2010 Nall report

[Flyfshr]

I was just browsing through the latest Nall accident report from AOPA and came across a few stats that I found worth sharing.

They report that taildraggers represented about 45% of all non-commercial accidents in single engine fixed landing gear aircraft. "Ok, fine" I thought, that's a big number for a tiny population but I would've anticipated some of that given the nature of flying into backcountry strips, aging aircraft, challenges in finding quality tailwheel instruction, etc. What I found to be interesting and somewhat disheartening was the share of accidents attributed to tailwheel aircraft in <i>maneuvering</i> flight. More than half (54% of 52) non-commercial single engine fixed gear accidents in maneuvering flight came from taildraggers - and they are by far the most lethal.

The analysis in the report says that these accidents included improper traffic pattern maneuvers, low altitude loss of control and stalls, aerobatics performed in unauthorized aircraft, among others. All of which, as best I can tell, have nothing to do with the fact that the wheel is in the back but what is going on in the pilot's head in terms of judgement.

For fear of being "preachy" I'll just say that this was a reminder for me that I accept operating at a certain level of risk by being a pilot (and a tailwheel pilot to boot) I don't want to make it any worse on myself (and our insurance rates) than it has to be.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/10nall.pdf

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I would think that some of the improper traffic pattern maneuvers, low altitude loss of control and stalls, that happen to be in a tail wheel aircraft, because it is this type of aircraft that is typically used in a "non standard" environment.

First we have to remember that percentages can be swayed anyway one wants. I wonder if a higher percent of aircraft in these accidents were yellow rather than blue?

I also take all statistics collected by government agencies with a grain of salt. A friend had an in flight fire. He landed an purposely steered of the runway. You will find his accident statistic under pilot loss of directional control, no mention of a fire. He was in a red airprlane, thank goodness it had a nose wheel.

[c170b53]

I mentioned this entry/ landing into a controlled airfield because I thought it to be unusual. On my way to our SD convention and entering a class"D" with parallel runways from the north west on a south east heading, the tower in operation cleared me to Right downwind 29 Left. Not thinking I responded with cleared Left downwind 29 Left. It didn't take long for a reply... No.. right downwind 29 left. I thought about it and didn't understand what I was being asked to do and I eventually responded with the correct reply but I was left wondering, what was the distance between the runways! I had never landed before at this field so I proceeded in, had to cut across the departure end of both runways, then the tower sensed my ill at ease feelings and directed me to land on 29 Right, to which I responded that I now preferred the original 29 Left. Its his airfield and he (the tower) has an idea as to what's happening but I think that there was some common sense missing because I felt I was not following the procedures and possibly not fully understanding the environment.
I'm just throwing this out there for some thoughts but the details as to what led to an accident and what may have happened, may not be included in the general stats.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Jim that is exactly my point. I'm afraid accidents are not categorized correctly . For example a guy who cuts his pattern short, stalls and crashes short of the runway. Was the cause of this accident improper pattern procedure and subsequently the pilots inability to maintain airspeed above stall the cause or was it the engine launching a cylinder two minutes prior.

The fact that more tail wheel aircraft have accidents because of pattern procedure or low altitude loss of control does not surprise me because they are used more in that environment than nose wheel aircraft. The environment and the purpose of the flight has much more to do with the accident than what end the wheel is on yet that is not recorded and considered.

[Flyfshr]

Bruce, I would hope that would be categorized in the mechanical failure section of the report and not "pilot error from improper preflight torque of the cylinder base nuts". I can't and won't vouch for the accuracy of NTSB reporting but it seems to me even if you throw half of them out as bogus you're still left with a pretty hefty number for the represented population.

Jim, thanks for sharing the story. I can definitely see how nuances to the accident chain will not make it to the final report. But I can't see how those types of situations would consistently skew this data in this way.

In an attempt to get some resolution to this I just downloaded the 2009 accident database from the NTSB website to see if I can at least see if there are trends with mountainous regions, unimproved airstrips, etc. I don't know about you guys but I think this is potentially meaty stuff that I can include in the tailwheel groundschool I'm putting together.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Listen, I have a pessimistic view of these reports and percentages. I've seen enough to question because I don't feel the whole story is captured or understood in lots of cases. Investigators don't investigate to the fullest every accident or incident. They can't, there isn't enough money or manpower. High profile accidents get lots of attention with lots of experienced investigators, simple ground loops with no injuries don't. Yet if a tailwheel aircraft is involved, that is where the check mark goes. There is no weight given to the investigation.

