Feedback on 10 year FAA SLSA safety report

[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

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.

These are all LSA's. Most are 105-115 knots max. The low wings may want to get there fast, but cannot.

And the Cub tends to have a back country appeal. Flying barnstormer style. Yet still a low fatality rate.

I find this report incredibly interesting, and I'm surprised at the ho hum response from a forum that energetically debates much smaller issues on a daily basis.

[Cluemeister]

On second read, I may have misunderstood Brian. You're not saying they'll get there faster, but they want to get there faster, and therefore would tend to favor a more aggressive style of flying. Is that correct?

I have to admit, looking at the Bristell makes me want to fly it differently than the CTLS!

[SportPilot]

.......

[BrianL99]

On second read, I may have misunderstood Brian. You're not saying they'll get there faster, but they want to get there faster, and therefore would tend to favor a more aggressive style of flying. Is that correct?

I have to admit, looking at the Bristell makes me want to fly it differently than the CTLS!

I think that low wing airplanes, attract a more aggressive personality. In general, I think low wing airplanes "look faster" and "sportier" to the average person.

I'm not suggesting there's any wrong with high wing airplanes, but they look more "conservative" and seem to attract a more conservative pilot.

How many "high-wing fighter planes" have you seen in the last 75 years? How many high wing planes are flying Red Bull Races? Or at Reno?

Airplanes that attract more aggressive type pilots, seem destined to have more "accidents". Bonanza, Cirrus, there's a long list.

& the Bristell really is a great looking airplane, but that kind of money, you can buy a damn nice used Cirrus or Mooney.

[dstclair]

It's old news and has been cussed and discussed quite a bit.

You're also cherry picking inflammatory data that is interesting but needs to be examined further. There are 40 fatal accidents in the study and 32 are attributable to pilot error (see page 10). Of the 8 non-pilot errors, exactly 2 of these are due to design/production flaws and 6 are design/production "contributing factor". The report further goes that ALL design and ALL production flaws have been reviewed by and appropriate corrective action obtained by the SLSA manufacturer in accordance with the applicable industry consensus standards and FAA regulations requirements. The take-away would be that a pilot or prospective owner should ensure the particular aircraft they are flying/buying has the corrective actions. No different that the non-LSA world.

You also may want to further examine what the FAA/NTSB calls a design issue that contributes to the accident.

One of these issues that was considered a contributing factor in a tragic fatal accident by a TL-Ultralight Sting. The Probable Cause:

The inability of the pilot-in-command (PIC) to recover from an inadvertent spin following a stall demonstration for reasons that could not be determined because aircraft and engine examinations did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded recovery from the spin. Contributing to the severity of the accident were the PIC’s failure to remove the airframe parachute system safety pin before takeoff, the exceedance of the left-seat weight limitation, and the location of the parachute system activation handle behind the PIC’s seat, which prevented easy access during the uncontrolled descent.

The contributing design issue was the location of the parachute handle. Keep in mind the PIC intentionally did not remove the pin (see the NTSB report) and the pin itself was bent to a 90 degree angle. Not so sure the location of the handle was an issue since one of the occupants clearly found the handle and exerted a LOT of force. Perhaps the more germane issue was ignoring the POH and checklist. The spin issue was also exasperated by the deceased reporting his weight at 275lbs with the seat limit at 250lbs. Turns out he weighed 340lbs. In addition to far exceed the seat's design capacity, this pushed the airplane to 70lbs over gross. The ASTM requires spin testing to MTOW -- not 70lbs over.

Look at P18 for the non-pilot error issues and you'll find Wing structure the only one that is alarming. I'm pretty sure this is the Zodiac which has long since been addressed.

The general conclusion was that LSA's have a comparable safety record to GA.

[Cluemeister]

When you ask a question and then complain because you don't like the answer, that does not make people eager to respond. You are not even licensed pilot and I don't think you are even a student yet. My suggestion is to cool it a little.

Thanks for putting me in my place and letting me know I'm not a pilot yet. I'll try not to be so uppity.

[SportPilot]

.......

[3Dreaming]

On second read, I may have misunderstood Brian. You're not saying they'll get there faster, but they want to get there faster, and therefore would tend to favor a more aggressive style of flying. Is that correct?

I have to admit, looking at the Bristell makes me want to fly it differently than the CTLS!

I think that low wing airplanes, attract a more aggressive personality. In general, I think low wing airplanes "look faster" and "sportier" to the average person.

I'm not suggesting there's any wrong with high wing airplanes, but they look more "conservative" and seem to attract a more conservative pilot.

How many "high-wing fighter planes" have you seen in the last 75 years? How many high wing planes are flying Red Bull Races? Or at Reno?
[
Airplanes that attract more aggressive type pilots, seem destined to have more "accidents". Bonanza, Cirrus, there's a long list.

& the Bristell really is a great looking airplane, but that kind of money, you can buy a damn nice used Cirrus or Mooney.

I don't buy your conclusion. I have owned both high and low wing airplanes, and currently own one of each. I have probably flown a high wing airplane more agressively than the low wing airplanes. I think the airplanes mission has more to do with how itis flown than whether it is a high wing or low wing.

BTW many of the Red Bull airplanes are mid or shoulder wing aircraft.

[BrianL99]

On second read, I may have misunderstood Brian. You're not saying they'll get there faster, but they want to get there faster, and therefore would tend to favor a more aggressive style of flying. Is that correct?

I have to admit, looking at the Bristell makes me want to fly it differently than the CTLS!

I think that low wing airplanes, attract a more aggressive personality. In general, I think low wing airplanes "look faster" and "sportier" to the average person.

I'm not suggesting there's any wrong with high wing airplanes, but they look more "conservative" and seem to attract a more conservative pilot.

