broken axles and other mechanical failures, (85.7% of the time) they say it's the pilot's fault. Is that right?
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
Well I'm not making hard value judgements on the numbers, it's just the way I interpreted them. For example a broken seat latch which causes the pilot to slide away from the controls on takeoff and causes loss of directional control and a subsequent ground loop would be classified as? 1) Pilot error for not preflighting the seat latch? 2) A mechanical failure? But in general the numbers correlate to lots of pilot error.
The 2002 Nall report on Aviation Safety on the AOPA web site cites the overall national percentages as:
Pilot Error = 73%
Mechanicals/Maintenance = 15.5%
Other = 9.6
Unknown = 2%
So if you like these statistics is shows that Alaskan C-170 pilots during the period of 1983-1999 were worse than the national average at almost 86% pilot error vs. 73% for all GA nationwide. Take note that almost 19% of the accidents were "Poor choice of landing area". I would bet that this number is WAY higher than the lower 48! It could help explain why our insurance premiums are DOUBLE that of the lower 48.
I was being somewhat sarcastic. It roils me to hear people in their Monday nite quarterback chairs say it was "pilot error".
I subscribe t the theory that pilots don't deliberately go flying in order to crash. (Being serious here, no jokes about terrorists, OK?)
The "pilot error" had to be caused by some other contributing or misleading factor. Bad seat latch design? Or lack of proper inspection by the mechanic? Training failure? (How many pilots know how to properly inspect a seat latch?)
Imagined News Story: Pilots blamed for crash into mountainside!
Real scenario: The Company training program failed to train pilots in shortcomings of the flight/navigation computer software logic when "Direct to FAF" is selected.
I believe that true "Pilot error" is a much smaller occasion than widely believed, and It troubles me that the dead pilot, unable to defend himself or explain his actions, is so easily blamed.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
Don't forget these are Alaska Statistics where 90% of the 86% pilot error's, occured between August and November! Trying to get hunters in/out of bush strips, pushed by tight schedules between storms, moose stalling, and etc.. Some pilot error crashes go unreported. No pilot goes out to intentionally kill himself, but Alaskan Pilots find themselves in tight situations quiet often. Because of my Alaskan perspective I humbly disagree with George:) I have had too many close friends & coworkers that didn't get out of those jams. It's always obvious how they messed up! Most of us living can tell you how pilot error should have gotten us at one time or 12 others! Alaska shouldn't be considered General Aviation though! Randal, do you still have that story of the precautionary landing, where the owner torched his 170?
JJH55 wrote:Ive been racking my brain on what type of accident would fall under the "Precautionary" Landing Accident line. Door opening in flight?
JJH55
How about if you were scud running and things get worse as you get closer to your destination but you're running low on gas and can't turn around and make it back to your point of departure so you land on a marginal sand bar or ridge or something and bend the plane but walk away. This as opposed to a "get there or die trying" attitude where you keep pushing the scud running and end up going into IMC at low altitude where your chances of having a "happy ending" go way down. Anyway, that's my interpretation of a precautionary landing.
I'm 1000 percent with you Bruce!
Randal had sent me a story of a 170 pilot where that's exactly what was done trying to get through one of the passes. He had to land and tore out a gear and I think part of the wing. He then made the proper financial decision to light her up!
OK, now that I shot my mouth off, I see in yesterday's paper where Mr Greene crashed his PA-15 into the Susitna Valley after his Controls broke. OK George, you're one up! Course if you get ahead much because of mechanical failure, I'm going to go back and find the "Is it safer to fly or drive" debate!
Thanks N3243A, you peaked my curiosity so I did a quick Google search for Precautionary Landing Accident which yielded tons of similar examples to what you describe. To paraphrase the definition, "A controlled landing/crash executed to avoid an uncontrolled landing/crash". Examples: low fuel, degrading weather, extreme aircraft vibration, incapacitation of pilot, darkness to name a few....
JJH55
This is the report Dave was talking about.
On September 25, 2003, about 1400 Alaska daylight time, a tundra tire-equipped Cessna 170A airplane, N9006A, sustained substantial damage when the right main landing gear strut collapsed during the landing roll at a remote area, about 57 miles west-southwest of Skwentna, Alaska. The airplane was being operated as a visual flight rules (VFR) local area personal flight under Title 14, CFR Part 91, when the accident occurred. The airplane was operated by the pilot. The commercial certificated pilot, the sole occupant, was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed. No flight plan was filed, nor was one required.