Look I think statistics are interesting don't get me wrong. But they are not the end all.

Yet unfortunately they are used as an end all. About two years ago there were congressional hearings held on the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service. You see 28 people died in connection with a EMS flight in 2008 and all of these flight were conducted under VFR rules. In that same year no one died in a Airline accident which we know are flown IFR. At the hearing it was asked of the HEMS industry why we don't conduct all HEMS flights under IFR like the Airlines since those simple statistics seemed to indicate IFR is safer.- I'm not making this up.

[Flyfshr]

I think those are two separate things though. Statistics give us very powerful tools that allow us to methodically direct limited resources to get the most impact. Sometimes they can even give us leading indicators to nip problems in the bud before they get out of hand. The fact that these powerful tools are sometimes in the hands of people who shouldn't wield them is a problem, that's for sure. Which is why I believe in being self analytical to be self governing whenever possible.

If the inputs are inaccurate then no matter how skilled the analysts are they would be led down the wrong path. But I think the responsible thing to do would be to give it it's due diligence and at least get an understanding of what are the underlying causes. I look at it as like a popped circuit breaker, could've been just a bad breaker or it could be a shorted radio trying to set the panel on fire. So then the question is how many times am I comfortable with pushing that popped breaker back in before investigating underlying issues?

[canav8]

Folks, Statistics are statistics. You can slant them anyway you want. I especially love the NALL report while doing instruction. It solidifies one cardinal rule when a pilot transitions to a tailwheel aircraft. The most important lesson I can teach is: "MIND YOUR TAIL! not your nose". Students cant believe that I actually spend a full flight lesson or a whole hour on taxi technique. All I can say is NALL should look at my student statistics. They are all still flying unbent aircraft. Use the tools available to you and forget about the geek meaning. Show your students that bleep HAPPENS, DON'T BE A STATISTIC!!!!!
Sorry I missed you guys at the convention. Doug

[cowboy]

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Mark Twain

[Flyfshr]

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I love this quote...

Here's my take on the lie...

A lot of t-draggers get banged up in ground operations and landings because they demand more attention in these phases. Ground loops frequently take over the conversation. While they are fairly common, expensive, and pretty embarrassing, they are not very lethal in comparison... the data shows this. With good tailwheel instruction these can be kept to a minimum. A part of the "t-draggers are more dangerous" myth is driven by a disproportionately large number of maneuvering accidents in the reporting. As best as I can tell from the accident descriptions that I read through, these have more to do with Bruce's point that flying low level in sometimes mountainous terrain affect all aircraft in similar ways but these tend to be taildraggers because they are preferred for the unimproved airstrips that they operate in and out of.

I think most students I will teach are interested in the challenge of tailwheel flying into the occasional grass strip. I intend to make darn sure they know that a tailwheel endorsement isn't a license to make you a bush pilot.

I like the idea of spending an hour taxiing. I'd demonstrate it in winds, on grass, transitioning between asphault and grass, grass and asphault, dirt, on slopes, wind and slopes...

Any other advice from you experienced tailwheel CFIs?

[wingnut]

I know that a lot of incidents don't actually get a visual inspection, aircraft are moved prior to investigation, and some people just plain lie about what happened. A Cessna 182RG had a gear up landing a few years ago at our airport. I was among the first few people on seen, and the pilot/owner was already on the phone with his insurance adjuster. I overheard him tell the adjuster the gear would not come down. Then, the owner ask if anyone had a camera. I did. He ask me if I would mind taking pictures of the aircraft for his insurance company. I did. Then he gave me the adjusters email and ask if I would send them. I said "Are you sure you want me to do that"? He decided that he would send them after I showed him that the gear switch was still in the up position.
Another incident involved an Aztec, that I just finished an annual inspection on and $30,000+ maintenance/parts issues. The plane had flown about 20 hours and 2 months since I had returned it to service. Pilot/owner, my customer, called me and he was mad! The nose gear collapsed!!! Oh crap I thought. What now? What did I overlook? How much is this going to cost me? Well, luckily this happened at Mena, (our airport), and luckily there was a witness, along with chunks of asfault torn from the runway about 50ft, 100ft, and 300ft from it's final resting place. Pilot basically flew it into the runway, landed on the nose, it collapsed, porposed, etc. When the feds came to help me , they wanted a copy of my log entries, because the owner lost his logs. I was able to give them a 7 page airframe entry, 3 page each engine, and the prop log entries, along with the several page ATP AD compliance report. NEVER throw away anything, it might CYA someday.

