w of Aircraft Accident Data

eral Aviation, Calendar Year 2000

National Transportation Safety Board

Washington, D.C.

A

A

N TION

L

TRA

SPOR ATION

B OARD

SAF E T Y

N

T

E PLURIBUS UNUM 

NTSB/ARG-04/01PB2004-105928

National TransportationSafety Board

Washington, D.C.
This page intentionally left blank
National Transportation Safety Board

490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20594

nnual R nnual Review of Aircraft Accident Data eview of Aircraft Accident Data

U.S. General Aviation, Calendar Year 2000

/ARG-04/01

04-105928

ion 7534B

ted June 17, 2004
on Safety Board. 2004. on Safety Board. 2004. U.S. General Aviation, Calendar Year 2000. Annual Review

ata NTSB/ARG-04/01. Washington, D.C.

 accidents occurred during calendar year 2000, involving 1,861 aircraft. The total number of

ts in 2000 was higher than in 1999, with a 4% increase of 69 accidents. Of the total number

atal, resulting in a total of 596 fatalities. The number of fatal general aviation accidents in

er calendar year 1999, but the total number of fatalities that resulted decreased by 4%. The

ccidents and details related to the aircraft, pilots, and locations are presented throughout this

fety Board is an independent Federal agency dedicated to promoting aviation, railroad, highway, marine, pipeline, and

ablished in 1967, the agency is mandated by Congress through the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 to investigate

mine the probable causes of the accidents, issue safety recommendations, study transportation safety issues, and evaluate the

ent agencies involved in transportation. The Safety Board makes public its actions and decisions through accident reports,

on reports, safety recommendations, and statistical reviews.

ble in their entirety on the Web at <http://www.ntsb.gov>. Other information about available publications also may be

by contacting:

ion Safety Board

on, RE-51

W.

94

02) 314-6551

be purchased, by individual copy or by subscription, from the National Technical Information Service. To purchase this

ber PB2004-105 PB2004-105928 PB2004-105928 from:

formation Service

22161

03) 605-6000

Act, as codified at 49 U.S.C. Section 1154(b), precludes the admission into evidence or use of Board reports related to an

ion for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.
GENERAL AVIATION ACCIDENT SUMMARY...................1

UCTION .......................................................2

Purpose of the Review.................................................2What Is General Aviation?................................................2Which Operations Are Included in this Review?..................2Which Aircraft Are Included in this Review?.....................2Organization of the Annual Review....................................3

NERAL AVIATION ENVIRONMENT IN 2000.................4

General Economic and Aviation Industry Indicators .............4Fleet Makeup...................................................................5General Aviation Activity....................................................6

ICAL TRENDS IN ACCIDENT DATA......................9

Accident Rates...................................................................9Number of Accidents and Fatalities......................................11Accident Rate by Type of Operation ...................................12

N DEPTH .....................................................15

Location of General Aviation Accidents in 2000................15

United States Aircraft Accidents..............................15Foreign Aircraft Accidents....................................16

Aircraft Type...................................................................16Purpose of Flight............................................................17

Flight Plan.........................................................18Airport Involvement..............................................19Environmental Conditions.....................................20Lighting Conditions ...........................................21

Injuries and Damage for 2000.........................................22

Aircraft Damage..................................................22Accident Injuries..................................................22

Injuries by Role for 2000................................................24Accident Pilots................................................................24

Rating...............................................................24Total Time...........................................................27

Time in Type of Aircraft..........................................28Age..................................................................29

Accident Occurrences for 2000........................................30Phase of Flight................................................................33Chain of Occurrences ...................................................34Most Prevalent Causes/Factors for 2000...........................36

Probable Causes, Factors, Findings, and theBroad Cause/Factor Classification.........................36Human Performance............................................39

Weather as a Cause/Factor............................................40

FOCUS ON GENERAL AVIATION SAFETY:LANDING ACCIDENT.................................................

Landing Accident.........................................................42Landing Accident Severity................................................42Landing Accident Occurrences........................................43Landing Surface ..........................................................46Gear Configuration .....................................................46Type of Flight Operation ................................................48Landing Accident Causes/Factors ....................................48Landing Accident Weather ..............................................50Wind .........................................................................50Accident Pilots ..............................................................53Summary .....................................................................54

APPENDIXES

A: The National Transportation Safety BoardAviation Accident/Incident Database ...............................55B: Definitions..............................................................56C: The National Transportation Safety BoardInvestigative Process ....................................................57D: National Transportation Safety BoardRegional Offices..............................................................58

CONTENTS

42
This page intentionally left blank
1

AL AVIATION ACCIDENT SUMMARY

ccidents occurred during calendar year 2000,1

ircraft. The total number of general aviation

 was higher than in 1999, with a 4% increase

Of the total number of accidents, 345 were

a total of 596 fatalities. The number of fatal

ccidents in 2000 increased 1.5% over calendar

the total number of fatalities that resulted

. The circumstances of these accidents and

he aircraft, pilots, and locations are presented

view.

ion between two aircraft is counted as a single accident. The 19 midair collision accidents that occurred in 2000 involved 34 general aviation

eral aviation aircraft. In addition, 11 ground collision accidents involved 20 general aviation aircraft and 2 non-general aviation aircraft.

2000 General Aviation Accident Statistics

General Aviation Accidents Total  Fatal General Aviation Accident Injuries Minor  Serious  Fatal  Persons Involved in GA Accidents with No Injuries General Aviation Accident Rate General Aviation Hours Flowna All Accidents  Fatal Accidents  Accidents per Pilot  Fatal Accidents per Pilot 

 1,837 345 532 309 596 1,853

27,838,000

 6.57/100,000 Hours 1.21/100,000 Hours 2.92/1,000 Active Pilots 0.55/1,000 Active Pilots

 a Federal Aviation Administration, General Aviation and Air Taxi Survey, 2000.
2

w

on Safety Board’s 2000 Annual Review

for U.S. General Aviation is a statistical

 general aviation accidents that occurred

gistered aircraft. As a summary of all

dents for 2000, the review is designed

on pilots and their passengers and to

ation to support future government,

earch efforts and safety improvement

n several resources in compiling data

data, for example, were extracted from

n Accident/Incident Database.2 Activity

he General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity

and from U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics,4

d by the Federal Aviation Administration

ecast Branch, Planning and Analysis

ation Policy and Plans. Additional

d from the General Aviation Statistical

 the General Aviation Manufacturers

What Is General Aviation?General aviation can be described as any civil aircraft operationthat is not covered under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)Parts 121, 129, and 135, commonly referred to as commercialair carrier operations.5

Which Operations Are Included in this Review?This review includes accidents involving U.S.-registered aircraftoperating under 14 CFR Part 91, as well as public aircraft6 flights

that do not involve military or intelligence gathering operations.Aircraft operating under Part 91 include aircraft that are flownfor recreation and personal transportation and certain aircraftoperations that are flown with the intention of generating revenue,7

including business flying, flight instruction, corporate/executiveflights, positioning or ferry flights, aerial application, pipeline/powerline patrols, and news and traffic reporting.Which Aircraft Are Included in this Review?General aviation operations are conducted using a wide rangeof aircraft, including airplanes, rotorcraft, gliders, balloons andblimps, and registered ultralight, experimental, or amateur-builtaircraft. The diverse set of operations and aircraft types included

ls.

TA Survey, data associated with air taxi and air tour operations are not included in this review.

s, 2000, available online at http://api.hq.faa.gov/CivilAir/index.htm.

stics related to air carrier operations, see National Transportation Safety Board, Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data, U.S. Air Carrier

0 (Washington, DC: 2003), available at http://www.ntsb.gov.

definition has changed over the years, public aircraft operations for NTSB purposes are qualified government missions that may include law

ion, aerial application, firefighting, search and rescue, biological or geological resource management, and aeronautical research.
Introduction 3

of general aviation must be considered when

ata in this review. The type of aircraft being

losely related to the type of flight operation

Jet and turboprop aircraft are commonly used

cutive transportation, smaller single-engine

 commonly used for instructional flights, and a

ypes are used for personal and business flights.

s review are any accident data associated with

 under 14 CFR Parts 121, 129, or 135, such

 121 air carrier operations, Part 129 foreign

ons, scheduled Part 135 air carrier operations

 nonscheduled Part 135 air carrier operations

t included are data for military or intelligence

 non-U.S.-registered aircraft, unregistered

mmercial space launches unless the accident

raft conducting general aviation operations.

 illegal operations, stolen aircraft, suicide, or

uded in the accident total, but not in accident

f the Annual Review

Review is organized into four parts.

part summarizes general aviation accident

r 2000, economic and industry markers related

 aviation activity in 2000, and contextual

om previous years.

2. The second part investigates trends over the past 10 years

and provides context for such accident information asoperation types, levels of aircraft damage, and injuries.

3. The third part focuses on specific circumstances of

accidents that occurred during 2000. This sectiondescribes accident occurrences and summarizes the SafetyBoard’s findings of probable cause and contributingfactors.

4. The fourth and final section presents in-depth coverage

of a special topic important to general aviation safety.The 2000 Annual Review focuses on the landing phase of

flight, which has historically accounted for the largestnumber of accidents.

Graphics are used to present much of the information in thisreview. For readers who wish to view tabular data or to manipulatethe data used in this review, the data set is available online athttp://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm.

s were attributed to pilot suicide and four accidents resulted from stolen or unauthorized use of aircraft.
4

ATION ENVIRONMENT IN 2000

d Aviation Industry Indicators

 throughout this review is that general

s should be interpreted in light of related

aft type, type of operation, and operating

rsonal and business flying account for

general aviation (GA) flying, prevailing

d/or trends may noticeably affect both

stry and flight operations.

U.S. industrial and personal incomes grew steadily from 1980through 2000. Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. residentpopulation increased by 13%, the gross domestic product roseby 37%, and disposable personal income per capita rose by 17%.Economic indicators for the general aviation industry eitherdeclined or remained generally steady between 1980 and themid-1990s. Production and sale of light piston aircraft, whichaccount for most of the general aviation fleet, decreasedsubstantially during these years from more than 10,750 in 1980to about 500 in 1994. The total number of new general aviationaircraft shipped in 1994 was about 7% of the number shipped in1980. However, overall factory billings for new aircraft weresimilar in 1980 and 1994 because the value of turbine aircraftsales increased, compensating for losses in piston aircraft sales.By 2000, general aviation industry indicators had increasednoticeably. Aircraft shipments nearly tripled between 1995 and2000, and the percent increase in net factory billings between1995 and 2000 was equal to the total increase observed overthe previous 20 years. This rapid growth was likely motivated bya combination of generally favorable economic conditions andincreased general aviation aircraft production following the 1994passage of the General Aviation Revitalization Act9 limiting

manufacturer liability.

ion Act, signed into law August 17, 1994, limited the liability of general aviation manufacturers to 18 years.

227.3 248.8 281.4

s)b $4,901 $6,708 $9,191

llions)c $3,658 $5,01 $6,630

r Capitac $16,063 $20,058 $23,501

11,877 1,144 2,816

aft (Millions)d $2,486 $2,008 $8,558

Piston (Millions)d $794 $92 $446

Turbine (Millions)d $1,691 $1,916 $8,112 

viation Industry Indicators, 1980-2000 

1980 1990 2000

ble at 

es/pre1980/popclockest.txt>. 

oss domestic product, using chained 2000 dollars; data are 

bea/dn/gdplev.xls>. 

d 2000 dollars; data are available at 

>. 

ciation, General Aviation Statistical Databook, 2002. 
5 The General Aviation Environment In 2000

of new general aviation aircraft increased

e mid-1990s, most general aviation aircraft in

 more than 25 years old. U.S. manufacturers

ew general aviation aircraft in 2000, compared

otal of 213,500 already in service. Single

raft currently have the highest average age of

on aircraft types and account for the largest

 GA fleet. As a consequence, any structural or

ncorporated into newly manufactured aircraft

ed in the accident record for several years. The

mproved equipment such as avionics and aircraft

o difficult to track because most new equipment

or installation in older aircraft.