During a telephone conversation with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge (IIC), on September 30, the pilot reported that he landed toward the east on a gravel site in an area known as Hellsgate. The landing area was oriented east/west, and was about 1,000 feet long, and 30 feet wide. The pilot said that during the landing roll, the airplane's right main landing gear suddenly collapsed. As the airplane slid on the gravel, the right gear strut was torn out of the fuselage, and the airplane received additional damage to the fuselage and right wing. After the accident, the pilot said he examined the right gear strut, and discovered the right axle and wheel assembly were missing from the outboard end of the gear strut. After a search, the pilot located the wheel assembly and discovered that the nuts utilized to secure the attaching axle bolts to the gear strut, were stripped from their respective bolts.
The pilot said he decided to wait until the next day, September 26, before activating his airplane's emergency locator transmitter. He further said he decided to destroy his airplane by setting it on fire, as it would have been economically unfeasible to pay for repairs and helicopter transportation charges to remove the airplane from its remote location.
Search personnel located the accident site on September 26, and alerted a friend of the pilot's, who picked up the pilot on September 27. According to search personnel, the accident site was located along the South Fork of the Kuskokwim River, at Ptarmigan Pass, in the Alaska Mountain Range. The airplane was observed by search personnel as having burned.
gahorn wrote:I was being somewhat sarcastic. It roils me to hear people in their Monday nite quarterback chairs say it was "pilot error".
I subscribe t the theory that pilots don't deliberately go flying in order to crash. (Being serious here, no jokes about terrorists, OK?)
The "pilot error" had to be caused by some other contributing or misleading factor. Bad seat latch design? Or lack of proper inspection by the mechanic? Training failure? (How many pilots know how to properly inspect a seat latch?)
Imagined News Story: Pilots blamed for crash into mountainside!
Real scenario: The Company training program failed to train pilots in shortcomings of the flight/navigation computer software logic when "Direct to FAF" is selected.
I believe that true "Pilot error" is a much smaller occasion than widely believed, and It troubles me that the dead pilot, unable to defend himself or explain his actions, is so easily blamed.
Yeah! It can't be the pilot's fault - someone was probably holding a gun to their head and made them get in the plane and fly off under those conditions. Sort of like getting fined for tempting a car thief by leaving your keys in your car here in the metroplex. Too much trouble (read expensive) to go after the thieves, so let's go after the drivers, they have money. Accountability, Accountability, Accountability!
Three pilots that I know have been killed in airplane wrecks in the past few years. One was doing low level maneuvering/acro. Another ran out of gas in the mountains. The third flew up a box canyon.
Not to speak ill of the dead,God rest their souls,but all three wrecks could be considered pilot error accidents. Not so much errors in piloting skills,but exercising poor judgement. I've exercised poor piloting judgement myself on many occasions,as I'm sure most of us have (if we care to admit it),but luckily none of those situations turned sour. I've been lucky--these other pilots' luck just happened to run out at the wriong time.
I can recall several aircraft mishaps here at my home airport,including one fatality. All of them were pilot error situations also,ranging from several gear-up landings,several severe ground-loops,and a departure stall/spin.
I could have been a statistic myself when I suffered a broken connecting rod in-flight a few years ago. I was out over the salt water at about 1700 feet. A little lower,or a little farther off-shore,and I mighta had to ditch. People don't usually last too long in the water around here (pacific northwest)--it is COLD! Sometimes thay don't even make it out of the aircraft.
Same kinda thing flying over the mountains. Going from Darrington to Stehekin across the Cascades,for example,there's about 40 miles of roadless mountainous wilderness. If the engine quits at 10,000 feet, you can glide for about 15 miles til you arrive at sea level--plenty safe you say? Trouble is,the peaks along the route are from 6500 to 9000 feet--doubtful you could make it out to civilization,you'd probably hit a mountain or at best be forced to fly between mountains until you crashed in a drainage. If you survive,even if you're unhurt,it's maybe 20 miles (GPS direct!) to civilization--more by foot.Lotsa people survive a wreck only to die of exposure.So an engine failure leads to a crash in the mountains & death--what was the cause,mechanical failure or poor judgement? You tell me.
Gonna climb down off my soapbox now.
Pilot error usually starts way before the engine fires up. Outside of those un-expected engine or (most) equipment failures, airplane wrecks are preventable! I have had only one in-flight engine failure. It happened at night, on take off, with two passengers. It turned out favorably but "LUCK" had it happen over the airport and my decision to get my plane back on the runway as quickly as possible led to a safe landing. Two or three more minutes into the flight before it swallowed the valve, ???? Who knows.
Eliminating any risk-taking from life is not the total answer but playing "Russian Roulette" is stupid and pointless, as is trying to out-smart Mr. Murphy with "dumb thinking". He will win more times than he loses!
Last edited by flyguy on Mon Mar 08, 2004 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
OLE GAR SEZ - 4 Boats, 4 Planes, 4 houses. I've got to quit collecting!
Instead of throwing it out, I thought I would share. These are my summaries of the primary cause, there usually are accompanying factors involved. Enjoy
