Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site orca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!orca!graham
From: graham@orca.UUCP (Graham Bromley)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: is general aviation safe? (long)
Message-ID: <1243@orca.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 12:35:20 EST
Article-I.D.: orca.1243
Posted: Thu Dec 13 12:35:20 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Dec-84 02:07:17 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 46


    Having thought about learning to fly for a few years,
I've sometimes wondered whether general aviation is reasonably
safe or really quite dangerous. The three main issues seem to
be:
    1.  The mechanical reliability of the aircraft.
    2.  The ability of the average pilot to cope with a real
        emergency (landing on trees, control surface failure etc.
        as has been dicussed recently).
    3.  The survivability of a typical crash.
	
    For 1., I have the impression that the typical light plane
e.g. a 152 or 172 is pretty reliable mechanically, but I wonder
how well the typical airplane is maintained. I'd hate to think
a mechanic hadn't done something quite right in a plane I was
flying. Quite a few disasters with big jets have been caused by
sloppy maintenance. Someone on the net recently mentioned a
pilot who had one flap drop while he was flying, and this
occurred again after it was "fixed". That kind of thing sounds
very scary to me. (I'm amazed it was controllable). So: how
reliable and how well maintained is the average airplane?
    For 2., well everyone likes to think they are the best and
could handle just anything. It's the same on the roads. However
we who realize that most of us must by definition be of about
average ability need to be more realistic. Is the average 
lightplane pilot adequately trained to cope with serious,
possibly multiple emergencies the way military and airline 
jocks presumably are? Surely it would cost too much, and 
besides you would need those very expensive simulators. Sure,
some guys can handle their control surfaces locking up while
flying at 50 feet inverted. But how many times do you hear of 
a fatal accident involving something as simple as engine failure in 
a single? They just keep hauling back on the stick (or wheel) 
'till they run out of knots,  then down they go (real steep).
So: has the average pilot really been trained to cope?
    For 3., I read a lengthy article in the Wall Street Journal
(of all places) on this subject a while back. It said that
the average lightplane is flimsy at best, having very little
in the way of an impact resistant cabin. Obviously you can't
expect to survive hitting the side of a mountain at 150kt,
but do the designers of these airplanes really consider 
survivability? Apparently Beechcraft once built a twin to 
survive almost anything, but the plane wasn't a success. Too 
heavy I would guess.
    Any comments guys? I'd be interested to hear from all
you experienced pilots out there.