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

e Multi-engine Turboprop Jet

hipments of U.S.-Manufactured

al Aviation Aircraft, 1980-2000

Number of Active Aircraft in

General Aviation, 2000 

SingleenginePiston148,791

Lighter thanAir4,643

Amateurbuilt16,739

Glider2,033

Multi-enginePiston19,418 

Turboprop5,226

Jet6,352

Rotorcraft6,560

Category Engine Type Seats Average Age

Single-engine Piston 1-3 28

4

5-7 25

8+ 43

Turboprop all

allallall

10

Jet 27

Multi-engine Piston 1-3 21

4 28

5-7 31

8+ 30

Turboprop 19Jet 16

All Aircraft 27

GAMA, General Aviation Statistical Databook, 2000 

32
cident Data 6

ivity

includes such a diverse group of aircraft

ome measure of exposure must be

eaningful comparisons of accident

s typically used to normalize accident

nt groups, with the level of activity

l of exposure to potential accident risk.

rtures, and miles flown are common

re activity.

As the graph shows, annual general aviation flight hour estimatesbegan to increase in 1994 after a decline during the precedingyears. By 2000, the estimated number of general aviation flighthours was 29.1 million, the second highest number recordedannually from 1991 through 2000.It should be noted that activity data for general aviation are farless reliable than data available for commercial air carriers. UnlikePart 121 and scheduled Part 135 air carriers, which are requiredto report total flight hours, departures, and miles flown to theDepartment of Transportation (DOT) Research and SpecialPrograms Administration (RSPA),10 operators of general aviationaircraft are not required to report actual flight activity data. As aresult, activity for this group of aircraft must be estimated usingdata from the GAATA Survey.11 The GAATA Survey was established

in 1978 to gather information about aircraft use, flight hours,and avionics equipment installations from owners of generalaviation and nonscheduled Part 135 aircraft. General aviationactivity data are considered less reliable because a limitedsample12 of aircraft is selected from the registry of aircraft ownersfor use in the GAATA Survey, and reporting is not required.

General Aviation Hours

nnually, 1991-2000

994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

vity on a monthly basis, and scheduled Part 135 operators report quarterly.

gov/pubsarchive.asp.

ple frame consisted of 290,269 registered aircraft, from which 31,039 records (10.7%) were selected in a sample stratified by state/territory

mple, 16,044 (52.2% of the sample and 5.5% of the total population) completed surveys were collected (GAATA Survey, Calendar Year
The General Aviation Environment In 2000 7

ic general aviation activity data could not be

y cases because the survey data represented an

ircraft activity, including both general aviation

 Part 135 operations, which are not included in

eral aviation accidents. Such aggregate data

ber of landings, flight hours by state or region,

day/night or weather conditions. For this review,

 aviation activity measures were determined by

cheduled Part 135 data from activity totals

. Such data are not included in this review.

ht hour estimates, the number of pilots can be

he level of exposure to risk for the various types

uded in general aviation. Available measures

ation include both the number of certificates

s and medical certificates issued to active pilots.

w student pilot certificates represents positive

ot population, and the number of medical

epresents an informal census of all active pilots.

gh 1996, the number of new student pilot

 year decreased steadily from 88,586 to

umber fluctuated after 1996, but remained

ith a total of 58,042 new student certificates

The total number of pilots active in U.S. general aviation decreasedsteadily throughout the early and mid 1990s, from 702,659 in1991 to 622,261 in 1996. Between 1997 and 2000, the numberof active pilots fluctuated, with an estimated total of 629,989active U.S. pilots in 2000.

en Statistics, available at http://api.hq.faa.gov/CivilAir/docs/air22-99.XLS.

Number of New Student Pilot

Certificates Issued, 1991-2000

0

20406080

100

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Thousands of Certificates
cident Data 8

In summary, general aviation indicators—flight hours and thetotal number of active and newly issued pilot certificates—decreased annually between 1990 and about 1996. From 1996through 2000, the number of active and new student pilotsfluctuated at generally the same level while estimates of flightactivity increased. The increase in estimated activity over theperiod had a noticeable effect on accident rate and should beconsidered when attempting to interpret the general aviationaccident record for 2000 in the context of previous years.

Number of Active Pilot

cates, 1991-2000

994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
9

RENDS IN ACCIDENT DATA

culated general aviation accident rate declined

estimates of general aviation activity increased

ut a corresponding increase in the number of

te of 6.57 accidents per 100,000 hours flown

tantially lower than the 10-year high of 9.08

0,000 hours in 1994. In fact, the 2000 rate

igher than that of 1999, which had the lowest

ety Board began reporting general aviation

dent rates in 1975.15 Despite the observed

nt rate, the relative percentage of fatal accidents

nstant from 1991 through 2000, at 18 to 21%

The 2000 rate of 1.21 fatal accidents per

urs was only slightly higher than the 1999 fatal

nual general aviation activity increased noticeably after 1998 due to a change in GAATA Survey methodology that increased the estimated GA

 approximately 10%. See Appendix A of the GAATA Survey, Calendar Year 2000 for an explanation of the changes in survey methodology.

duled 14 CFR 135 "commuter" and non-scheduled 14 CFR 135 air taxi aircraft operations were included in the Safety Board's annual general

 and rate.

General Aviation Accident Rate

 1991-2000

02468

1012

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Accidents per 100,000 Hours

Accidents Fatal Accidents
cident Data 10

accident-related deaths per flight hour

s per 100,000 hours flown, matching

ty-per-hour rate of the 10-year period.

cident distribution is the number of

Although this measure was considerably

rough 2000 than the per-hour accident

htly overall with the lowest number of

e period occurring in 2000.

Accident rate calculations based on flight hours require the useof GAATA Survey activity data extrapolated from a relatively small

sample of aircraft owners. As a result, the calculated values areaccurate only to the extent that the sample represents the largerpopulation of general aviation operators. For this reason, accidentrate data presented in this review typically also include rawfrequency data for comparison.

neral Aviation Fatalities

Hours Flown, 1991-2000

3.3

3.0

2.6 2.5 2.4

2.1 2.1

994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

General Aviation Accident Distribution

per Active Pilot, 1991-2000 

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Accidents per 1,000 Pilots

Accidents Fatal Accidents
Historical Trends In Accident Data 11

idents and Fatalities

mber of general aviation accidents fluctuated

o year, the number of accidents that occurred

 1991 and 2000 declined overall from 2,197

ear low of 1,837 in 2000. The number of fatal

creased slightly overall, from 439 in 1991 to

 number of fatal accidents was up slightly from

f 340 reached in 1999.

In 1992, the total number of fatalities resulting from generalaviation accidents reached a high of 867. After that, the numberof fatalities exhibited a generally downward trend and reached arecord low of 596 deaths from 345 fatal accidents in 2000.This observed decline in fatalities was consistent with other trendsfor the 10-year period, which showed a decline in the number ofactive pilots, the number of accidents, and the number of fatalaccidents.

of General Aviation Accidents

1991-2000

993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

ccidents Fatal Accidents

Number of Fatal General Aviation

Accidents and Fatalities, 1991-2000 

0

250500750

1,000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Fatal Accidents Fatalities 
cident Data 12

e of Operation

s a wide range of operations, each with

ht profiles, and operating procedures.

n the accident record. However, the

e GAATA Survey allow for only a coarse

ny types of general aviation operations.

ons, such as public aircraft flights,16 no

. The data presented here include four

lected because they are representative

ave activity information available. The

eing typical of general aviation activity

ess flying,17 corporate flying, aerial

onal flights.

akes up the largest portion of general

d includes all flying for pleasure and/or

ation. Although similar to personal flying,

udes the use of an aircraft for business

out a paid, professional crew. Personal

s are typically conducted in single- and

n airplanes, but may include a range of

gliders, rotorcraft, and balloons.

cludes any business transportation with

ew and usually involves larger, multi

boprop, and jet airplanes.

 includes the use of specially equipped

 and for spraying pesticides, herbicides,

rial application is unique because it

ly close to the ground.

• Instructional flying includes any flight under the supervision

of a certificated flight instructor.18 This typically includes

both dual training flights and student solo flights. Aircraftused for instruction are often similar to those used forpersonal flying. However, instructional operations areunique because they often involve the repeated practiceof takeoffs and landings, flight maneuvers, and emergencyprocedures.

From 1991 through 1999, personal and business flying had thehighest average accident rate, followed by aerial application andinstructional flights. In 2000, however, the accident rate for aerialapplication operations was 9.33 accidents per 100,000 flighthours. This rate exceeded the accident rate for personal/businessoperations, which had a rate of 8.22 accidents per 100,000flight hours. The lowest accident rate was for corporate/executivetransportation, which for the 10-year period ranked lowest overalleach year. In 2000, at 0.27 accidents per 100,000 hours, theaccident rate for corporate/executive flying was only 5% of therate of instructional flying, the third-lowest rate.

a include 37 public aircraft accidents, 12 of which resulted in one or more fatality.

curately distinguishing between personal and business flying for both the activity survey and the accident record, the rate presented in this

bined exposure data (hours flown).

ght instructor certificate and rating requirements.
13

ntioned, the highest percentage of general

ts typically involves personal and business

een 1991 and 2000, personal/business flying

 average of 67.1% of all general aviation

00, 66.8% of all general aviation accidents

/business flying, a percentage consistent with

ge. Instructional flying accounted for the next

e with 14.2% compared with a 10-year average

neral aviation accidents. The lowest number of

91 through 2000 involved corporate/executive

less than 12 accidents per year, annual totals

utive accidents are barely visible when graphed

accidents involving other types of operations.

Throughout the 10-year period, the combined category ofpersonal/business flying also had the highest fatal accident rate.Except for the year 2000, the rate was typically more than doublethe rate for any other type of flying.

Accident Rate by

e of Operation, 1991-2000

er 100,000 Flight Hours) 

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

and Business Aerial Application

ruction Corporate/Executive

Number of Accidents by

Type of Operation, 1991-2000 

0

200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,600

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Personal and Business Aerial ApplicationFlight Instruction Corporate/Executive

Historical Trends In Accident Data
cident Data 14

cidents per year were associated with

, compared to an average 25 fatal

d to instructional flying, 13 for aerial

rporate executive flights. Differences in

fatalities and injuries among types of

d to the type of aircraft and equipment,

and the operating environments unique

The total fatal accidents per year among

ion exhibit a distribution similar to the

nts per operation, with personal and

 for an average 74% of all fatal general

5% of all fatal injuries for 1991 through

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Personal and Business Aerial ApplicationFlight Instruction Corporate/Executive

Number of Fatal Accidents by

Type of Operation, 1991-2000

0

50

100150200250300350400

Accident Rate by

peration, 1991-2000

0,000 Flight Hours)

94 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

siness Aerial Application

Corporate/Executive
15

TH

neral Aviation Accidents in 2000

rcraft Accidents

on can contribute to general aviation accident

ncreased activity due to population density or

to hazardous terrain, a propensity for hazardous

ncentration of particularly hazardous flight

map shows state by state the number of all

ccidents that occurred within the United States

mber of general aviation accidents occurring

e is related to the population, general aviation

lying conditions unique to that state. Although

y activity data needed to calculate general

rates for each state are not available, some

be made about general aviation activity levels

 and population of each state. For example,

s, and Florida20 had the greatest number of

0. U.S. Census Bureau data21 indicate that

 highest state population in 2000, followed by

nd Florida (fourth). In addition, all three of

 warm climates that favor flying year-round,

popular travel destinations that attract general

m other states. These states also had the largest

pilots22 and active aircraft.23 These data suggest

that the high number of accidents in California, Texas, and Floridamay be related primarily to a high level of activity.Regional differences that affect general aviation accident numbersmay also include hazards unique to the local terrain and weather.For example, the operating environment, infrastructure, and travelrequirements in Alaska present unique challenges24 to aviationthat are reflected in the general aviation accident record. AfterCalifornia, Texas, and Florida, Alaska had the most generalaviation accidents in 2000.

