comparing planes for safety

This forum is for safety-related discussions. Be safe out there!

Moderator: drseti

paulelis
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:22 pm
Location: Calabasas, CA

comparing planes for safety

Postby paulelis » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:47 am

I am considering purchasing a CT. Product safety is my number one consideration with economy of operation being a distant second. Presumably, insurers are the analysts and scorekeepers of safety records/statistics. Can I access this material or other reliable sources of info? Thank you.

Paulelis

slsaowner
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:54 am
Location: WI

Light Sport Safety Stats

Postby slsaowner » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:06 am

Go into the NTSB's Web site:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

and type light sport into the blank where it says to enter your search string.

artp
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:30 am
Location: Odenton, Md

Re: Light Sport Safety Stats

Postby artp » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:52 am

slsaowner wrote:Go into the NTSB's Web site:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

and type light sport into the blank where it says to enter your search string.


I tried that and got 5 or 6 CTs listed. Instead enter "flight CT" in the MAKE/MODEL and you will get 12 accidents involving the CT. The number is a little scary since there are only 200 registered. The only bright side is there were no fatalities.

User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Re: Light Sport Safety Stats

Postby CharlieTango » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:18 am

artp wrote:The number is a little scary since there are only 200 registered. The only bright side is there were no fatalities.


i see other "bright sides"

first consider the CTSW is the most popular selling slsa and predictably will have the largest number of incidents

they have been all ( or very close to all ) landing incidents by new or transitioning pilots. once you have a feel for landing the ctsw these incidents seem to disappear.

the ctsw is on the high perfromance end of the slsa spectrum and the performance comes with some cost, it is harder to transition into or train in then lower performing slsa.

art, before you call this 6% "scary" shouldn't you also determine percentages from other designs and see if it is even high or low by comparison?

lastly when the subject is safety it is worth mentioning that the brs is standard equipment in the ctsw.

i have over 600 landings in a ctsw based high in the mountains where conditions are frequently difficult. this is an honest airplane.

artp
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:30 am
Location: Odenton, Md

Re: Light Sport Safety Stats

Postby artp » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:37 am

CharlieTango wrote:
art, before you call this 6% "scary" shouldn't you also determine percentages from other designs and see if it is even high or low by comparison?


I did. The Cirrus for example which had a bad reputation for accidents had 46 with 3178 registered. That is 1.5%. It also comes standard with a BRS.

User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Postby CharlieTango » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:45 am

that's a little more fair art, yet 200 vs 3,178 registered demonstrates a mature company / design vs. new company/ design / category.

cirrus learned the same lesson that flight design is. for both these designs adequate training is paramount. both companies have improved safety by developing better training but of course cirrus is much farther along.

any idea what the % was when cirrus had 200 registered?

artp
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:30 am
Location: Odenton, Md

Postby artp » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:57 am

CharlieTango wrote:cirrus learned the same lesson that flight design is. for both these designs adequate training is paramount.


Not to mention a significant number of SBs and ADs to correct early design problems.

artp
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:30 am
Location: Odenton, Md

Postby artp » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:59 am

CharlieTango wrote:any idea what the % was when cirrus had 200 registered?


No. But a current buyer doesn't care that in 5 years the new CTsw will have design changes that address the current problems.

Jim Stewart
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:49 pm

Postby Jim Stewart » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:00 pm

Just to toss in my two cents...

My 2006 CTSW has logged 250 landings, *all* student without an incident.

User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Postby CharlieTango » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:07 pm

i'm trying to be fair, i do see a need for adequate transition and student pilot training in the ctsw.

i'm not sure i see a need for design changes to handle current problems. as long as lsa are limited in weight compromises will exist. the existing product is extremely well designed.

i know that you have stated publicly that you intend to sell your new ctsw instead of fly it due to fuel management issues. we just had a ctsw fly-in in page, az where the ramp is not level. overnight enough fuel would transfer from wing to wing were i was putting 5-8 gallons / day in my left wing only to regain balance. thinking about your decision to sell over the fuel transfering i asked the lineman how common fuel transfer on this ramp was and the reply was that it happens every day in many designs.

i am assuming that the question here is relative to slsa and my point abou the brs being standard equipment is a fair one. to counter it by pointing out that they are standard on $500,000 cirrus as well seems less than fair.

if you would have accepted my inventation to attend the fly-in you would have found a group of ctsw's flying in hostile terrain, high winds and performing better than a 1,320lb aircraft could be expected to do. enroute there i crossed more than a dozen moutain ranges in the 10-14,000' range with 40-70kt winds and the flight was pleasant. on the way home two of us landed with winds > 30kts and again a non-event.

Roger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:05 am

CT and my two cents worth...

Postby Roger » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:27 pm

Let's put the blame where the blame belongs....

The CT is a great LSA - there are hundreds around the world flying just fine. It's a well built aircraft and has passed all required tests in many different countries requiring different specifications.

The problem is not with the airplane - the problem is with the training. As with any aircraft the CT has it's different characteristics. Until we have correctly "trained trainers" who "correctly train pilots" and those pilots are not released until they are properly trained we'll have problems.

It's that simple folks, period.

My suggestion would be to stop harping about the airplane and start harping about the training because the CT is a "piece of cake" and a "dream to own and fly" after you earn your "CT Wings"! To many people around the world are enjoying and flying this aircraft to think any different.

