Feedback on 10 year FAA SLSA safety report

[MrMorden]

The Edge is not a low wing airplane.

Most everyone would probably disagree with you.

Most everyone would be wrong. It's mid-wing.

[Nomore767]

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.

Cluemeister,

In addition to looking at low-wing/high-wing you should think about what the airplane was designed to be and the type of flying that you want to do.

For example the trusty Piper Cub was designed in the 1940s in a time when the world was smaller in many ways and there were numerous grass strips. It was/is a great airplane to learn the basics of flying, along with the Champ. Indeed many schools have the new student spend a few hours in Cub/Champ before going on the trainer of choice.
The Legend company grew from overhauling and restoring Cubs into making their version of the Cub, the Legend Cub, which attempted to 'fix' the few anomalies and gripes that pilots had over the years. Their Cub has electrical system, starter, solo from front/back and modern avionics. The fuel system was upgraded to.
Still, it has heel brakes. Usually flying off of a grass srtip in a Cub means little or no need to use brakes. However, rather than fatal accidents in the Legend Cub, many have gone over on their nose due to lets say over enthusiastic use of the heel brakes. Prop breaks, cowl is damaged and engine needs an inspection. Many models for sale online have had nose overs and the owner wants out.

Point I'm making is that the plane is extremely safe, fun to fly, and beautifully made. Not cheap for a Cub but its the Cadillac of Cubs.
But...it requires tailwheel endorsement and I would say is more demanding in our modern world than in the old days. You can't beat a low and slow cruise on a summer evening but less grass strips close to home, busier airspace etc can mean its more demanding to own and to fly. You need good instruction and to fly it regularly and well. Its easy to fly, but harder to fly well.
This is reflected in insurance rates, particularly for new and low-time pilots.

This should be the kind of consideration I think you should use making your airplane choice.


Hence the introduction of the tricycle wheel light airplane.

LSAs are lighter and in some ways 'harder' to fly than say a 150/172. Thats a good thing but something you need to be aware of. Maybe more sensitive in pitch and yaw.

You can peruse statistics and I get where you're coming from but there's an old adage "the best safety feature in an airplane is a well trained pilot'.
I would add a conscientious and meticulous pilot leads to a good 'aviator' and a safer pilot. Put that pilot in any of the airplanes you have in your chart and I'd argue the plane becomes 'safer' with a well trained and disciplines pilot. Are their potential safety flaws in any airplane, sure. You have to find the best fit for YOU and what YOU want to do. maybe you start with one and trade up later as you gain experience and knowledge.

A BRS is no doubt an advancement in the aircraft safety, but it's not a 'free ride'. The airplane will likely be totaled, you'l 'probably' survive and it can get you out of trouble. On the other hand you an land in a lake, or a swamp, or the ocean or into the side of a canyon and slide a thousand feet to the bottom with a flat chute. No guarantee but it does offer safety IF the pilot has been trained in when to elect the chute, flying with the pin removed, and realizing it doesn't guarantee you simply walk away scratch free. Just saying.

The only plane I can think of that never crashed is the Spruce Goose..of course it only flew once, barely.

[FastEddieB]

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.

I have a horizontal crease on the bridge of my nose from walking into a C150 flap...

...preflighting before a checkride!

Once the blood stopped flowing, I passed!

[HAPPYDAN]

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

Good food for thought. But I couldn't help but notice Cessna with 272 accidents/incidents. Since I believe their only entry to the S-LSA market was the C162 Skycatcher, and, if I recall correctly, only about 200 were produced and sold before cessation, that seems like a really high percentage. What am I missing here?

[BrianL99]

The Edge is not a low wing airplane.

Most everyone would probably disagree with you.

Most everyone would be wrong. It's mid-wing.

If you needed to be technically correct, the Edge is a mid-wing aircraft.

I think most people distinguish a "high-wing airplane", as one where the wing is over the pilots head or over the main fuselage of the airplane and categorize most others as "low-wing".

Next time try to distinguish between the different designs while on this site, I'll be sure to refer to "high-wing" aircraft and "non high-wing aircraft".

