From: cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Two planes collide over Santa Paula Airport
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:29:43 GMT
Organization: Sequoia Computer Systems

In article <1992Sep1.190021.23099@peck.com>, geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
> (1)  Uncontrolled (not "uncoordinated") airports make up the majority of
>      landing facilities in this country.  In 1990, there were:
> 
	[stuff deleted]

> 	This means that 96% of the landing facilities (88% of the
> 	public use airports) in the U.S. are uncontrolled airports.
> 	And most towers, by the way, don't operate 24 hours per day --
> 	tower-controlled airports become uncontrolled airports when the
> 	tower is closed.

Yes, but:

	In many/most cases, the busiest airports are the ones with towers.
	Although many more uncontrolled airports exist, without talking about
	numbers of operations at each kind we don't get much useful data.
	I know of many registered uncontrolled airports which only get a
	few operations a year.

> (2)  There is nothing inherently unsafe about uncontrolled airports.
>      Indeed, probably as many accidents happen at controlled airports
>      as do at uncontrolled airports.  There are specific flight
>      procedures which pilots are trained to perform when approaching an
>      uncontrolled airport.

I disagree (I think). Although there might be nothing inherently unsafe
about uncontrolled airports *IF EVERYBODY PLAYED BY THE RULES*, people
seem to ignore the rules with great regularity at uncontrolled airports.
What would be interesting is to compare the number of mid-air's in the
vicinity of an airport *COMPARED TO THE TRAFFIC COUNTS AT THAT AIRPORT*.
I suspect you'd find that uncontrolled airports are *MUCH* more dangerous
per operation.

> (4)  Midair collisions are incredibly rare, but they do happen.  (People
>      are also killed by falling refrigerators.  This is incredibly rare,
>      but it does happen.)

I personally know several people who have been killed in midair collisions.
I don't know anyone who's been killed by a falling refrigerator, although
I'm sure it must occasionally happen. Again, you have to compare the
statistical chance for this to be very useful.

> (6)  News reports on general aviation accidents are notoriously inaccurate.
>      The news media is in the business of attracting viewers, selling
>      papers, and selling ads.

Agreed. Although I sometimes think we bring it on ourselves when we
jump all over the pilot-at-fault with our opinions about how safe/unsafe
we thought he (or the operation) was.

In the one case where I got to compare a newspaper report to an incident
I was involved in, the reporter accurately reported what the right seat
pilot said. He was smart enough to state it in a positive way, and GA
came out looking pretty good. I was upset enough that I knew I shouldn't
talk to the reporter - it would have been a terrible article about what
absolute crap Lycoming engines are :-(
-- 
                  THIS                  | Paul Cantrell "PC"
                  SPACE                 | cantrell@sequoia.com
              INTENTIONALLY             | DoD #1144
               LEFT BLANK               | HELO/ASEL/ZX10 Pilot
Newsgroups: rec.aviation