How many "high-wing fighter planes" have you seen in the last 75 years? How many high wing planes are flying Red Bull Races? Or at Reno?
[
Airplanes that attract more aggressive type pilots, seem destined to have more "accidents". Bonanza, Cirrus, there's a long list.

& the Bristell really is a great looking airplane, but that kind of money, you can buy a damn nice used Cirrus or Mooney.

I don't buy your conclusion. I have owned both high and low wing airplanes, and currently own one of each. I have probably flown a high wing airplane more agressively than the low wing airplanes. I think the airplanes mission has more to do with how itis flown than whether it is a high wing or low wing.

BTW many of the Red Bull airplanes are mid or shoulder wing aircraft.

I didn't say anything about the way the airplanes were flown. I only commented on the typical pilot's nature.

Only low-wing aircraft are flying in the Red Bull series.

[Cluemeister]

If you take the top 4 selling high and low wing aircraft over ten years in this report:

Flight Design - 367 - 1 fatal
Cub - 319 - 1 fatal
Cessna - 272 - 1 fatal
Legend - 192 - 1 fatal

Total high wing - 1,150 - 4 fatals - .3%

CSA - 124 - 1 fatal
Evektor - 97 - 3 fatals
CZAW - 86 - 5 fatals
AMD - 63 - 1 fatal

Total low wing - 370 - 10 fatals - 2.7%

Nine times more likely to be in a fatal over a ten year period in the low wings versus high wings listed above. This does assume equal flight hours

I am not saying there is something wrong with low wing planes. It could be that low wing are more demanding of pilots. It could be that pilots are more aggressive with low wing aircraft. But I can't see dismissing it out of hand.

I am not a pilot yet, but plan to be one soon. This research is important to me, and want to know as much as possible prior to choosing and purchasing which plane to fly.

Edited to move a decimal point on high wing fatals. and switched high and low wing in description for clarification.

[Merlinspop]

The numbers you assembled are interesting, and may point to a trend (something to make you go "hmmm" and perhaps warrant further, more robust study). But at these very small sample sizes, it's difficult to draw a definitive conclusion that would pass robust scrutiny. This is all that those who are arguing about the "statistical significance" of the data are saying. But if those numbers are telling your gut something, then by all means, listen to it. You'll sleep better.

If you take the top 4 selling high and low wing aircraft over ten years in this report:

Flight Design - 367 - 1 fatal
Cub - 319 - 1 fatal
Cessna - 272 - 1 fatal
Legend - 192 - 1 fatal

Total high wing - 1,150 - 4 fatals - .3%

CSA - 124 - 1 fatal
Evektor - 97 - 3 fatals
CZAW - 86 - 5 fatals
AMD - 63 - 1 fatal

Total low wing - 370 - 10 fatals - 2.7%

Nine times more likely to be in a fatal over a ten year period in the low wings versus high wings listed above. This does assume equal flight hours

I am not saying there is something wrong with low wing planes. It could be that low wing are more demanding of pilots. It could be that pilots are more aggressive with low wing aircraft. But I can't see dismissing it out of hand.

I am not a pilot yet, but plan to be one soon. This research is important to me, and want to know as much as possible prior to choosing and purchasing which plane to fly.

Edited to move a decimal point on high wing fatals. and switched high and low wing in description for clarification.

[3Dreaming]

I didn't say anything about the way the airplanes were flown. I only commented on the typical pilot's nature.

Only low-wing aircraft are flying in the Red Bull series.

Based on 35 years working at a small airports I don't agree with your assessment. I have seen no correlation between aircraft choice and the pilot's "nature". Preference for high or low wing usually comes from what they learned to fly in. Beyond that it is the cost of the airplane or the mission being flown. For example, there are no new high wing airplanes competing against the Cirrus for that mission roll.

As to the Red Bull aircraft. According to the Red Bull site 12 of the 14 pilots in the master's class are flying a Edge 540. The Edge is not a low wing airplane.

[Merlinspop]

Preference for high or low wing usually comes from what they learned to fly in.

And how many diamond shaped scars they have on their foreheads.

[MrMorden]

If you take the top 4 selling high and low wing aircraft over ten years in this report:

Flight Design - 367 - 1 fatal
Cub - 319 - 1 fatal
Cessna - 272 - 1 fatal
Legend - 192 - 1 fatal

Total high wing - 1,150 - 4 fatals - .3%

CSA - 124 - 1 fatal
Evektor - 97 - 3 fatals
CZAW - 86 - 5 fatals
AMD - 63 - 1 fatal

Total low wing - 370 - 10 fatals - 2.7%

Nine times more likely to be in a fatal over a ten year period in the low wings versus high wings listed above. This does assume equal flight hours

I am not saying there is something wrong with low wing planes. It could be that low wing are more demanding of pilots. It could be that pilots are more aggressive with low wing aircraft. But I can't see dismissing it out of hand.

I am not a pilot yet, but plan to be one soon. This research is important to me, and want to know as much as possible prior to choosing and purchasing which plane to fly.

Edited to move a decimal point on high wing fatals. and switched high and low wing in description for clarification.

To draw any high v. low wing conclusions, I think you'd have to do some rather exhaustive analysis of *each* accident. High wings will generally gravity feed if a fuel pump fails...did that play a factor? High wings often give a better view of the ground...did that play a factor? What about overall control harmony of the airplanes, are some of the accident planes know to be a bit more "twitchy" or hard to control? What phase of flight did the accident happen in?

There are a lot of factors that have to be addressed before high v low pilot psychology comes in. I know lots of pilots and don't see a difference in overall attitude based on what configuration they prefer.

[BrianL99]

The Edge is not a low wing airplane.

Most everyone would probably disagree with you.