In both cases, the aircraft were moved before the FAA was contacted. The Aztec made the NTSB report, I don't think the 182RG did. This is really just the tip of the iceberg too. I know of many more instances of incident/accidents that never make the stats, for whatever reason. I've also worked on dozens of aircraft that have obviously had major damage history. In the process of working on them, I do a search, and it' not there. Point being, even if the stats that are there are good, they are not an accurate representation of the total number of incidents.

Whew!! Had to edit to correct all the typos. You'd think I already had couple adult beverages . I think one of my kids might have spilled something on the keyboard cause I'm having to bang thekys especially hard

[wingnut]

"thekys". Damn, I give up

[voorheesh]

Accident reports classify events by phase of flight for consistency of data. This does not mean that the root cause is a function of the phase of flight it simply means that is when the accident happened. Earlier this summer an Ag plane in N Calif (tail wheel) had a main landing gear separate during takeoff (probable fatigue failure) but the aircraft continued its takeoff and the pilot made a successful landing at an airport where he could get assistance from crash & Rescue (good decision). The aircraft had substantial damage on landing so it is classified as a landing accident. So what? The important thing is we learned there is a potential for fatigue failure. Accident investigation is to help us. It is to gather information that can be used to alert other pilots of problems so we can avoid those problems. Why do we always have to question the process or not trust the statistics or think there is some kind of agenda?
Congress funds the FAA and spends a lot of taxpayer dollars in our aviation system. Many members of congress know very little about aviation and it should come as no surprise they ask what appear to be dumb questions. Again, maybe they want to help. Why do we suggest they are stupid? Why don't we pitch in and try and educate others about aviation including its risks and benefits? In fact I believe there are HEMS operators who use IFR for some of their operations. As we develop Next Gen navigation, is it possible we might be able to establish an IFR system for helicopters with LNAV approaches to any location in the world? Would this make helicopter emergency medical flights safer? Is it a waste of time to try and convince law makers that this is worth it ?
You are right that many aviation accidents and incidents go unreported. Throughout the US law enforcement agencies are trained to contact an FAA Regional Operations Center (24/7) to report accidents and incidents. These centers, in turn serve as the communications hub for NTSB and anyone else involved in the follow up. If law enforcement does not know about an accident, it is up to the pilot to report it. So it should not be a big surprise that accidents which do not involve law enforcement response are not reported. Accidents that are not reported are not investigated and the aviation community suffers due to the loss of information that could help prevent future occurrences. As pilots, we should probably ask ourselves how smart this is.
The FAA has a "Flight Plan" which they present to congress that justifies the cost of aviation oversight and it includes a goal of reducing fatal general aviation accidents by approximately 5%. This is an elusive challenge in that it depends on a flawed statistical database that does not accurately reflect GA utilization and risk. We really only guess at the actual GA hours flown and this utilization defines exposure which drives the risk. While this may cause some of us to roll our eyes and reflect on how idiotic our government is, I would suggest that it should cause us to take what we do in our airplanes just a little bit more seriously and see if we can do something to change this record. AOPA has recently suggested that we seek a higher level of professionalism in our flying. What does this mean? I suggest that we should really think about that and maybe be open to some over due changes in the safety culture of GA.

[GAHorn]

Harlow, Do I have to explain this to you?
The Speaker of the House doesn't think rich people should have to pay their fair share of taxes, so to cut the deficit Congress wants to get rid of regulators and downsize gov't, so what better place than the agency that supports all those private planes?

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

George, do we need to go where you went. I think not.

Please think about it.

Please.png (43.91 KiB) Viewed 5958 times