17 19

13

56

124

31

105

212

42

52

59

25

29

43

19

64

41

9

131

11

12

10

31

22

23

22

23

36

30

9

31

40

45

6

34

16

38

35

45

37

4

10

10

32

23

7

3

2

37

16

Accidents

45 + (10)34 to 44 (10)23 to 33 (10)11 to 22 (10)

2 to 10 (10)

General Aviation Accidents by U.S. State, 2000

cidents for California includes one accident off the coast in the Pacific Ocean.

cidents for Florida includes one accident off the coast in the Gulf of Mexico.

; data are available at http://factfinder.census.gov/.

en Statistics, 2000, available at http://apo.faa.gov/CivilAir/docs/air5-99.XLS.

2000, available at http://www.api.faa.gov/GA2001/tab_2-3.pdf.

viation safety in Alaska, see National Transportation Safety Board, Aviation Safety in Alaska, Safety Study, NTSB/SS-95/03 (Washington, DC:

ard is also supporting an ongoing effort to identify and mitigate risk factors specific to aviation operations in Alaska; for details, see http://

n/AK/alaska_stat.htm.
cident Data 16

mber of general aviation accidents in

 along with the 10-year average. Note

accident totals for 2000 were below

e distribution of accidents among states

he period.

nts

aircraft were involved in 46 accidents

e 50 United States. Those accidents

ountries and territories, the Atlantic and

Gulf of Mexico. Of those accidents, 15

deaths. The largest number of accidents

red in Canada, with 8 accidents, followed

ough most general aviation accidents

aircraft outside the United States usually

ntries like Canada and the Caribbean

accident record includes accidents that

ermany, Saudi Arabia, and New Zealand.

Aircraft TypeThe following graphs summarize the total number of generalaviation accidents and the number of fatal accidents occurringin 2000 by type of aircraft. Most notable is the large number ofaccidents involving single-engine piston airplanes, whichaccounted for 73% of all accident aircraft and 64% of all fatalaccident aircraft.

Off California 1 0 0From Fishing Vessel 1 0 0

2 0

Off Bahamas 1 0 0Off Florida 1 1 1Off Portugal 1 0 0

3 1

Off Louisiana 1 1 1From Oil Platform 3 1 1

4 2 2

Argentina 1 0 0Austria 1 1 2Bahamas 3 0 0Canada 8 6 16Colombia 1 0 0Costa Rica 3 1 2Fiji 1 0 0French West Indies 1 0 0Germany 3 2 4Guatemala 3 1 7Haiti 1 0 0Mexico 4 2 9New Zealand 1 0 0Pohnpei 1 0 0Puerto Rico 3 0 0Sao Tome Island 1 0 0Saudi Arabia 1 0 0

37 13 4046 16 43

Accidents Involving U.S.-Registered General

Aviation Aircraft Outside the 50 United States, 2000

Number of 

Accidents

Number of Fatal 

Accidents

Number of 

Fatalities

 Pacific OceanSubtotal

Gulf of Mexico

 Total Other Countries / TerritoriesSubtotalSubtotalSubtotal Atlantic Ocean

0

1

viation Accident States, 2000

52

Number of Accidents

200010-year Average

4

5

47

6666

68

129

134

127

234

4545

56

59

64

105

124

131

212
2000 in Depth 17

In 2000, the per-aircraft accident rate for all aircraft types was6.66 accidents and 1.27 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown.25Among fixed-wing powered aircraft, the rate for single-engine pistonairplanes was 7.61 accidents and 1.27 fatal accidents per 100,000hours flown. Amateur-built aircraft26 had the highest accident ratein 2000 with 25.70 accidents and 5.52 fatal accidents per 100,000flight hours. Rotorcraft had the second highest rate among poweredaircraft, with 10.80 accidents and 2.04 fatal accidents per 100,000hours flown. However, glider operations had the second highestaccident rate overall, with 20.36 accidents and 3.18 fatal accidentsper 100,000 hours flown.Purpose of FlightAs previously mentioned, general aviation includes a wide rangeof operation types, each with unique aircraft types, flight profiles,and operating procedures. The total number of accidents andthe accident rates can vary considerably as a result of thesedifferences. To allow comparisons among different operations,risk exposure is standardized across different operations by usingflight hours as a common measure of activity.The type of operation or purpose of flight can be defined as thereason a flight is initiated. Activity data by purpose of flight arederived from the GAATA Survey, which includes 14 purpose/usecategories. Two of these categories, air taxis and air tours, arecovered under 14 CFR Part 135 and are therefore not includedin this review. The remaining 12 categories include the previously

ent Rate per Aircraft Type, 2000

(per 100,000 Flight Hours)

6.42

20.36

10.80

25.70

0.73

4.55

3.92

7.61

6.66

0.49

3.18

2.04

5.52

0.30

0.98

1.35

1.27

1.27

Accidents by Type of Aircraft, 2000 

13

32

206

228

17

60

111

1,361

1,861

353

226

38

137

49

39

5

1 Lighter-than-air

Gliders

Rotorcraft

Amateur-built

rplane Turbine

ane Turboprop

-engine Piston

e Single Piston

All Aircraft

Lighter-than-air

Gliders

Rotorcraft

Amateur-built

Airplane Turbine

plane Turboprop

i-engine Piston

e Single Piston

All Aircraft

TotalFatal

TotalFatal

 rates are per aircraft and differ from per-accident rates because each aircraft is counted separately in the event of a collision. Included in the

uded from the associated rates, are 4 single-engine piston, 2 multi-engine piston, and 1 turboprop accident aircraft with a probable cause

botage, or stolen/unauthorized use.

g) provides for the issuance of a Special Airworthiness Certificate in the experimental category to permit the operation of amateur-built aircraft.

ay be fabricated from plans or assembled from a kit, so long as the major portion (51%) of construction is completed by the amateur builder(s).
cident Data 18

“personal,” “business,” “instructional,”

application,” which together accounted

aviation operations during 2000. The

aviation operations are included in more

s “external load” and “medical use.” A

ctivity data is that its categories provide

n of the range of possible flight operations.

ying” includes but does not distinguish

, or proficiency flying. At the same time,

similar categories like “personal” and

asily identified. Accordingly, the purpose

ted in this review is limited to the combined

d business flying, as well as corporate,

pplication flights.

urvey, most general aviation operations

nal and/or business purposes. Of the

eneral aviation hours flown in 2000,

llion—were conducted for personal or

ult of this level of activity is that a large

aviation accidents involve personal/

, personal/business flying is still over

dent record: although this segment

f the general aviation hours in 2000, it

) of all general aviation accident aircraft

al accident aircraft in 2000.

t instruction operations was about half

n and personal/business flights. This

rising because student pilots could be

mistakes than experienced pilots while

ight instruction accidents were also less

likely to be fatal. Only 12% of the flight instruction accidentsthat occurred in 2000 resulted in fatalities, compared to 20% ofpersonal/business accidents. When compared with the numberof hours flown, the fatal accident rate for instructional flights was0.63 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown. The fatal accidentrate for personal/business flying remained the highest in generalaviation with 1.61 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown.

Flight PlanOf the 1,861 pilots involved in general aviation accidents in 2000,1,549 (83.2%) did not file a flight plan. In most cases, a flightplan is required only for flight under instrument flight rules (IFR).However, pilots operating under visual flight rules (VFR) on pointto-point flights have the option of filing a flight plan, which aidssearch and rescue efforts for pilots who fail to arrive at their intendeddestinations. VFR flight plans are typically not filed for local flightsand, in general, the filing of a flight plan may be more indicativeof the type of flight operation than the safety of a particular flight.

able at http://apo.faa.gov/GA2001/tab_1-6.pdf.

Flight Plan Filed by Accident Pilot, 2000 

VFR/IFR 0.2%

Unknown 0.9%

IFR 7.3%

VFR 8.4%

None 83.2%
2000 in Depth 19

ment

cations were closely split between those occurring

port (49.6%) and those occurring on airport

Comparing accident risk based on location is

of the exposure differences between different

craft types. For example, a single-engine piston

structional flights will spend a large percentage

me near an airport while a jet aircraft used for

rtation will not. However, a relationship can be

 the location and severity of accidents. Accidents

ort or airstrip typically involve aircraft operating

titudes and airspeeds while taking off, landing,

 land. Accidents that occur away from an airport

ircraft in the climb, cruise, maneuvering, and

 flight, which typically occur at higher altitudes

ds. As a result, accidents that occur away from

re likely to result in higher levels of injury and

han accidents that occur on an airstrip or near

rcraft involved in fatal accidents in 2000 (76.5%)

y from an airport or airstrip.

Another distinction that can be drawn between flight profiles isbetween local and point-to-point operations. A local flight is onethat departs and lands at the same airport, and a point-to-pointflight is one that lands at an airport other than the one fromwhich it departed. Typical local flight operations includesightseeing, flight instruction, proficiency flights, pleasure flights,and most aerial observation and aerial application flights.Conversely, point-to-point flights include any operation conductedwith the goal of moving people, cargo, or equipment from oneplace to another. Typical point-to-point operations includecorporate executive transportation, personal and business travel,and aircraft repositioning flights.A comparison of the numbers of accident aircraft on local flightswith those on point-to-point flights illustrates that the percentagesof aircraft on each type of flight were similar although point-topoint flights accounted for slightly more accident aircraft.

on of Accident Aircraft, 2000

270

1

81

923

857

200 400 600 800 1,000

Number of Aircraft

TotalFatal

Local and Point-to-Point Flights, 2000

Local

46%

Point-toPoint

54%

859 1,002
cident Data 20

ry to compare accident rates for local

re not available. However, a comparison

cal and point-to-point accident flights

purposes of flight provides an indirect

ying represented in both flight profiles.

 that most personal/business flights were

nstructional flights were local. Corporate

and aerial application operations were

te, with 100% of corporate flights being

f aerial application flights being local.

Environmental ConditionsMany hazards to safety are unique to the type of flight operation,type of aircraft, and flight profile, but environmental conditionsmay be hazardous to all flight operations and all types of aircraftto some degree. Aircraft control, for example, is highly dependanton visual cues related to speed, distance, orientation, and altitude.When visual information is degraded or obliterated because ofclouds, fog, haze, or precipitation, pilots must rely on aircraftinstruments. Because of the difficulties associated with flying anaircraft solely by reference to instruments, the FAA has establishedspecific pilot, aircraft, and procedural requirements28 for flight in

instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). According to theFAA Pilot/Controller Glossary,29 “instrument meteorologicalconditions” are defined as “meteorological conditions expressedin terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less thanthe minima30 specified for Visual Meteorological Conditions(VMC).” Weather minima differ based on altitude, airspace,and lighting conditions, but 3 statute miles visibility and a cloudclearance of 1,000 feet above, 500 feet below, and 2,000 feethorizontal distance is typical. The following chart illustrates thepercentage of accidents and fatal accidents that occurred in VMCand IMC. A comparison of the percentages of accidents in eachweather condition that resulted in a fatality illustrates the hazardsassociated with flight in IMC. In 2000, only 15.5% of theaccidents that occurred in visual conditions resulted in a fatality,but 64.5% of accidents in instrument conditions were fatal.

67-193, 91.205(d).

n, Pilot/Controller Glossary, Washington, D.C., available online at http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/PCG/INDEX.HTM.

cal conditions are specified in 14 CFR 91.155.

nt-to-Point Comparison

 of Operation, 2000

70%

93%

66%

0%

36%

30%

7%

34%

100%

64%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

t-to-Point Local
2000 in Depth 21

ent conditions accounted for only 7.3% of all

 of fatal general aviation accidents in 2000

One reason for the disproportionate number

n IMC is that such accidents are more likely to

rientation, loss of control, and collision with

—accident profiles that typically result in high

 and injury. Instrument conditions may also

dent severity by further complicating situations

ore easily handled in visual conditions. For

anding due to an engine malfunction or failure,

 in minor damage if it were to occur in visual

pose an even greater threat to a pilot flying in

ons because reduced visibility would make the

able landing site more difficult.

