Data is in: Sport Pilots more prone to accidents than GA pil

Doss79 · Post by **Doss79** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:11 pm

I just received the latest issue of Plane & Pilot magazine and found it was filled with a lot of fascinating articles this time around (Cubs on the cover again!). This time, Pilot gave readers an update on Light Sport Aircraft accidents based on 3 years of data. Lots of interesting data, but some we knew all along. Here’s just a samplin’

[The following information is from Mike Adams, VP of Avemco]

- Avemco has lost money on LSA insurance since inception and expects that trend to continue for another 1-2 years.
- Accident-wise, how well are LSA pilots stacking up against general aviation pilots? The answer is: Not so Well. The loss in tricycle gear LSA is twice as bad as the GA fleet. Compared to Cessna 152s, 172s, Cherokees, Grummans and so on, S-LSA has the potential for an accident twice as often as a GA plane. Furthermore, tailwheel S-LSA models have a frequency of loss 4.5 times as bad as their GA counterparts! (Nick’s thoughts: nothing new here, taildraggers are a bit more difficult to handle and fly)
- Pilot experience is the major culprit: If you conclude that new, low-time sport pilots are the ones whanging in on a regular basis, conclude again. It’s exactly the opposite: High-time pilots are the ones bending the birds out there.
- In studying Avemco accident claims, we began to suspect dealer checkout flights weren’t thorough enough. We found the majority were landing accidents and the common theme being pilot error. We’ve had S-LSA destroyed on landing by a 500, 1,100, and up to 4,400hr pilots. Most accidents occurred within 10 hours of dealer checkout in the airplane. It seems new owners were too often receiving only perfunctory checkouts. They’d fly with the instructor for an hour or two, display general competency, then the checkout instructor would release the airplane.
- The more experience new owners have, the less they tend to view LSA as anything more than smaller, simpler versions of the big iron they’ve flown for years.
- "GA airplanes are not light-sport airplanes!"
- One LSA instructor “claims it’s easier to train someone to be a sport pilot who doesn’t have any flight experience, rather than to transition experienced GA pilots. She believes veteran pilots have prejudices about how an airplane should fly, and the motor skills they’ve learned to apply to certain situations in those types of aircraft don’t always work in an LSA.”
- Europe hasn’t experienced the same accident ratio between GA and LSA flight. Mike Adams says, “I think it’s because a majority of their pilots have lots of microlight flying experience. We believe pilots who go from lighter to heavier aircraft have easier transisitions than the other way around.” (Nick’s thoughts: Germans started off with glider training before powered aircraft during WWII—were the better pilots, imho).
Lots of other details in the story. Buy it if you want to read the rest. Now, what are ya’lls thoughts on this? Is this really anything new?

CTflyer · Post by **CTflyer** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:31 pm

Somehow I'm not surprised.

But are Plane&Pilot and AVEMCO saying "sport pilots" have more accidents?

Or that "pilots flying LSA" have more accidents.

Or is it really saying "lighter" aircraft have more accidents than "heavier" aircraft, considering the numbers of both "categories".

My gut tells me that aircraft are more subject to gusty winds, the lighter they weigh. And the closer they are to the ground (a/k/a "landing"), the more that wind problem can cause nasty dents in the hardware.

And I have to admit it makes sense that pilots with most of their experience in "heavier" light planes, could be trying to use their "Cessna 172" skills in something that weighs less than half of what they've been used to.

One phrase really strikes me: "GA airplanes are not light-sport airplanes— get this into your head! "

What are they trying to say there?
Tom

CharlieTango · Post by **CharlieTango** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:59 pm

slsa got off to a bad start due to the issues stated in the Plane & Pilot mag.

to a great extent the issues have been resolved and the landing accidents that were common in 05/06 have diminished.

slsa trends to day/vfr and is therefore protected from accidents in imc. ultimately lsa should prove to be more safe due to limited exposure to icing and other imc related accidents.

tech10002 · Post by **tech10002** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:19 pm

I can attest to the statement: "GA airplanes are not light-sport airplanes— get this into your head! "

I did a REALLY lousy job of flying the Sportstar at first by over-controlling it and trying to fly it like a 172. I'm still not doing a stellar job, and it's hard to get used to the amount of rudder it takes at high power settings and leading turns with rudder.

These things are definitely NOT a 172.

Jim Stewart · Post by **Jim Stewart** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:24 pm

It would pretty much be a miracle if the rates were equal or lower. Already mentioned is the issue of PP flying LSA without proper transition training. As to the newly minted LSA pilots, they will all be low hours rookies.

I wonder about the accident rate involving fatalities. It would seem that the number might very well be lower for LSA. The NTSB database shows 17 accidents for the CTSW/CT2K, none of them fatal and most of them with the pilot and passenger walking away. Looking at the first 17 records for Cessna 150 there are 2 fatalities, for the Beechcraft 33 about half the accidents are fatal.

