Feedback on 10 year FAA SLSA safety report

[Cluemeister]

I'm interested in your guys thoughts regarding the 10 year FAA SLSA safety report. Specifically two charts on the report. They demonstrate number of fatalities in each model of SLSA, and the percentage of fatalities as a total fleet. I thought it was eye opening, and made me wonder about some of the specific model's higher tendencies to be in a fatal accident. I know the vast majority of accidents are due to pilot error, but are there planes that are safer than others all things being equal? With a smaller sample size, is it just a statistical blip? Perhaps some planes are more difficult to fly and less forgiving? I've attached both files from the report.

[Cluemeister]

I just noticed there is a specific safety section. Guess I should have posted it there. Sorry about that!

[designrs]

Given the total number of accidents in 10 years, the numbers actually look pretty good.
One fatal vs. five fatals is still a very small number, especially if pilot error factors in.

Flight design is amazingly low, given the number of aircraft produced... as is Tecnam.

On the other hand, there are some brands that are possibly higher risk (airframe or motor) that still do well in the stats.

** I would search the NTSB for specific causes of accidents for any make & model that you are interested in.
Knowing WHY there was a fatal will provide greater insight. **
(As will researching non-fatal incidents & accidents.)

For example, before buying my aircraft I researched Czech Aircraft Works / SportCruser / PiperSport:
Only two fatals come to mind...

1) Canopy unlatch in flight, likely related to the pilot unbuckling his seat belt and reaching for luggage during a night flight.
(the canopy is something specific to this make and model to be cautious of, with contributing pilot factors... but not a deal breaker IMHO)

2) More recent fatal... suspected that the pilot took off with the fuel selector in the "OFF" position...
(same fuel selector as many other brands... clearly pilot error.)

You will find similar case studies with all brands...

If a mechanic left tools in the fuselage that jammed the flight controls... obviously that should not be reflective of the safety record of the aircraft.
It it was a training accident doing aggressive maneuvers at low altitude... then clearly there are contributing factors which are not necessarily the fault of the aircraft.

Equipment Upgrades
Other accidents occur from equipment that might have been upgraded and improved in newer models. For example:
Stronger landing gear
Flight control modifications (safer location or operation to avoid confusion, etc.)

Major Concerns
Most concerning would be... aircraft structural failure, motor failure with common trends, tendency for unusual flight characteristics (violent, sudden unpredictable stalls, etc.). One now defunct LSA company that had a tendency to drop one wing in a stall (more so than other aircraft).

Less Forgiving Aircraft
Realize many "less forgiving" aircraft are involved in non-fatal accidents that may be high but do not show up in the stats...
such as ground-looping of taildraggers, etc. I know of one very well-known taildragger factory that is always doing repairs after ground-looping.
Nothing wrong with the aircraft. Higher risk due to aircraft design and use.

Kits
Also watch for stats that might include make & model available as a kit / owner build option... as that introduces a number of extra variables.

** Another major LSA risk factor: Experienced pilots new to LSA without proper transition training. **

[Cluemeister]

thanks designrs,

I appreciate your thoughts.

One thing that's interesting is if you look at the original manufacturer of the Sportcruiser, the fatality rate in that plane is 5.8% of total sold, arguably very high. But the same plane built by the new company that took over after CZAW went out of business is .8%, or over an 85% drop in fatalities. That would lead one to believe something changed in the manufacture of the plane. A design change? Different parts?

[Cluemeister]

Here is the chart of all the LSA included in the 10 year study.

[MrMorden]

Here is the chart of all the LSA included in the 10 year study.

Where is Van's on there? They had S-LSA aircraft in Oct. 2014, did they not??

[Cluemeister]

According to wikipedia, the first RV 12s were delivered in 2013. So you would think the FAA would have had them on the report. But they don't appear to be.

[SportPilot]

.......

[Cluemeister]

The only trend I can see appears to be low wing versus high wing. As a whole, low wing fatality rates appear to be significantly higher.

Flight Design, Cessna, Cubcrafters, Tecnam lower rate
Evektor, Original Sportcruiser, higher rate

[Cluemeister]

Personally, I don't think there is enough data to be statistically significant. I would decide what airplane I wanted to purchase based on all other considerations, then study the accident information for that airplane and decide if it had issues. For instance, the Remos has foldable wings and tail. There have been some accidents where the elevator control came lose. I would explore that if I was thinking about buying a Remos. I'm just using that as an example. I'm flying a Remos Saturday.

Some planes on that list have a fatality rate greater than others by a factor of 10. I consider that statistically significant.

[SportPilot]

.......

[MrMorden]

Significant by statistical standards or not, it would sure be significant to me if I were buying...

[Cluemeister]

Personally, I don't think there is enough data to be statistically significant. I would decide what airplane I wanted to purchase based on all other considerations, then study the accident information for that airplane and decide if it had issues. For instance, the Remos has foldable wings and tail. There have been some accidents where the elevator control came lose. I would explore that if I was thinking about buying a Remos. I'm just using that as an example. I'm flying a Remos Saturday.

Some planes on that list have a fatality rate greater than others by a factor of 10. I consider that statistically significant.

It's not statistically significant. There is not enough data. Read the accident reports and see if you can detect something about the airplane that would make you feel it is not safe.

When you see 5.8% of the original CZAW planes end in fatality in ten years, with over 100 in the skies, that's statistically significant. The CTLS has .3% with almost 400 flying. That's statistically significant.

Almost 20 times the fatality rate for a certain make of aircraft. Just because you don't want it to be significant doesn't make it so.

[BrianL99]

The only trend I can see appears to be low wing versus high wing. As a whole, low wing fatality rates appear to be significantly higher.

Flight Design, Cessna, Cubcrafters, Tecnam lower rate
Evektor, Original Sportcruiser, higher rate

That shouldn't be a surprise.

High wing flyers are Camry or Subaru type drivers. Conservative. Fly low and slow and see the sights.

Low wing flyers fancy themselves as Corvette drivers. More aggressive. Go fast and get there.

[MrMorden]

The only trend I can see appears to be low wing versus high wing. As a whole, low wing fatality rates appear to be significantly higher.

Flight Design, Cessna, Cubcrafters, Tecnam lower rate
Evektor, Original Sportcruiser, higher rate

That shouldn't be a surprise.

High wing flyers are Camry or Subaru type drivers. Conservative. Fly low and slow and see the sights.

Low wing flyers fancy themselves as Corvette drivers. More aggressive. Go fast and get there.

Psst...don't tell the Citabria or Decathlon pilots.

That Cherokee 140...what a hot rod!!!