Lighting ConditionsLighting conditions can present a similar hazard to pilots becauseof physiological factors related to night vision, difficulties in seeingpotential hazards such as mountains, terrain, and unlightedobstructions, and perceptual illusions associated with having fewervisual cues. The following graphs illustrate that, similar to IMC,most accidents occur in daylight conditions but a largerpercentage of the accidents that occur at night result in fatalities.In fact, accidents that occurred at night were more than twoand-a-half times more likely than daylight accidents to be fatal.Like weather-related accidents, accidents at night are more likelyto involve disorientation, loss of control, and/or collision withobjects or terrain that result in higher levels of injury. The reductionin visual cues at night also hinders pilots from identifyingdeteriorating weather conditions and further complicates anyaircraft equipment malfunctions.

ccidents and Fatal Accidents

 Weather Condition, 2000

21 78

267

1,728

IMC

4.5% Fatal)

VMC

(15.5% Fatal)

Total Fatal

Accidents and Fatal Accidents

by Lighting Condition, 2000

1

249

9

61

11

1,571

43

144

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Dawn

Day

Dusk

Night

Number of Accidents

Total

Fatal
cident Data 22

e for 2000

ors record aircraft damage as either

” or “minor.” “Substantial damage” is

 as “damage or failure which adversely

th, performance, or flight characteristics

would normally require major repair or

cted component.” “Destroyed” and

ly defined in 49 CFR 830.2. However,

ionally defined as any damage in which

the value of the aircraft,31 and “minor”

hat is not classified as either “destroyed”

Most aircraft involved in accidents during 2000 sustainedsubstantial damage (78.2%), and about one in five accidentaircraft (20.5%) were destroyed. “Minor” and “no damage”classifications included less than 1% each of accident aircraft.

Accident InjuriesSafety Board investigators categorize injuries resulting fromgeneral aviation accidents as “fatal,” “serious,” or “minor.” Title49 CFR 830.2 defines a fatal injury as “any injury which resultsin death within 30 days of the accident.” Title 49 CFR 830.2also outlines several qualifications32 of serious injury that include,

but are not limited to, hospitalization for more than 48 hours,bone fracture, internal organ damage, or second- or third-degree

 Accidents Resulting in a

ghting Condition, 2000

%

20.9%

42.4%

y Dusk Night

raft are also considered "destroyed."

ete definition of injury categories.

Damage to Accident Aircraft, 2000

Substantial

78.2%

None

0.5%

Destroyed

20.5%

Minor

0.8%
2000 in Depth 23

wing graph depicts the percentage of general

 resulting in each level of injury during 2000.

e fact that more than half (52.9%) of accidents

jury.

aphs illustrate both the number of accident

jury category and the corresponding number

d those aircraft who sustained injuries in each

t injury level is equal to the highest level of

y an occupant of that aircraft. Again, most

e aboard general aviation aircraft that were

ents sustained no injuries.

Level of Accident Injury, 2000

Fatal 18.8%

Serious 10.9%

Minor 17.4%

Total Injuries Sustained by Persons

Aboard Accident Aircraft, 2000

585

305

525

1,839

0

500

1,0001,5002,000

Highest Level of Injury Aboard

Accident Aircraft 2000

353

201

323

984

0

500

1,0001,500

Fatal Serious Minor None

Fatal Serious Minor None
cident Data 24

000

sents detailed information about the

d by all persons involved in general

g 2000. The distribution of general

 varies with the type of operation and

he number of injuries experienced by

ries with their level of activity (that is,

example, all aircraft have a pilot, but

assengers on board. In 2000, 490

me level of injury in general aviation

e 820 pilots who were injured. Despite

he injury rate for passengers was similar

ing that only 1,121 of 1,861 accident

n board. Although the total number of

ual to only 59.8% of the number of

2% of accident flights were carrying

viously, most general aviation accidents

s flights in single-engine piston aircraft,

nly one pilot. Because of this exposure

d the highest percentage of injuries in

s in 2000, suffering 56% of all fatalities,

s, and 56% of all minor injuries.

In addition to injuries sustained by persons on board the accidentaircraft, 13 persons who were not aboard aircraft also sustainedinjuries. Examples of such accidents include a ground crewmember who died from head injuries received from a fall onconcrete while mooring a blimp and two motorists who receivedminor injuries when a business jet overran the end of a runway,slid across a public roadway, and collided with passing vehicles.Accident Pilots

RatingOf the 1,861 pilots involved in general aviation accidents in2000, the largest percentage (42.7%) held a private pilotcertificate.33 The second-largest percentage (38.7%) held acommercial pilot certificate, which is required for any person toact as pilot-in-command of an aircraft for compensation or hire.34

Personal Injuries Fatal Serious Minor None Total

 Pilot 335 186 299 1,041 1,861 Copilot 22 6 17 52 97 Dual student 16 6 21 87 130 Check pilot 0 2 0 10 12 Other crew 8 3 4 18 33 Passenger 204 102 184 631 1,121 Total aboard 585 305 525 1,839 3,254 On ground 2 4 7 -- 13 Other Aircraft 9 0 0 14 23 Total 596 309 532 1,853 3,290

cs, available at http://api.hq.faa.gov/CivilAir/index.htm.

rivileges granted by a commercial pilot certificate.
2000 in Depth 25

o the number of active pilots in 2000 holding

certificate, commercial pilot certificate holders

ented among general aviation accidents.

cial pilot certificate holders accounted for only

ilots, they were involved in 38.7% of all general

 in 2000.

Similarly, the per-pilot accident rate was highest for commercialpilot certificate holders during 2000, with 5.74 accidents per1,000 active pilots. One possible explanation for the highernumbers of accidents is that commercial certificate holders maybe employed as pilots and would therefore be likely to fly morehours annually than student or private pilots.

Highest Certificate Held

by Accident Pilot, 2000

Student

6.5%

None

0.7%

Airline

Transport

11.4%

ercial

%

ate

%

Number of Active Pilots

by Highest Certificate, 2000

Airline Transport

141,596 

Commercial

121,858 

Private

251,561 

Student

93,064 

Recreational

340
cident Data 26

centage of commercial pilots involved

44.3%) were conducting personal flights

 commercial operations at the time of

Because annual flight-hour data are not compiled separatelyfor pilots holding each type of certificate, it is not possible tomake comparisons between activity-based accident rates. TheU.S. Civil Airmen Statistics35 also do not include information about

the type of operation that certificate holders engage in. However,the high number of commercial pilot accidents attributed to aerialapplication operations might suggest that the historically highaccident rate of such flights may have contributed to the increasedrate observed for commercial pilots. Examples of othercommercial operations not presented in the chart includecorporate executive transportation, sightseeing flights, bannertowing, and aerial observation.

s, 2000, available online at http://api.hq.faa.gov/CivilAir/index.htm.

nt Rate per 1,000

ts by Certificate, 2000

.07

5.74

1.45

vate Commercial Airline

Transport

Type of Operation Conducted by

Accident Pilot Certificate, 2000

744

309

113

0

119

10 4

132

33 5 41 23 0 100

200300400500600700800

Private Commercial Airline Transport

Personal / Business Aerial ApplicationInstruction Ferry / Positioning

(1,806 of accident pilot records with data available, 2000) 
2000 in Depth 27

Pilot (ATP) certificate holders, in addition to

d as pilots,36 can engage in air carrier

ch are not included in this review. As a result,

ders may fly fewer general aviation hours and

eral aviation accident rate.

ents in 2000 for which pilot total flight experience

, 46.6% involved pilots with a total flight time of

s. The following chart depicts the distribution of

g accident pilots. The inset focuses on those

 1,000 hours. The largest percentage of accident

 had 200 hours or less of total flight time. When

ccident pilots with available data, about 16% of

d 200 hours of flight experience or less.

Because of the flight hour requirements38 for obtaining

commercial and ATP certificates, it is not surprising that nearlyall accident pilots with 200 total hours or less of flight time heldeither private pilot certificates (60.2%) or student pilot certificates(38.3%).39 Most pilots with more than 1,000 total hours of

flight time held commercial pilot certificates (55.2%).

 Subpart G, for the privileges and limitations of the Airline Transport Pilot certificate.

7.

1 for the requirements of each type of pilot certificate and to 14 CFR Part 141 for differences in those requirements for training conducted at approved flight schools.

ld commercial certificates but had less than 200 hours total time; one was a balloon pilot and the other was a foreign citizen operating a U.S.-registered aircraft.

cident Pilot Total Time, 2000

821

265

150

90

71

56

38

28

23

29

190

Accident Pilot

Total Time 2000

(Less than 1,000 Hours)

143

dent pilot records with total flight time information) 

Flight Hours

0-200

201-400401-600601-800

801-1,000

278

183

126

91

Pilot Certificate Held by Accident Pilots

with 200 Hours or Less Total Time, 2000

Student 38.3%

Private 60.2%

None 0.7%

Commercial 0.7%

Pilot Certificate Held by Accident Pilots

with More Than 1,000 Hours Total Time, 2000

Private 23.4%

Commercial 55.2%

Airline Transport 21.5%
cident Data 28

at most accident pilots with 200 hours

re flying single-engine piston airplanes

rred. Accident pilots with more than

 a more diverse selection of aircraft,

her percentages who were flying multi

, and turbine-powered airplanes, and

o were flying helicopters.

Time in Type of AircraftOf the 1,527 accidents in 2000 for which data are availableabout pilot experience in the accident aircraft make and model,82.4% involved pilots with 1,000 hours of time in the accidentaircraft make and model or less. Most accident pilots in thisgroup (68.2%) had less than 200 hours of total flight time in theaccident aircraft type, and a total of 100 pilots (6.5% of allaccident pilots for whom data are available) had less than 10hours in type. Most accident pilots with less than 10 hours of flighttime in make and model were flying single-engine piston aircraft.Pilots may have low time in type because they are new pilots withlow total time or they are experienced pilots who are transitioningto a new aircraft. Two groups of pilots who might be expected tohave accumulated significant time in make and model are thosewho own their own airplanes and fly them often and professional

 Flown by Accident Pilots

0 Hours Total Flight Time, 2000

 Flown by Accident Pilots

Hours Total Flight Time, 2000

Piston

Piston

oprop

urbine

orcraft

an-air

Glider

Piston

Piston

oprop

urbine

orcraft

an-air

Glider

89.1%

0.7%0.0%0.0%

5.5%

1.1%

3.6%

74.1%

7.1%

4.1%

1.1%

11.7%

0.5%

1.3%

Accident Pilot Total Time in Aircraft Type 2000

1,269

128

48

25

12

45

0-1,000

1,001-2,0002,001-3,0003,001-4,0004,001-5,000

>5,000

Accident Pilot Total Time

in Aircraft Type, 2000

(Less than 1,000 Hours)

(1,527accident pilot records with time in aircraft type information)

Flight Hours

Flight Hours

801-1,000

601-800401-600201-400

0-200

0-10

4547

92

220

865

100
2000 in Depth 29

ame aircraft often. A large number of general

 own aircraft have single-engine piston airplanes.

ulti-engine piston, jet, and turboprop airplanes

be operated by professional pilots. Although not

d in the chart, it is particularly worth noting that

dent pilots in 2000 who had less than 10 hours

craft type were operating amateur-built aircraft.

Comparison of these two graphs shows that pilots with more than200 hours in make and model were more likely than pilots withfewer hours in type to be flying rotorcraft or multi-engine piston,jet, or turboprop airplanes.