Roger H
www.ctflyer.com

User avatar
rfane
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Postby rfane » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:19 pm

CharlieTango wrote:i know that you have stated publicly that you intend to sell your new ctsw instead of fly it due to fuel management issues. we just had a ctsw fly-in in page, az where the ramp is not level. overnight enough fuel would transfer from wing to wing were i was putting 5-8 gallons / day in my left wing only to regain balance. thinking about your decision to sell over the fuel transfering i asked the lineman how common fuel transfer on this ramp was and the reply was that it happens every day in many designs.

if you would have accepted my inventation to attend the fly-in you would have found a group of ctsw's flying in hostile terrain, high winds and performing better than a 1,320lb aircraft could be expected to do. enroute there i crossed more than a dozen moutain ranges in the 10-14,000' range with 40-70kt winds and the flight was pleasant. on the way home two of us landed with winds > 30kts and again a non-event.


I was at the CTSW fly-in in Page, AZ, and was the the second plane mentioned by CharlieTango that landed in the strong winds at Tonopah, NV on the way home. We saw winds aloft of 40 knots for much of the trip, and the flights were very pleasant.

As for the fuel management issue, I was routinely filling one tank only at both Bakersfield and Page, due to the sloped ramp. Coordinated flying kept the tanks feeding evenly, and on two seperate days, I flew 5 hours without adding fuel, and landed with the tanks fairly balanced. On both of those days I started off with full tanks (34 gallons) and after 3 hour legs at 10K + MSL, I landed with 18-19 gallons evenly split. Fuel burn was just a touch over 5 gph at full throttle the whole way.

I love my CT!

User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Re: Light Sport Safety Stats

Postby CharlieTango » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:08 pm

original question
paulelis wrote:I am considering purchasing a CT. Product safety is my number one consideration with economy of operation being a distant second. Presumably, insurers are the analysts and scorekeepers of safety records/statistics. Can I access this material or other reliable sources of info? Thank you.

Paulelis


initial answers

artp wrote:
slsaowner wrote:Go into the NTSB's Web site:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

and type light sport into the blank where it says to enter your search string.


I tried that and got 5 or 6 CTs listed. Instead enter "flight CT" in the MAKE/MODEL and you will get 12 accidents involving the CT. The number is a little scary since there are only 200 registered. The only bright side is there were no fatalities.


the question was about product safety and the "scarey" answer was regarding 12 incidents of pilot error.

this leads to the statement that
artp wrote:But a current buyer doesn't care that in 5 years the new CTsw will have design changes that address the current problems.


so we have 12 incidents all pilot error and no fatalities. doesn't this support what i said that the issue is adequate training and not the design?

artp
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:30 am
Location: Odenton, Md

Re: Light Sport Safety Stats

Postby artp » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:20 pm

CharlieTango wrote:so we have 12 incidents all pilot error and no fatalities. doesn't this support what i said that the issue is adequate training and not the design?


The Corvair was a car built by GM with a rear engine that had a nasty tendency to lose control in curves. When it happened it was driver error (they went faster than was safe in the car). But what killed the car was that so many "driver errors" occurred that people questioned whether the car required a level of skill higher than required by other vehicles and if a car requiring that level of skill was safe.

If you look at the accident reports many of the pilots were CFIs. While you can argue that they should have had more training specific to the CT before attempting to fly it, the FAA says they should be able to fly any single engine airplane based upon there certificates. They can fly Cessnas, Pipers, even Cirrus but they don't have enough skill to fly a CT?

Anicdotes about how many landings you did are not very informative. It is like smokers saying they smoked for years and don't have health problems so that proves there is nothing wrong with smoking. If someone is concerned about the safety of an aircraft they should be looking an the number of accidents not at some individual who didn't have an accident.

Finally in you one of your posts you talked about training being important and you also state that pilots routinely fly the CT in winds greater than 30 knots. Yet the CT POH states "After practice the airplane can be taxied in crosswinds up to 17 knots." and "In gusty wind or wind speed more than 21 knots flight operations should be stopped." Does this training you speak of teach pilots to ignore the POH?

Roger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:05 am

Re: Light Sport Safety Stats

Postby Roger » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:44 pm

If you look at the accident reports many of the pilots were CFIs. While you can argue that they should have had more training specific to the CT before attempting to fly it, the FAA says they should be able to fly any single engine airplane based upon there certificates. They can fly Cessnas, Pipers, even Cirrus but they don't have enough skill to fly a CT?


They probably have the skill but lack the knowledge....

I've taken four CFI's some who fly big jets on down. They were all very impressed with the plane. But none of them were familer with the plane and the one I did let land it - bounced it. Part of the training is the different site picture. There is a large amount of visibility out of the CT unlike a Cessna, Piper or Cirrus leading to a "whole different ballgame" when approaching the runway.

Everyone that has one of these (and there are hundreds of us) will tell you that it is different to land. It has different characteritics. If all you've landed is Cessnas and Pipers like me then the CT will take some training like I did.

Art you are way out numbered here. Again there are hundreds and hundreds of these planes flying all over the world with hundreds and hundreds of happy customers - you don't seem to get that and want to continully bash away when you're nothing more then a minorty of one amoung hundreds. I don't get it....

I've had personal contact with hundres of these owners and with one or two expecptions I can assure you they aren't on your side!

Roger H


Return to “Safety Corner”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest