Hello,Recently (over the last year or so) there has been a change in the way safety in general aviation has been portrayed and I am curious about your opinions on this.
In the past, general avaiation was portrayed as safer than driving in your car (the old adage that the most dangerous part of the flight is the drive to and from the airport).
I recall John King and others heading the change that flying is risky, but that it is a controllable risk. He mentioned that by down playing the risks, new pilots can have a false sense of security.
To that point I agree; I have never thought of flying as "safe" any more than I think getting in my car to drive to work is "safe". Both have risks that if unheeded can have dire consequences.
As it has evolved, it seems now that in most magazines about flying the bias towards risk (death and mayhem) has swung too far in that direction. After reading a few issues I doubt a pilot-wannabe would consider starting.
Just curious what you see from your vantage point.
Dave Hamblin
(formerly DaveH on old site!)
Hello Dave...First off.. Thank you for being the first participant in the new "Aviation Safety Forum" here on FlightAdventures.com.
You pose an interesting question regarding media attitude toward general aviation safety.... one I will try my best to address.
Having spent 41 years in many facets of air carrier, general aviation and aircraft manufacturing and the past several years as an aviation safety consultant I too have seen several 'swings' in how the media, our industry itself as well as the non-aviation public has portrayed and viewed aviation safety as a whole.
For years many general and air carrier aviation entities more or less "sold" (or "defended" so to speak) aviation as being safer than vehicle ground travel. From a G/A standpoint this position was and still is valid based on the fundamental basis of "passenger miles" traveled. For example in the year 2000 the G/A accident rate was the lowest since 1938 when accident statistic data bases were first started. This rate continues a downward trend that started in 1994. (As an interesting sidelight... 2002 was the safest year on record for the U.S. air carrier industry.... which had an astonishing ZERO U.S. fatality record for the year.)
Yet as the 2000 NALL Report (an annual Aviation Safety Analytical Report provided by AOPA) indicated.... in spite of continued decline in the GA accident rate... GA pilots still are responsible for many accidents that would appear to defy logic. Yet one must realize that GA aviation not only encompasses private pleasure flying and corporate aviation... but also, law enforcement, forest fire/aerial application and other types of flight activities having enhanced operational risks. I addition these operations utilize pilots of every conceivable level and combination of expertise, experience and skill. In addition the safety and success of many types GA operations, each of which is an unique event, rely on the training, wisdom, competence, judgment and individual skill level of the PIC.
Whereas air carrier operations are mission specific activities conducted with fully equipped transport category A/C flown by highly trained/qualified pilots flying under the control of extremely well managed corporate infrastructures that are constantly monitored by FAA.
Yet every time there is a significant GA A/C accident involving multiple fatalities or fatalities of high visibility celebrities/politicians, etc.... the media kicks into a feeding frenzy usually accompanied with lots of speculation in absence of facts. Unfortunately even some of our "aviation trade journals" have been guilty of this same speculation and opinionation disease.
So how "safe" is GA aviation? You hit the nail on the head when you said that both aviation and vehicle transportation have risks. Indeed they do... the accident/fatality rate for both verify that! Being "safe" is often misconstrued as being free from risk which just isn't so. In a 1972 transportation related decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled... "Safe is not the equivalent of risk free".
Our GA and air carrier industries alike continue to expended an enormous amount of time, money and energy in corporate and public aviation safety programs... such as the FAA's long standing General Aviation Safety Program ... all designed to educate and encourage flight safety. These education programs along with improved aircraft and enhanced technology are working as evidenced by declining accident rates. But as long as we operate machines made and flown by the fallible human, regardless of how well educated or experienced..... aviation will gradually become safer and safer..... but as the Supreme Court indicated.... "not free of risk".
With this in mind I personally feel that the best way to address this subject with the public as well as wannabe pilots.... is through education based on the realistic facts and statistics of past, present and futuristic trends in flight safety. The public and potential pilots need to be better and accurately educated on the art of "risk assessment" when it comes to determining individual "comfort levels" concerning aviation safety.... be they a passenger on a 747 or a drooling youngster chomping at the bit to take that first flight lesson. We have the data, we have the ability and we have the resources to intelligently and effectively educate on risk assessment ... now all we need is effectively implement the process. And this process is the responsibility of the industry as a whole... not just FAA, NTSB... most certainly not the "media".... a process that in my opinion is long over due!!!!
Dave I hope I have shed a thought or two on your question and hopefully provided some insight from the safety industry point of view.
Thanks again for your concerns on this subject and for participating in the FlightAdventures..."Aviation Safety Forum"
Kindest regards,
Pat Duncan
Hi guys:You know, I'm not as concerned about the aviation media's slant on GA safety. My feeling is that new pilots should know the risks that exist. I've always been of the opinion that a great pilot is a knowledgeable pilot. The more you know, the better you'll be able to fly. Hiding facts for marketing sake won't benefit anyone in the long run. So I think the change is a good one.
What does concern me, however, is how aviation is portrayed in the mainstream non-flying public. The ad in Time magazine that showed a picture of a GA aircraft in front of a nuclear plant cooling tower with the caption "Remember when only environmentalists would have been alarmed by this photo? Join the conversation." is a good example that makes me sick to my stomach when I think about how irresponsible that ad was.
And as Pat mentioned, the "high visibility" accidents plastered in the media without any counterpoint of the benefits of GA is a huge problem. Public perception of GA has never been lower than it is today, IMHO. The media is looking to shock people to get people to watch/read. I suppose the media heads think that good news is just too boring for Joe Mainstream. Sad...
Ben
-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Ben Chiu
-OLR.PL v1.80-