AgeMost accident pilots in 2000 were between the ages of 40 and 59.The average age of all active pilots in the U.S. increased steadilyfrom 1991 through 2000 and by 2000 was equal to 43.740 years.

In contrast, the average age of general aviation accident pilots was48.1 years. Despite the difference in average age, no meaningfulconclusions can be made regarding specific age-related accidentrisk because FAA flight hour activity numbers are not available foreach age group. Age differences could be the result of activity ifopportunities for recreational flying were to increase with age.

en Statistics, 2000, available at http://apo.faa.gov/CivilAir/docs/air13-00.xls.

rcraft Flown by Accident Pilots with

 Hours in Accident Aircraft Type, 2000

rcraft Flown by Accident Pilots with

00 Hours in Accident Aircraft Type, 2000

e-engine Piston

ti-engine Piston

plane Turboprop

Airplane Turbine

Rotorcraft

Lighter-than-air

Glider

e-engine Piston

ti-engine Piston

plane Turboprop

Airplane Turbine

Rotorcraft

Lighter-than-air

Glider

82.0%

3.0%

1.0%1.0%

5.0%

0.0%

8.0%

76.6%

5.6%

3.6%

1.0%

10.9%

0.7%

1.6%

Average Age of Active Pilots 1991-2000

40.5 40.5 40.8 41.3 41.9

42.9 43.2 43.6 43.6 43.7

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Age in Years
cident Data 30

flight instruction operations, which include

 their students, had the lowest average

ars. Accident pilots conducting personal/

hest average age at 51.0 years, followed

ate/executive flights at 50.3 years.

Accident Occurrences for 2000Safety Board accident reports document the circumstances ofan accident as “accident occurrences” and the “sequence ofevents.” Occurrence data can be defined as what happenedduring the accident. A total of 5441 occurrence codes are

available to describe the events for any given accident. Becauseaviation accidents are rarely limited to a single occurrence,each occurrence is coded as part of a sequence (that is,occurrence 1, occurrence 2, etc.), with as many as five differentoccurrence codes in one accident. For accidents that involvemore than one aircraft, the list of occurrences may be differentfor each aircraft.Of the 1,808 accident aircraft in 2000 for which data areavailable, 1,340 had 2 or more occurrences, 552 had 3 ormore, 83 had 4 or more, and 8 had a total of 5 occurrences(each). The excerpt from a brief report shown here is for an

craft" and "undetermined," do not represent operational events.

f Accident Pilot, 2000

40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+

Age in Years

Unknown

Age of Accident Pilot by

of Operation, 2000

38.9

44.0

44.6

50.3

51.0

48.3

10 20 30 40 50 60

Age in Years

Average Age of Accident Pilot by

Highest Pilot Certificate, 2000

38.3

46.3

50.5

52.3

48.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Student

Commercial

Private

ATP

All Accident Pilots

Age in Years
2000 in Depth 31

e occurrences. The brief illustrates how an

tiple occurrences is coded. In this accident,

n 2000, the airplane overran the end of the

ding and collided with a fence. As it slid to a

went into a ditch, nosed over, and a fire resulted.

urrences was coded in order, as shown.

Occurrence data do not include specific information about whyan accident may have happened; the first occurrence can insteadbe considered the first observable link in the accident chain ofevents. The following table displays first occurrences for all year2000 general aviation accident aircraft with sequence of eventsdata available. To simplify the presentation of accident occurrencedata, similar occurrences are grouped into eight major categories.Among the eight major categories of first occurrences, the largestpercentage of accidents (26.4%) included occurrences relatedto aircraft power. Among the individual occurrences, the mostcommon involved a loss of control either in flight (14.4%) or onthe ground (12.3%). Although occurrences involving loss ofaircraft control on the ground resulted in only 1 fatal accident in2000, loss-of-control occurrences in flight resulted in a total of110 fatal accidents—nearly one-third of all fatal accidents andmore than twice that of any other single occurrence.

OVERRUN

LANDING - ROLL

UCHDOWN POINT - EXCEEDED - PILOT IN COMMAND

DING - NOT PERFORMED - PILOT IN COMMAND

ON GROUND/WATER COLLISION WITH OBJECT

LANDING - ROLL

ENCE

ON GROUND/WATER ENCOUNTER WITH TERRAIN/WATER

LANDING - ROLL

ONDITION - DITCH

NOSE OVER

LANDING - ROLL

FIRE

OTHER

e of Occurrence Findings Cited

 NTSB Accident Brief, 2000
ccident Data 32

2000 Accident First Occurrences 

Total Fatal Total Fatal 

293 105 Power Related 45

ollision with Object 152 157

478155

45 Loss of Engine Power 16

with Terrain/Water 101 48 Loss of Engine Power (Total) – Nonmechanical 14

Midair Collision 25 11 Loss of Engine Power ( otal) – Mech Failure/Malfunction 81 8

Undershoot 15 1 Loss of Engine Power (Partial) – Nonmechanical 41 5

n Between Aircraft 0 0 Loss of Engine Power (Partial) – Mech Failure/Malfunction 36 1

445 162 Propeller Failure/Malfunction 6 1

 Control – In-flight 260 110 Rotor Failure/Malfunction 2 0

ailure/ Malfunction 106 20 Engine Tear-away 0 0

unter with Weather 70 31 Landing Gear 38 0

ence Encountered 5 1 Wheels-up Landing 14 0

Forced Landing 3 0 Gear Collapsed 9 0

ation, Uncontrolled 1 0 Nose Gear Collapsed 5 0

Abrupt Maneuver 0 0 Main Gear Collapsed 4 0

Decompression 0 0 Gear Retraction on Ground 4 0

95 2 Wheels-down Landing in Water 2 0

ollision with Object 48 1 Complete Gear Collapsed 0 0

with Terrain/Water 31 0 Tail Gear Collapsed 0 0

Other Than Midair) 8 1 Other Gear Collapsed 0 0

 Float, or Tail/Skid 8 0 Gear Not Extended 0 0

er 409 4 Gear Not Retracted 0 0

 On-ground/Water 223 1 Miscellaneous 34 6

Hard Landing 93 1 Miscellaneous/Other 25 4

Overrun 39 1 Fire 8 1

Nose Over 29 0 Fire/Explosion 1 1

unter with Weather 12 0 Explosion 0 0

Roll Over 8 0 Hazardous Materials Leak/Spill 0 0

Contact to Person 2 1 Cargo Shift 0 0

Nose Down 1 0 Undetermined 3 3

et Exhaust/Suction 1 0 Missing Aircraft 3 3

Ditching 1 0 Undetermined 0 0
33 2000 in Depth

stration displays the percentage of accident

hase of flight at the time of first occurrence.

 can be defined as when, during the operation

e first occurrence took place. There are 50

flight that investigators may use to describe the

onology of occurrences. To simplify the

s information, the detailed phases are grouped

ad categories shown in this illustration. For

gory “approach” includes any segment of an

ch or position in the airport traffic pattern and

e aircraft is landing on the runway. The upper

presents the percentage of all accidents that

hase, and the numbers in parentheses indicate

 all accidents that were fatal.

stration, most accidents occurred during takeoff

ite the relatively short duration of these phases

ntire profile of a normal flight. The high number

ccurred during takeoff and landing reflects the

d placed on both the flight crew and the aircraft

es. During both takeoff and landing, the flight

crew must control the aircraft, change altitude and speed,communicate with air traffic control (ATC) and/or other aircraft,and maintain separation from obstacles and other aircraft. Aircraftsystems are also stressed during takeoff and landing with changesto engine power settings, the possible operation of retractablelanding gear, flaps, slats, and spoilers, and changes in cabinpressurization. While the aircraft is at low altitude during takeoffand landing it is also most susceptible to any hazards caused bywind and weather conditions.Notably, the landing phase of flight accounted for the largestpercentage of total accident first occurrences (27.3%) but only2.9% of fatal accident first occurrences. The largest percentageof fatal accident first occurrences (33.4%) occurred during themaneuvering phase of flight, but only 14.8% of all accident firstoccurrences occurred during this phase. These differences reflect

the relative severity ofaccidents that are likely tooccur during each of thesephases. Accidents that occurduring cruise and maneuvering are more likely toresult in higher levels of injuryand aircraft damage due to thehigher speeds and altitudes

associated with these phasesof flight.

The likelihood of an aircraft accident first occurrence during eachphase of flight varies by aircraft type and type of operation dueto the unique hazards associated with each. For example, aircraftconducting aerial application flights fly at very low altitudes whilespraying and therefore have an increased risk of colliding withterrain or obstructions. As a result, about 61% of all firstoccurrences for 2000 accidents involving aerial application flights

Takeoff Climb Cruise Descent Manuever/Hover Approach Go-Around Landing

19.6% 3.6% 14.9% 2.7% 14.8% 11.0% 2.0% 27.3%

( 15.6% ) ( 6.1% ) ( 22.3% ) ( 3.8% ) ( 33.4% ) ( 14.3% ) ( 1.0% ) ( 2.9% )

Accident Aircraft Phase of Flight During First Occurrence, 2000

1,772 accident aircraft with phase of flight data
cident Data 34

euvering phase compared to less than

flights and 11% for instructional flights.

differences among aircraft types are the

me spent in each phase, aircraft-specific

hat phase, and the type of operations

that aircraft. For example, the largest

ences for accidents involving helicopter

ed while maneuvering. The percentage

phase reflects the hazards unique to

and during operations that are unique

arrying external loads. In contrast, the

dents involving single and multi-engine

uring landing.

Chain of OccurrencesAn accident’s first occurrence and phase of flight during firstoccurrence indicate how and when an accident begins. However,the entire accident can also be viewed as a chain of all theaccident occurrences cited in the order in which they happen.As previously discussed, accident events often include acombination of multiple occurrences, with many possiblecombinations. For example, of the 1,822 accidents that occurredduring 2000 for which occurrence data are available, 407 uniquecombinations of accident occurrences were cited. The followingtables, which list the top ten combinations of occurrences for allaccidents and fatal accidents, illustrate the most common events.

hase of Flight During Accident

 by Type of Operation, 2000

Cruise

Maneuvering

Descent

Approach

Go-around

Landing

rsonal and Business Flight Instruction

Standing/

Taxi/Other

Takeoff

Climb

Cruise

Maneuvering

Descent

Approach

Go-around

Landing

Accident Aircraft Phase of Flight During

Accident First Occurrence by Aircraft Type, 2000

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

Single-engine Piston Airplane Multi-engine Piston AirplaneTurbine Airplane Helicopter
2000 in Depth 35

ence chains cited in fatal accidents are similar

all accidents. Loss of control followed by in

 terrain tops both lists, with more than half the

d in that category being fatal. It is important to

 this was the most frequent chain of occurrences

nted for less than 9.5% of all accidents for the

A diverse range of events can, in combination, result in anaccident. Fatal accidents, however, are usually the result of amore specific set of events. A comparison of the two lists providesinsight as to why some accidents are fatal and others are not.Six of the top ten chains of accident occurrences for all accidentsin 2000 involved ground events associated with taxi, takeoff, orlanding. In contrast, each of the top ten chains of fatal accidentoccurrences included an in-flight collision with terrain or object,accident profiles that are more likely to result in the high impactforces likely to cause serious injury. As these differences show,most accidents in 2000 did not involve catastrophic events, anda large number of accidents involved aircraft on the ground.

