Feedback on 10 year FAA SLSA safety report

[drseti]

This from Wikipedia:

Data is most often used as a singular mass noun in educated everyday usage.[7][8] Some major newspapers such as The New York Times use it either in the singular or plural. In the New York Times the phrases "the survey data are still being analyzed" and "the first year for which data is available" have appeared within one day.[9] The Wall Street Journal explicitly allows this usage in its style guide.[10] The Associated Press style guide classifies data as a collective noun that takes the singular when treated as a unit but the plural when referring to individual items ("The data is sound.", and "The data have been carefully collected.").[11]

In scientific writing data is often treated as a plural, as in These data do not support the conclusions, but the word is also used as a singular mass entity like information, for instance in computing and related disciplines.[12] British usage now widely accepts treating data as singular in standard English,[13] including everyday newspaper usage[14] at least in non-scientific use.[15] UK scientific publishing still prefers treating it as a plural.[16] Some UK university style guides recommend using data for both singular and plural use[17] and some recommend treating it only as a singular in connection with computers.[18] The IEEE Computer Society allows usage of data as either a mass noun or plural based on author preference,[19] while IEEE in the editorial style manual indicates to always use the plural form.[20] Some professional organizations and style guides[21] require that authors treat data as a plural noun. For example, the Air Force Flight Test Center specifically states that the word data is always plural, never singular.[22]

At least three style guides that favor plural are Chicago, IEEE, and APA. A data set is singular; the data in it are plural. The popular press is lenient with this usage, but technical editors for major scholarly journals (including IEEE Transactions) have slammed me on this enough times that I have caved to their demands. You can always find on the Internet support for any of the three sides of any issue. Besides, what does the Guardian know?

[BrianL99]

Besides, what does the Guardian know?

They quoted the Wall St. Journal and the Journal's policy

[Cluemeister]

Good luck with your flying career.

Thank you so much for the warm wishes Sportpilot!

[SportPilot]

.......

[SportPilot]

.......

[HAPPYDAN]

I'm slightly off-topic here, but curious nonetheless. I'm planning to take a few lessons in a 1946 Ercoupe 415-C, which is rated as S-LSA. The original manufacturer claimed it was the safest airplane ever produced, and it's a low-wing configuration. While it doesn't appear in any of these charts, I wonder how it's record would compare?

[drseti]

The Ercoupe first flew in 1937 (the same year the J3 Cub was introduced). In its day, the 'Coupe was indeed the safest aircraft ever produced. That's because it was stall resistant, and spin-proof. It had such innovations as a tricycle gear (when all of its contemporaries were conventional gear), dihedral (when others had flat wings), interconnected rudder and aileron, and limited elevator travel. The designer, aeronautical engineer Fred Weick (who had won the 1929 Collier trophy), designed it to win a Bureau of Air Commerce safety competition. He went on to serve as a Chief Engineer at Piper from 1957 to 1969, where he develop the Cherokee at Lock Haven (my home base!), which incorporated many of the 'Coupe's design features.

The only downside of the Ercoupe design was a high sink rate at low speeds (necessary for steep descents with its flapless, unslippable design), which tended to result in hard landings if one didn't put the nose down and pick up airspeed before the flare. This led to a higher accident rate than more recent designs, though it was still way ahead of its contemporaries (the Cub and Champ).

Be aware that many Ercoupe 415C's that are advertised as LSA compliant really aren't. That's because, decades ago, the Type Certificate holder (Univair) came out with an STC mod to raise the maximum gross weight from 1260 to 1400 pounds. Since there was no good reason not to do so, most Ercoupe owners installed the mod. Those can never be LSAs (though many that were modified are now listed in Trade-a-Plane as LSAs -- check the FAA records carefully before you buy!)

I've instructed in Ercoupes intermittently since the early 1980s, and find them a delight to fly.

BTW, the never-been-modified 415C is indeed an LSA, but not an SLSA (since the ASTM consensus standards didn't exist back then). It has a standard airworthiness certificate, so that it can be flown by Sport Pilots -- but can't be maintained or inspected by non-A&P LSA repairmen.

[Jack Tyler]

Cluemeister, I'm late to this party but do have two suggestions for you to consider relative to your focus on LSA models and their safety records. Reviewing incident/accident records can be very instructive and, for many GA a/c models, these will be specifically discussed in Aviation Consumer's articles reviewing a/c models. They haven't reported (yet) on may LSA models but, among several reasons for a subscription to AC (especially if you are about to spend a lot of money)m you'll find it instructive to see how they tackle the subject of a given model's safety record. I think they differentiate with a proper perspective between general model-specific and design-related issues on the one hand and how they summarize a model's general level of safety on the other. IOW even with large data sets, they don't allow the NTSB data assume more relevance than it deserves. What do I mean by that...

It relates to suggestion #2: Spend a few moments and reread all of Howard's comments about a/c safety as it relates to pilot competency. I suggest this because, absent flight experience, it's pretty understandable that you would focus on the things you do have available. But flying safely is so much more about the pilot than the hardware, at least with certified a/c. And truly, altho' a/c models can vary greatly in how well they fly and how forgiving they are, a large majority of that safety-related data your are reviewing has its foundation in how the plane was flown. Meaning: how much currency, experience and judgement the pilot brought to the specifics of each given flight. Rereading Howard's comments, which I think are highly germane to the questions you are asking and are well written, would provide some 'borrowed perspective' until you have the chance to develop your own, based on your experience.

And BTW, the answer I would have offered you to your original question - is a plane that's rated elsewhere at a higher MTOW than 1320# therefore 'safe' to fly at that higher weight here in the U.S. - would have been in two parts: 1) Yes, flying it at the higher weight is just as safe inside the USA as elsewhere but 2) it's less safe (both inside and outside the USA) than flying it at the 1320# MTOW, for reasons Paul has already explained. There are many LSA examples where another country's certification standards allow a higher MTOW (Brazil's Paradise 1 is a good an example) and also amateur build projects which produce the same a/c but with a higher MTOW (the Just Highlander "leaps" to mind). But general curiosity aside, it just isn't the right Q to be concerned about.

Good luck on starting your flight training soon. Early spring is a great time to tackle it, with the whole 6-month flying weather calendar ahead of you.

[Cluemeister]

Thank you for your thoughts Jack. Your points are respectfully taken in the spirit they are intended.