[Cluemeister]

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

Good food for thought. But I couldn't help but notice Cessna with 272 accidents/incidents. Since I believe their only entry to the S-LSA market was the C162 Skycatcher, and, if I recall correctly, only about 200 were produced and sold before cessation, that seems like a really high percentage. What am I missing here?

Hey Dan,

I agree that title on the report is confusing. The actual incidents/fatal chart is attached here. 32 incidents in the Cessna and 1 fatal, in a fleet of 272.

Screen Shot 2016-02-26 at 12.16.31 PM.png (146.46 KiB) Viewed 4558 times

[3Dreaming]

If you needed to be technically correct, the Edge is a mid-wing aircraft.

I think most people distinguish a "high-wing airplane", as one where the wing is over the pilots head or over the main fuselage of the airplane and categorize most others as "low-wing".

These must be the same people who think any training airplane is a Cessna, and any business jet is a Lear.
I guess I'm lucky, because most people I know don't think like that.

[designrs]

This is interesting because it shows both incidents and fatals.
Flight design is especially interesting... high production numbers, high incidents, only 1 fatal.
I recall a flight design accident that rolled the plane end-over-end on a soccer field.
The occupant(s) walked away, presumably due to the structural cage design.
A bubble canopy would probably not fare so well.

[designrs]

Also interesting that CubCrafters has so few incidents...
Many of those ground-loops must not have had to be reported. LOL

(Nothing against the aircraft... they are fantastic planes!)

[designrs]

Bottom line: Read NTSB reports of make and model, much more information than raw statistics.

[MrMorden]

This is interesting because it shows both incidents and fatals.
Flight design is especially interesting... high production numbers, high incidents, only 1 fatal.
I recall a flight design accident that rolled the plane end-over-end on a golf course.
The occupant(s) walked away, presumable due to the structural cage design.
A bubble canopy would probably not fare so well.

Also interesting is that one Flight Design fatal was a pilot who flew into the water at night off Manhattan. Definitely pilot error from all indications.

There has been a second fatal accident since then, a law enforcement CTLE that flew into a mountain in daylight. Cause on that one remains unclear.

[3Dreaming]

This is interesting because it shows both incidents and fatals.
Flight design is especially interesting... high production numbers, high incidents, only 1 fatal.
I recall a flight design accident that rolled the plane end-over-end on a golf course.
The occupant(s) walked away, presumable due to the structural cage design.
A bubble canopy would probably not fare so well.

Also interesting is that one Flight Design fatal was a pilot who flew into the water at night off Manhattan. Definitely pilot error from all indications.

There has been a second fatal accident since then, a law enforcement CTLE that flew into a mountain in daylight. Cause on that one remains unclear.

Andy, I don't think the accident you mentioned is the one listed in the chart. My guess that it was the one in Arizona? that when practicing slow speed approaches they flew into a dust devil, stalled, and crashed short of the runway. There have been 4 fatal accidents in CT aircraft here in the states now. The 2 you mentioned. The one I just mentioned, and one who crashed into trees after take off. I think the last one might have been a medical issue.

[Cluemeister]

Ok, more statistics. HappyDan asked about incidents as a percentage of fleet, and that got me thinking.

Keeping it constant with the same manufacturers as before.

These numbers are percentage of total fleet that got into an accident or incident. It does NOT include accidents with fatal result. So those would have to be added.

High wing

Flight Design - 68 of 367 - 18.5% of fleet involved in accident/incident
Cub - 12 of 319 - 3.7% " "
Cessna - 32 of 272 - 11.7% " "
Legend - 11 of 192 - 5.7% " "

Low wing

CSA - 14 of 124 - 11.2% of fleet involved in accident/incident
Evektor - 45 of 97 - 46% " "
CZAW - 23 of 86 - 26.7% " "
AMD - 4 of 63 - 6.3% " "

[drseti]

Interesting, but it doesn't address the use of the aircraft. In those 10 years, the SLSA most used for flight training (Evektor, which I use in my flight school) had the highest rate of accidents and incidents. This is to be expected, as flight training is the application most likely to lead to incidents.

[Cluemeister]

Cessna and Flight Design have a lot of planes in flight schools as well. I don't think that explains away the difference.