Number of Accidents

trol In-flight → In-flight Collision with

er 175

sion with Terrain/Water 88sion with Object 85

g 52

trol On-ground/water → On-ground/water

h Object 47

trol On-ground/water → On-ground/water

with Terrain/Water 46

water Collision with Object 45

sion with Object → In-flight Collision

/Water 40

trol On-ground/water 39trol On-ground/water → Nose Over 29

Occurrences -

cidents, 2000 Rank Number of Accidents

 1 Loss of Control In-flight → In-flight Collision with

 Terrain/Water 95 2 In-flight Collision with Terrain/Water 47 3 In-flight Collision with Object 25 4 In-flight Collision with Object → In-flight Collision

 with Terrain/Water 17 5 In-flight Encounter with Weather → In-flight Collision

 with Terrain/Water 15 6 Airframe/Component/System Failure/Malfunction →

 In-flight Collision with Terrain/Water 9 7 In-flight Encounter with Weather → Loss of Control In-flight → In-flight Collision with Terrain/Water 8 8 In-flight Encounter with Weather → In-flight

 Collision with Object 7 9 Loss of Control In-flight → In-flight Collision with Object 7

 10 Airframe/Component/System Failure/Malfunction → Loss of Control In-flight → In-flight Collision with Terrain/Water 6

Chain Of Occurrences -Fatal GA Accidents, 2000
cident Data 36

es/Factors for 2000

ors, Findings, and the Broad Cause/

ent occurrences, the Safety Board makes

le cause. The objective of the probable

e the cause and effect relationships in the

probable cause could be described as a

e accident happened. In determining

rd considers the facts, conditions, and

t. Within each accident occurrence, any

information that helps explain why that event happened is identifiedas a “finding” and may be further designated as either a “cause” or“factor.” The term “factor” is used to describe situations orcircumstances that contributed to the accident cause. The details ofprobable cause are coded as the combination of all causes, factors,and findings associated with the accident. Just as accidents ofteninclude a series of events, the reason why those events led to anaccident reflects a combination of multiple causes and factors. Forthis reason, a single accident report can include multiple cause andfactor codes, as shown in the following brief.

SION

D

NGINE POWER(TOTAL) - MECH FAILURE/MALF

EMERGENCY

NG - OVERTEMPERATURE

ECTING ROD - FRACTURED

KCASE - FRACTURED

ANDING

CY DESCENT/LANDING

COLLISION WITH OBJECT

CY DESCENT/LANDING

PARTMENT - SMOKE

DUCED - PILOT IN COMMAND

 = Factor

y Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows.

 due to a fuel/fuel vapor leak of undetermined origin. A secondary explosion resulted from a lack of lubrication to the number 6 connecting rod bearing.

was his reduced visibility during the forced landing, resulting from a heavy concentration of smoke in the cockpit.
2000 in Depth 37

uence began with an explosion in the engine

a single-engine airplane due to a fuel leak.

xplosion, the aircraft engine experienced a

cal failure and the pilot made a forced landing.

t control the aircraft and impacted trees during

smoke filled the aircraft cabin and restricted

eak and resulting explosion were both cited as

ngs of this accident. Smoke in the cabin, and

g reduced visibility, were both cited as factors.

xhaustion, engine bearing over-temperature,

ng rod, and fractured crankcase were all also

gs but were not assigned as causes or factors.

sentation of probable cause information in this

eds of unique codes used by investigators to

ause are grouped into broad cause/factor

broad cause/factor classification provides an

mental accident origins by dividing all accident

s into three groups: aircraft, environment, and

lowing graph shows the percentage of general

ts that fall into each broad cause/factor

sonnel-related causes or factors were cited in

 general aviation accident reports for 2000 for

r data were available. Environmental causes/

in 45% of these accident reports, and aircraft

ctors were cited in 29%.42 Environmental

rely cited as an accident cause but are more

as a contributing factor. In 2000, only 74 of

al citations (9.3% of all environmental causes/

ed as a cause, with the remainder listed as

rs. For example, rough terrain might be cited

as a contributing factor, but not a cause, to explain why an aircraftwas damaged during a forced landing due to engine failure. Inthat case, the origin(s) of the engine failure would be cited as“cause,” but the terrain would be cited as a factor because itcontributed to the accident outcome.As mentioned previously, several hundred unique codes areavailable to document causes/factors. A more detailed summaryof the cause/factor codes is illustrated in the following graph,grouped into the categories of personnel, environment, andaircraft.

oard frequently cites multiple causes and factors for an aircraft accident, the number of causes and factors will result in a sum greater than the total

Accident Broad Cause/Factor and Cause, 2000

29%

45%

89%

22%

4%

86%

Aircraft Environment Personnel

Cause/Factor Cause Only

(1,758 accidents with findings) 
cident Data 38

As this graph shows, most causes and factors attributed to generalaviation accidents in 2000 were personnel related. Much likethe pilot and passenger injury differences discussed previously,part of the reason for personnel being cited so often may have todo with exposure to risk. Personnel, and pilots in particular, areassociated with every flight. However, the potential aircraft andenvironmental accident causes and factors depend on a rangeof variables, including the type of flight, type of aircraft, time ofday, time of year, and location.Although the pilot was the most frequently cited individual in thepersonnel category in 2000, other persons not aboard the aircraftwere also cited as a cause or factor in 138 accidents. Suchpersonnel included flight instructors, maintenance technicians,and airport personnel. In the broad category of environmentalfactors, weather conditions were cited in 369 (20%) accidents.Powerplant-related43 causes/factors, cited in 243 (13%) of all

general aviation accidents in 2000, were the most commonlycited aircraft factors.The following graph shows how specific accident causes andfactors vary by type of flight operation. For example, personnelwere cited in 95% of instructional flight accidents, compared to89% for personal/business accidents and 79% for aerialapplication accidents. The high percentage of personnel causes/factors for flight instruction accidents is likely the result of aircraftcontrol and decision-making errors due to students’ lower levelof skill and ability. In contrast, aerial application accidents citeda higher percentage of aircraft causes/factors, most likely becausethe low altitude flown during spray operations allows few optionsfor recovery in the event of a mechanical failure.

es and factors include any partial loss or disruption of engine power, as well as the malfunction or failure of any part(s), equipment, or

ropulsion; “engine power loss” refers only to the total loss of engine power.

ndings Cited as a Cause or

 GA Accidents, 2000 

Personnel

4

14

138

1486

1562

nvironment

57

83

186

350

369

792

Aircraft

388

30

32

55

68

142

243

518

dents with findings in 2000) 
39 2000 in Depth

he causes/factors cited in accidents involving

aircraft reveals surprisingly similar results. The

centage of helicopter and multi-engine piston

d aircraft causes/factors is likely a result of the

plexity and reliability of the aircraft and

higher percentage of environmental causes/

ngle-engine aircraft accidents may be due to

mance, and equipment limitations of smaller

Human PerformanceThe information recorded in the personnel category refers primarilyto whose actions were a cause or factor in an accident. Toincrease the level of detail about the actions or behavior thatmay have led to an accident, causal data related to humanperformance issues and any underlying explanatory factors arealso recorded. The information in these categories can be thoughtof as how and why human performance contributed to theaccident. For example, if a pilot becomes disoriented and losescontrol of an aircraft after continuing visual flight into instrumentflight conditions, the pilot would be cited as a “cause” in thepersonnel category, and planning/decision-making would likelyalso be cited in the human performance issues category.Of the 1,468 accidents for which the cause or factor was attributedto human performance in 2000, the most frequently cited cause/factor was aircraft handling and control (65.6%), followed byplanning and decision-making (41.1%) and use of aircraft

 Causes/Factors by Type of

Operation, 2000

47%

79%

47%

89%

%

34%

95%

Environment Personnel

n Personal and Business Flight Instruction

Broad Causes/Factors by Accident

Aircraft Type, 2000

29%

47%

89%

35% 37%

87%

25%

38%

88%

32% 36%

89%

Aircraft Environment Personnel

Single-engine Piston Airplane Multi-engine Piston AirplaneTurbine Airplane Helicopter
cident Data 40

ues related to personnel qualification

 of the 209 accidents with underlying

d to human performance. Examples of

were cited in the 2000 accident record

rience, lack of recent experience, and

Weather as a Cause/FactorBecause general aviation aircraft are often smaller, slower, andlimited in maximum altitude and range in comparison to transportcategory aircraft, they can be more vulnerable than larger aircraftto hazards posed by weather. Smaller aircraft are affected to agreater degree by adverse wind conditions, and precipitation,icing, and convective weather have a greater effect on aircraftthat lack the speed, altitude, and/or range capabilities to avoidthose conditions. Weather conditions cited most often as a causeor factor in general aviation accidents are related to winds,including “crosswind,” “gusts,” and “tailwind.”Of the top five environmental causes/factors cited in generalaviation accidents in 2000, three were related to wind. Becauseaircraft are most susceptible to the effects of wind during takeoffsand landings, the effect of adverse wind was reflected in a highpercentage of general aviation accidents that occurred duringthose phases of flight.

s 1,468 278

963 204

604 136

t 180 12

88 14

tion/ATC 73 15

12 7

3 1

0 0

ctors 209 86

101 39

57 40

42 17

8 2

quate 6 0

6 0

5 0

4 2

1 0

All Accidents Fatal Accidents

rmance and Explanatory

ses/Factors 2000
2000 in Depth 41

As previously discussed, most landing accidents do not result infatal injuries. Because of the strong association of wind withlanding accidents in 2000, it is not surprising that most windrelated accidents are also not fatal. The wind-related weatherfactors “crosswind,” “gusts,” and “tailwind” were cited as a cause/factor in a total of 193 accidents, but only 10 of those accidentswere fatal. Among fatal general aviation accidents, four of thefive most frequently cited weather factors were related toconditions that resulted in reduced visibility, including “lowceiling,” “fog,” and “clouds.” Accidents under conditions of lowvisibility typically involve either loss of aircraft control and/orcollision with obstacles or terrain, both of which are likely toresult in severe injuries and aircraft damage.

369 87

86 0

54 3

53 7

38 29

ude 29 6

25 15

21 1

Conditions 20 2

17 9

15 3

12 10

10 4

9 4

9 0

8 6

d 7 0

6 1

6 3

5 3

ain Induced 5 1

Landing Minimums 5 4

4 2

ind 4 0

3 2

uds 2 1

2 1

2 1

2 1

r Air (CAT) 1 0

emes 1 0

h 1 1

w 1 0

1 1

derstorms) 1 1

1 0

1 0

1 1

All Accidents Fatal Accidents

 the possibility of multiple findings, the sum

/factors is greater than the accident total.
42

 AVIATION SAFETY:

S

toric accident data reveals that although

nts represent a significant risk to general

his safety concern, the following section

 and a discussion of several issues

ation landing accidents. This section is

ustive discussion of all safety concerns,

he issues important to general aviation.

Landing AccidentsHistorically, a large number of general aviation accidents haveoccurred during the landing phase of flight. Charting the annualpercentage of these general aviation accidents for each yearfrom 1991 through 2000 shows that the relative accidentfrequency during landing was consistent year to year andincreased slightly.Landing Accident SeverityAlthough the number of landing accidents for the years 1991through 2000 accounted for about one-quarter of the generalaviation accident total, the number of reported accidents likelyrepresented only a small portion of the total number of landingmishaps that occurred each year. As discussed previously and inAppendix B, 49 CFR 830.2 defines an aircraft accident as an

478483

374

66

29

9

102

2911

688

ft Damage

13

464

2

4

ding Accident Statistics

st Injury

es

that results in no damage or minor damage

 an incident unless combined with one or

stantial or greater severity.