Doss79 · Post by **Doss79** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:44 pm

CTflyer wrote:
One phrase really strikes me: "GA airplanes are not light-sport airplanes— get this into your head! "

What are they trying to say there?
Tom

Sorry, that "get this into your head!" phrase ended up being my creation that I forgot to separate. That's not in the article. The article has it verbatim as: "GA airplanes are not light-sport airplanes!"

Everything else is verbatim.

CTflyer · Post by **CTflyer** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:33 am

Thanks for the clarification - but I still wonder what they meant by "GA airplanes are not light sport airplanes."

I'd think the General Aviation and LSA worlds might get a bit upset (or not?) about that.

I'm trying to assume they just meant "Larger GA aircraft don't fly like light sport aircraft". If so, they should have said that. What they *did* say isn't a very strong recommendation for LSA "strengthening the health of GA".

Or maybe just say "LSA are very different from the typical ASEL".

By the way, Jim mentioned "It would seem that the number might very well be lower for LSA. The NTSB database shows 17 accidents for the CTSW/CT2K, none of them fatal and most of them with the pilot and passenger walking away. Looking at the first 17 records for Cessna 150 there are 2 fatalities, for the Beechcraft 33 about half the accidents are fatal."

I think you also have to keep in mind the number of CTSW/CT2K planes compared to the number of C150 planes that are out there, as well as the number of hours flown in a given time period. Plus the experience (hours in type/model, and total hours) of the pilots.

Tom

Doss79 · Post by **Doss79** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:09 am

They can solve this whole thing by letting the Cessna 150 be part of the LSA line.

rsteele · Post by **rsteele** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:16 am

I think the title of this thread is misleading. It's not sport pilots that are the problem, its GA pilots that think they can hop into an LSA and fly it with no training. Many LSA's are lighter on the controls and more responsive than many GA planes and this gets untrained pilots into trouble. No big suprise there. It's a simple matter of transition training,.

Ron

CTflyer · Post by **CTflyer** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:20 am

Yep - if the C150/152 were accepted for Sport Pilot flying. Would smooth the road for *many* new pilots. Don't count on it any time soon.

Altho' I think AOPA is now (finally!) encouraging the increase in the LSA MTOW to closer to 1600 lbs. Hasn't even started to move through FAA yet, as far as I know.

But remember the post I made here many moons ago: EAA and FAA admit that the whole Sport Pilot program idea originated back in the 1990s to get ultralight pilots (and "heavy" ultralights) under FAA control, and to encourange the light aircraft industry to create (and sell) new aircraft. It was thought at the time that the new LSA would sell for between $25K and $50K.

The Sport Pilot program was never intended to "make flying more affordable", or to get new pilots for GA. The funny thing is that EAA/FAA report the numbers of new "sport pilots" since 2004, but the majority of those new pilots were actually already ultralight pilots who had to become sport pilots to continue flying their heavy ultralights legally.

Ain't it fun!

Tom

CharlieTango · Post by **CharlieTango** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:38 am

isn't light sport a general category of general aviation?

are we really trying to say that light sport doesn't fly like heavier general categories?

CTflyer · Post by **CTflyer** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:52 am

CharlieTango wrote:isn't light sport a general category of general aviation?

are we really trying to say that light sport doesn't fly like heavier general categories?

This is exactly what amazes me. Sure seems that AVEMCO and Plane&Pilot are saying that.

Weird.
Tom

Daidalos · Post by **Daidalos** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:32 am

CTflyer wrote:
CharlieTango wrote:isn't light sport a general category of general aviation?

are we really trying to say that light sport doesn't fly like heavier general categories?
This is exactly what amazes me. Sure seems that AVEMCO and Plane&Pilot are saying that.

Weird.
Tom

Humm.. what about the number of existing aircraft with Standard Airworthiness certificates that meet the Light Sport category. They were considered GA for years! What year was the J3 certificated? I think this may be due to the training and expectations of the pilots.

I was suprised at how much time it took me to transistion to an LSA

Doss79 · Post by **Doss79** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:15 pm

How much time did it take you Daidalos?

Daidalos · Post by **Daidalos** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:38 pm

Doss79 wrote:How much time did it take you Daidalos?

9.2 hours, but to give you the entire picture, I sold my plane during a divorce in 1991 and let my medical lapse. I had about 660 hours total time logged at that time. I had not flown anything in the last 18 yyears.

LSAs are different and the flight instructor had tried to reset my expectations when he first met me. I didn't want to believe him ofcourse. I figured 2-3 hours for a biannual checkoutl was all I needed. I figuired wrong! I'm glad you didn't see my early landings. BTW for any licensed PP out there, all you need is a biannual but I strongly suggest a good checkout in an LSA.