A accidents with no injuries

Percentage of Accident Aircraft First Occurrences

During the Landing Phase, 1991-2000

21% 24% 24% 24% 22% 25% 25% 27% 28% 26%

0%

25%50%75%

100%

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Focus On General Aviation Safety: Landing Accidents 43

ny person suffers death or serious injury, or in

 receives substantial damage.” Mishaps that

ubstantial damage, minor injuries, or no injuries

 incidents, which are not required to be reported

rd and are not included in this review. These

de gear-up landings, ground loops, scraped

sions with runway lights. Such events may be

place, but few of them appear in the accident

hey are less likely to cause serious injury or

t damage.

y 9 landing accidents, or about 2% of the total,

njury compared to about 19% for all accidents.

juries that did occur during landing accidents

 to specific occurrences likely to result in severe

ch as a collision with an object or structure at

A combined 92% of all landing accidents during 2000 resultedin minor or no injuries. These events are defined as accidents,not because of injuries but because of damage to the aircraft. Infact, nearly all aircraft involved in landing accidents in 2000received substantial damage.Landing Accident OccurrencesThe following chart ranks, in order, first occurrences for landingaccidents in 2000 by frequency. The most frequently cited firstoccurrence for landing accidents was “loss of control,” just as itwas for all general aviation accidents in 2000. For landingaccidents, loss of control on ground or water indicates that mostaccidents occurred after the aircraft was no longer flying. Thesecond most common occurrence, “hard landing,” reflects thedifficulty pilots face in judging the speed and descent rate oftheir aircraft and their distance from the surface as they transitionfrom the air to the ground. Hard landings may damage the

est Level of Injury Sustained

Landing Accidents, 2000

6.1%

13.8%

78.2%

Serious Minor None

Level of Aircraft Damage in

Landing Accidents, 2000

2.7%

96.1%

0.4% 0.8% 0%

25%50%75%

100%

Destroyed Substantial Minor None
44 

ccident Data

the structure surrounding the landing

ticeably few accidents in 2000 included

e dragging of a wing, rotor, pod, float,

se of flight “landing” into more specific

rates the fact that most landing accidents

t had already touched down. A total of

% of all accident aircraft in 2000, were

involved in an accident while rolling down the runway afterlanding.The large number of accidents that occurred during the landingroll should come as no surprise. Fixed-wing aircraft landing gearare designed to support the aircraft during taxi, takeoff, andlanding, but must also be lightweight and create as littleaerodynamic drag as possible while in flight. As a result, thelanding gear on most general aviation aircraft are very simple indesign and rely on the pilots’ coordinated use of flight controlsto maintain control on the ground.For fixed-wing aircraft, directional control is typically maintainedusing the vertical stabilizer, commonly referred to as the “rudder.”Most airplanes implement rudder control through left and rightrudder pedals, requiring pilots to use their feet to make controlinputs. Aircraft braking control is commonly incorporated into

water 164

88

34

26

25

 Failure/Malfunction 18

th Object 17

17

/Water 15

th Terrain/Water 14

12

7

6

her 5

5

oat, or Tail/Skid 3

3

2

2

2

2

ter 2

l) – Mechanical Failure/Malfunction 1

1

with Weather 1

6

478

nces of Accidents During

g Phase of Flight, 2000

Specific Phase of Landing Accidents

by Aircraft, 2000

97

24

152

210

Landing

Aborted Landing

LandingFlare/Touchdown

Landing Roll
45 Focus On General Aviation Safety: Landing Accidents

, which pilots control by pushing on the top of

 controls for the left and right wheels are usually

ese systems, giving pilots greater directional

rough the use of differential braking. However,

g is typically reserved for use during low-speed

odynamic controls are less effective.

r of landing accidents that occur during and

is likely related to the fact that proper control

anding is different from that used for surface

ple, automobiles) and other phases of flight in

teering wheel used for directional control in an

ilar in operation to the yoke control used in

control about the longitudinal or “roll” axis.

d-wing aircraft flight operations, directional

ed by using the control yoke to bank the aircraft

ection, and the rudder is used to balance the

es on the airplane. Depending on the aircraft

ing, and airspeed, very little rudder input may

 most phases of flight compared to the amount

ired.

down, however, the rudder pedals become the

ed to align the longitudinal axis of the airplane

r landing surface. At this point, the pilot uses

e aircraft positioned in the center of the runway

rcraft into the wind. Because most pilots are

ienced using automobile steering wheels and

okes to maintain directional control, it is not

ots of fixed-wing aircraft have problems during

uired to change the priority of control inputs.

reviously learned behaviors to negatively affect

be especially strong in situations that require

ke landing an aircraft. Evidence of this negative

ved in the typically higher percentage of landing

accidents that involve fixed-wing aircraft. For example, fixed-wingaircraft accounted for 92% percent of landing accidents in 2000compared to 85% of the accident total. In contrast, rotorcraftaccounted for 11% of the 2000 accident total but only 6% oflanding accident aircraft.

Aircraft Type Involved in Landing Accidents, 2000

Fixed-wing 92%

Lighterthan Air 2%

Rotorcraft 6%
46 

ccident Data

ding may be complicated if the landing

contaminated by snow, water, or ice.

ccidents in 2000 occurred while aircraft

halt-surface runways.

g Surface Type for

g Accidents, 2000

67

318

ccidents with data available) 

Surface Conditions at Site

of Landing Accidents, 2000

0.2%0.2%

0.4%

0.9%0.9%0.9%

1.1%1.3%1.3%1.3%

3.1%

87.4%

Snow-crusted

Choppy Water

Dry Snow

Ice-covered

Rough

Wet Snow

Calm water

Packed Snow

Soft

Vegetation

Wet

Dry

Gear ConfigurationAircraft design and landing gear configuration may pose additionalrisks for landing accidents. Conventional or “tailwheel” gearconfiguration is an example of a landing gear design that maypose additional challenges under certain circumstances. Tailwheelaircraft are susceptible to a rapid loss of directional control,commonly referred to as “ground loop,” if the pilot makes abruptrudder inputs or fails to align the longitudinal axis of the aircraftwith the runway during touchdown. Tailwheel aircraft are alsosubject to “nose over,” where the aircraft tips forward onto itsnose or even flips if braking is applied too forcefully or rapidly.Specific activity data needed to compare tailwheel aircraft andthose with a tricycle-gear configuration are not available.However, the large percentage of landing accidents involvingtailwheel aircraft is likely the result of these potential controldifficulties. The differences between tailwheel and tricycle gear
47 Focus On General Aviation Safety: Landing Accidents

Another aircraft configuration that might be expected to contributeto landing accidents is retractable landing gear. Failure to extendthe landing gear prior to landing, whether because of mechanicalmalfunction or flight crew error, is an obvious risk for retractablegear aircraft. Surprisingly, the percentage of landing accidentsinvolving these aircraft was actually less than the percentage oftotal accidents involving retractable gear aircraft. Specifically, 19%of general aviation landing accidents during 2000 involved aircraftwith retractable landing gear compared to about 25% of allgeneral aviation accidents.

h)(1).

he specific challenges associated with landing

they remain popular in certain locations and

perations. For example, tailwheel airplanes are

 than airplanes with tricycle-gear for operation

 surfaces like grass, gravel, and dirt, making

ocations with fewer paved runway surfaces, like

about 13% of all landing accidents involving

n 2000 occurred in Alaska, compared to only

mber of accidents.

the FAA to require44 pilots to obtain additional

structor endorsement in order to act as pilot-in

lwheel airplane.

anding Gear on Aircraft Involved

Landing Accidents, 2000

Tailwheel 39%

% Skid 7%

Ski/Wheel 1%

Floats 1%

Amphibious 1% Landing Accident Aircraft Gear Type, 2000

FixedGear 81%

RetractableGear 19% 390 93
48 

Accident Data

e of landing accidents observed for

may reflect the fact that mishaps specific

ft, such as wheels-up landings or gear

to result in serious injury or substantial

ot categorized as accidents. Retractable

 less likely than fixed-gear aircraft to be

 pilots or in certain operations, such as

ht contribute to more landing accidents.

ion

centage of accidents involving different

 that personal/business flights and

nt for most landing accidents. However,

nted for a disproportionate number of

 In 2000, about 22% of general aviation

 instructional flight operations. In contrast,

 total involved instructional flights. This

d by the combination of errors new pilots

and an increased risk exposure because

time than other pilots practicing landings

Landing Accident Causes/factorsThe contribution of human error to mishaps during landing isevident in the percentage of accident findings that cite personnelrelated causes and/or contributing factors. Of the 477 landingaccidents in 2000 for which findings are available, 95% citepersonnel-related causes/factors compared to the 89% of allaccidents citing similar findings. In contrast, the 13% of landingaccident findings that cited aircraft-related causes and factors isconsiderably lower than the 29% of all accidents.

Purpose of Accident Flight for

Landing Accident Aircraft, 2000

13

122

44

5

8

105

339

Unknown

Ferry Flight

Aerial Observation

Corporate/Executive

Aerial Application

Other Work

Public Use

Positioning

Flight Instruction

Personal/Business

Number of Accidents
49 Focus On General Aviation Safety: Landing Accidents

ause/factor category of personnel, 441 of 447

ere cited as contributing to landing accidents,

most frequently cited individuals. In addition,

ere not aboard the accident aircraft were cited

 landing accidents in 2000. For example, the

rt maintenance vehicle and airport personnel

ollision of a landing aircraft with a vehicle used

s. In another example, a flight instructor was

adequately supervise a student pilot who crashed

ing a solo flight.

d Cause/Factor of Accidents

ng the Landing Phase, 2000

44%

95%

3%

93%

Environment Personnel

Cause/Factor Cause

nding accidents with findings available) 

Personnel

Environment

Aircraft

Summary of Findings Cited as a Cause or

Factor in GA Landing Accidents, 2000 

1

7

25

441

452

Organizations

Others (Aboard)

Others (Not Aboard)

Pilot

Personnel Total

11

25

47

75

122

211

Light Condition

Airport/AirwaysFacilities, Aids

Object

Terrain Condition

Weather Condition

Environment Total

00

21

44

55

43

60

Engine Power Loss

Instruments

Fluid

Aircraft Performance

Flight Controls

Powerplant/Propulsion

Aircraft Structure

Landing Gear

Aircraft Total

Systems/Equipment
or category, landing gear was the most

mponent. The most common examples of

rs included brake failure and gear collapse.

ather

anding accidents that cited environmental

milar to the proportion for all accidents.

 environment-related cause/factor findings

as noticeably higher for landing accidents.

e environmental causes and factors cited

s included weather conditions, compared

tion accidents.

ght, cloud ceilings and visibility were less

g accidents. Most likely, this was because,

essed to the landing phase, the greatest

 ceilings had usually been avoided. With

surface barriers to visibility like fog and

oses a specific threat during the landing

 accident record supports this suggestion,

s accidents occurring in IMC.

As illustrated in this table of weather conditions cited for landingaccidents in 2000, the top seven weather causes/factors describedwind conditions. The top three conditions, “crosswind,” “gusts,”and “tailwind,” accounted for 111 of the 122 weather-related findings.WindWind orientation does not affect an aircraft’s flight characteristics,but it does affect the movement of an aircraft relative to the ground.For most aircraft, the normal operating procedure during takeoffsand landings is to fly into a headwind to obtain a slower forwardgroundspeed while maintaining the aircraft’s designed airspeedrequirement. The airspeed requirements for takeoff, approach,

 Weather Condition Total 122 Crosswind 57 Gusts 28 Tailwind 26 Downdraft 7 Variable Wind 6 High Wind 6 Unfavorable Wind 4 High Density Altitude 4 Snow 3 Dust Devil/Whirlwind 3 Low Ceiling 2 Sudden Windshift 1 Turbulence, Terrain Induced 1 Windshear 1 Updraft 1 Rain 1 Fog 1 No Thermal Lift 1

Accidents

Landing Accidents Citing Weather as 

Cause/Factor, 2000

Conditions Associated with

ng the Landing Phase, 2000

467

50 

ccident Data
e based on the design requirements and

he aircraft and do not change in relation to the

educed groundspeed results in shorter takeoff

nces and reduces the forward distance traveled

e of climb or descent, which is useful when

r obstacles.

e, airports are built so that runways align with

nds, and airport traffic flow is typically directed

headwind. Larger airports may have multiple

oriented in different directions to maximize the

direct headwind. However, because local wind

ed may change with high and low pressure

nd even the time of day, the wind direction will

ned with the runway. As the angle between the

nd and the direction of the runway increases,

mponent decreases and the side or “crosswind”

ases. Just like a boat trying to cross a moving

n aircraft landing in a crosswind must angle the

nd to follow a straight path relative to the runway

g touchdown, the pilot of a fixed-wing aircraft

aft aileron (bank) and rudder (yaw) controls, as

d, to align the aircraft with the runway centerline

 stronger the crosswind component, the greater

equired to maintain proper runway alignment.

m limit to the amount of crosswind that can be

re the aircraft controls are no longer effective in

ay alignment, and manufacturers are required45

 with a maximum demonstrated crosswind

 to be used as a guide. This maximum limit

 on the type of aircraft and the design of its

controls, but a typical maximum demonstrated crosswind for ageneral aviation aircraft is between 15 and 20 knots.Crosswinds were the single most common weather phenomenacited in general aviation landing accidents in 2000. However, areview of the actual crosswind component calculated from thelanding runway heading and the winds reported at the time of theaccidents indicates that crosswinds above 15 knots were presentin only 10 of the 465 accidents for which wind information wasavailable. This suggests that the problem was not that thecrosswind exceeded the design limits of the aircraft, but that theaccident pilot failed to maintain control of the aircraft andappropriately correct for the effects of the crosswind.

5 (2). See also 14 CFR 23.233(a), which requires, “A 90 degree cross-component of wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe for taxiing, takeoff, and

lished and must be not less than 0.2 VS0 [stall speed in the landing configuration].”

Reported Crosswind Velocity

for Landing Accidents, 2000

94

174

145

42

8

2

0 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20+

Crosswind Velocity (knots)

Number of Accidents

(465 of 478 landing accidents with information) 

51 Focus On General Aviation Safety: Landing Accidents
st common weather condition cited in

gusts.”46 Gusting winds can adversely

e wind speed or direction changes rapidly

w altitude and airspeed. Pilots typically

 wind conditions during landing by

peed by a percentage of the difference

ull wind speeds. In 2000, the most

d conditions for landing accidents that

k gust speed of 15-19 knots.

The third most common weather condition cited in landingaccidents in 2000 was “tailwind.” Despite the previouslymentioned reasons for landing into a headwind, somecircumstances might induce a pilot to intentionally land with atailwind. Sloping runways, terrain, or obstacles can make landingin one direction preferable to the opposite direction, even with aslight tailwind. In some cases, a pilot who fails to accuratelyinterpret the current wind conditions may unintentionally land witha tailwind.The primary result of landing with a tailwind is a highergroundspeed. To compensate, pilots of fixed-wing aircraft mustuse a higher rate of descent to maintain a normal approach angle,and are at risk of overshooting the runway or landing too fardown the runway to stop the aircraft safely. Once on the ground,the increased groundspeed results in a longer ground roll as thepilot attempts to slow the aircraft to a stop. For a small singleengine aircraft with a normal approach speed of 55 knots, a 5-knot increase in groundspeed will typically increase the landingdistance by about 20%. A 20-knot increase in groundspeed forthe same aircraft can double the landing distance that would beexpected with no wind. In addition to greatly increasing thelikelihood that an aircraft will overrun the end of the runway duringlanding, landing with a tailwind also increases the risk that thelanding gear, tires, and brakes will fail when exposed to the strainof higher-than-normal touchdown speeds.

apter 5 of the Federal Meteorological Handbook as rapid fluctuations in wind speed with a variation of 10 knots or more between peaks

deral Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Federal Meteorological Handbook (FCM-H1-1995),1995,

ofcm.gov/fmh-1/cover.htm.)

orted Wind Gust Velocity

ing Accidents, 2000

29

17

8

5

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30+

nd Gust Velocity (knots)

 accidents reported gusting winds)

52 

ccident Data
of landing accidents citing personnel-related

s was noticeably larger than the percentage for

000. A comparison of pilots involved in landing

 accident pilots shows that landing accidents

ercentages of private and student pilots. This

s that less experienced pilots were more likely

anding accidents.

adwind/Tailwind Velocity

 Landing Accidents, 2000

29

117

103

84

69

33

9

2

10 to 14

5 to 9

1 to 4

0

1 to 4

5 to 9

10 to 14

15+

Wind Velocity (knots)

nd Tailwind

Highest Certificate Held by Pilot

Involved in Landing Accidents, 2000

Private 49.0%

Commercial 29.6%

Student 11.3%

AirlineTransport 10.0%

None 0.2%

Highest Certificate Held by

All Accident Pilots, 2000

Student 6.5%

None 0.7%

AirlineTransport 11.4%

Commercial 38.7%

Private 42.7%

53 Focus On General Aviation Safety: Landing Accidents
Summary

Transitioning an aircraft from an airborne vehicle to a ground vehicletypically requires the coordinated use of flight controls and enginepower settings to reduce speed and, depending on the complexityof the aircraft, the extension of retractable landing gear and theuse of additional flight surfaces such as flaps or slats. During thistransition, the cognitive and perceptual demands placed on a pilotinclude judging aircraft height, speed, and descent rate, as well asprecisely manipulating aircraft controls. It may seem as though thegreatest hazards of the flight may have passed once an aircraft hasreached the landing phase of flight because the flight is nearlycomplete. However, the accident record suggests that the oppositeis true. The details of landing accidents highlight the need forinstruction and repeated practice of landings, especially in crosswindconditions and when transitioning to new aircraft. In addition,wind and weather conditions associated with landing accidentssuggest that pilot skill and ability may contribute more to landingaccident risk than aircraft design limitations.

flight experience of pilots involved in

rts this suggestion. Of the 478 landing

t time data available, 269 (56%) had

erience or less compared to 47% of all

Furthermore, 107 of 269 (22%) landing

ours of total flight time or less compared

ots with less than 1,000 hours.

evident in the total flight time in accident

s involved in landing accidents in 2000,

 the accident aircraft type. As mentioned

lots involved in accidents in 2000 had

Therefore, 38% of the landing accidents

urs or less in aircraft type. This not only

connection between landing accidents

lustrates the risks associated with landing

ew aircraft type.

dent Pilot Total Time, 2000

269

Flight Hours

Accident Pilot Total Time, 2000

(for those with 1,000 hours or less)

107

59

3940

24

0-200

201-400401-600601-800

801-1,000

ccident pilots with data available) 

Flight Hours

Landing Accident Pilot Time in Aircraft Type, 2000

392

35

652

10

0-1,000

1,001-2,0002,001-3,0003,001-4,0004,001-5,000

> 5,000

(450 landing accident pilots with data available) 

Flight Hours

0-200

201-400401-600601-800

801-1,000

Landing Accident Pilot Time

in Aircraft Type, 2000

(for those with 1,000 hours or less)

38

289

63

21

11

8

0-10

54 

ccident Data
Transportation Safety Board Aviation

ent Database

nsportation Safety Board is responsible for

vernment’s database on civil aviation accidents.

’s Accident/Incident Database is the official

tion accident data and causal factors. The

ablished in 1962 and about 2,000 new event

d each year.

dent Database is primarily composed of aircraft

ccident” is defined in 49 CFR 830.2 as, “an

iated with the operation of an aircraft which

en the time any person boards the aircraft with

ght and all such persons have disembarked,

 person suffers death or serious injury, or in

 receives substantial damage.” The database

lect number of aviation “incidents,” defined in

s, “occurrences other than accidents that are

he operation of an aircraft and that affect or

afety of operations.”

Accident investigators use the Safety Board’s Accident DataManagement System (ADMS) software to enter data into theAccident/Incident Database. Shortly after the event, a preliminaryreport, containing a few data elements, such as date, location,aircraft operator, type of aircraft, etc., becomes available. Afactual report with additional information concerning theoccurrence is available within a few months. A final report,which includes a statement of the probable cause and othercontributing factors, may not be completed for months until theinvestigation is closed.An accident-based relational database is currently available tothe public at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp#query_start. Itcontains records of about 40,000 accidents and incidents thatoccurred between 1982 and the present. Each record may containmore than 650 fields of data concerning the aircraft, event,engines, injuries, sequence of accident events, and other topics.Individual data files are also available for download at ftp://www.ntsb.gov/avdata, including one complete data set for eachyear beginning with 1982. The data files are in Microsoft Access(.mdb) format and are updated monthly. This download site alsoprovides weekly “change” updates and complete documentation.

55
None – No injury.

Definitions for Level of Aircraft DamageDestroyed – Damage due to impact, fire, or in-flight failures tothe extent that the aircraft cannot be repaired economically.47Substantial Damage – Damage or failure that adversely affectsthe structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics ofthe aircraft, and that would normally require major repair orreplacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damagelimited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bentfairings or cowling, dented skin, small puncture holes in the skinor fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, anddamage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories,brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage.”48Minor Damage – Any damage that neither destroys the aircraftnor causes substantial damage (see definition of substantialdamage for details).None – No damage.

ard Severity Classifications

aviation accident or incident is classified

e highest level of injury sustained by the

is, fatal, serious, minor, or none) and

 aircraft involved (that is, destroyed,

ne). Accidents include those events in

 fatal or serious injury, or in which the

ial damage or is destroyed. An event

 injuries and minor or no damage is not

Level of Injury

results in death within 30 days of the

hat (1) requires the individual to be

n 48 hours, commencing within 7 days

was received; (2) results in a fracture of

fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3)

ges, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage;

organ; or (5) involves second- or third

ns affecting more than 5% of the body

s neither fatal nor serious.

define “destroyed.” This term is difficult to define because aircraft are sometimes rebuilt even when it is not economical to do so.

56
C

ransportation Safety Board

rocess

portation Safety Board investigates every accident

United States involving civil aviation and public

do not involve military or intelligence gathering

provides investigators to serve as U.S. Accredited

s specified in international treaties for aviation

s involving U.S.-registered aircraft or involving

omponents of U.S. manufacture.49 Investigations

m Safety Board Headquarters in Washington,

 of the 10 regional offices in the United States

nformation about the Safety Board’s investigation of aviation accidents or incidents, see 49 CFR 831.2.

57

In determining probable cause(s) of a domestic accident,investigators consider the facts, conditions, and circumstancesof the event. The objective is to ascertain those cause and effectrelationships in the accident sequence about which somethingcan be done to prevent recurrence of the type of accident underconsideration.Note the distinction between the population of accidentsinvestigated by the Safety Board and those that are included inthe Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data, U.S. General Aviation.Although the Safety Board is mandated by Congress to investigateall civil aviation accidents that occur on U.S. soil (includingthose involving both domestic and foreign operators), the AnnualReview describes accidents that occurred among U.S.-registeredaircraft in all parts of the world.
tion Safety Board Regional Offices50

58

ffice

 555 

248 

660

666

cific)

fice

uth 

201 

493

200

219

fic) 

North Central Regional Office

31 West 775 North Avenue West Chicago, Illinois 60185 Phone: 630-377-8177 FAX: 630-377-8172 7:30 a.m.-4 p.m. (Central)

South Central Regional Office

624 Six Flags Drive Suite 150 Arlington, Texas 76011 Phone: 817-652-7800 FAX: 817-652-78037:30 a.m.-4 p.m. (Central) 

Central Mountain Regional Office

4760 Oakland Street, Suite 500 Denver, Colorado 80239 Phone: 303-361-0600FAX: 303-361-0619 7:30 a.m.-4 p.m. (Mountain) 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Office

490 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20594 Phone: 202-314-6320 FAX: 202-314-6329 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. (Eastern)

fice

nue 

 11 

513

001

007

ka)

Northeast Regional Office

2001 Route 46, Suite 504 Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Phone: 973-334-6420 FAX: 973-334-6759 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. (Eastern)

Southern Regional Office

Atlanta Federal Center 60 Forsyth Street, SW Suite 3M25 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104 Phone: 404-562-1666 FAX: 404-562-1674 8:00 a.m.-4:300 p.m. (Eastern)

Southeast Regional Office

8405 N.W. 53rd Street Suite B-103 Miami, Florida 33166 Phone: 305-597-4610 FAX: 305-597-4614 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Eastern)